My .02$ worth about “Gay marriage” or, “What’s in a name”

Posted: December 4, 2009 in Commentary

Here I offer my own novel take on the “Gay Marriage” controversy. I think conservative Christian commentators here in the States who have a bug in their ear about this are barking up the wrong tree.

I have a solution that I think is very practical and workable; though lawyers I have spoken to suggest there may be State’s Rights issues to slog through were it to be attempted at a Federal level.

Basically, they should stop worrying about what gay couples do in their bedrooms and also – gasp! about what “marriage” means in meta-societal terms and start being concerned about the fact that Marriage 2.0 is not the “marriage” they think they are defending.

Here’s my solution: At the state level, agitate for domestic partnership contracts between two people of any gender that are a) legally enforceable and b) have the same legal standing as marriage. People can write the terms of their contract as they see fit within broad legislatively defined parameters, which could include provisions for “no divorce except for x reasons.” Social conservatives get to have what they want — Marriage 1.0 – and social libertines get what they want — all the legal benefits of marriage. Let society sort out wether “marriage” and “domestic partnership” are seen in the same light and esteem. Let Christians show their light on a hill if they have light to show.

Now, I doubt that this would ever see the light of day, given political realities. My point is to make you think about Marriage 2.0 and what risks a man is taking upon himself in the modern male-hostile legal environment of Family Law as it stands today. I also tend to doubt that conventionally thinking Christians would see the wisdom inherent in this; since they are often trying to move “backwards” to some better day in the past rather than see to the heart of the problems in the Courts, and in the suppositions of some fellowships as to why marriages fail. Many Christian ladies might not think this “romantic,” but a few, I think, will be happy to demonstrate their good will by putting their interests on the block, so to speak.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s