Saturday, February 07, 2004
In Massachusetts, the Supreme Court there has clarified their earlier ruling by saying that only same-sex marriage will resolve their Constitutional difficulties. Civil unions will not meet their criteria.
I wonder, from the government's perspective, how can a union be anything other than civil? The government recognizes unions from the government's civil perspective. If the government is to recognize couples at all, then it should have no option than to recognize them in a civil manner. The idea that marriage is one thing and a civil union is something else does not make sense when the proper role of government is to act as a civil institution, and not to sanctify religious ceremonies. We call these arrangements marriages. But from the government's perspective, they should all be treated as civil unions.
And yet, this is not the way our government is working. Vermont and other states have passed "civil union" laws, as if they should be permitted to make a distinction. Resident George W. Bush has said that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Is he speaking as a governmental official, or is he stating his personal opinion? What business is it of the government to decide what is and is not "sacred"? Sacred is a word and concept used by priests to describe that which is holy. That concept is best avoided by politicians.
Our Constitutional ideals say that we are to keep religion and government as far apart as we can. This is the best arrangement for religion, for government, for all of us.
E-mail: I wonder, from the government's perspective, how can a union be anything other than civil? The government recognizes unions from the government's civil perspective. If the government is to recognize couples at all, then it should have no option than to recognize them in a civil manner. The idea that marriage is one thing and a civil union is something else does not make sense when the proper role of government is to act as a civil institution, and not to sanctify religious ceremonies. We call these arrangements marriages. But from the government's perspective, they should all be treated as civil unions.
And yet, this is not the way our government is working. Vermont and other states have passed "civil union" laws, as if they should be permitted to make a distinction. Resident George W. Bush has said that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Is he speaking as a governmental official, or is he stating his personal opinion? What business is it of the government to decide what is and is not "sacred"? Sacred is a word and concept used by priests to describe that which is holy. That concept is best avoided by politicians.
Our Constitutional ideals say that we are to keep religion and government as far apart as we can. This is the best arrangement for religion, for government, for all of us.
