This issue is about law and what marriage laws grant to individuals. Our marriage laws grant legal duties, legal obligations, and legal benefits which have nothing to do w/ religion.
However, this issue swirls around in misinformation wrapped in emotion and angst by some and fear by others. How sad. Let's try some stoic unemotional law for clarity. Just to clear the air.
First of all, in Massachusetts same sex marriage is legal and is based upon sound and rational and reasonable facts and law. For example, the Massachusetts marriage laws have
never been based upon religion,
never in it's entire history:
"Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution. See Commonwealth v. Munson, 127 Mass. 459, 460-466 (1879) (noting that "in Massachusetts, from very early times, the requisites of a valid marriage have been regulated by statutes of the Colony, Province, and Commonwealth," and surveying marriage statutes from 1639 through 1834). No religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts marriage. Id." (Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, ___ Mass. ____, SJC-08860, November 18, 2003, italicized emphasis added.) Please read that above quote from the
Goodridge court decision very carefully, very closely because it recites the history of marriage in Massachusetts. And that's what the law relies upon. It relies upon facts, factual history, case law, legislative made law, and the Massachusetts constitution.
A religion in any State in the U.S.A. cannot marry people without the state government granting someone within that religion authority/power to perform a marriage ceremony, period. Read that last sentence, closely. The State has the power and authority, not a religion!
Each and every state in America (via its constitution and legislative made law) grants certain individuals in their respective states the authority (and power) to perform marriage ceremonies, whether religious ceremonies or otherwise. Again, it is within the power of the State to so grant this authority.
No religion in America has the power or authority to perform a marriage ceremony UNLESS it is granted that power/authority by the State government.
It's never EVER been the other way around in America, NEVER.
Second of all, marriage in and of itself grants each marriage partner certain benefits, obligations, and duties in both state and federal laws. As opposed to non-marrieds who can never partake in these benefits, obligations, and duties conferred upon marrieds.
This is the turning issue in this entire ill-informed "debate" . . . benefits, duties, obligations, and privileges granted in law to marrieds only, both in state laws and in federal laws. For a shortened overview of these state and federal laws, please see:
http://www.glad.org/rights/PBOsOfMarriage.pdf (this requires Adobe Reader)
And, most importantly, in America where all people are treated equally, where we do not discriminate against groups of citizens, and where citizens cannot be denied due process of our laws, we cannot under our federal constitution deny the marriage laws to some and grant those same marriage laws to others.
Finally, as to that *new* thing called "civil unions" . . . "civil unions" will never be the same as "same-sex marriage" because there is no way that each and every State in the nation will pass the same (approximate 300 plus) State laws as all the other States as to "civil unions" to kick in State legal duties, obligations, privileges, and benefits. As well as there's no way that the federal government will pass laws to kick in all the duties, obligations, benefits and privileges of all the 1,100 plus federal laws that marrieds-only now have in federal law. So, in short, no matter how its framed, so-called "civil unions" will never be the same as marriage.
There's an abbreviated chart about this very issue -- a comparison of marrieds-only versus civil unions versus no-marrieds:
http://www.glad.org/rights/Marriage_v_CU_chart.pdf (requires Adobe Reader).
In addition, there's U.S. Supreme Court case law that over-rules "separate but equal" which may be analogous to "civil unions" as equal to marriage; therefore rule "civil unions" as unconstitutional. (See, e.g.,
Plessy upholding segregation in the public schools as long as "separate but equal," and
Brown v Board of Education over-ruling
Plessy.)
I certainly hope that this clears the vision of some who have doubts and fears that some in America have attempted to tweak, particularly the rightwing element who strive to use religion for votes, and to place discrimination into our laws.
And one last thing. Same sex marriage will not take away any religions' right to say "NO!" to marrying a homosexual couple.
Religions may discrimination against same-sex marriage if it's within their religious beliefs to do so. It's pure fiction to fear that any State in America can force a religion to marry anyone against that religion's religious beliefs/tenets. Religious freedom is express in the constitution's first amendment.
And that's it, in a nutshell. Family law as to same-sex couples and marriage and "civil unions."
. . . A word of precaution . . . be wary whenever a religion says this or that about same-sex marriage . . . remember that they may (I say "may" here) have their hand in the pot of Bush's "faith-based initiatives" . . . which may (I say "may" here) taint their perception on this issue . . . Bush has been hyping his wares in Churches across America . . .
edited to add photo, Massachusetts statehouse:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .![](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v503/TaleWgnDg/individual%20rights/Supportersofsame-sexmarriageholdupbannersinfrontoftheStateHouse.jpg)
.