The Partnership Paradigm

A hot topic today is the question, " should state and federal governmentss allow homosexuals the same marrige rights as heterosexuals. I think we need to simply eliminate the question.

 It should be clear to everyone by now that the only reason to deny gay couples equal citizenship, is that their sexual orientation seems to clash with the religious beliefs held by many. So how do we handle that without the state meddling in church dogma, where they have no buisness?

I have been divorced twice. (nobody's perfect) Neither time did the judge ask if either of us had violated some religious doctrine. Nor was devine judgement an issue.
  There were only two questions to be considered. Were we certain we wanted to disolve the marrige, and had we decided how to divide the joint possesions.

The state considers marrige a partnership like any other, except that it's a civil partnership rather than a commercial one. So here's the new paradigm that we need to move into:

We need to view these partnerships the same way the state does, as a civil partnership. And use that term to describe it. Partnership.

After all, no church can legally marry you unil you obtain a license from that state. All that is required is a certificate of marrige signed by the participants and two witnesses and an official. This can be a minister, a judge, a ship's captain, or a Dudist Priest, like myself. (yes, I do that.)

"Do you__________ take __________ as your legal partner, as recognized by the state of_________
"I do" Congratulations. By the power vested in me by the State of ___________, I pronounce you Legal Civil Partners.

Being licensed by the state, you may also choose to be married in a religious ceremony. Churches have various requirements concerning that. And that's fine. Churches are allowed to discriminate against any group or indiviual they choose. The state has no business there.

Likewise, the church would have no business holding the state to their requirements. And, since we know there is no good reason outside of religion to deny equal citizenship to all, in fact the constitution forbids it, (No state shall.... deny to any person within it's jurisdiction equal protection of the laws) by simply removing the term "marrige" from the secular lexicon, we remove the religious connection.

  Look, if we started calling breakfast "communion", religious folks are going to get upset and demand that since it is communion, we need to respect the religious rules concerning it. And they'd be right, in a way, even if we argue that we're not eating for religious reasons.

  So let's call breakfast, breakfast. And let's call partnerships partnerships.

Communion and marrige have no place in state recognized secular society.

      Peace,
         George