Beyond the Cusp

December 11, 2017

Lowdown on the Entire Jerusalem Fiasco

 

President Trump did indeed say, “I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver. Today, I am delivering.” A little while later he added, “Israel is a sovereign nation with the right, like every other sovereign nation, to determine its own capital. Acknowledging this as a fact is a necessary condition for achieving peace.” Then he stated, “Jerusalem is the seat of the modern Israeli government. It is the home of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, as well as the Israeli Supreme Court. It is the location of the official residence of the Prime Minister and the President. It is the headquarters of many government ministries. For decades, visiting American presidents, secretaries of state, and military leaders have met their Israeli counterparts in Jerusalem, as I did on my trip to Israel earlier this year.”

 

Moving along we get to where President Trump stated the obvious, “Jerusalem is not just the heart of three great religions, but it is now also the heart of one of the most successful democracies in the world. Over the past seven decades, the Israeli people have built a country where Jews, Muslims, and Christians, and people of all faiths, are free to live and worship according to their conscience and according to their beliefs.” Then started the qualifying his statements thus far when he limited where Jews can pray excluding them from prayer on the Temple Mount just as the Muslims and Arab Palestinians have demanded things be stating, “Jerusalem is today, and must remain, a place where Jews pray at the Western Wall, where Christians walk the Stations of the Cross, and where Muslims worship at Al-Aqsa Mosque.” Then comes the teaser, “But today, we finally acknowledge the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do. It is something that has to be done. That is why, consistent with the Jerusalem Embassy Act, I am also directing the State Department to begin preparation to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.”

 

This was a validly true statement which might have carried a lot of weight had President Trump not added this little gem, “In making these announcements, I also want to make one point very clear: This decision is not intended in any way to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position on any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or the resolution of contested borders.” And shortly thereafter, things went from weak to expanding wiggle room stating, “Without question, Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive issues in those talks. The United States would support a two-state solution if agreed to by both sides. In the meantime, I call on all parties to maintain the status quo at Jerusalem’s holy sites, including the Temple Mount, also known as Haram al-Sharif.” Then came stating the obvious and the empty promises with these two lines, “There will, of course, be disagreement and dissent regarding this announcement. But we are confident that ultimately, as we work through these disagreements, we will arrive at a peace and a place far greater in understanding and cooperation.” Now was time for optimism and President Trump did not disappoint as he restated from the Summit in Saudi Arabia adding, “I repeat the message I delivered at the historic and extraordinary summit in Saudi Arabia earlier this year, The Middle East is a region rich with culture, spirit, and history. Its people are brilliant, proud, and diverse, vibrant and strong. But the incredible future awaiting this region is held at bay by bloodshed, ignorance, and terror. Vice President Pence will travel to the region in the coming days to reaffirm our commitment to work with partners throughout the Middle East to defeat radicalism that threatens the hopes and dreams of future generations.”

 

We apologize for repeating close to half of the speech, but the path taken was less than perfectly straight as it took some nasty curves and swerves around the obvious doing everything necessary to keep Jerusalem in play. President Trump was not about to give up the largest chip in his hand before he could use it in a bet to gather concessions from one side or the other. President Trump still believes that as a businessman he has what others lacked, the magic touch with which to arrange the perfect, you give they give and each takes half of this and that presto-chango and you have an Arab-Israeli peace deal. We really hate to burst President Trump’s bubble, but there is one stopper to a peace deal which even he, the great realestate magician, will find he cannot crack, Mahmoud Abbas and his final demands. What can President Trump offer Mahmoud Abbas in exchange for surrendering on the complete eradication of the Jewish State and the reduction to nil of the Jews residing there? This has been Israel’s Ace in the hole as no matter what is offered, we know that Mahmoud Abbas will say no as long as Israel remains the Jewish State.

