Peach Pundit gets it right. While Zaid has been pointing out their many mistakes, I wanted to take a moment to point out their post yesterday that actually does make sense and that I can agree with. You can read the post here.
Since there are at least 1,138 statutory provisions relating to marital status at the federal level alone, how about we repeal every last one of them. What I’m suggesting is that we strike the words “marital” and/or “marital status” from all one-thousand one-hundred and thirty-eight federal statutes, rules and regulations. In its place, we add two simple words; “civil union.”
If a couple –gay or straight– wants one or all 1,138 of those benefits from the government, then let them go down to the courthouse and get a civil union.
If that same couple wants marriage, then let them go to church.
Marriage, I believe, is a religious institution. And I think each individual religious denomination should determine whether they’ll perform or recognize a marriage ceremony between two men or two women. Marriage is something that the government should never have gotten itself involved in, and I think it’s time for the government to gradually withdraw itself from the institution of marriage.
I completely agree. Marriage should not be a civil institution… I think everyone should get civil unions from the state, and marriage from the church. It seems like the easiest way to solve this issue.
1 comments:
this is what i've been saying all along too. i've never understood the legality of "marriage" in the first place, since it's obviously a religious function. i'd like to know how it's not considered a mixing of church and state.
Post a Comment