My husband and I are celebrating our 25th Wedding anniversay. I have a sister who just celebrated her 16th anniversay with her wife. It breaks my heart there are still people who will celebrate my union, but not her’s.
The history of marriage comes from a time and place when a woman was not allowed to own property. Her father would make a deal with another man, and offer goods as payment that the second man’s family would provide for the woman for the rest of her life, in exchange for the goods, and the “ownership” of children she would bear.
Religions took the lead, and made a ceremony out of it as a way to keep and grow their base, i.e.: community, and expand its population and justify their existences. If “a greater power” was part of the contract, it was more difficult, if not impossible to break, or face eternal damnation.
Through the centuries, this was not only a way to empower and embolden religions, but many religions grew into governments; governments got involved through the legal acknowledgement of “marriage.” This kept the continuity of oppressing women, now codified, keeping them as chattel in land and property transactions: “If your family takes care of my daughter, when I die, I’ll leave your son my property.”
Once women were granted the legal right to own property, government should have disposed of all marriage laws. Women were no longer chattel; they could be bequest and be willed property; they could enter into legal contracts regarding real property: they were no longer property.
But the State did not repeal any “marital” laws. Nor did it modify the name of legally binding contracts that a woman and man may still agree to enter into from “marriage” to another title, such as “civil union,”“life agreement,”“intent to procreate,”“Offspring support agreement,” or something similar, but it didn’t.
Government didn’t change “marriage laws” because not only did “marriages” still oppress women, but the act of a marriage hads evolved into money-making deals, not only for the families and persons involved, but for the economy. From purchasing a “license,” to buying gifts for the couple, to renting venues, buying 150 meals, hiring musicians, buying one-time dresses and renting penguin suits, weddings have become exciting “events”– signing a contract isn’t something worth spending $20,000 on to celebrate, but a wedding is!
Unfortunately, today, people like Kim Davis and Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Alito can’t differeniate between a religious marriage and a civil marriage, and therein lies the problem.
Just like the words Kleenex®, Jet Ski®, and TASER® which people often use to refer to any facial tissue, personal watercraft or electroshock weapon, these words are technically brand names, but they are accepted as colloquial terms, similarly to the religious word “marriage” is used to represent a civil union between to consenting adults.
States like North Carolina and Alaska allow children to marry at 14 years old, with parental consent. You can’t vote, get a driver’s license or rent-a-car, but you can commit your life to another person for the next 70-80+ years if your parents say it’s okay? Are the parents taking responsibility and legal burden of what may come out of that marriage? Are they required to cover the financial costs incurred when that married child turns nineteen and decides she doesn’t want to be “married” anymore? Can she sue her parents for signing off on statutory rape?
A lawful marriage should require people who can legally enter into contracts -18 years old, at a minimum, or the child to request and be granted emancipation through the courts, and be considered an adult in EVERY LEGAL way.
Perhaps the government needs to go through our laws and take out words with religious meanings and replace them with legally acceptable replacements. Words have consequesnces. Think about it: When President Trump was being investigated, the Republican cry was, “there was no collusion.”
Collusion is not a legal term. Conspiracy is. No Republican cried out “there was no Conspiracy;” a legal conclusion that would have been determined had a complete trial taken place. That’s an example of a colloquial word being used to imply a legal term; and people bought it.
Words can be changed. Colloquial words can be replaced with formal, legal ones. By modifying the words to legally acceptable words, opinions can change.
Religious people need not fear. Church weddings will still happen; the Church will still be able to decide who they will allow to marry and who they will not. Even today, in some religions, people of different religions can’t get married in a church unless one revokes his/her religion. By changing all legal marriages to Civil Unions, and continue to allow pastors, rabbis, priests and imams to be the legal officiant as well as the religious officiant as granted by their church, “traditional marriages” will still look the same; the only difference is the header on everyone’s paperwork from the State will say “Civil Union,” not “Marriage.”
LOVE is LOVE, but MARRIAGE is not MARRIAGE.
The quicker people stop trying to push their religion as a political agenda, the better off this country will be. Think of the issues that could be taken off political agendas: abortion, the death penalty, rights (civil, gay, and equal), stem cell research, immigration, adoption. The First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The government cannot make a law if it prohibits a person from exercising their religious beliefs. If one objects to abortion, they should not have one, but for some people, their religion does not recognize a fetus as a person until it takes its first breath. To deny them an abortion, is to prohibit free exercise of their religious beliefs.
If stem-cell research is in opposition to one’s religious beliefs, then members of that religion should petition lawmakers to require every cure or treatment that is derived by such research to clearly mark that it was derived through stem cell research. Food labels are required to clearly state if products contain any ingredients that contain protein derived from allergenic foods, or provide other information of interest to certain groups (“may contain peanuts,”“Kosher,”“Non GMO”); beauty products state “no animals were used” in testing; medical products can identify if stem cells were used.
For Religious Organizations who get involved with governmental issues like foster care and adoption, if they refuse to follow the law; then they shouldn’t take the government’s money. If they don’t believe a child should be with a same-sex couple, ask them if it’s better for a child not to know parental love at all.
Even if every Representative is a Christian, they cannot make a law that is antithetical to others’ religious views. It is against the law, and without 2/3 of both the House & Senate vote to propose an amendment, with 3/4 of the state legislatures approving it (or 2/3 of state legislatures ask Congress to call a convention with 3/4 of the states ratifying changes at the convention), the Constitution cannot be changed.
America was formed as a country where people could be free from religious persecution; our laws should not take religious beliefs and codify them. This would lead to the persecution and punishment of those who have different beliefs from the majority. If we have Supreme Court Justices that can’t distinguish the difference between church and State, perhaps they should take a lesson from Justice Kennedy, and step down.