 

The two main historic points of negotiations were the 2000 Camp David Summit between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat overseen and assisted by President William Jefferson Clinton. One can read a complete story which covers much of the negotiations by Wikipedia of the 2000 Camp David Summit but we will give our summation as well. As one would expect, there were accusations and insults passed back and forth until the two main parties refused to sit in the same room. The Camp David part of the negotiations ended with severe acrimony. President Clinton is persistent if nothing else and he demanded that the parties meet in Paris to try again, this time with his taking a more active role, he was convinced that his gifts of persuasion could alter what had previously proven to be an intractable situation. The talks again broke down quickly so President Clinton stepped into the breach. He spoke with Ehud Barak and demanded he define his best offer which he took to Yasser Arafat, after exacting out of Barak every inch of land and other allowance and benevolence until he was satisfied he had a presentable agreement. Then he took this to Yasser Arafat and the offer was refused, as we could have told President Clinton it would have been. President Clinton is not one to be put off that easily, so he worked for a few more hours with Arafat until he got him to put forth a proposed settlement that he would accept. Of course, Arafat gave President Clinton a set of terms he was sure that Ehud Barak would never accept even under torture. President Clinton truly was persuasive when upon returning to Barak he got him to accept whatever deal Arafat had proposed. President Clinton then sent invitations to both parties to attend breakfast the next morning without, apparently, telling either side there would be a signing ceremony. When Arafat came down a short time after Barak and saw papers laid out on the table and the media in attendance, he shot straight through the room, out the front door with Madeline Albright chasing after him, and into his car heading straight to the airport and took flight to Queen Alia International Airport in Amman, Jordan. There is contention as to what exactly was in the final presumed agreement but many claim it was a generous offer which was the most ever offered up to that point.

 

A while later President George W. Bush was persuaded, likely by his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to take a shot at Middle East peace. Summations of the final settlement offered which was refused by Abbas can be read from these sources; Jerusalem Post, Wikipedia, Haaretz, Times of Israel and an interesting editorial from the New York Times. He arranged meetings between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas along with shuttle diplomacy with diplomats and officials flying between Washington D.C. and both Jerusalem and Nablus. The result was the definitive offer of the most it is likely Israel would or ever will be willing to provide. This was supposed to be the greatest and closest offer which could be and still, as it left the State of Israel intact as the Jewish State, this made it unacceptable to the terrorist leadership of the Palestinian Arabs. Many have pointed out that the Israeli People have suffered and will continue to suffer from terror attacks and threats which we have seen can be set in motion like a water spigot, simply say the words “Days of Rage” and the rioting begins and will continue until requested to end by the terror leaders of the Arab Palestinians. Those who riot are the youth and a core of instigators who are hardened terrorist planners, trainers and facilitators. The other sufferers are the Arabs Palestinians as their wealth is stolen, they are subjected to the disturbances as are the Israelis, are forced to support terrorism which of which many are not necessarily in favor and are forced to live in an atmosphere unfavorable for their making an honest living. This has been proven from some who have committed acts of terror who confess that they did so for the money their family would receive, as it was the most prosperous means they had left to them. Allow us to offer up a commentary on the aforementioned Palestinian Authority pay for slay policies.

 

Prime Minister Olmert, President Bush and Mahmoud Abbas

Prime Minister Olmert, President Bush and Mahmoud Abbas

 

Let us now move on to the commentary about Jerusalem and its relations as the capital city of the State of Israel and what the President of the Czech Republic stated recently. The following quotes were taken from two articles, Czech President Blasts EU over Jerusalem Stance and Czech President Hints: We could move embassy to Jerusalem which were both published by Arutz Sheva.

 

“The European Union, cowards, are doing all they can so a pro-Palestinian terrorist movement can have supremacy over a pro-Israeli movement,” said Czech President Milos Zeman commenting before delegates attending the congress of the nationalist Freedom and Direct Democracy party. President Milos Zeman had stated formerly, “Trump’s decision makes me happy because when I visited Israel four years ago, I said that I would like to transfer the embassy, and that if that happens, we will be the first to do so,” He added at that time, “Every country has the right to decide which city will serve as its capital, and by the same token, every country has the right to decide where its embassy will be located. Trump’s move was meant to demonstrate the self-confidence of the United States, and that’s very positive.”

