“Should the state treat marriages the same way it treats baptisms and bar mitzvahs — as purely religious practices properly left to religious institutions? That's what some are now arguing.”
California Catholic Daily reports that two proposed initiatives have been filed with the Attorney General's office for the 2010 elections. One would repeal Prop 8, and the other would seek to abolish civil marriages altogether. The idea is that marriage would become merely a religious institution, and the state would not be involved with marriage.
A worst idea is hard to imagine. On March 9 , the Attorney General issued the title and summary for the proposed amendment seeking to exclude the term “marriage”:
SUBSTITUTES DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP FOR MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA LAW . Replaces the term “marriage” with the term “domestic partnership” throughout California law, but preserves the rights provided in marriage. Applies equally to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation. Repeals the provision in California 's Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California .
Ryan T. Anderson has written a column in National Review refuting this idea which is being promoted by legal scholar Doug Kmiec.
He writes: “Legal scholar Doug Kmiec …now argues that “Marriage is of religious origin,” he claims, and “it should remain there.”
[“Kmiec's] solution is to “separate state and church,” which, he insists, can occur only if the state ‘employs non-marriage terminology for all couples' — gay or straight — while religious institutions continue using the term ‘marriage' however they see fit.
“Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times ran an endorsing the idea:
The argument frequently raised against same-sex marriage is that marriage represents a special bond, traditionally and biblically reserved for a man and woman. But under this approach, religions and other belief groups could continue to sanction marriage in accordance with their definitions, and the state could concern itself with the civil rights and responsibilities of two people who decide to share life, home, family and the remote.
Anderson adds a voice of sanity to this lunacy, defending marriage and writing:
“Much more than share a television remote, spouses play a crucial public role in any healthy society. Much more than the private union of consenting adults, marriage is vitally important for the well-being of our nation's children.”
Read Anderson's full article in National Review here:
