In these times, the interests of the weaker spouse or children could be better protected by laws for that purpose. This is any way being done in cases of divorces or death of a spouse. It is also, arguable that stable environments can only be provided under the institution of marriage. Perhaps it is the publicly stated commitment that is more important and this can be done through Civil Unions, explicitly or implicitly, specifying conditions to be imposed on dissolution of the union by divorce or death etc.

The State should however, establish standard practices, bringing about default laws that come into play to protect the weaker spouse and the children in all such unions. In all other matters the people should be free to make their own choices.

Hence, for the Government, licensing or registration is all that it needs to serve its purposes, it could perhaps do away with the word ‘Marriage’ and substitute ‘Civil Union’ therefore, and leave the word ‘Marriage’ for use by the religious bodies. The benefits and rights accorded by the State, could be made applicable to all such ‘Civil Unions’ and thus avoid the need to get into the controversy of whether the status of such a ‘Union’ is the same as that of ‘Marriage’. This decision is best left to each religious body to define as it deems fit. The State is only Secular.

Many Countries recognize some kind of ‘Civil Union’ and make it accessible to same- sex couples and sometimes even to opposite- sex couples. (e.g.: New Zealand). While Germany, Denmark, Switzerland and the United Kingdom allow “Partnerships” having many of the same rights as married couples. The Czech Republic maintains a Registered Partnership Act exclusively for same-sex partners. South Africa and Norway have enacted a gender-neutral marriage bill. Argentina is beginning to accept a gender-neutral civil status. Iceland elected its first woman Prime Minister Ms. Johanna Sigurdardottir on 1^st Feb 2009 and who thus became the world’s first openly ‘Gay’ head of State, being ‘Married’ to another woman.

These various initiatives can be placed in different categories, with some broadening the idea of marriage, others allowing all couples to enter into an official civil union status without the same name and still others creating a new status, with a different name, and making it available to all. Many Countries are today moving in directions that reduce the directive and exclusionary role of the State and leaving it to the discretion of the many religious bodies to recognize, or not, the many forms of such relationships.

Religious leaders could thus be allowed to do as they wish, subject to default rules and criminal prohibitions. They could ‘restrict’ marriage to hetro-sexual couples or limit divorce, as they desire, and the people have the choice to accept such limitations or opt out of the religion.

This approach allows for a wide range of choice of the type of relationships increasing the choice for both individual and religious organizations alike, while at the same time reducing the unnecessary and sometimes ugly intensity of current public debates. The individuals are only required to not behave in public with each other in such a manner as to offend others.

Conclusion

Today’s Society has a web of laws and rules that need to be conformed to so as to enable equitable functioning. Relationships and commitments similar to those made by couples of opposite sexes are now required to be made even for couples of same sexes. Hence, there should be a clear distinction between Marriage – a commitment made vide a religious ceremony and a Civil Union or Partnership made under a Secular Law.

How such couples relate to each other in the sanctuary and privacy of their bedrooms should not be of concern to others, though public displays of such relationships by them, must be discouraged.

JAI BHARAT! – JAI HIND!

Pages: 1 2 3 4