Friday, October 16, 2009

And speaking of the gays....

I feel like "GAY" is the theme of the week. I just got this email via my neighborhood listserv:

Special Board Meeting on the Proposed Initiative, Marriage Initiative of 2009

The District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics announces that there will be a Special Board Meeting on Monday, October 26, 2009 at 10:00 AM. The hearing is to determine whether the proposed initiative measure entitled "Marriage Initiative of 2009" is a proper subject for an initiative in the District of Columbia. The hearing will be held in the Old Council Chambers, first floor of the One Judiciary Square building at 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Seating will be limited. For more information, the public may call 202-727-2525 (TDD: 202-638-8916) .

I know this is off topic from Life in Fairfax Village, but it's a DC issue and darn it I 'm a DC resident who pays DC taxes. Not to mention it's my blog and I'll do what I want, but I digress. The long and short of the proposal is to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Let me preface this discussion with, I am a heterosexual Christian woman. Now... if you can bare with, I will make sense (perhaps too much sense for some).
But the Bible says....
Now I've seen people say the Bible says this about gays and that about gays. Many of the verses people reference are subject to interpretation. However, the one thing the Bible is VERY clear about is divorce. In Malachi 2:16 , God says "I hate divorce". I mean can it get any clearer. (bet you didn't think you would get a little Bible lesson on my blog)... Yet these ministers don't call divorce an abomination or an infringement on their religious beliefs. I don't recall seeing any initiatives to prohibit divorce... I'm just saying.... Moving on.
Miss V's Position
Before I give you my solution, here's how I feel... Nowhere in the Bible does God say "use the Word to judge your neighbors." God gave two commandments to hang all the laws of the prophets and those are: 1) worship no God but me and 2) love one another as I have loved you. Therefore, if two men and two women want to spend the rest of their lives together and that makes them happy, it's none of my darn business. I have enough of my plate to worry about. I do think there should be a separation of Church and State.
Miss V's Solutions
With that being said... we are really dealing with two separate realms: the spiritual realm and the civic realm. If we are saying that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman then let that exist in the spiritual realm. Therefore, anyone who's wedding is presided by an officiant of a religious institution ,then you can call it a "marriage".
In the civic realm EVERYONE (man and man, woman and woman, man and woman) who enters into a legal agreement under "State" (yes I know DC isn't a State... yesh) law has entered into a "Civil Union."
How does this work?
Let's say Boris Kodjoe (don't hate) and I decide to spend the rest of our lives together and we are residents of DC. The District would recognize our "Civil Union" then we would go to whatever church, temple, mosque to get married. If John and Ted want to spend the rest of their lives together, then the "District" would recognize their "Civil Union" and the religious institutions can decide whether they want to perform a marriage ceremony.
Why my solution is brilliant?
It satisfies everyone... 1) It doesn't impose on anybody's religious beliefs, 2) Same sex couples would receive all the legal benefits (not to mention relationship headaches) of heterosexual couples, 3) DC can tax them as a married couple (more money... woooo whoooo), and 4) I said it... hehehe.
So that's where I stand....


  1. There are 2 problems with your solution. first, it already exists. The District has "civin unions" but we call it domestic partnership. Over the last few years, the District has given domestic partners all the rights and responsibilities of married couples includding parrantage, inheritance, duty of support, etc. There is nothing a married couple can do that domestic partners cannot. (there are federal tax differences and whether other jurisdictions would recognize District "civin union" but those are beyond control of the District.)
    The second and real problem is that gays don't want civil unions. It not about the rights and responsibilities involved in marriage, it is about being treated differently tham others. Nothing prevents a gay couple from holding a ceremony to celebrate their commitment to each other. So what is gained by authorizing gay marriage is the right to say "we're married". And this is what gays want.

  2. The difference between my solution and what currently exist is that my solution proposed that everyone under District law would have a "civil union". Separation of church and state. Therefore, the District "law" does not have to use a "religious" definition of marriage. Under state law no one would be married. Marriage would be performed by a religions institution. If gays want a recognized "marriage" then they can find a religions institution willing to perform the ceremony.