Marriage 'Rites" vs. 'Rights"

I have been seriously delinquent in my entries...but there has been so much to think about. I did promise many of you that I would comment on Prop 8. Apropos to a demonstration here in Utah consequent to California's recent supreme court ruling, I thought the issue could use one more opinion - mine.

On May 6, the governor of Maine, John Bladacci, commented while signing a same-sex marriage bill into law, "I don't personally believe in gay marriage, but do believe in equal protection under the Constitution". This seems like the quintessential politician jabber - I do AND I don't. But really, he makes a good point that I want to elaborate on more fully

Historically, women often kept their last names when they were married and in fact, in England, when their husbands were at war or on the sea, the women and her children would move back with her father and mother and she would take on her maiden name again while living at that residence. It wasn't until land distribution and ownership issue and inheritance patterns became a governmental nightmare in the early history of the US, that governments picked marriage as the recognized, legal entity which would tie land to one family,thus combining marriage with civil rights.

However, the marriage 'rite' had been a religious 'ceremony of God' and religion has always been the grantor of this rite. Thus defining - the marriage rite. So it seems to me, that claims from both sides of the aisle (excuse the pun) seem to be somewhat misplaced and with such a morally dichotamous issue, it is easy to do so.

Same-sex marriage advocates would claim that it is their 'right' to be married. Same-sex marriage opposers would claim that marriage is defined only as a union between one man and one woman. And I would say that same-sex unions must imperatively be granted a protection of civil rights - tax benefits, power of attorney protections, healthcare decision making powers etc. - all of which are recognized rights under the Constitutional law for couples who demonstrate committment to one another. (note: we can't say rights for those married since civil unions have been recognized for more than two decades). But I don't believe that anyone has the right to the marriage rite.

In Canada, when this question was put before the Supreme Court, there were three issues put before the court, two of which asked the question related to government instituted rights as discussed above and the third would have required any clergy or Canada's justice of the peace equivalent to preform same-sex unions. This was rightly turned down, while the two civil right questions were rightly passed.

In short, people demonstrating committment to one another, whatever way that may be, and no matter what your religious or non-religious conscience dictate, require civil protections and equality under the law. Equivalently, anyone who does not want to participate in those marriages require civil protections and equality under the law.

The marriage RITE is not a civil right. The governmental benefits related to marriage are civil RIGHTS. So in the eyes of the government, unions of all kinds, must be recognized equally. In the eyes of religion, the same requirement is not obligatory. If this were not so, this would not be a democracy.