0
0
Well we’re just about half way done with the year 2015, and boy howdy have we seen some changes.
The triple crown was won for the first time in 30-something years.
The youngest of my progeny graduated high school, and not a damn minute too soon.
My 8th nephew was born.
My gym got some new equipment which features charging cables for the iPhone 3GS.
I finally went back to the dentist and was commanded to turn my head (with mouth open) into the chesty bosom of the dental hygienist who immediately noticed I was missing some toofies in my grill. I’m a product of Reagan-era orthodontics. That’s what they did back then.
The Spurs got knocked out of the playoffs in round 1.
The Astros aren’t doing that bad.
Dick Van Patten passed away.
Brian Williams is back on TV, but it’s just MSNBC. It’s not like anyone will be watching him there.
In the “we should have seen it coming” category, Obamacare was renamed SCOTUScare.
Today, SCOTUS made gay marriage the law of the land in 50 states. The first response of the President was: “What about the other 7?”
So before I get to the crux of my latest dispatch to the internet in hopes of making it hiccup a bit, let me just say this about that.
Some of the most polarizing events in US history all boil down to the issue of states rights.
The Civil War.
Roe versus Wade.
SCOTUScare.
Gay marriage.
Instead of expanding on those subjects from a states rights point of view, I’ll move on to other things. Feel free to look those items up on your own. Just know that the real loser in today’s ruling wasn’t those who oppose gay marriage.
First of all, it should be said right here and now that the idea I’m about to throw out there isn’t wholly my own.
I actually heard or read it somewhere several months back, and decided just now to address it.
“Marriage.
Marriage is what brings us together todaaaaaaayyyy…….”
Gay marriage has become an extremely polarizing issue here in America in the last generation. If businesses aren’t being publically shammed for not supporting this way of life, they’re being charged with exercising discriminatory practices when they opt to adhere to a more traditional standard.
It’s quite the slippery slope on which we……..
….on which we………
Holy cow.
The pit bull dozing in her kennel next to me just cut a fart, and boy is it nasty.
*retches a little*
So where was I?
Oh. Yes.
Big picture, the government as a whole (or hole, take your pick) needs to get out of the business of acknowledging marriage.
Ponder that one for a moment and I’ll make my case, right after I Febreze the joint.
Pause for effect.
All righty then.
Under this premise, I’m suggesting that one previously defined institution be defined as that of a religious practice. I’m also suggesting the creation of new institution.
Marriage is a religious practice. It’s defined in Genesis as the union between one man and one woman. Since it is a religious practice, Uncle Sam should keep his filthy, stinking of government cheese, grubby hands out of how it should be handled, administered, dispensed, and performed.
The government does not get involved in how communion or baptisms are performed in the church, nor do they exert First Lady like control over what shows up at the pot luck dinner. As such, they shouldn’t really even be in a position to say who can and cannot participate in a religious practice like Marriage.
With that in mind, I suggest we define the term of Marriage as a religious practice and off limits to the government.
Marriages should be performed, administered, and defined by the church. If a man and a woman want to get married in a traditional sense (as defined by God), then they can go through the church to do so. If the church they should use acknowledges less than traditional relationships, and will put a stamp on it, so be it. The government can’t do squat about it because they’re supposed to stay out of the workings of a church.
The new institution will basically be called a Conscious Coupling.
This applies to anyone who wants to get married, but doesn’t want to (or is unable to) go through a church to do so. This applies to traditional unions of one man and one woman, as well as any other union that could be considered. The government would be the ones who would be charged with performing, administering, and defining these relationships. This would be done at the local court house, or by the ship’s captain on the Love Boat, or by an Elvis impersonator somewhere in the Nevada dessert. As such, let the government regulate the hell out of them since they get to run them.
Going forward, you’re either Married and happy, Married and miserable, Married and flatulent, Consciously Coupled and happy, Consciously Coupled and miserable, Consciously Coupled and phlegmatic, or a host of other conditions brought on by relationships designed to be life everlasting.
Bakeries, gun ranges, and shifty accountants could advertise themselves with the church or the government as friendly to “Marriage only”, “Consciously Coupled only”, or “What the hell, we do them both” types of businesses. Of course this would be under the premise that no holds are barred if they cater to any type of non-Marriage bidness. At the same time, people sealing the deal through non-traditional means can’t go whining, griping, pissin’, and moaning about a “Marriage only” joint which refuses to decorate a three tiered confectionary delight with the passage “Two Men & A Cake” across the base.
Naturally it goes without saying that all of the assorted tax laws and whatever other “rights and privileges” of a Married couple would apply to a Consciously Coupled couple as well.
The only real difference would be in the terminology and the basis for the union.
