Friday, March 18, 2005
A distinction is usually made between “civil marriage” and “religious marriages”. The two are said to overlap for the most part. However, not all civil marriages are conducted in a place of worship and not all religious marriages are recognized by civil authorities.
Now, those who oppose gay marriage do not oppose “religious” gay marriage; they oppose “civil” gay marriage. Various religious bodies have been “marrying” homosexual couples for awhile now and no one has batted an eyelash. Come to think of it, I image no one would bat an eyelash if someone married their cat in a religious ceremony. The reason for this is simple. Marriage is really no more than the rights and obligations that make up “civil” marriage. The issue is obscured by the fact that the government has given churches the ability to act as de facto agents of the state. That is, it has given them the power to legally join a couple in whatever type of marriage the state officially sanctions. The result of this is that various religious bodies have been able to dress marriage up in religious drag.
The Conservatives have accepted gay marriage, but have insisted, under the guise of “protecting” the “traditional definition of marriage”, gay marriages be called civil unions. There are many things wrong with such a suggestion and I mentioned them elsewhere. One thing I have not said, though, is this. Religious opposition to gay marriage is by no means universal; many main stream churches (e.g., the Anglican Church of Canada) have no religious objection to them and willingly marry gay couples. The question thus arises is why would the Conservative party give more weight to one religious body than another. If freedom of religion means anything it all, it means that the State should not play favorites and pick one religious interpretation over another.
Other groups have suggested that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. By this they mean nothing more than all married couples would be deemed to be joined in civil union and not in holy matrimony. This is nothing more than a bunch of hocus pocus. At least the conservative party’s suggestion makes sense on a semantic level. The distinction the Conservatives propose would be akin to the distinction between waiter and waitress. The straight name change changes nothing at all. Besides, this would hardly placate the religious groups opposed to gay marriage. These groups want to be on a different footing than other groups – if only on a semantic level.
Now, those who oppose gay marriage do not oppose “religious” gay marriage; they oppose “civil” gay marriage. Various religious bodies have been “marrying” homosexual couples for awhile now and no one has batted an eyelash. Come to think of it, I image no one would bat an eyelash if someone married their cat in a religious ceremony. The reason for this is simple. Marriage is really no more than the rights and obligations that make up “civil” marriage. The issue is obscured by the fact that the government has given churches the ability to act as de facto agents of the state. That is, it has given them the power to legally join a couple in whatever type of marriage the state officially sanctions. The result of this is that various religious bodies have been able to dress marriage up in religious drag.
The Conservatives have accepted gay marriage, but have insisted, under the guise of “protecting” the “traditional definition of marriage”, gay marriages be called civil unions. There are many things wrong with such a suggestion and I mentioned them elsewhere. One thing I have not said, though, is this. Religious opposition to gay marriage is by no means universal; many main stream churches (e.g., the Anglican Church of Canada) have no religious objection to them and willingly marry gay couples. The question thus arises is why would the Conservative party give more weight to one religious body than another. If freedom of religion means anything it all, it means that the State should not play favorites and pick one religious interpretation over another.
Other groups have suggested that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. By this they mean nothing more than all married couples would be deemed to be joined in civil union and not in holy matrimony. This is nothing more than a bunch of hocus pocus. At least the conservative party’s suggestion makes sense on a semantic level. The distinction the Conservatives propose would be akin to the distinction between waiter and waitress. The straight name change changes nothing at all. Besides, this would hardly placate the religious groups opposed to gay marriage. These groups want to be on a different footing than other groups – if only on a semantic level.
Comments:
Post a Comment