 

The Czech Republic followed in the footsteps of U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday and said it recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel within limitations, as apparently nobody is quite brave enough to state the truth, that everything west of the Jordan River is rightfully and legally belonging to Israel and there can be no other legal claim. The Palestinian Arabs are guaranteed the right to open and unencumbered employment, legal rights, property rights, and social rights but are restricted from political rights which remains definable as the State of Israel cares to define them. A statement issued by the Czech foreign ministry stated, “The Czech Republic currently, before the peace between Israel and Palestine is signed, recognizes Jerusalem to be in fact the capital of Israel in the borders of the demarcation line from 1967.” They added the formal weasel wordings of the European establishment doing all they can to eradicate Israel even if in steps adding, “The Ministry can start considering moving of the Czech embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem only based on results of negotiations with key partners in the region and in the world.”

 

Returning to our own commentary, we simply wonder how long the world, led by the Arab League who are faithfully followed by the Europeans and the United Nations and encouraged by the leftist and far right media and too many other sources and nations in a never ending plotting to destroy Israel. The British did all they could from the moment they took control of the Mandate to form the Jewish State out of the lands handed them to make sure that the Jewish State would never materialize. Their first move was to take 78% of the British Mandate and make the Arab State of Transjordan, today known as Jordan, giving it to the Hashemite family and King Abdullah I bin al-Hussein, as compensation for his family losing their former rule over the Two Holy Cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina, which were conquered after World War I by the Saudis filling the vacuum left when the Ottoman Empire collapsed. This took care of all the lands east of the Jordan River. The British, in conjunction with the surrounding Arab nations and the Arab League, always made sure to keep an Arab majority in the lands west of the Jordan River so they could refuse giving the Jews sovereignty, as they were a minority. This was very costly to world Judaism as the British imposed a cap on Jewish immigration to their holdings of seventy-five-thousand per year and, in order to assure this cap was never breached, they seldom even permitted the full number. According to Jewish Virtual Library the decade from 1929 through 1939 approximately one-quarter of a million Jews were permitted entry into the British Mandate area for the Jewish State meaning that the British actually allowed twenty-five-thousand Jews per year out of the set limit of seventy-five-thousand. The British finally decided to relinquish the headache of trying to keep order between the Arabs and Jews which would regularly explode between them and both were also working to rid the land of the British. All in all, this made the British continued command of the Mandate a burden no longer acceptable, so they set a date of May 15, 1948 for their departure. The United Nations General Assembly made a suggestion to divide the land, which legally all was an aside for the Jewish State, and despite having legal claim, the Zionist Congress and Jewish authorities accepted but the Arab League refused which voided the entire resolution. This meant the lands west of the Jordan River relented back to the original Mandate of forming a Jewish homeland and Israel came into being on the date of May 15, 1948 defined as all the lands west of the Jordan River. Any lands taken in the ensuing war of Arab aggression were illegally occupied. The Gaza was subsequently released by Israel to the Palestinian Authority who lost it soon after to Hamas. The area historically known as Judea and Samaria (Jordan renamed West Bank to remove the Jewish sounding names) is still legally defined as part of the Jewish State unless or until Israel decides otherwise. Should Israel decide to apply their rule over the entirety of Judea and Samaria, it is within their legal purview. What the world need realize and admit is Israel also does not have to provide political rights such as voting in national elections or even local elections, in areas Israel desires they not have a political say, as Israel is only required to provide social rights, religious rights, financial rights and other rights other than those of a political nature according to all the original resolutions, treaties and other measures all based on the Balfour Declaration and its specific wording.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Advertisements

February 11, 2017

Why Does Israel Continue to Exist Today?

