Organizing for America | Ali A. Rizvi Sounds Off: Abolish All Marriage

Abolish All Marriage - Gay or Straight

By Ali A. Rizvi - May 22nd, 2008 at 6:31 pm EDT

Also listed in: 7 groups

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Tags: Britney, California, civil, Clinton, election, gay, john, Kerry, Marriage, McCain, Obama, religion, spears, Straight, threat, union

On June 14 this year, California will become the second state after Massachusetts to start issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples. The state's Supreme Court overturned the ban on same-sex marriage last week, reigniting the same old nationwide debate (distraction?) that (not so) mysteriously surfaces every election year and arguably cost John Kerry the 2004 presidency, which came down to Ohio's electors and a little over 3 million votes. This year, though, the differences between the candidates aren't as stark as those between Kerry and Bush in 2004, and the issue may not have the impact it did then.

Nonetheless, the position supporting all-out, across-the-board abolition of marriage, once thought to be extreme, is beginning to gain momentum, and seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.

It states that the government should stop recognizing marriage in any form and acknowledge civil unions only, leaving marriage to churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious authorities.

Under this proposition, religious heterosexual marriages would be one kind of civil union, common-law relationships (same-sex or opposite-sex) another, and same-sex marriages - granted by churches and other religious or non-religious authorities - another.

This would not only retain all aspects of marriage as a religious institution, but also its legal aspects as one kind of civil union.

Additionally, it would send a message to millions of unmarried but committed heterosexual and homosexual couples that the government they helped elect - and pay taxes to - recognizes their relationships to be just as legitimate as married heterosexual couples.

This legitimacy and recognition of unmarried heterosexual and homosexual unions is especially needed at the current time for the benefit of children and the family unit.

Increasingly, unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples are having and raising children. Extending the same benefits of recognition to all family units, conventional and unconventional, will not only ensure that all children are afforded the same legal, social, and economic support systems enjoyed by the children of married heterosexual couples, but also effectively combat the stigma associated with the labeling of certain children as "illegitimate" by their classmates, peers, and unfortunately, religious authority figures across the country.

Contrary to what these religious figures say, it's preventing the legal recognition of these marriage-less (but equally legitimate) unions that is damaging to children and the family unit, not the unions themselves.

A "civil union" would comprise only those aspects of a relationship that are subject to regulation by the state. "Marriage" by definition in its current form, is both a private sexual union, and rooted in religion; a strong case can be made against it based on the fundamental principle of separation of religion and state.

The only argument from religious conservatives that this proposition doesn't address is the notion that legally equating homosexual relationships with heterosexual marriage is somehow a "threat" to the family unit, children, and the traditional institution of marriage.

It's clearly the other way around.

Currently, the government holds what Britney Spears and Jason Alexander had for 55 hours in Las Vegas on a drunken Saturday morning as more sacred and legitimate than the relationships of Elton John and David Furnish, together fifteen years - or Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, together twenty years with two children who would be considered "illegitimate" by almost half the country.

Recognizing these unconventional but increasingly prevalent families as equally legitimate would be beneficial to the children in them psychologically, socially, economically, and legally - that does not threaten or disrupt conventional families or marriage by any measure. Not recognizing them, however, would threaten the welfare of millions of children in marriage-less families.

As has been argued before, if being a "threat" to traditional marriage constitutes sound basis for legal disqualification, the first thing to be outlawed should be divorce: divorce directly threatens and destroys marriage in a way that legitimizing gay and unmarried heterosexual unions cannot directly or indirectly hope to. The argument is deeply flawed.

The US constitution allows every human being the right to practice his or her religion - or not. It also calls for separation of religion and state.

Marriage in its current form has its roots in religion, and all Americans have the right to avail it - or not.

However, the state should separate itself from this rite as it does from most other religious rites, and recognize civil unions - of which marriage is only one kind.

Original Link at Ali A. Rizvi Sounds Off

Show 1 Reader Comment	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.