My Solution To Gay Marriage

M

And a whole host of other constitutional issues is very simple. My solution will solve the problem of federalist arguments, states rights, the scope of the federal government and the state governments under the Bill of Rights, and lots of other Constitutional problems.

Let’s repeal the fourteenth amendment.

Admit it, the amendment has outlived its usefulness. It has prevented the states from serving as experiments for various ideas while making them more uniform. It has prevented people from being able to move to state based on that state’s social policy and required states to impose on the states’ citizens homogenous social policies.

In short, the fourteenth amendment and judicial abuse of that amendment have destroyed the free market system of ideas in states.

If the fourteenth amendment did not exist, evangelicals who want to live in a state where abortion is banned could move to such a state. Liberals who want to live in a state where anything goes could live in such a state.

As it is, no one is happy. The Civil Rights Act relies on the Commerce Clause more than the 14th amendment, so it wouldn’t be lost. The Voting Rights Act will expire anyway. State court judges are progressive enough to ensure civil liberties now.

Let’s scrap the amendment. We’ll all be better off.

About the author

Erick Erickson

2 comments

  • A Solution
    Separation of Marriage (Church) and Civil Union (State)
    by Margaret Motheral

    This is a proposal for a solution to the “Gay Marriage” issue. It is a solution that will protect everybody’s rights, both gay and straight and give more rights and protection to singles who may not be married or ever marry, yet may want and need the same legal protection and support that married people now have.
    This proposal furthers the strength of the American tradition of separation of church and state.
    The first part of this proposal is that any two people of any gender combination who is over 21 can enter willingly into a Civil Union and benefit from the security that come from such a union. Some of those benefits being medical , inheritance, tax breaks, protection of children, etc.
    There are many varieties of relationships that can benefit from a Civil Union that are not based on sexual activity or gender. A Civil Union couple are not necessarily sexual with each other. They may simply be best friends who may have estranged or no family and/or consciously chose the single life. A Civil Union might be chosen by many older people who have lost a spouse but may have strong connection to best friend and both would benefit from the security of Civil Union, yet they do not want to call it a Marriage. There are many older widowed women who are not gay yet have a best friend that they would chose to share a home with and a Civil Union would be a legal way to secure their rights and protections. Singles are an ever growing population and more and more singlehood is the chosen way of life. Yet these singles are legally prejudiced against in many ways in that they can not benefit from the legal support of friends or extended family.
    Children would also benefit from the separation of Civil Union and Marriage. A couple with children will be able to divorce the Marriage aspect of their relationship yet maintain the Civil Union and go forth to build a healthier and more compatible personal relationship while still maintaining the security of the Civil Union for their children.
    Civil Union would allow all people to chose a civil partner in order to gain support from that partnership, whether they are lovers or not. This Civil Union would take “sex” and “morality” out of quotient and it would allow anyone to partake of supportive and legally protected partnerships.
    Any church or religious organization has the right to believe what they want in a land of religious freedom, another tradition of our US Constitution. Opponents of “Gay Marriage” base their belief on “gay sex is a sin, therefore gay marriage is a sin and should be outlawed.” The US government does not currently regulate this moral opinion about the sinfulness of being gay. Most laws, as far as I know, against gay sex have been overturned. I hope.
    By Separation of Civil Union and Marriage, any church can refuse to marry gays or refuse to marry eighty year old men to twenty year old women/girls. Others churches would have the right to marry homosexuals if they want to. Marriage would be a religious/ spiritual state and a Civil Union would be a legal partnership based on mutual and legal supports and not based on sex. Even two sisters or mother and daughter could commit to a Civil Union, as Civil Union is not based on sexual activity.
    Entering in a Civil Union would ensure the legal rights of mutual support partnership, whereas Marriage would not have any of these rights. A couple could not marry in a church/ synagogue with spiritual witness and gain the legal rights of a Civil Union unless they also went to to the court to legally gain the Civil Union status.
    Therefore, the traditional married couple we now see as being “traditional” would have to complete their union in two ways, both Civil to gain the legal rights and in a religious context to gain the spiritual status of “Marriage.”
    There would be no more “Courthouse Marriages” for anybody. In other words, there are no “Civil Marriages.” You will no longer see brides floating down courthouse steps.
    All Marriages ( a spiritual union) would be performed in a religious or spiritual setting of the couple’s choice. There are obviously plenty of religious organizations that will happily perform marriage for gays and straights alike.
    If a couple “marries” in a religious organization but don’t apply for Civil Union, they will not partake in the legal rights of Civil Union no matter how many years they are “spiritually” married.
    If a couple gains Civil Union status but do not get married in a religious or spiritual way, then they will NOT be married and cannot say they are married. They will not be husband or wife, or wife and wife, or husband and husband.
    The termination or “divorce” of such unions shall be and must be done in both arenas. Civil Unions must be terminated through the legal system and Marriage must be terminated in church or which ever spiritual organization the couple chose to sanctify their marriage. If a couple decides to do their own vows with only a redwood tree as witness, then presumedly they would go back and request the redwood tree to “divorce” them.
    This is true division of church and state allows more freedom, protection and rights for everyone. This will put the Spirituality back into Marriage and this should please the righteous and spiritual. Marriage is esoterically a spiritual movement toward union of the opposites. The religious freedom of allowing the different churches and religions to make their own choice of gay marriage or any other from of marriage would please the founding fathers who wisely put separation of church and state into the Constitution.
    Taking the ‘sex’ out of Civil Unions will allow for a more stable civil community and support and protect those who will never be able to or chose not to form “traditional marriages.” Civil Unions will give gays and all non- married straight people the chance to be supported by the same protections and benefits that married people do.
    The trends of society show that the single population is growing and single life has become a viable and preferred lifestyle for many, yet single people are often left more alone and unprotected than they need to be by the glorification of “marriage.” Marriage is no longer the only option and it will never be a real option for many people. People need to be able to explore the kinds of relationships that are good for them and not be ostracized or cast to the outside of society because of their preferred relationship style.
    Also if couples are required to enter more consciously into a Civil Union, they will have to understand what all those civil rules, regulations and rights are.
    Today, nobody thinks about that. They just think about the cake and the honeymoon. Also by specifically choosing the spiritual aspect of Marriage than the marriage ritual gains more meaning.
    There are only benefits in the Separation of Civil Union and Marriage for everyone. The only people who would loose are those who insist on dictating their particular brand of relationship style onto others. I say, if the religious right wants me to have husband, then they can go out and find me one. And he better be a good one. And don’t expect me to cook.

  • That’s makes real good sense. That is exactly why it will never happen. Plus, you know the first person who brought it up would be branded David Duke in 3 seconds.

    Another idea to consider: Modify the full faith and credit clause.

By Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson

Get in touch

You can check me out across the series of tubes known as the internet.