 

Ask the average American irreligious or slightly religious Jew, many call them secular Jews or twice a year Jews who only visit the synagogue for the High Holidays and celebrate Hanukkah almost as if it were the Jewish Christmas even to having what they call a Hanukkah Bush (it really is a Christmas Tree with a six pointed star on top instead of a five pointed star). Ask the Jewish leadership of the Anti-Defamation League. Ask Rabbi Rick Jacobs, President of the Union for Reform Judaism. Ask Gideon Levy who writes for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Ask J-Street, B’Tselem, Peace Now or any of the plethora of misnamed human rights groups which act as Palestinian Arab critical support and fifth column against Israeli interests. The list of people and groups one can ask extends throughout Europe and the entire world with an ever growing number vocally screaming foul over the latest law passed by the Knesset which makes the Jewish communities anywhere west of the Jordan River legal, even those in the, dare we say it, West Bank, formerly known as Judea and Samaria for close to three thousand years. All these protesters keep repeating that this law will destroy the Israeli democracy and disenfranchise Arabs in Israel. This is total bunk. The Israeli Arabs will not be affected by this law in any way or by any means, period. Arabs will still be permitted to work in any position they are qualified to and desire, they will continue to be doctors, nurses, lawyers, Ministers in the Knesset, judges including on the Supreme Court, drivers, construction, engineering or anything they can dream. They will still own their homes, live where they choose, attend schools of their choice, attend church, Mosque, Synagogue or other religious institution of their choice, drive, ride all forms of transportation, vote in all elections and everything else as citizens of Israel. Guess that democracy thing will survive.

 

I hear the yelling already, “What about the Palestinians voting?” Well, tell you what, whenever Mahmoud Abbas decides that elections are due, then they can have elections. Abbas is serving his twelfth year of a four year term which started in January 2005. The reason the Palestinian Arabs have not voted is because the Palestinian Authority, which means Mahmoud Abbas who has become its dictatorial ruler, has suspended their democratic processes as Abbas knows he would never win in a fair election and the deceit necessary to have him win is beyond his personal ability to manage as there are those standing ready for any opportunity to replace him. Israel has absolutely no control over elections for the Palestinian authority any more than it has over elections in Gaza ruled by Hamas. Where Israel is often faulted for the lack of opportunity to vote for their government by the Arab Palestinians, it has no validity and nothing to do with Arab Israelis who have full rights and do vote in Israeli elections. What happens to the Palestinian Arabs has more to do with their true intentions and the actual and real meaning and purpose of the State of Israel. We will try and clarify both in the remainder of this article and hope we can at least set a few misconceptions straight.

 

First, let us cover the easiest misperception, that Israel was founded to be a democracy. Not even slightly true. Israel was founded to be the homeland for the Jewish People. It is that simple. Read the Balfour Declarations (see image below) and you will see nary a word about democracy throughout. Read the San Remo Conference and again nary a word about elections, democracy or anything covering governance. Everything in every treaty, conference, document and even the Mandate Rules written by the League of Nations have no reference to democracy or anything about how the State of Israel was to be governed. The main points were that it was to be the homeland for the Jewish People and it could not deprive the residents residing in the land of their freedoms to own property, practice their religion and all civil and religious rights but says nothing about political rights. According to all of the laws etcetera regarding the making and founding of the State of Israel, the form of governance is completely unmentioned leaving it up to the Jews, the Zionists, to decide as they formed their nation. Technically, Israel could legally limit the right to vote to Jews or even to practicing Jews. Israel did not take that path. Israel gave full rights to their population whether Jewish or not. That is why Arabs are full voting citizens of the State of Israel as are many other peoples who were present or have been allowed citizenship as refugees from persecution. The Arabs who remained in Israel did not join the Arab forces who attacked Israel in the 1948 Arab War of Genocidal Intent launched by the Arab World on Israel’s founding morning of May 15, 1948.

