At the top of Google News at 1230 today (I heard about it from some blog or another) was the news that the California Supreme Court passed down a ruling today that Proposition 22, which was approved by 61% of voters in 2000 was unconstitutional, causing an infringement upon the basic rights afforded to all residents of this state. Immediately, right-wingers submitted their million signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the November (you know, the presidential one?) ballot to change it to “all rights except this one should be afforded to all people and then only excluded are people we don’t like”. My coworker, who found out at the same time as I while we were reading this online, sighed. “As much as I’m for what this ruling represents,” he said, “I just can’t help but think what it will do in an election year.”
And he’s right. This will surely help release the right-wingers from the woodwork. But maybe, just maybe, it’ll release the left-wingers, too.
However, that’s all just back story. What I really want to do is reiterate the fact that I think religious marriage should be separate from political marriage. I was never married in a church, as far as I’m concerned, the only reason to do so is for the ceremony. A church might afford me some rights within its laws upon marriage, but the state’s and country’s political rights are much more interesting to me. Some places where they might well be separate:
Gay marriage. Many churches wish to deny marriage to their homosexual members. Fine! No problem! The state recognizes a marriage, so they get tax, hospital, and insurance benefits. Their church does not, so they may be denied ritual and after-life benefits. Most religions that deny marriage to homosexuals would deny these (ritual, &c.) benefits to these members anyway. Marriage notwithstanding.
Polygamy/Polyandry I have no problem with the state recognizing only one spouse: if a religion wishes to recognize more than one, no problem! Again, we’re talking about temporal vs. spiritual rights (tee hee, rites). I do not think that religion should have a hand in the debate for political rights.
I’ve said this before: that I think we need to separate the church definition and the state definition of marriage. This ruling just underlines it. I see it as an antiquated hold-over from when church and state were not separate (I mean…when they were not officially separate…as opposed to now). The state doesn’t care if you’re baptized, confirmed, or get last rights. Why should it care if you get (religiously) married?
I do surveys online and near the end, they always ask me demographic information: what gender, what age range, what zip code, &c. But this one bugs me and has since I first started living in sin:
Are you:
- Married
- Living with partner
- Single, Divorced, Widowed
(sometimes the last one is split into two or three). To me, the first two are the same thing. In fact, I would rather think of myself as “living with [my] partner [in crime, love, and social situations]” than as “married”. Married still carries the religious “I’m the little wife who stays home, bakes cookies, and has children” to me. Even though my political marriage solidified certain rights that my husband and I now share (insurance, both health & car, and taxes chief among them). So that is the kind of marriage I hope for everyone in love: a political marriage that makes life just easier. If you want a religious marriage, take it up with your priest, bishop, ward, pope, chaplain, or ship’s captain. Don’t bring it to your polling place.
