many religions consider marriage to be something sanctioned by that religion's diety. hence the term "sanctity". by redefining marriage to include acts that are against that religion's laws, we therefore remove it from being under the diety's sanction.
by stopping that redefinition, the "sanctity of marriage" is thus protected.
of course, the flaw in that argument is that it's not up to the government to protect the sanctity of anything, that is the job of religious institutions.
I personally am against "marriage" as an institution of government entirely. let the religious institutions deal with it. let's have the government merely define contractual family obligations between any number or gender of consenting adults. then everyone gets to define their family units as they wish and we are all happy. even the fundie mormons as long as the polygamy involves girls above the age of consent.
Marriage has always been a civil institution--a way to coordinate properties and care for children. That's the reason a mayor or ship's captain or Justice of the Peace can perform marriages--because it's essentially not a religious contract, but a civil one, which every religion has ways to relate to.
Occasionally, I think that "marriage" should only be for families with underage children, and everyone else should have "civil unions." And let churches' notions of "who is really married" make no more difference to the law than their notions of "who is really baptised"... being spiritually pure doesn't exempt you from a scrubdown before surgery, and being spiritually married doesn't exempt you from taxes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-29 08:44 pm (UTC)many religions consider marriage to be something sanctioned by that religion's diety. hence the term "sanctity". by redefining marriage to include acts that are against that religion's laws, we therefore remove it from being under the diety's sanction.
by stopping that redefinition, the "sanctity of marriage" is thus protected.
of course, the flaw in that argument is that it's not up to the government to protect the sanctity of anything, that is the job of religious institutions.
I personally am against "marriage" as an institution of government entirely. let the religious institutions deal with it. let's have the government merely define contractual family obligations between any number or gender of consenting adults. then everyone gets to define their family units as they wish and we are all happy. even the fundie mormons as long as the polygamy involves girls above the age of consent.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-30 07:07 am (UTC)Occasionally, I think that "marriage" should only be for families with underage children, and everyone else should have "civil unions." And let churches' notions of "who is really married" make no more difference to the law than their notions of "who is really baptised"... being spiritually pure doesn't exempt you from a scrubdown before surgery, and being spiritually married doesn't exempt you from taxes.