Don't mind me, I'm rambling.

[leaveoutalltherest]

Due to lack of sleep, and one extremely strange conversation on the way back from Creston (We started out with seeing who was the most pathetic by naming characters (full Names) off of Saturday Morning shows/cartoons and going into who knew the most about what comics.), this ended up in my brain.



It's on this whole discrimination case the city of San Francisco has going. Basically, I think it boils down to is marriage Church or State. (Note: I could be completely wrong about this, so tell me if I am.)

Now, if marriage is considered an institution of the Church, the State has no rights at all where marriage is concerned. That means only religious officials are able to issue permission for marriage and perform ceremonies. Judges, Ship Captains and any one not connected to a religious organization in an official copacity could do this any longer. And seeing as how most religions require you to be a member of their church and undergo counselling of some sort (I think even some Wicca and Pagan circles request a sort of pre-marriage counseling) before their priest/bishops/pastors will do the ceremony, it would take care of the whole 5 second Vegas style wedding. It would also cut back on the 18 year olds who have been dating for 2 months and 'OMG!!!111!! we just have to get married. Liek, tomorrow!!' Of course, there are a few religions that recognize same-sex unions, so all's good there, because the constitution states that every has the freedom of religion, and if marriage is religious, the state can't touch it unless it's causing injury to others.

If marriage is considered to be under State control, well, don't things get a bit sticky? You have all these anti-discrimination laws, and declaring marriage to be only legal when it is between a man and a woman is illegal, because a marriage certificate is basically a contract between two individuals. It's like stating that only men can be involved in the contract sale of a house. Or that only Catholics can lease property to sell religious wares, only those of a certain social and monetary class can go to universities, only Jews can own delis. (I don't believe any of this, they are only being used as examples, don't flame me.) Hell, if that's the case, why don't we take away women and blacks' rights to vote and resegregate the schools.

Like I said, I'm tired, bored and the caffiene hasn't kicked in yet.

Comments

[dreagoddess.livejournal.com]

From a strictly legal standpoint, saying nothing about what I personally believe, restricting marriage to a man and a woman really isn't any different than restricting it to non-related people or to only two people. Incest and polygamy laws are generally not that debated (especially the former), and it's essentially the same principle.