The Hardline on Eight

I'm going adopt a libertarian opinion on Prop Eight that I think is reasonable. My sentiments are with the proponents and I will vote to affirm it despite a technical issue.

I have always asserted a state interest in domestic tranquility by which I mean that the state has some interest in registration of domestic partners for the implications of family court - essentially a recognition, if slightly Orwellian, of a gay common law marriage. I have however been more focused on the dishonesty of the advocates for the cause of gay marriage. I will however submit that there is a case to be made, for two reasons.

The first and most important is the possibility which I have been informed exists, that there are certain tax benefits and remaining inequalities between today's 'state of the art' civil unions and those of traditional marrieds in the State of California. I find it difficult to believe, but possible. My simple argument would be that it ought to be inevitable through a direct parallel to the Civil Rights Movement, for plaintiffs to bring the proper test cases before the courts and win in each and every instance. To shortcut that legal process by judicial fiat is unacceptable, but understandable. The very fact that the highest court in California was bold enough to make such a declaration is testimony to the fact that the prudent path would be rewarded.

The second has to do with the consequences of the burdens a legal recognition of marriage would put on religious traditions. I'm sure I've got the words right at least once, so let me find them lest I do damage to the intent of my argument.

We have common law marriages recognized by the state as regards property rights, benefits eligibility and parental rights. The state establishes, de facto civil unions which are not recognized as religious sacraments for these and other reasons, but these are entirely independent of those rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The rights and responsibilities of partners in civil unions and common law marriages are are defended for different reasons than that of a religious rite of gay marriage. Gay domestic partners should be considered similarly to common law partners for civil purposes.

Therefore the state should not *recognize* 'Marriage' any more than it recognizes 'Extreme Unction'. The state buries unidentified bodies in the ground but that does not make it a Funeral. The state recognizes civil unions but that doesn't make them Marriages.

It is important that the state make it clear that its acceptance of any marriage rited certified by a religious body is only accepted in the same way as any other religious rite, balanced as they are against the state's compelling interest in domestic tranquility. The state does not or should not give standing to religious exercise.

Is then Marriage recognized by the state? I beleive that the state can substantially recognize all the qualities of marriage without endorsement of its articles of faith. And for this reason a civil union can in fact be functionally equivalent to a marriage. But it cannot be a marriage which is, as I've said, axiomatically ordained of God. All protestation to the contrary, Churches do have the equivalent of a trademark on the word, and those who seek the mask of respectability afforded marriage without the blessing of the Church, well they are on their own without God.

What then of the weddings of atheists? Are their marriages ordained of God? Strictly speaking, they are civil unions. A justice of the peace is not a priest, so when a state vests authority in a justice of the peace it is not establishing religion.

The attempt of Prop 8 seen in this light is somewhat problematic in that it reduces the entirety of Holy Matrimony to the fundament of man + woman. Thus it cannot be said the state in defeating 8 is actually defeating the recognition of religious tradition. However if it is a fair representation of the substance of the matter in question, one should ask what the defeating of that substance by the recognition of the state does to actual religious practice. I am very concerned that religious practice can be compelled to be comported with the view of the state and this is the hard and bottom line.

I don't quite understand why I have not been able to find more language to that effect on the Pro Eight website. It was there last week but they've thrown all of their eggs into the obvious other point I made last week - this is for the children. Yes Gay Marriage will be taught in public schools like every other multicultural blathering.

I find it quite significant to the extent that American public education commodifies identity that some social declarations emanating from the state, even from case law, has come to be defining of ethics. In our Orwellian future, you are what the state allows. True and just values do not come from people, but from The People. As Holy Matrimony becomes a quaint derivative ceremony the end draws near.