Note From the Editor:  Occasionally we receive emails from our readers and the general public which pose questions.   Rather than address each of these questions individually or speak on behalf of the community, we feel the questions are better posed to our readers.  We encourage our readers to comment and use our tools as a forum for discussion.  

This is not a unique thought because we’ve overheard it discussed in too many coffee shops but I’d like your input.

We are hearing from religious groups all over the country that we can’t allow marriage between same sex partners because it is against God’s law, church’s doctrines, and other religious reasons. That marriage should only be between a man and a woman and (not always said) that marriage is primarily for procreation. Certainly for the last 20 centuries that has been the case – - – since most religions wanted to have enough soldiers to protect their interests against the soldiers of the other guy’s religion procreation was obviously pretty important. 

Not only Christians are against same sex marriages but so are Muslims and to a lesser extent Jews.

How do we amicably solve this problem?

One would like to point out that the First Amendment of our constitution gave us those rights. That the amendment says any American can believe in any religion  they choose to believe in. Not stated, but what we assume, is that any American can also believe or not to believe….and that would be a religion.

What shouldn’t be forgotten by either side here is that our Constitution was also an outstanding example of compromise. The founding fathers worked on the document for a long time before they all agreed.  So it would behoove the gay community and the  “straight” community to look for compromise.

So here’s a thought. 

Let’s have the governments, municipal and state and federal…get out  of the “marriage business” and give it back to the church.  The governments would require that any two people who choose to live together and procreate or not enter into a union, or partnership specifically spells out the benefits and responsibilities of such a partnership.  They pay the license fee and sign the documents and they are now legal partners.

THEN….and only then……  they can go to the church of their choice and see if that church is willing to provide a marriage ceremony?  I know that some churches will not join people with views that oppose their religion’s views. Enough said..that’s their right.  Some religions require conversions to their church’s views. That’s OK.

The partnership would be the “legal” binding that decides parental rights,  partner obligations, lay out monetary divisions in case the “partnership” is dissolved.

The “marriage” would be the “love” binding that, after all, should be the stronger of the two bonds.  Everyone would have a legal partnership and those that couldn’t have their marriage in their first church of choice would find another church.

What am I missing?

Signed,

Thinking In Long Beach