In recent times, the definition of marriage has become a very divisive issue. Long before the United States or the State of Minnesota existed, marriage was a religious institution. Currently, however, the state of Minnesota holds the authority to confer or withhold the status of “married” upon two individuals. This is a violation of the fundamental American principle of separation of church and state. Right now, gay rights activists see religious groups using the law to deny them civil rights. Religious groups see gay rights activists attempting to use the law to undermine the teaching of their faith regarding marriage. The problem exits because state law and religious institution unnecessarily overlap. I have drafted the following proposal in the hope of avoiding much of the inevitable conflict if marriage statutes remain as they currently are:
All references to “marriage” be removed from the laws of the state of Minnesota.
Domestic relationships relevant to legal matters would be defined by a schedule of domestic partnership (DP) classes:
Class A- adult has unilateral legal responsibility for another person. (i.e. child, mentally disabled adult)
Class B- two adults have mutual responsibility for each other. (i.e. married couples)
The responsibility for and definition of marriage would be deferred to religious or non-religious organizations. Marriage would become like Baptism or Eucharist- something that is very important to those who observe it, but defined and regulated by each religious (or social) organization- not the state of Minnesota.
The specific rights and responsibilities for each class of DP under this schedule would then be spelled out specifically according to pragmatic rationale.
The benefits that I see to this proposal are as follows:
Healthier separation of church and state. The state would not be in a position to define marriage in a way that is contrary to the religious beliefs of some people.
There is no sexual context to a legal domestic partnership. Any two adults that can meet the requirements for a Class B could apply for this status regardless of their personal reasons for doing so. A parent and child living together would usually have a Class A partnership. An adult child and parent living together could have a Class B partnership. A married couple could have a Class B partnership, while another married couple could find that it suited their needs better not to have a Class B. A homosexual couple, or unmarried heterosexual couple could also choose (or not choose) to enter a Class B. A Class B couple could choose for practical reasons to dissolve their legal DP status without any bearing on the status of their personal relationship with their DP.
More equitable access to civil rights. No people will be discriminated against by the State based on marital status (or denied marital status), because marital status is no longer legally meaningful. Currently a legally married spouse has de facto authority to make decisions on behalf of the other spouse, rights to their property, access to their personal information and affairs. The law now makes no provision for a person other than a legal spouse to be granted this authority. It is unjust that these rights are denied to competant individuals who wish to grant another person this legal authority.
Better health care options for DP's that are not currently legally recognized.
Divorce could become cleaner. Along with DP application, a standard DP dissolution agreement could also be required. A standardized dissolution process could cut down some of the current legal wrangling over divorce cases.
More meaningful marriage. For persons married in a community (faith-based or non-religious), that community would now be solely responsible for granting that marriage, upholding it, and, if necessary, dissolving it. There will no longer be any ambiguity over where the authority over marriage lies. (i.e. My own marriage was pronounced “. . .by the power vested in me as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the laws of the state of Minnesota. . .)
Legal DP classes could be added in the future as needed without disturbing those already established.
Possible drawbacks/opposition to this proposal:
Marriage/marital status is referenced in many laws and legal documents.
The fear of “gay marriage” becoming legal is a powerful tool in the arsenal of conservative politicians, which they would lose if this proposal was enacted.
Divorce attorneys could lose business if marriage was no longer legally relevant.
More people would potentially be eligible for coverage under a DP's health care plan, which could mean more expense for insurance companies.
9 comments:
this is reprinted from email feedback with author's permission:
Nathan-
Honestly I do not know how to respond with a number. I see this "ROMA" as purely political and it has no bearing on true marriage. I feel that we as Christians have allowed laws to define us but in actuality there cannot exist a "manmade" law that encapsulates our love of Christ and the family within His body. For example the marriage that exists between me and my wife exist not because of any law but because of Christ; no law can or will define our partnership. I believe that church needs to worry more about Heavenly issues than wordly political ones.
> In Peace
Thanks for your feedback! I am afraid that I didn't do an adequate job of framing this proposal, because I agree 100% with what you wrote.
I wrote this proposal because I think that, unlike yourself, many people are confused by the State's claim to have authority over marriage. Conservative religious folks are mobilizing to fight -hard- to have their definition of marriage be the legal definition. Like you said, however, ". . .
in actuality there cannot exist a "manmade" law that encapsulates our love of Christ and the family within His body."
