A Taoist Solution to Gay Marriage

The 'Stone Marriage' of Zimzelen, a natural phenomenon in Bulgaria

What makes this a ‘taoist’ idea?

Ideally, shouldn’t all governmental action should be rooted in impartiality? Rather than seeking impartiality, many seem only to argue the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’. In the end, isn’t it the way of heaven to show no favoritism? Alas, it takes a while for the ‘way of heaven’ to work its way though the muck of earth.

Here’s the idea:

Instead of having gay marriage sanctioned or prohibited by the government, why not have all marriage-gay or otherwise-removed from the government’s domain? Instead, government could simply offer equal protection under the law to everyone through a “partnership contract”.

Such a “partnership contract” would still have restrictions agreed to be in the common best interest of society. That would preclude “partnership contracts” between siblings, animals, etc. At one time homosexuals would have also been precluded from entering such contracts. However, times have changed and there is now vast support in our culture to permit such “civil unions” between homosexual folks.

Most of the objections I hear, from both sides of the gay marriage debate, seem to center around defining the gay relationship as marriage. Removing governments role of what to call the “partnership contract” would remove governments role in sanctioning marriage, period.

Marriage has long been a religious term for the (supposedly permanent) bonding of two people. Traditionally, marriage has been limited to two people of opposite gender. It could still be, depending upon the church holding the ceremony. For example, Catholics can continue to recognize marriage between heterosexuals only, while Unitarians can view marriage as the union of two people of any gender.

Just as each religion defines God (or whatever higher power) according to its traditions, each religion could also define what marriage means for its followers.

Getting the government out of the business of defining what qualifies as ‘true love‘ or ‘true marriage‘ is no different than getting the state out of the business of defining what qualifies as the ‘true God‘, ‘true path‘, or ‘true religion‘.