 

Balfour Declaration and Initial Proposed Map and Lands

Balfour Declaration and
Initial Proposed Map and Lands

 

As a result of that war, what in Israel is euphemistically called the Israeli War of Independence and is celebrated as a victory as Israel survived, yet the reality comes to territory where Israel lost major parts of Judea and Samaria to Jordan who renamed that area the West Bank while Egypt took over the Gaza Strip. There were some Arab villages which harbored fighters which attacked the Israeli forces from behind the lines which lead to the Israeli forces dispossessing the entire village as that was the expedient way of addressing the situation most efficiently and immediately deciding that the villagers were at the least partially responsible for the use of their areas for staging a rear attack and that they were acting as a fifth column. Much has been misrepresented about these actions claiming that these villagers were dispossessed of their lands simply because they were Arabs and nothing else, ignoring their harboring of Arab forces which were planted in order to attack Israeli forces from behind and cutting off their routes of supply and assaulting the civilians claiming that every Jew was a legitimate target. These differences will never be resolved and can only be mitigated by what means will allow.

 

We have settled that the only real meanings behind the founding of Israel was to take some desert, swamp lands and rock strewn hills into the Jewish homeland. The few people residing in these lands at the end of World War I, a sparse set of peoples strewn here and there, were guaranteed their civil and religious rights such as continued ownership of lands, herds, business, residence and other properties as well as rights to worship in their traditional methods and follow their religions freely. The existing residents were not guaranteed political rights which were reserved technically for the Jewish People if this were the decision of the Zionist Congress upon the founding of the state. When Israel was founded on May 15, 1948 one might say that everything hit the fan as forces from more than a half dozen Arab armies and militias attacked Israel from every possible direction. Peace was not achieved for over a year and when the decision of governance was finally addressed the leadership from the Zionist Congress and the other groups such as the Haganah reached the decision to extend full political rights to all the residents in the nation, Arabs, Jews, Christians, Bedouins, Druze, Baha’I and other smaller minority groups all as one democratic nation. This was the first actual decision on using a democracy and it is notable that the democracy was all inclusive of those who were not opposed to the Jews having their own state. This is how and why Israel is a democracy.

 

When the State of Israel was founded, the Palestinian Arabs were not citizens of Israel but were Arabs residing in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia as well as some Iraqis, Turks, Yemenis and others who were part of the invading forces and who remained on the lands or were actually driven onto the lands by their governments in order to make what have become known as facts on the ground. The claims that all of the Palestinian Arabs came from inside Israel is a common factual lie which has been repeated so often with such force and echo-chamber reinforced, the world now accepts it as factual. This is the main drive behind the two state concept as the claim is Israel owes the remnant of her invaders their own nation. This misconception has poisoned the waters so permanently that a solution would be difficult if this was the sole difficulty. There is a further problem in that the Arabs do not believe that the Jews have any right to a homeland within what they see as the Muslim Ummah. Their claim is that throughout all history, which for the Muslims begins in 625, there have been no Jewish lands within the lands they conquered and colonized. The reality is that the Arabs have the longest running and most extensive colonial enterprise in world history. They also are under the belief that the problem with the world is that it has not yet, emphasis on yet, come under the rule of Allah and the dictatorial rule of Islam. Until they are disabused of this notion, Israel, as well as the world in total, can never feel safe from the next Islamic offensive, something the Europeans should remember from their own history as Islam has attacked through Spain only to be turned at Tours by Charles “the Hammer” Martel and twice from Turkey Ottoman Empire being turned back at the Battle of Vienna, the first attack being stopped in 1529 and the second assault turned back by Polish King John III Sobieski in 1683.

 

Israel, conceived, initiated and founded to be the homeland of the Jewish People has faced the difficulty of a Palestinian Arab irascible obstinacy demanding they are the rightful owners of the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and that the Jews have no rights in these lands and deserve to be exterminated. This has been their first, second, and final demand and they refuse to compromise and accept anything less. Their demands are often couched in coded verbiage such as their demanding they receive their 22% of the Mandate Lands. The western leadership will almost always take that to mean that they are demanding 22% of the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea this meaning Judea and Samaria or Judea, Samaria and Gaza. What Abbas actually means and has explained as his meaning is 22% of the entire of the Mandate Lands, the 22% which consists of all the lands not taken to make Jordan which was 78% of the original Mandate Lands, the entire of the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Yasser Arafat and after him Mahmoud Abbas both demanded that Israel be destroyed and replaced by Palestine. Abbas has actually offered one compromise; his idea of a two state solution. His two state idea is for an Arab Palestine which will be completely free of Jews and an Arab ruled State of Israel where the Jews have no rights and are allowed to live at the indulgence of their betters, the Arabs which will include over five million Arabs brought from refugee camps from around the Arab world and even within Judea and Samaria and Gaza and who knows how many additional Arabs who simply claim to be refugees seeking economic betterment. Anyway one cuts it, finding a solution which will satisfy the Palestinian Arab leadership and their Arab League backers, it would require sacrificing the Jewish State making the Jews once again stateless.

