I just wrote a letter to my state representative

[xiphias]

2/13/2004

Representative Mike Festa
3 Kimball Court, Melrose, Massachusetts

Dear Rep. Festa;

Thank you for your strong stance in defense of gay marriage in this state. I've never been prouder to say that I am from Melrose.
Just after we bought a house here a few years ago, we started reading the Melrose newspaper. Around this time, they ran a wedding announcement between two women. I remember how relatively little controversy that started -- which was largely ended when someone wrote a letter in to the editor stating that she didn't see what all the fuss was about -- she had lived in Melrose for seventy years, and both of those women were well-known Melrosians who'd grown up here, and whose parents had grown up here, and she was just happy to see those two families joining, and couldn't see what problem anyone would have with that.
That let us know we were living in the right place.

I know that, eventually, it's very likely that some form of an anti-gay marriage amendment will pass. This time. That, frankly, doesn't bother me very much. Because, even if it passes, gays will still be able to get married in a couple months. And, once gays start marrying, and everyone notices that absolutely nothing bad happens because of it, opposition to such marriage will crumble, support for such an amendment will evaporate, and I don't think this will pass the next Legislature. And, in any case, in order to pass, such an amendment will have to also create civil unions. It's amusing and heartening to notice that, at the moment, we have conservatives agitating for civil unions. While, just a few years ago, the idea of creating civil unions was anathema to conservatives in Vermont, now, they are the middle-of-the-road, somewhat conservative option.
It seems to me that the ground is shifting, and will continue to shift, largely because of your efforts and the efforts of people like you.

Given that we now have a week or so to think up new ideas, new proposed amendment wordings, I'd like to offer an idea that my friends and I have been kicking around for a while now. It's such a drastic change that I doubt that it will pass, but, when people sit down and think about it, they tend to realize that it does address everybody's legitimate concerns.
There are many people for whom their religion does not allow same-sex marriage. And many of those people feel -- perhaps not consciously -- that having the government define marriage as including same-sex marriage would be a usurpation of their religious rights.
However, there are other people -- Reform Jews and Unitarians, for instance -- for whom their religion does include same-sex marriage. And, for them, having the government define "marriage" as "the union of one man and one woman" is equally a governmental usurpation of religious rights. This seems to create an impasse.
The religious definition of "marriage" varies from religion to religion, and the encoding into a Constitution of a definition of "marriage" will therefore prefer some religions above others. To my mind, this is really a violation of the separation of church and state.
The Massachusetts State Supreme Judiciary has rightly pointed out that "marriage" is two different things -- a civil process, which the state can define and which needs to afford equal protection to everyone, and a religious process, which may be defined as narrowly, or as broadly, as a religion requires.
The solution which my friends and I have been kicking around is "civil unions for everybody." Basically, "marriage" is a religious word, and governments shouldn't try to define religious terms. Governments need to know who has legal responsibility for whom, who is the next-of-kin, and so forth. And those can all be dealt with with civil unions.
So, if you want to set up a household, you go to your city hall or wherever, and register a civil union. Which can be between any two adults.
If you want to get married, by contrast, you go to your church or temple or ashram or wherever. "Marriage" remains a religious process, defined by religions. "Civil unions" are a civil process, defined by civil authorities. Governments consider the "civil union" status of people.

Even though that is probably too radical an idea to pass, I wanted to present it to you. I figured you could use it as a talking point, as another option to give to people to think about. If nothing else, the argument that "any attempt to define marriage Constitutionally is an attack on the prerogatives of religion" may be helpful.
And, who knows? -- maybe the horse will sing.

Anyway, I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate all your efforts, and to perhaps give you an idea or two to play around with.

Thank you very much,


Ian Osmond

Comments

[paganmommy.livejournal.com]

This has always been my stand, that marriage should remain soley the in the realm of religion, while "civil unions" should be redefined (for legal purposes) and be for ALL people and the only unions sanctified by government. :) Thank you for writing to your Representative. :)

[jehanna.livejournal.com]

Very nicely put.

[clauclauclaudia]

I basically agree with you. I have a practical quibble, which is that it runs afoul of federal law, which recognizes "married couples" in special ways.

My own suggestion would be to have an amendment specifying "civil marriage" for gay and straight couples and explicitly noting that the self-same amendment has no implications for religious marriage.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Nice letter. Wouldn't mind linking to it if that's okay -- I was talking with Joe last night and advancing some of the same idea...

Re:

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Please do.

[laurens10.livejournal.com]

I'm really impressed. Go you!

[city-glitter.livejournal.com]

My practical side thinks that's a fantastic idea.

[ailbhe]

Hm. My marriage feels to be more about social recognition than about either legal or religious recognition (actually, it can't be about religious recognition, since we're not religious). The social status thing, which Darkhawk occasionally talks about, is a pretty big part of it.

Re:

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

That's probably true.

It's also something that my state Representative can't -- and shouldn't be able to -- do anything about. What he can deal with are the legal implications.

[kiya]

Yup yup yup.

The fact that my religion does not have a marriage ceremony at all does not make me any less married.

As far as I'm concerned, "marriage" is and always has been about the covenant between the married folks and their communities. Some folks have additional religious meaning that they have grafted on to that core human ritual -- but the covenant between family and community predates religious blessings upon it, and has only been under exclusive religious control rarely (in England, from 1753 to 1837).

[neven.livejournal.com]

Thank you for stating clearly what i've been rolling around unclear in my mind for the past few weeks.

[lylith.livejournal.com]

I really like what you've said and how you've said it!

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

The IMPORTANT part of it is that I printed out a copy, and slid it through the mail slot of my state Rep's office. I rang the doorbell, but he didn't answer, even though I'm pretty sure he was there, because his car was there.