Dayton finds his voice.

[richardf8]

Dayton has finally codified his views on Gay Marriage according to the Pioneer Press:

Sen. Mark Dayton said Wednesday that marriage should be redefined as a religious ceremony, allowing for a civil "marital contracts" for both gay and heterosexual couples.

"The Bible said, 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's,' " Dayton said in a conference call with reporters.

"Under the separation of Church and state, federal and state governments should leave marriage to God and to the religions of this country," he said, "and separate out the civil aspects of what is now termed marriage as a different term, whether it's legal union or marital contract."

Dayton, a Minnesota Democrat, said the federal government should establish the overall "parameters" for such contracts. But he said the focus this year should be on defeating a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Dayton made his pitch on the same day that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., urged Congress to embrace such an amendment, which Dayton called "un-American, un-Christian and unwise."

"We need to find a better answer," he added. "And we also need to avoid the mean, dehumanizing and divisive debate that a constitutional amendment would require."

When it comes to my own deep-down and personal feelings on marriage in general, Dayton here pretty perfectly reflects my mind on it. Bravo, Dayton for finally calling attention to the fact that "Marriage" as sacred contract is none of the state's damn business, and that the state's only concern should be with how to provide an interface for two people seeking to define themselves as a household in the eyes of the state.

Comments

[makovette.livejournal.com]

Bingo. That meets my personal specifications for preserving both religious and personal freedoms quite nicely.

It makes entirely too much sense of course, and so will never happen :-/

Mako

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

I've found it odd how sometimes people will support a thing only if we change the name. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but not convey the same in conversation.

Man, I wish I'd realized how that Biblical bit about Caesar could be used in defense of church-state separation.

[morgan1.livejournal.com]

Woooo Hoooo Dayton!!!!!
That is the strongest statement I've seen yet from one of our elected officials!!!!

[visservoldemort.livejournal.com]

I actually was just having a conversation on this matter, with some friends on a political discussion group I help run. They brought up that suggestion, and I said that while in principle I agree with it, I don't really think it's practical as a solution right now. I also think that if it's carried out as it would be now, should it be carried out, as a method of denying gay marriages, it may send the wrong message. In the future, however, I think it would be a great idea, perhaps in fifteen or twenty years, when the bad reasons for doing it have calmed down. As I have learnt in the last few years, agreeing on policy may not be enough, if your erstwhile ally of convenience has different reasons in mind. As my grandfather says, "Politics makes strange bedfellows...but they soon get used to the same bunk." ;) Still, it's a great idea, if it would be pushed forward for the right reasons.

[visservoldemort.livejournal.com]

There is also, and this just occured to me, the possible problems as to what "Civily-unioned" US Nationals, regardless of gender and orientation, would be considered abroad. Married? Whatever their equivilant of civily unioned? Would the religious marriages be the equivilant of their civil marriages? And so and so forth..I would however, think the idea holds some merit. But not at this point and time.