 

The problem with the Arab reasoning is that history did not begin in 625 AD, especially in the lands of Judea, Samaria and the rest of the lands of the Twelve Tribes of Israel (see map on right below). The Twelve Tribes of Israel were founded when Joshua crossed the Jordan River and defeated the first Canaanite King of Jericho. This was followed with another victory at Ai and continued until the Holy Lands were conquered following numerous tactical routes first heading through the central Judean hills, then southward and finally the northern areas (shown in the left map below). This conquest began approximately 1275 BCE. Since that time virtually every conquering empire outside those in the Americas, China, Japan, and Russia but even to including the Vikings if one believes that the Greeks were originally Vikings who found the Greek climate preferable to Scandinavia, surprise, surprise, and their Triremes were modified Long Ships; they all have invaded and occupied without ever naming Jerusalem as a capital city even for a province unless the province was expressly for the Jews as was the case under the Persian Empire of Cyrus the Great. The Jewish People have an extensively long history uninterrupted with Jews residing in the lands and especially in Jerusalem constantly starting soon after the entrance of Joshua through the expansive times under Kings David and Solomon through the First Temple Period, their Babylonian exile of most of the population and their subsequent return and building of the Second Temple and expanding the Temple Mount and the remainder of their history through to the modern period. That is the real history and Israel was founded recognizing the entirety of the history, not just that which is fancifully convenient for the Islamic sensibilities.

 

Israel Through the Ages Joshua Enters to the Twelve Tribes

Israel Through the Ages Joshua Enters to the Twelve Tribes

 

Then there is the biggest fallacy of them all, that Israel conquered Palestinian Lands in the Six Day War in 1967. First thing is there has never been anything called Palestine for their land to be stolen. Palestine is the name of the region and the original use of the term Palestinian was for the Jews during the British Mandate period where the Arabs were referred to as Arabs or Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Druze, Bedouins, Egyptians or other designation of origin or tribe. When Israel regained the lands of Judea and Samaria in the 1967 Six Day War they were not conquering new lands, they were liberating their own lands which had been occupied by the Jordanians since the 1948 War. The only occupation of Judea and Samaria was by Jordan and the claim that Jordan gifted these lands to the Palestinian Arabs is a great misconception, a great invention of propaganda. The lands were originally and always Israeli and were occupied by Jordan. One cannot give away stolen lands and thus Jordan could not gift the lands to the Palestinian Arabs as it was stolen land occupied illegally by Jordan. The entire world with the exception of Britain and Pakistan refused to recognize these lands as Jordanian. Even Egypt and the Arab League refused to recognize the Jordanian occupation. Lastly, Jordan signed a peace with Israel surrendering the occupied lands of Judea and Samaria back to Israel and it was not until two years after that treaty that Jordan officially claimed to have gifted the lands to Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Arabs. That makes these lands doubly not Jordanian to give as they were not even occupying the lands when they claimed to have given them away. What is next, the Iranians claiming they gave away Hollywood to the Arab Palestinians community of Southern California? That would be just as legal as the Jordanian claims to have given land they did not even possess at the time to the Palestinian Arabs and they even made the claim retroactive to attempt to grant it some degree of validity. That simply does not wash and the land remains Israeli until such time as Israel gives it away in a treaty, something seeming more and more remote by the day.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

