Political Post of the Day: California Supreme Court and the Gay Marriage Ban

Ok, I know that this may not be a popular opinion, but hear me out.  The government should not marry homosexual couples.  The government should not marry heterosexual couples either. 

The term "marriage" has become an issue for religious leaders.  When John Calvin began his reformations , he recognized marriage as "the dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage."  This definition seems to be accepted by the majority of people getting married in the USA (80% have weddings in churches according to Soundvision).  Although the concept of marriage can be traced back to the beginning of recorded history, the institution itself has changed from an initial legal recognition to a largely religion based concept.  It is time to change our definition of marriage from that laid down by Calvin.

Before I go any further, here are my disclaimers.  I am a Christian.  I love God and Jesus.  I hold the concept of "judge not lest ye be judged" very close.  I believe that the Bible does address homosexuality as a sin.  I believe that we are all sinners...

It is time for the US government to get out of the business of marriage.   Leave marriage up to churches.  Let's go ahead and legally recognize any two people who want to enter into a contract of obligation to the well being of the other person. 

I have heard the arguments about the sanctity of marriage and how allowing gay couples to marry hurts that ideal.  I disagree.  That sanctity is more hurt by the individual greed attitude of "I do what I want, feels good or desire and consequences be damned" more than allowing two people in a loving relationship to come together.  The legislation of morality (i.e. the supposed argument that preventing gay couples from marrying somehow prevents homosexuality) is something that has to stop.  Morality is something that comes from something other than a government.  For my family, I try to instill morals that are Biblically based.  For others, their morals come from their life experiences.  I have yet to meet someone who says "Well, my morals are based on the local county ordinances".

When marriage becomes a religious issue instead of a legal one, we get choice.  As individuals, we can choose to be part of a church that marries gay couples.  We can choose to not be part of a church that marries gay couples.  Our churches can decide on what they believe. 

The government should remove the term marriage and all recognition of a religious ceremony.  It should be a requirement that in order to be legally recognized for obligation, the two persons must appear at a courthouse and certify that they undertake the legal responsibilities and obligations that are provided by law (kind of already have to do that anyways).  Very unromantic but that is what legal obligation should be.  Two people who come together and purchase a house, car, raise a dog, or spend their life together should not be forced to give up rights to the legal benefits of those decisions.  This couple who decides to spend a life together should be able to receive medical insurance, have legal rights to inheritance, etc.

This should not be that hard for us as a nation to accept.  The concept of "common law" marriage is accepted for heterosexuals.  Common law marriages should be as egregious as a gay couple who wants to be married if many religious leaders arguments are to be applied equally to all situations.  Yet we recognize one person's rights to another's assets when they have spent a specified amount of time together.

It is time to put the term marriage back into the churches and move the government's role forward into legal obligation.  Separate the two terms.  Governments get to legally recognize obligation and churches get to marry.