Religion and Politics and Partnerships

[talon]

Rev. Welton Gaddy, Baptist minister and President of Interfaith Alliance:
"We are pleased to see that Judge Vaughn Walker was sensitive to the concerns of people of faith who oppose same-gender marriage on religious grounds but that he recognized, as do we, that their religious freedom will not be impacted by the legalization of same-gender marriage. America's diverse religious landscape leaves room for a variety of theological perspectives on same-gender marriage; indeed, some faiths enthusiastically support it and others vehemently oppose it. Under this ruling, as with any constitutionally based marriage equality law, no religion would ever be required to condone same-gender marriage, and no member of the clergy would ever be required to perform a wedding ceremony not in accordance with his or her religious beliefs."

Once upon a time, in some fantasy or other, marriage was strictly a religious undertaking that had absolutely nothing to do with taxes, inheritance laws, protection, property, and politics. It was a pure relationship that was strictly between the couple and their God of choice - no one else stood between them and no human intervention could sunder what a God had joined together.

What a bunch of hooey.

We all know that marriage is a human institution, designed to afford protection, property rights, political advantages, financial advantages, and to simplify inheritance of said properties - and for the government to benefit through a more orderly form of taxation and a way to better order and control their citizens.

Marriage is a civil and legal institution, otherwise we wouldn't need a government-issued license for it or go through civil divorce courts to dissolve the marriage, nor would the civil laws govern what spouses do or alter their taxes or govern their inheritances or otherwise dictate to the married what they can and cannot do as part of the marriage. If marriage were a religious institute, it would all be done by ministers without the approval or intervention of judges and court clerks, nor would ministers have to be registered at the civil courthouse and licensed to perform legal marriages. The religions would determine what rights and benefits and obligations the married have to one another.

That's not the way it is. The government controls who and what a marriage is and the religions have for centuries merely complied with the civil injunctions, providing a religious blessing of the civil union.

The Jewish Orthodox Union fears that a same sex marriage "poses a grave threat to the fundamental civil right of religious freedom", but they don't go into specifics of how this does, as they won't be required to perform same sex marriages if they don't want to.

The Family Research Council has perhaps the most inane argument of all: " Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union." If marriage was meant for reproductive purposes only and to raise the children produced from that, why then do we have so many single parents raising children, so many babies born to single mothers, and so many couples living child-free while married? Marriage is recognized as a public institution not for procreation purposes, but for taxes and property management and politics. Governments know that people who pledge to take care of one another are more stable as citizens and more willing to obey their laws and to keep the status quo. Marriage is a way for governments to control their citizenry. I suppose one could also say marriage is a way for religions to control their adherents. Marriage is about ownership - who owns you and how they own you. Governments and religions both want to own you and control you, tax you, tell you who you can will your wealth to, and what you can do with your property. This is evident in a statement shared by both the Church of the Latter-day Saints and the Catholic Church in the form of Cardinal George: " Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of society". It is even more true if you remove the "between a man and a woman" bit.

Of course, Cardinal George then went and supported gay rights by saying, " No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined." We all know that homosexuality spans nature's spectrum, as does gender-switching, and single parenting, and a whole diverse range of hooking up and providing for one another. What he's saying with this statement is that no court of civil law has the right to forbid any sort of marriage between any subset of human beings. If that's not what he meant to say, then he needed to be much more specific.

It has always been my firm belief that religions are supposed to protect their adherents from the tyranny and oppression of civil governments, to offer solace and support and sanctuary, not to be the arbiters of tyranny and oppression. By trying to force all people into their narrow definition of "marriage", these religions are trying, strenuously, to exert a strong control and ownership of not just their adherents, but of all humans.

I have to admit here I don't know if it was Numenism that shaped my beliefs or if it was my beliefs that shaped Numenism in this regard. Numenism and I grew up together, as it were. I became a Numenist when I was very young and when Numenism itself was very new and have always been a vocal and active participant in developing Numenism. We have shaped one another, often in ways that seem inextricable to me.

In Numenism, we support any form of "marriage" between consenting adults. Both "consenting" and "adult" must be present, which excludes automatically marriages with or between minors (consenting or not), and marriages between non-consenting adults, and marriages with non-humans as we don't currently have a way of obtaining informed consent. It does not, however, exclude marriages between people of the same gender identification, between people of different gender identification, nor the number of consenting adults in the marriage. And really - "marriage" is no longer the correct term. It is so outdated and inaccurate for modern times we really should find a better term.

In Numenism, we generally call it a "partnership" and encourage those members who choose a modern familial relationship of more than 2 consenting adults to create a company, a legal partnership to safeguard their property, assets, and persons. There are clauses whereby partners can dissolve their association, and clauses that provide for any offspring via shares in the company. It's a closed private corporation that includes condom compacts for those consenting adults who wish to have sexual relations, but not every partner in the company is required to be a part of the condom compact.

Think of it sort of in the terms of a law firm - there are named partners, associates, and interns. Interns would be the children. You protect and teach and encourage the interns who participate in the business in limited ways. Interns are fully protected by the named partners until they reach their legal majority. Interns, when they reach their legal majority, become associates. While most associates who apply for "membership" in a "firm" hope for named partnership somewhere down the road, interns who grow up to become associates can never become a named partner in this "firm", but they can form their own "firm" with their own named partners, create or adopt interns, attract associates, and remain affiliated with their parent "firm". Associates other than adult interns are applicants to join the firm with full rights and benefits, and may come and go until they find the right "firm". The named partners are the core of the firm, making all the important decisions and controlling the assets and providing direction, guidance, and benefits for everyone else affiliated with it. Only named partners and associates who were never interns in that "firm" can be part of a condom compact. As a company, the named partners and the interns enjoy full shares benefits. Associates receive what shares and benefits the named partners determine.

Numenism is a newish religion (in 35 years, it will be a century old!) and still very small numerically so we only have a few such partnerships, two are childless (one has 3 partners with a condom compact and a changing number of associates and no interns, one has 6 named partners - 2 with a condom compact together and 3 with a separate condom compact and one with no condom compact - and no associates or interns), one is entirely chaste (no condom compact, therefore no sexual relations between the 4 partners, with a changing number of associates and no interns), and only one had children (5 named partners - 3 with a condom compact and 10 associates - 8 were interns, a mix of birth and adopted children; they've all achieved their legal majority), one has 2 named partners with 34 associates who will never be named partners (mostly siblings - one comes from a very large non-Numenist family) and no interns, one has 2 named partners with 2 interns and a dozen associates.

We'd used the company metaphor before, but K suggested the law firm metaphor and it really seems to suit much better. Named partners could simply be a couple, with the associates being their siblings, close friends, and their own parents, aunts, uncles, and cousins; and if they have children, the children would be their interns until they grew up to become associates. Or, as in our cases, we have "firms" with 2+ named partners, an array of associates, condom compacts, and interns.

I really do think we need to, as a society, rethink what "marriage" is and modernize it, maybe even eliminate "marriage" and create something more appropriate in its place, something applicable to the entire range of human consenting adult relationships.