Sunrise Tantalize

The news media and blogosphere is awash with posts and stories about the California Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage. First I’d like to point out that the decision says that marriage is a constitutional right. However, if an amendment banning gay marriage was added to the California Constitution, then gay marriage would be prohibited in California. My first thought upon reading the headline was “yay! that’s a win for us,” where “us” means those who oppose a ban on gay marriage. You can oppose a ban on gay marriage and still disagree with gay marriage. There are many people who don’t support an amendment that would take away rights from individuals.

Personally I support civil gay marriage. I think that churches/ religious institutions should be able to determine whether or not they will marry people. I think the best solution would be to institute “civil unions” or a secular recognition of a marriage/union for all couples - gay and straight. Then if you want to be married in a church, you have to find a church that agrees to marry you. Churches aren’t currently obligated to marry everyone who walks through their doors. I can’t force the LDS Church to marry my bf and I in the temple. In this plan, all previous/ existing marriages would be granted a civil union without having to go back to court. I don’t understand why there is opposition to this type of plan - can someone fill me in (in a polite way please)? I see the debate over the best environment to raise children in (gay, straight, single, married) as a completely different issue.

Maybe the problem is with our definition of marriage. Traditionally marriages were preformed by religious officials but they were also civilly binding. Now you can get married in a church or in a courthouse. You don’t get more civil benefits by getting married in a church. Let’s say my plan was enacted - civil unions are required for everyone, but church marriages are optional and the church can control who they marry. So everyone who has a civil marriage gets civil benefits - insurance benefits, tax benefits, et cetera. Churches can enact their own benefits as well. The LDS Church already does this in a way. Anyone not sealed or married in the temple cannot make it to the celestial kingdom. There’s also the benefits of fulfilling family expectations of getting married in a church. Unless the Boy converts to the LDS Church, we probably won’t be getting married by a religious leader and it won’t be in a church. This will be upsetting for some of relatives because the union won’t be blessed by God. But we feel that due to the variety of religions practiced by our families, as well as our own differing religions, a non-religious marriage would be the most peaceful and comfortable for everyone. Of course, I would prefer to eventually be sealed in the temple either in this life or the next and I doubt the bf would have an issue with that.

I think there are some great points brought up in the posts and comments at Feminine Mormon Housewives and By Common Consent. I’m sure there will be more posts in the next couple days.