Civil Unions for State / Marriage for the Church

[bkdelong]

I was watching a discussion of gay marriage on the WTA Talk list and decided to add some input of my own. I've never really gone beyond saying I support gay marriage but there's more to it. Though, keep in mind this has a bit of a transhumanist bent:

First off there's the matter of semantics. I honestly believe that "marriage" should be returned to the church and that government entities should use "Civil Unions" to distinguish the rights and responsibilities given to couples by law. That way, "gay marriage" becomes an issue of the church and religion. If a gay couple wants to get "married" in the church then focus and pressure needs to be put on the religious body governing the church. However civil unions are merely a set of rights and responsibilities and should be gender-blind.

Anyway, who is to say that men will never be able to carry a child to term? Lesbian couples can have a baby together through artificial insemination - the one carrying the child is implanted with a fertilized egg of the other partner. Who is to say we can't condition the male body to carry an embryo in his abdomen until term at which point he has a C-Section?

Of course, who knows - some day we may be able to create sperm and eggs on our own, implanted with the appropriate genetic code from both couples desiring to have a baby - ie two men can have a baby that is both biologically theirs.

I think it's often overlooked that, until the industrial revolution and even shortly after it began, the reason for procreation was a matter of survival: You needed additional bodies to help run the farm or to get a job to support the family. In today's marketplace, a single person can get by perfectly on their own without familial infrastructure.

Nowadays, having children in many places around the US is simply a means for a couple to further experience and solidify their love and relationship - by creating and raising a biological joining of the two of them.

So the focus changes from raising a child to ensure the family's survival to making the choice to raise and mentor a new life in the world.

I find this amusing to read, being the father of an 18mo old as it sounds so cold and impersonal. But for the most part the above description describes why my wife and I chose to have a baby together.

WTA Executive Director Dr. James Hughes pointed out the similarities to my thoughts in a 2003 piece he authored.

I discussed my thoughts a bit when gay marriage was becoming such a large issue in Massachusetts but I believe it's a bit more complicated than my "solution". I haven't really researched it myself but I believe the term marriage appears quite a lot in government policy to the point where some scrubbing would need to happen in order for my ideas to take place. But I truly believe we need to further separate church and state and remove this religious definition of marriage with a more secular, public policy law regarding civil unions. Religion has no right to be the basis for determining who does and does not have rights in our country.

Comments

[spin1978.livejournal.com]

I agree on the idea of separating the secular, legal contract out from the religious/spiritual connotations, since - especially in this country, it seems - there's such a strong connection in many people's minds. The legal contract should be available for everyone, regardless of particulars. When you put it in that context, the idea of prohibiting same-sex couples from forming a civil union becomes more ridiculous if such a thing is possible - why does anyone care about what legal contracts are made between two consenting parties? I doubt any of the people railing against same-sex marriage crawl through the legal notices section of their local newspaper finding proceedings they can protest against quite loudly and publicly.

[bbennett.livejournal.com]

I also agree on the idea that changing the language might put us steps towards solving that issue.

And really, you may have the most interesting tags of anyone on my friend list. :)

[floppsy.livejournal.com]

Totally agree ... but don't forget adoption!

Just because a child is not 'biologically' from a couple doesn't make it any less an expression of love & commitment between a couple (& the child, of course).

;~))))

[moeyknight.livejournal.com]

I've been saying this for a long time - about as long as Drew and I have been married. What was once a protection for women and children, has now become obsolete and unecessary. Anyone who wants to get married should, and I understand it's a sore point for many gay couples. However, if you ask me, (if it wasn't for our families) we would have been just as happy living together forever and NOT paying the government more money for the "priviledge" of being married. Sometimes I think that gay couples are fighting the wrong battle. We should all want to get government's fingers out of the marriage pie. (That sounds really gross, sorry! :P )