the great divorce

Can I put in my two cents about same-sex marriage?

Ok.

Did you know that the word marry, as in to wed, etymologically, can be traced back to the Middle Ages and referred to a common oath? It is also, from the same era, a derivation of the Virgin Mary. The word seeps in religious (specifically catholic, as in the form of Christian religion and not the church) undertones. The social concept of marriage makes sense when you consider the etic and emic purposes in governing and propagating a civilization. Also consider the social, environmental, and political conditions humans lived in during the Middle Ages. It makes sense how and why Christianity grew to power and reigned for so long. Simply, it's social hegemony.

Fast forward to now.

I feel safe to say that, at least among the people I know, we believe in the separation of church and state. As we also want Government (using the large 'g' to reflect the physical institutions) to be less involved in our lives and want our civil liberties recognized and respected. The Constitution of the US says nothing about marriage of any variety. This has always be an issue left to the states. Through my research, I'm having a hard time finding US Supreme Court opinions that directly discuss same-sex marriage (though there are other cases that mention it as an example to support or undermine another case opinion). However, I find in these cases the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, ("no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," in case you forgot what it said) is always brought up; as it is the clause which refers to one's civil liberties.

My two cents.

The word marriage, as it is governmenatly (new word?) understood and documented, should be stricken from any and all government documents. Where marriage is written, it should be replaced with the term civil union. Barack Obama has suggested that marriage should be defined by the individual religious denominations. Therefore, if you want the civil benefits that come with legally partnering yourself with another individual, you should go down to city hall and apply for a civil union license. If you want your church to recognize the union, then, in addition to the civil union license, you should meet with your religious leader to have said union recognized religiously as a marriage.

Since the word marry comes out of religious source, it makes sense to associate that term as such and let the term civil union be associated with legal who-ha; and by who-ha I mean rights to property and probate, insurance, income tax, etc, etc. Oh, and as a reminder, those are issues that are dealt with on a state level, not a federal one.

It is not right, and morally and constitutionally against the idea of civil liberties, to give one term to homosexual couples and another to heterosexual couples. The only way to solve this issue is to abide by the separation of church and state, and not the separation of the demographics.

Two things. 1. Thank you all for reading my tirade. I know that everyone who reads my blog, and there aren't too many of you, have similar views and don't need to be preached to or informed about this issue. Sorry everyone. 2. If I have missed any points or if I seem misinformed about anything I have brought up, please let me know and help me correct my ignorance. I am trying to better myself and become more active and open about equal rights and liberties issues.