![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It has long been my opinion that federal and state governments should get out of the marriage business and offer a legal alternative, civil union, to all, straight or gay, mandated at the federal level. I find it ridiculous that we have been fighting for marriage equality for decades against opposition that comes largely from religious sectors when we could be offering an alternative to marriage that affords equality by separating completely from the institution of marriage.
If a couple of any gender combination wants legal recognition of unity and the rights and responsibilities that go with it, they should be able to have that by way of civil union. The institution of marriage can then revert to what it originated as -- a religious covenant -- and be non-binding except within the parameters of the specific religion sanctioning it. If a couple wants to be married, they would first get their civil union to be recognized as united by law, and then get married to be recognized by their faith. Faiths could define marriage as they saw fit and discriminate (or not) all they pleased, but they could in no way take away the right to legal unity from anyone based on gender, race or other factor.
I realize that this idea is not perfect, and there are groups who are not ideally served by it, such as LGBT people of faith. But we could be ensuring that people are legally able to build their lives with the person they choose regardless of gender and have the rights and recognition of unity, with or without religious sanction.
This is already working out in Quebec, New Zealand, Uruguay and France, though religious marriage is also legally recognized.
If a couple of any gender combination wants legal recognition of unity and the rights and responsibilities that go with it, they should be able to have that by way of civil union. The institution of marriage can then revert to what it originated as -- a religious covenant -- and be non-binding except within the parameters of the specific religion sanctioning it. If a couple wants to be married, they would first get their civil union to be recognized as united by law, and then get married to be recognized by their faith. Faiths could define marriage as they saw fit and discriminate (or not) all they pleased, but they could in no way take away the right to legal unity from anyone based on gender, race or other factor.
I realize that this idea is not perfect, and there are groups who are not ideally served by it, such as LGBT people of faith. But we could be ensuring that people are legally able to build their lives with the person they choose regardless of gender and have the rights and recognition of unity, with or without religious sanction.
This is already working out in Quebec, New Zealand, Uruguay and France, though religious marriage is also legally recognized.