ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE LINES

To continue a series of thoughts about "lines" and how we blur them, cross them and even double cross them. let's discuss the proposed Constitutional Amendment to create a Federal definition of "marriage" in America. This is interesting for many reasons and has prompted all sides of the argument of the "marriage" issue to cross, blur and exploit this line in order to further their respective agendas. There is plenty of hypocrisy to spread around on this subject. The Church, the Government, the gay and lesbian community and those self-righteous folks are excited and determined to further denigrate the Constitution of the United States.

But a few questions first.

Is the institution of marriage acknowledged and authorized by the Church (various religious representatives of God), or by the Government?

Does the United States of America have a Constitutional doctrine and or a "sacred" tradition prohibiting the mingling of Church and State?

Can the Government dictate to the Church what the Church's definition of marriage must be? (be careful with this answer).

Is the motivation for those promoting a Constitutional Amendment based on a religious opinion or is it an attempt to control the parameters of marriage from a contractual and governmental benefits perspective?

Is the motivation (in this case) of the gay and lesbian community to prevent a Constitutional Amendment based on a desire for religious acceptance or is their interest simply to gain governmental recognition to receive the enticing benefits being provided to "married" people?

If the answer to the first question is; "the Church" (because the ceremony of marriage is in reality a union of two people entering into a covenent with their God in "holy" matrimony) why then should the Government have any voice or control over the Church's (and therefore God's) policy on marriage? (again, be careful with the answer to this one).

If the answer to the first question is; "the Government", wouldn't that reduce the Church's (and therefore God's) impact on marriage to just a nice venue for a "ceremony" but with only a secondary role with respect to the rules and guidelines that affect "married" individuals? Also, wouldn't this make the Church's position (whatever it may be) mute as far as marriage is concerned and therefore make God's position mute as well?

If the answer to the first question is; "both", well, doesn't that really put an end to the "myth" that America actually has or is practicing a policy of separation of Church and State? That "line" was crossed and crushed many years ago for a variety of reasons.

It is Time To Think Again. What do you think about this point?

Wouldn't a Constitutional Amendment on this issue circumvent not only the Church's ability to establish their own doctrines or guidelines on "marriage" (therefore further blurring the separation line) but also remove yet another "right" from the individual States? Since a common platform ideal of the Republican Party (those most active in pushing for Federal Government intervention on this issue) is a strong principle in favor of State's Rights, why does this group continually abandon this principle and defer to the Federal Government on most difficult or sensitive social issues? Principle is rather like faith; you either have it or you don't.

Since the Government (both State and Federal) has so ingrained itself in the institution of "marriage" (legally and contractually) and the Church (and most people wanting to be "married") would like to maintain the religious aspects of "marriage", it seems that the issue may really be about semantics. In order to return to and maintain the separation of Church and State, the term "marriage" should be excluded from Federal or State dialog and permanently replaced by "civil union" or civil partnership" and keep the Government's involvement only concerned with the legal or contractual aspects of a union of two individuals (regardless of gender).

Again, no one should look to the Government for religious acceptance on the issue of "marriage" (that is not the Government's business). The Church should not be involved with governmental regulations nor have their own ability to establish guidelines regarding marriage dictated to them by the Government.

Laws and benefits provided to couples by the Federal or state Governments are really completely separate from "marriage" in its pure form. Many of these "benefits" are only enticements promoted by religious doctrines about marriage and serve to create a wedge with unmarried couple or hard working individuals who live and work under the same circumstances as "married" people. Each State should be able to exercise the right to determine which individuals will be affected by each of its laws, including civil unions or partnership laws. This shouldn't be a Federal matter and certainly not a Constitutional question. But that's just this writer's opinion.

In the end, it is Time To Think Again about the importance of preventing special interest groups (whether in the Gay/Lesbian community or the regilious right) from taking our Constitution hostage!