Questioning the reason problems seem so hard.

It's been awhile since I last updated this blog. I had been trying to do a post a month, but I had to delete several after realizing that the way I was wording my stances were not the best. No, this is not a commitment to try and get back to that. After some thought I figured I'd reserve this for more of my "ah ha" moments that come on an irregular basis.

So the topic of discussion today is Gay Marriage. This topic is a very polarizing in today's society and I believe it’s one of the easiest problems to solve to the benefit and happiness of all parties involved.

So who are the parties? First, we have religious conservatives that admittedly oppose any allowances in this area. Second, we have gays that demand equal treatment that they believe is owed to them based on the legal principles our country was founded on. Third, we have the politicians/government which either plays the two other sides off of each other for more votes, or tries not to broach the issue at all in fear of losing votes.

So where do I fit in all of this? My views are simple and pragmatic. I believe that there is no reason that my religious views and political ones should contradict each other in any way. Rules are there for a reason and frankly the rules of the Bible and of our country have no reason to contradict each other. As a Christian I believe that engaging in homosexual activity is a sin, plain and simple. I also believe that marriage is an institution created and ordained by God. This, in simple terms, means that the government, federal or local, has no right to be in the business of marriage. Our country has vowed a separation of church and state. Therefore, the state should extricate itself from having anything to do with marriage.

Now this presents us with a problem, especially for a society as legalistic as ours. The government has to have some legal way to bind two people together for several reasons, medical, financial, etc. This, I believe, has only one real solution: civil unions for everyone, not just gay couples. There would be no more marriage certificates, because as stated above, the government should not be in the business of the church. In other words, the government makes no distinction as to who the married couple is. A civil union is nothing more than a way for the government to recognize a legal bond or contract between two people. This also has the nice side affect of getting it out of religious affairs, i.e. certifying marriages that take place in the church.

So what happens now is that a couple wants to get married. They are then married by a priest, and then also have to sign a marriage certificate. Instead, what the above would mean is that people who choose to be married spiritually are done so by their priest. The government would not recognize this type of bond, because it is a religious marriage, not a legal one. The couple would then sign a civil union certification. This would be the bond that the government oversees, and one that guarantees all citizens equal treatment under the law.

Now civil unions are obviously not a new concept, so why do I bring them up now? The problem is that civil unions were made as a shoe horn to give gay couples the legal rights they are entitled to as U.S citizens. It doesn’t really answer the age old question of what power should the church have, and what power the state should have. Well, my version of civil unions is different from the one before because of how the issue is framed and dealt with. While the name remains the same, the idea is completely separate.

1. No more marriage certifications. (Gets the government out of marriage completely)
2. Civil unions are applied to everyone equally, not just gay couples. (Puts government in proper perspective to church to the benefit of both parties)
3. Churches decide who they spiritually marry. (The government doesn’t care because it’s a spiritual matter and they don’t recognize that a spiritual marriage has any affect on the legal standing of that couple.)