Thoughts on 'marriage'

Brad at Oh great one who is never wrong has an interesting post providing a number of definitions of marriage, and then asks why can't gays just have civil unions, but "code-word" it as "marriage." I've heard that kind of a suggestion a few other times, and I always come back to the same question: Why should they have to?

In a wonderful bit on "The Daily Show" tonight, Jon Steward and Stephen Colbert made an excellent point about just how ridiculous the idea of an "anti-gay marriage" amendment - based on the idea that letting gays marry would somehow "ruin" the institution of marriage - really is. Stephen was acting like a sanctimonious conservative claiming that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, and that an amendment was absolutely necessary to protect the sanctity of marriage, at which point Jon said something to the effect of "So, you'd also support a constitutional amendment banning adultery?" I didn't quite catch Colbert's response because I was laughing so hard, but it was along the lines of "ABSOLUTELY NOT! The government has no business being in my bedroom!" I thought it was a GREAT comeback to those who claim they oppose gay marriage on the "sanctity" principle.

Maybe some of the gay groups should consider making noise about wanting something like an anti-adultery amendment, and start talking about how much damage adultery does and how may marriages end because of it. It wouldn't go anywhere, but it could be an excellent tactic to point out just how idiotic the whole thing really is...

Personally, thought, what I think would be an idea solution would be for the government to stop using the term "marriage" in regards to the legal joining of two individuals - set that aside as a term used solely to describe a spiritual joining of two individuals, blessed by any church of their choice. Marriage would not confer any special rights, benefits, responsibilities, status or penalties. It would be strictly a religious institution.

The government could then sanction "Legal Unions" (or "Civil Unions" if people prefer that term), and all of the rights, benefits, responsibilities, status and penalties that are currently associated with "marriage". This would be strictly a legal concept.

Couples could then choose to be "married" in a church, "legally joined" by the state or both - depending on their own preference and beliefs. To help maintain the separation, if a couple wanted to be both married and legally joined, they would have to arrange for a spiritual service and then also make an appearance before a justice of the peace to formalize the legal arrangement.

That way, the religious conservatives who are having a fit can have their word with its "sanctity" in no more danger of defilement than it is now, the government would be out of the business of granting legal benefits based, in many cases, on a religious ceremony, and any two people who want to be legally bound to each other can be, without threatening any "sacred" institutions.

Sadly, it's probably too rational of an idea to ever get anywhere.