New Hampshire's "Marriage Lite"

This story, from Pam's House Blend (which is, by the way, one of the more thoughtful posts I've seen there) highlights a couple of issues in the marriage debate.

If you've been following me on this for the past few years, as Hunter at Random has changed names and locations, you know pretty much my feelings on most of the "objections" to equal marriage for same-sex couples.

To take one of the foremost, look at the quote from Bob Clegg, the former state senate leader in New Hampshire, who is going to the lengths of introducing civil unions legislation as a constitutional amendment is being debated in committee:

"Marriage is a religious ceremony," Clegg told the AP. "The bill is not just for gays and lesbians; it's for anybody."

No, to put it quite simply (a point noted by commenter Lev Raphael at the House Blend post -- I wonder if it's that Lev Raphael). Marriage is not a religious ceremony. In fact, to pinpoint the issue, Christianity didn't create the "sacrament" of marriage until the early twelfth century, after it had been a civil institution, sometimes with religious imprimatur, sometime without, for millennia. I object most vehemently to allowing religious Neanderthals (with apologies to the real Neanderthals) to appropriate a basic civil right as their own. (It's no happenstance that Clegg is a Republican. They think everything is a religious ceremony.)

As it happens, in every state of the union, any justice of the peace, any town mayor, any country clerk can perform a marriage. It can take place in city hall or the VFW. What's this "religious ceremony" crap?

(Sidebar: Want to see a fundie squirm? Say, "OK, it's a religious institution. Therefore, under the Establishment Clause, the government can't grant any tax breaks or other benefits for married couples. Nor can the government impose any restrictions on marriage, because that would be interfering in freedom of conscience.")

It's also worth pointing out that Clegg's legislation makes civil unions available to gay and straight couples, as if the injury of being second-class citizens weren't enough -- go out of your way to make civil unions really inconsequential by including people who just don't feel like getting married.

OK -- Clegg's an idiot, or at the very least so ignorant he should be under house arrest for his own protection.

Spaulding makes a very good point:

. . . I've been saying that the Dem presidential candidates have an obligation to voters to define what they mean when they toss out "I support civil unions" as a salve to gays. Asking for clarity, commitment and well-thought-out answers on the matter is not flogging the issue. There is a morass of separate-but-unequal legislation being debated and amendments voted on "by the people" right now.

Not only the morass of separate-but-"equal" marriage lites being promulgated from coast to coast. It's too easy an out for politicians, and Spaulding is absolutely right: what do they mean "civil unions"? Let's pin this down a little bit so we all know what we're talking about -- which of course is the whole point: they don't want to be forced to address an issue directly.

The New Hampshire thing is a real mess -- just read Spaulding's post for a glance at the shenanigans going on there. And also read the intense comment by kevinbgoode. Excellent.