Text 17595, 91 rader
Skriven 2006-01-26 14:21:04 av Alan Hess
Ärende: civil solution for marriage issue?
==========================================
I thought this guy's idea was imaginative.  Could it work?
********


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.marriage26jan26,1,3584100
.story?coll=bal-pe-opinion

Symbols and words get in way of civil solution


By THOMAS P. THORNTON

January 26, 2006

Maryland has now joined the states confronting the need to deal with the
problem of same-sex marriage.

It is a divisive issue that is not only legal in nature but also goes to the
heart of sincere and deeply held views on both sides of the question. Advocates
of same-sex unions argue that they are entitled to the same rights as
heterosexuals. Opponents argue that, in common understanding, marriage is by
definition a sanctified, heterosexual union. Both are probably right.

Despite the fervor of the arguments, there is in fact already majority support
for one key proposition: that same-sex couples should have the same legal
benefits as heterosexual couples, often defined as civil unions. What
proponents and opponents of change cannot agree upon is the recognition of
same-sex unions having the same moral validity. The matter in contention is
essentially a word: "marriage."

In one form of marriage, the ceremony is conducted by a representative of the
state (for example, the clerk of the court) who records the decision of the
couple and pronounces them to be "married" in the eyes of the law.

More common is the traditional form, which is performed by a clergyman or woman
who, together with the couple and the congregation, sanctify the marriage and
lend it a meaning that transcends that of a legal contract.

Thus, there are two quite different things involved here: a legal contract and
a sanctifying union. One is the business of the state and is concerned with
material matters such as the contractual responsibilities of the two parties
and the benefits that accrue to them under the law. The other deals with moral
responsibilities in which the state plays no role. It is a classic case of
distinguishing what is Caesar's and what is God's.

The issue of same-sex unions can readily be dealt with by distinguishing
between these two functions, as is done in some European countries.

In Germany, for example, all couples intending to marry must first participate
in a ceremony conducted by civil authorities. Those who feel the need to seek a
higher moral sanction for their union will then arrange a religious ceremony.
It should be perfectly feasible to follow this model in Maryland.

All couples, whatever their genders, would have to appear before an official of
the state to record contractually their decision to assume the responsibilities
and receive the material benefits that the state has to offer. To keep matters
clear, this kind of civil ceremony would no longer be termed "marriage;"
rather, it would be called a "civil union" or some other completely secular
term.

Should the couple want more than this, they would be free to seek out a morally
based community (normally a church) where the sacramental act of "marriage"
would be performed. In this the state would play no role and it would not be
incumbent on the officiating clergyman or other congregation leader to report
the matter to the state. (A couple could have only a church marriage, but this
would leave them in a difficult legal situation.)

For a religious person or otherwise traditionalist people, this arrangement
represents a slight additional effort in that two ceremonies must be arranged,
but it has the huge advantage of keeping "marriage" where it belongs - in the
realm of moral commitment.

For same-sex couples, the demand for equality is fully met; they are treated by
the state exactly the same as heterosexual couples and, if they want to have
added moral sanction, they can seek out a church or some other ethically based
community to perform the ceremony. To be sure, some churches will refuse, but
that is even now the case.

There are few types of issues so difficult to settle as those that concern
symbols and words. Fortunately in this case, by stepping back and understanding
just what is at issue, we find a simple and elegant solution. Even in the
divided politics of Maryland, this is something that all parties could agree
on.

Thomas P. Thornton teaches political science at the Johns Hopkins University in
Baltimore. His e-mail is thornton@jhu.edu.

Copyright + 2006, The Baltimore Sun | Get Sun home delivery

--- Msged/2 6.0.1
 * Origin: tncbbs.no-ip.com - Try the CROSSFIRE echo - all welcome (1:261/1000)