North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[JoeRedskin]

I've said this before and I'll say it again - remove the term "marriage contract" from the government's dictionary. Instead, the only thing anyone can get from the govt. is a State sanctioned civil union performed by a government official and ending the authority of religious officers to provide the State's sanction to such conracts. Such a union would permit individuals to receive the benefits of the traditional marriage contract while ending the government's involvement in the right of various churches to define their own requirements for the marriage sacrament.

Believe it or not, the marriage contract was not originally a religious issue but an enforceable contract at law related to, but not the same thing as, the religious sacrament of "marriage". Back when women were essentially considered property and/or were unable to hold title, enter into contracts and had other similar restrictions on their existence as a legal entity, breaking off a marriage contract (i.e. terminating the contract on some basis other than fraud or other legally recognized basis for terminating a contract) had tangible legal damages. Whereas, the marriage sacrament actually encouraged people - man or woman - to break off an engagement if, upon reflection, they discovered that they could not live up to the sacrament's requirements (fidelity, love and honor, etc.). Such a termination, if believed by the priest/reverend, etc. to be authentic and the right course, carried no religious santion - even if legal penalties were incurred. i.e. It may have been illegal to break the contract, but it was not a sin to do so.

Eventually, in our civil society, as women began to be viewed differently under the law, they gained more individual rights under the marriage contract and, in fact, became a party to the contract in their own right [Originally, the woman's father, not the woman herself, was the contracting party - it's that women as chattel thing again - and it was he (or the woman's brothers) who was (were) entitled to the "benefit of the bargain" if the groom broke of the engagement].

B/c the evolution of marriage as a sacrament within religion developed in conjuction to its development as the legally binding contract, the concepts of marriage contract and the sacrament of marriage got intermingled to such a point that, now, religious officers (priests, reverends etc.) are actually officers of the State. When such individuals sign a marriage license, and in addition to completing the religious sacramental rite, these religious officers convey the rights and liabilities of a governmentally sanctioned marriage contract. Essentially, every religious officer is empowered by the State to act as an officer of the State similar to a Justice of the Peace. I believe this to be both wrong in principle and wrong as a violation of the Constitution's brilliantly insightful stricture requiring separation of Church and State

While the values of the sacrament, being timeless in their own way, have remained essentially the same, the marriage contract has evolved considerable since women were considered chattel.

I would suggest that, historically, the government is a party to such a contract b/c they are bound by law to give certain benefits to other parties to the contract and these benefits cannot exist without a duly authorized govt. official (be it a sanctioned church official or a Justice of the Peace) approving the contract. Obviously, the legal rights of the parties and, in fact the parties themselves (i.e. the woman individually rather than some other family member) have consistently been modified to recognize the changing legal principles governing our civil society. I see no legal road block to further modification of this form of contract such that is consistent with the Constitutional requirement of equal rights regardless of race, religion or gender.

"Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, render unto God that which is God's." By the laws' of Ceaser, we are all entitled to enter into legally binding contracts which are not inherently illegal (i.e. a contract to kill someone). IMHO, the best and most efficient way to delineate the separation of Church and State on this issue is to use the appropriate, legally neutral language entering into such a contract for all individuals regardless of race, creed, or gender. Just like the coin bearing Ceasar's image, a contract legally binding two people to each other for the tangible, material requirements of pooling of resources, incurring and sharing long term expenses & benefits (both personal and legal), tax considerations and all other consequential legal remafications of such a contract should require only the tangible, material sanction of the State - not the intangible, spiritual sanction of God.

As to Chic-a-fil, my biggest issue is that everyone is entitled to their opinion -to me Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are pretty high on my list of "Yes. This is important." Chic-a-fil's choice to exercise those rights as they see fit should be respected. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a right to say it and legally act upon it.

To be clear, and in my opinion, God doesn't care with whom we sleep - just that we keep the two great commandments (Love God above all others and love they neighbor as thyself). That's my opinion and I to the extent my church feels differently, I will work to change that. At the same time, I also firmly believe each and everyone of us is entitled to speak their mind and state their opinions - no matter how offensive others find it. Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are all equally important rights. Chic-a-fil wants to incorporate their religious beliefs into their business plan - fine. People wish to protest that decision, also fine. To me, it's all just confusing and distorting the underlying substantive issue.

Respecting and defining the Constitutional requiring the Separation of Church and State as it applies to the marriage contract would go a long way to furthering everyone's freedom of religion and freedom of speech on this issue. As such, rather than (IMHO) unconstitutionally granting the legal benefits of the marriage contract to some and not others based on their gender, do away with the legally confusing marriage contract and replace with civil unions for all. Then, let churches regulate the sacrament of marriage as they see fit.

The brilliant men behind the Constitution created an evolving document with timeless truths - separation of Church & State being one of them. In concert with that brilliant intention, it is time to evolve and to separate the "rite" of marriage from the "right" of marriage.