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.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Eric // May 15, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Great assessment, xJane! I had never looked at marriage as a separation of church and state issue, but it makes a lot more sense when viewed from that perspective.
Hey, anything to distract the right-wingers from their bigoted attacks against Obama can’t be all bad in my book. So why am I still afraid that some of them are capable of causing considerable damage in both areas?
2 xJane // May 15, 2008 at 6:32 pm
heh…I’m an idiot: that “some blog or another” that I heard about today’s ruling from was…um…this one. Thanx, Elaine :-p
3 xJane // May 15, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Tammy (cross posted) thanx for the link. It’s a must-read. I think it’s telling that the judges emphasized the fact that they didn’t necessarily agree with their own ruling (although it does make me wonder which side they sympathize with), only that the law supports the ruling. All this bandying-about of the term “activist judges” (which I’m sure we’ll be hearing soon enough to relate to these judges) has had a chilling effect on the judicial profession.
4 xJane // May 15, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Eric: your fears are very well placed. If this gets onto the November ballot, the liberals are going to have to mobilize as we never have before. ‘Cause the conservatives sure will be: “save our families! stop the sin! vote against love!” We’re all familiar with the slogans.
5 amelia // May 17, 2008 at 9:40 am
i couldn’t agree more that religious marriage rites and civil marriages should be separate things. thanks for making that point so succinctly.
i was thrilled when i heard this news the other day. i simply do not understand opposition to gay marriage.
6 wren // May 17, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I chime in agreeing wholeheartedly on the religious and civil marriages being separate. I actually have a couple of religious friends who’ve been advocating that for a long time.
I’m glad to see more people not getting married in churches. I’ve known many non-believing friends who married in a church because that’s just what everybody does. I find it a bit disingenuous and disrespectful to both the believers and non-believers to do so but I get the cultural expectations. Since more are having informal weddings now or having a judge officiate, it’s becoming more acceptable culturally to skip the church deal.
I saved money on car insurance when I was married but I lost my arse on taxes. I haven’t figured out how anyone married saves money on taxes unless they have some kids. I don’t know if my ex and I fell into some black hole bracket of hell but it sucked.
7 xJane // May 18, 2008 at 8:55 am
I suppose I should be clear about the tax thing: now that we’re married, DH nor I do taxes. We use the accountant he’s been using for donkey’s years. We pay him $90 so that we don’t have to think about it. Before that, I had to do my own taxes (which is not that horrible) and then call my accountant/mother (which was).
One of my cousins had a friend of his officiate his wedding, which I think is awesome. If I had it to do over (or thought I could get away with it), I would totally do that. She was not a minister, she just got certified by the State for the day, and got to give the Übertoast: neither Maid of Honor nor Best Man but Officiant!
8 xJane // May 19, 2008 at 6:59 am
lest you think I’m a cynic
well, okay, that doesn’t prove I’m not a cynic, just that I’m not the only one…
Leave a Comment