- Posted June 26, 2014 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Equality - Where I Stand
As court after court has struck down the ban on equality for long-term, same-gender couples as being unconstitutional, there are some who believe that my reporting the "news" is somehow my promoting an agenda and pushing "gay marriage".
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I have made my position on the issue of equality known for a long time and stated it in at least two previous entries at FromTheCornfield.com. At other times I have simply reported on what the courts have ruled.
Here is what I have published in two previous years:
Same-gender relationships should be afforded the benefit of state blessing just as opposite-gender relationships now are.
There is no reason to complicate or not allow equality under the law with all the benefits and protections afforded opposite- gender couples over the use of a word on the state license.
Best option is that all state licenses use the term civil union on all state documents. Let the couples have a "marriage" privately within the framework of their religious institutions or according to their moral view.
All couples, whether same-gender or opposite-gender, should be afforded the same rights and benefits under the law when receiving a license to recognize the joining of the two individuals legally.
We must ensure that all our citizens are treated equally under the law. No one class or group of individuals or couples should be granted any rights and benefits not afforded to every other group of individuals and couples.
That is how I framed my position in two previous reports:
http://fromthecornfield.com/blog1.php/shaping-the-cornfield- perspective-where January 13, 2013
http://fromthecornfield.com/blog1.php/the-cornfield-political- platform-or September 2, 2012
To explain further my position, I believe religious sects be allowed to be the only institutions allowed to perform marriage ceremonies.
But, in keeping with the 1st Amendment, those ceremonies should be considered strictly as religious ceremonies and afforded no legal status in the civil arena.
In order for those wed within their place of worship to receive state recognition, a separate civil ceremony must be performed.
This would eliminate the debate over the words "marry" and "marriage". That terminology would be relegated as religious in nature and not civil.
The idea of separation of church and state would be upheld and at the same time allow accomodation to those of faith to have the blessing of the church while keeping state recognition as a strictly civil matter.
Of course, my idea is not going to fly.
The courts are already deciding and ruling in case after case that there is a "fundamental right" to marry in the Constitution without regard to the gender of the couples seeking state recognition.
I am not pushing for anything more than equal protection and recognition under the law. The wording is not of any relevance to me.
It should be noted that not all in Christendom hold the same view or interpretation of what the Bible has to say about same- gender couples. Some denominations such as the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Episcopal Church in the US of A are welcoming of same-gender couples and believe that under the New Testament, grace recognizes that God created us all as we are.
Those who do not believe that grace covers all have the right to that perspective and belief.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord in the Light as it has shone upon us.
From the Cornfield, those who oppose equality for same-gender, long-term couples have every right to believe and hold fast to their opposition.
At the same time, those of us who believe that all couples should be seen equally under the law also have every right to believe and hold fast to our conviction.