March 30, 2013

The Sane Solution to Same Sex Marriage

We have written about this solution that addresses the recognition of same sex couples under the law while also maintaining the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman that should satisfy both sides of the argument. It preserves marriage while granting same sex couples with the legal rights they claim to seek and does so by reducing the intrusion of government into what should be a religious matter decided by each individual house of worship. The answer is to allow houses of worship to issue marriage certificates and hold marriage ceremonies while for those couples who wish the benefits and responsibilities the state applies to couples can receive a civil union contract from the state which will allow their pairing to have all the legal rights which currently are restricted to married couples. The marriage the houses of worship would perform would not allow the couple to claim any of the benefits of those who have a civil union contract unless the married couple also satisfied the state requirements and received a civil union contract. This separates the institution of marriage from any entanglement within the legal workings of the state thus freeing the individual state governments to decide what will be acceptable as a couple in the eyes of the law while the religious institutions decide what defines a married couple. The two are separate from each other and though any couple married by a religious ceremony would very likely also qualify for receiving a civil union contract, not every recipient of a civil union contract would be eligible to be necessarily married by every religious institution. There are also other advantages and options which become available in defining marriage which is currently disallowed due to the state being the issuing body of marriage certificates.

The main advantage is that each house of worship would be enabled to define marriage in whatever manner their congregation decides it should be defined. If the house of worship only wishes to recognize marriages between people of their religion and refuses to allow mixed religion marriages, which would be that house of worship’s right and the state would have no problems as the state has no jurisdiction over any religious service or definition as per the First Amendment. On the other side, if a couple can locate a house of worship willing to marry them, then they can have a marriage license and be considered married. Also, if a couple wishes to be married but does not deem it necessary to have state sanctioning their marriage, they would not be forced to receive a civil union contract but by not receiving the state’s issuance of a civil union contract would negate them of the benefits of being a couple in the eyes of the state and in all state functions. They would not be able to file a joint tax return or necessarily be allowed to visit each other in a state run hospital or have numerous other benefits. They would still be able to be the benefactor in their wills but would face the taxes upon one’s death as if they were not a legally joined couple.

The reason we like this solution is not because it enables same sex unions as much as it removes the government from what should be a purely religious institution, marriage. The further the government can be removed from defining terms in our lives and society, the more free the society will become. It is necessary to have the government define legal contracts as those are enforced in the courts of the state. It is not necessary to have the state define anything that does not require a legal contract. Marriage was originally not a legal contract but was a moral contract issued by the religious culture. The interest of the state in marriage has been as a financial interest, a social interest, a contractual interest, and a left over remainder from when the state and church coexisted almost as one entity through much of human history. By granting the state the issuance of the civil union contract the state continues to have all the jurisdictional constraints which it currently possesses but allows for marriage to be returned to the religious sector of our society. This is something which is desirable as it is fitting to have marriage and civil union contract both exist as the state and religion have been divorced from their previous relationship and thus should have separate interests in the whole idea of marriage. The religious institutions would have their historic interest of defining the basic structure of family and all that entails. The state would have their rightful fee for the contractual legal aspect which has been the main interests of the state as well as defining family for tax and other considerations.

There is one more benefit with this solution. We have heard time and time again that all those wishing to legalize same sex marriages desire is to have the same legal rights as do heterosexual couples. By relegating marriage to religious institutions and removing it from legal and public jurisdiction and in the legal and public forum having the contractual part of marriage relegated to civil union contracts, then all who are accepted by the state, which would likely include same sex couples as the state should not have any legal reason to deny such and moral reasons are not the state’s purview, would have the same identical rights while religious institutions could define marriage in any manner they wish. Religious institutions which allow polygamy or polyandry could allow such and it would then be up to the state on whether such could receive a civil union contract and with what limitations or provisions. Since the state licenses separate from religious institutions such discrepancies should not make for the problems we are currently facing as each would define their own definitions. This is just another application of a kind of separation of powers where the state has its set of considerations, legalizations and limitations while the religious institutions have their definitions and preferences and the two do not necessarily have to match.

Beyond the Cusp

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.