Prop 8 - Division between Church and State

By Brian J. Boeheim – Author of Political Common Sense for America

Did I miss the moment in time when religious freedom became something we voted on? If I recall, the whole reason people came all the way here, from Europe, on wooden ships was to avoid religious persecution. How then have we come to the point where the religious act of bonding two people through marriage has become something politicians stump on, judges rule on, and voters vote on. This is not about sexual preferences; this is about the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment and the right to freedom of religion. It reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

How did all of this get started?

In order to maintain control of ownership, debt, and taxation; the government once again stepped over its Constitutional authority. Through the Internal Revenue Service, and licensing laws, it has set up a legal definition for marriage. It has no authority to do that. If anything the federal government should be preventing individual states from defining marriage.

What’s next a legal definition of prayer? I can see it now, prayer as defined by lawyers and politicians. This wouldn’t just be limitations on where and when you can pray, but also how and with whom you can pray. How does that feel? Well, that is the legal equivalent of what our government is doing with the religious sanctity of marriage.

When the government stepped in front of the church, as the gate keepers for marriage, we started down a very slippery slope. By leaping over the dividing line, our political leaders have once again created a legal and political quagmire, which is the epitome of the term “religious argument”. Along with the expended time and energy, we’ve spent millions of taxpayer dollars arguing over rights which we already have.

Let’s look at what people want. First, people want to have the ability to define themselves as married in the eyes of their God. Second, people want to have the ability to share their physical lives together. Finally, the government wants to be able to define your union as a partnership, so that it can tax and impose laws upon you. So, the question is; “How hard can it be to satisfy everyone?”

Break it Down and Keep it Separate

It’s easier to find a solution if you just step back and break the problem down into its fundamental parts. First, marriage is a religious union between two people and the government has no say in it. Remember, the whole concept of separation between church and state. Second, let’s eliminate the term “marriage” from all legally binding contracts regarding ownership or debt. Let’s also eliminate the term from government documentation. Yes, that includes the IRS taxation law. This will create a clean break between church and state on the topic of binding relationships.

C3 Contract

Now that we have given marriage back to the religions, we still need to handle the day-to-day legal implications of two people joining in a life partnership. We need a definition which can be used to define couples who have decided to share their lives, property, and debt. I propose a Commitment, Cohabitation, and Collaboration contract, otherwise know as a C3 Contract. Every couple who wants to have all of the benefits, of what is now considered a legal marriage, would enter into this contract. It would replace the licensing process that states require and it would simplify the whole mess.

The C3 contract would be simple and could easily include a prenuptial agreement. The three C’s would be defined as follows: Commitment means that the two people are committed to each other until death, or such time that there is an irreconcilable breach of the contract. Cohabitation simply means that the two people must live together for over 50% of the calendar year. Finally, Collaboration means each person financially shares in all property ownership and is responsible for the other person’s debts and living expenses.

People always want to make this about same sex marriage, but there are many other people who would benefit from this shift in legal definition. What about two people in their golden years? They could improve their living environment and have the piece of mind that someone is there if they need help, without confusing the matter with any religious implications. How about two single mothers who could combine households to provide a better and safer living environment for their children? If both parties agree contractually, why shouldn’t they be considered in a legally binding partnership? The benefits would be huge. The C3 Contract would provide them a legal way to share expenses allowing them to improve their standard of living. They could also assume the “next of kin” status to make decisions in health and emergency situations. All of this while providing the government with a clear definition.

We need to get the government out of places it doesn’t belong. We need to take personal responsibility for the relationships we have, and understand how we are defining those relationships. If it is a marriage you want then go to the church, synagogue, mosque, or temple of your choice. If it is a partnership, then the C3 Contract will fit the bill perfectly for all of our citizens, not just the citizens our judges and politicians think are worthy.