+Civil Domicility, the Tectonics of Marriage ((Church + State))

"Institutions are grown and destroyed @ breath."

-OLMO

Thanks for all of the feedback that I have rec'd to date. Today I am posting this in the hopes that NYC (and other municipalities) will break the mediorce shackles that other metropoli have taken to adorn. Before bringing this to the intelligentsia that frequent Creative Tectonics and the Seismologist that undoubtedly understand the concept of trend...this was sent in good faith to the Archdiocese of Washington D.C., the Washington Post and even posted on (NYC) Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor's FB page. Although the gesture (read: the law) in D.C. is correct the trajectory of the language is not. It is in my estimation that some language hinders, splinters and divides- the 7th & 8th Wards agree emphatically...Adoremos.

Tolerance and equanimity are always gauged with vigor and scrutiny, they are still evidenced here from the 1968 riots and the liberal underpinnings of the 1990’s which helped foster a new city- one with a more modern veneer. The challenges which face the D.C. City Council have been numerous in both depth and scope, for the City is facing the daunting task of placing same sex unions on the law books in the backyard of a Washington which has not divorced itself from a strong connection towards God and organized Religion. How can the conservative establishment with a predominately Christian rooted foundation survive in an international city? One that is growing exponentially, not only in size, but in diversity of demographic?

Ultimately, whatever the Mayor of this metropolis signs into effect, has the ability to be vetoed by a Congress which conveys the interest and sentiments of an entire Nation. The crux of the argument is not whether Gay Marriage (i.e. same sex unions) should exist but rather, Can the government find and adapt language that is principled enough to include and not segregate- especially in the area of Estates Rights?

The appropriate and more progressive term for Americans, should be what I term ‘Civil Domicility’. Marriage is language used to define a rite or a sacrament conveyed upon persons actively participating in a Congregation, Parish, or church with an upper case “c”. The grief and discomfort that has resonated in the city seems to be rooted in language that some might say conveys disparaging imagery while at the same time actively excluding a ‘new’ Washingtonian demographic.

Removing the term marriage from the law books when describing or referring to civil unions and Civil Domicility can only re-enforce what the framers and founders of our country intended--separation of church and state, a necessary ingredient in creating equanimity and tolerance under the law. Marriage Certificates do not allow for such equality to exist because the language binds the notion to an institution and a set of doctrines, which in all reality, have no place or validity when determining spousal rights in the eyes of the law.

In the moot court of public opinion, a mate whether man or woman, should have the right to handle health matters, sign legal documentation and represent their loved ones before a government entity, judge or business. The government of Washington D.C. should re-access the strength and dexterity of the language and not the progressive movement that said legislation will bring forth. Removing the religious and spiritual term of ‘Marriage’ and replacing it with a term that is inclusive and neutral will complete the Founders’ work; thereby allowing City spiritual leaders to return once more to the ecumenical tasks required by their spiritual constituency. In the end Legislators should not determine what rite or practices should be conveyed by Priests, Rabbis, Imams, Reverends or Pastors. It’s not their job.

+JO.