SCOTUS, Tony Perkins, and Gay Marriage

Referring readers to yet another article that rankles my bones …

Quote by Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council:

“The court is not going to settle this issue. In fact, I think it does a disservice to both sides if the court weighs in on public policy like this,” said Perkins on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “The courts are designed to interpret the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws, not create public policy. When they do that, they create division and they erect barriers to reaching consensus on public policy like this.”

He’s talking about the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on the gay marriage issue.

I can’t help but wonder if SCOTUS was considering the establishment of prayer and bible reading in public schools if Perkins would consider it a “disservice” for them to weigh in on “public policy.”

Just Wondering

married

Conservatives are adamant that marriage should signify the union between a man and a woman. They tend to react in horror when laws are passed that allow two people of the same sex to wed. They even discuss impeaching the judges who support the rights of all people to join together in matrimony. One individual even made the following statement about the recent Pennsylvania decision:

 This decision is absolutely outrageous and it reads like a parody. We have moved beyond judicial activism into judicial imperialism.”

So if “marriage” between same sex individuals is so horrific, why not call it something else? Surely someone could come up with terminology that would satisfy both sides and still maintain the dignity and respect of the marital union.

Any suggestions?

 

Why Gay Marriage?

I have no problem with same-sex relationships. It’s not something I would pursue, but I believe we each have a right to our own preferences in life.

Something I don’t understand, however, is why it’s so important for gays to marry. It’s my understanding that civil unions offer the same benefits. The only difference is that the couple has not been joined in a religious ceremony.

Some say it has to do with the fact that civil unions between gay partners are not recognized in every state. But if civil unions became federal law, with all the inherent benefits of marriage, wouldn’t that suffice?

If a religious ceremony is important to a gay couple, why couldn’t a sympathetic minister perform the ceremony and issue a certificate that verified the union and satisfied any legal requirements by the government?

I guess what I’m asking is this: If gay couples were granted all the same rights as (legally-recognized) married couples, does the relationship have to be called a “marriage?” Perhaps the union could be given a different name — one that signifies it as a commited relationship with all the same dignity and respect that is attributed to the current definition of marriage.

Or maybe it’s really all a matter of semantics. Maybe we simply need to change the definition of marriage, because so long as we use that terminology, conservatives will continue to oppose any union between same sex couples.