I think that dropping marriage completely from the legal code, would do a great deal to help clear up this confusion and help people (conservative and gay) realize that there is no reason for the bloody battles such as Proposition 8. There is no intrinsic conflict between civil rights and holy matrimony.
I am not pursuing this proposal for myself, but in the hope of avoiding a colossal waste of precious time and goodwill should the Prop. 8 battle come to MN.
I found our discussion last night challenging and wonderful, and I will continue to digest your ideas. My current thought is the way this is pitched to the different political groups. It is my feeling that you need a more neutral title, as we discussed, and I felt that "Transfer of Marriage Act" was moving in a favorable direction. One side will favor "Emancipation of Marriage Act" and the other "Embrace of Marriage Act" Sanctity of Marriage Act" or "Reclamation of Marriage Act ?" The religious groups need to feel empowered to side with such legislation, and conservatives can only accept it as if they are going back to a prior model, instead of forging into new territory. That's just the nature of the ideology. While "release" sounds like a peaceful word, it isn't very empowering when it comes to politics. On the conservative side, you're dealing with folks that have been fighting to land this monster fish, and to "release" it before its undeniably in the boat makes the years of strenuous effort futile and inconsequential. Unfortunately, It's not quiet, rational thinking that propels the political machine, but passion and opposition. Both sides need to see their benefit, and this will bolster the rallying cry. The reactionaries need words like : "truth", "values", traditional, "re" fill-in-the-blank, , i.e. return, reinstate, regain, (excluding "release") etc., conversely the revolutionaries need words like: "liberation," "equality," "progressive," etc.
Though you are passionate, independent, and haven't been co-opted by any party, you are in the minority, and this bill will stay there unless it learns how to play the game (or larger, change the game.)
So for my current position (on will Minnesotans' likelyhood of adopting ROMA) , I need more for the conservatives, because, clearly, the liberal side has an established, favorable position.
OK, that's a reaction on last night's discussion, and I'm really excited to see where this goes. Now I will actually read the proposed bill.
I read it.
Opposition/ drawback
The lack of civil equality of gay couples is a powerful tool in the arsenal of liberal politicians, which they would lose if this proposal was enacted.
Undeniably, this too would steal fuel from the liberal fire, and many left leaning organizations would experience its negative impact on their base.
The following is from "protectmarriage.com"
Proposition 8: The California Marriage Protection Amendment
Proposition 8 places into the California Constitution the same language that voters already passed by 61% of the vote in 2000. This is necessary to overturn an outrageous California Supreme Court decision that overturned Proposition 22.
About Proposition 8
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
Voting YES on Proposition 8 does 3 simple things:
It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.
It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.
Anyone,
Please comment.
to the first protectmarriage.com point:
Marriage is a religious institution and not something that should be defined in the state constitution of any country that intends to have freedom of religion.
Should baptists amend the constitution so that baptism is defined as "one adult being immersed completely under water", thus making illegal the Catholic practice of sprinkling an infant?
Nathan:
Good stuff for good discussion.
I believe God sanctifies a union between one man and one woman. I am thankful that the church, the body of Christ, blesses this union. I don't want the church to be forced to hold a marriage ceremony for homosexual couples.
If a couple wants to have a marriage ceremony in the presence of God and their witnesses in their church, would they apply for a Class B DP at the same time they ask their pastor to officiate the ceremony?
What is different than what we do now? We apply for a marriage license at the county courthouse before we have the ceremony at the church.
If a church body does not wish to sanction a homosexual ceremony, then they are again the target of being called intolerant and hateful. What have we gained?
Thanks for joining the discussion, Marty.
Question #1. My current concept of the legal DP, is that it would have no link to the church marriage. If a couple was engaged, and wanted to consolidate their legal affairs before the wedding, they could go ahead and apply for their Class B months in advance. Then again, they could do it afterward, as well. Here is where a church's wedding counselor could provide input to the timing. . .
Q2: People will still wrangle over the church's concept of sexual morality. Without legal privileges hinging on it, however, the debate becomes only about kingdom life and practice. We will have to struggle with the issues of sexuality, but do it as people who agree that we are submitted to Christ's authority.
People outside the church will still criticize the church's standards, but not because those standards are withholding anything from them legally.
Only able to scan through this now, Nathan, will read in detail asap. I am curious, you referenced the prop 8 issue, I remember this from a few years ago, this was california, right? Are you still following the so called "defense of marriage" movements and are you aware of any proposals or referendums for election 2010, either in MN or elsewhere?
Post a Comment