Civil-marriage has nothing to do with any religion. Civil-marriage is simply the official granting of certain rights, by the State, to two people who make a lifelong commitment to each other. Many of these rights simply allow the couple to share their benefits, including property, healthcare, and heritage rights (to name a few of the 1,400 rights granted by the State to the two people who are married). Civil-marriage has no official ties to Christianity or any other religion, just like the rest of our government. Although many people celebrate marriage in different ways and attribute different values to the formal union of two people, that does not change the fact that in the eyes of the State, civil-marriage is still simply a matter of granting certain rights to citizens.
It is hard to understand why some people wish to keep the State from finally making amends and upholding its own laws (let alone why someone would wish to keep two devoted, loving people from getting the rights they). Beyond that, the proposition that the issue of civil-marriage rights could be decided by a popular vote is preposterous. Our constitution does not allow the majority to stage a vote in order to strip a minority of its rights. If there ever was a referendum on the issue, it should surely be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional, anyway.
It seems the best course for the government would be to simply call civil-marriage by another name. That is, the State should not grant anyone a ‘marriage’ license and instead classify everything as a civil union. Of course, marriages would be recognized as a form of civil union and marriage would still bestow the same rights as a civil union. This would allow marriage to be left to the religious to deal with, while the State can uphold its laws justly and fairly. This would merely consist of a redefinition of the language of the law. Unfortunately, this same sort of redefinition is being attempted by some Legislators in the form of a Marriage Amendment. However, instead of broadening the rights of citizens, the State is considering LIMITING civil-marriage rights to simply be between a man and a woman. It would be the first amendment that actually restricts, instead of expands rights for citizens. Something about that just seems to go against everything that America stands for…
‘matt Bennett (please print with apostrophe and lower case m – if possible) [email protected] 856 278 9404 ENG ’06