I realize, fellow Senators, that we are in the middle of a drawn out and unpopular war. I am painfully aware of the financial turmoil that has rocked our economy to its core. The resultant distrust of the government and our ability as legislators is keenly felt by each of us. Due to disasters beyond our control as well as calamities that we have brought upon ourselves by our own shortsighted inaction, ours is the first generation in living memory to face this level of despair. Desperate citizens, losing their livelihoods and homes, can be found in every major population center.
But the galaxy continues to spin, the worlds of our Republic continue to orbit their stars, and the lives of those sentient species that inhabit those worlds continue.
I would like to bring to your attention the long debated bill concerning marriage rights in the Republic. Senators from almost every world have expressed their views on the subject. There have been calls for outright abolition of marriage. There has been the suggestion that an unlimited number of marriages between an unlimited number of beings or group of beings be allowed. Because the idea of marriage is so tightly intertwined in the cultures and religions of almost every member world, this subject has been consistently inflammatory in nature. There are currently thousands of different laws across hundreds of different sectors. Some worlds go so far as to refuse to acknowledge marriages that fall outside of their specific laws even if legally performed outside their system. There is no way to resolve the conflicting views expressed by the numerous Republic worlds. The tenacity with which many cultures hold their views can not, and many argue should not, be challenged.
Instead, I submit the following proposal.
As a governmental body, this Senate must reject the idea of marriage as a governmental institution. Because of the ideas of equal protection for all sentient species under Republic law and the separation between any spiritual, religious or church organization and the body politic, the term “marriage” should be removed from Senatorial debate.
I do not, however, suggest that we abandon the topic of the formation of household units entirely. The state has a fundamental interest in preserving the basic societal unit of each member world. We need look no further than our own military forces, the bulk of which are comprised of clones, to see the dire need the Republic has for the production and rearing of offspring. Furthermore, without the constant growth of our tax base it will be impossible for us to rebuild our shattered infrastructure while maintaining the level of services we currently provide to our citizens.
To this end, I propose the institution of civil unions. These would function in the same capacity as traditional marriages but it is my hope that they would shed the divisive religious arguments that continually plague the debate of this issue.
Religious, spiritual, societal or cultural organization would be free to be as inclusive or exclusive as they felt appropriate. If any pair or group of citizens feel the necessity to be married let them do so in their own way. Let each find the appropriate church, temple, sacred grove or whatever other setting they find best. Who one chooses to marry is a personal choice about which the Senate should have no judgment. No religious body should feel any obligation to this governing body to perform any marriage that they feel is in conflict with their beliefs. If a certain religion prohibits any form of attachment it should not feel inclined to perform marriages at all. Any marriages would, however, have no legal standing or recognition.
Any governmentally provided rights and liberties, as well as any levied obligations, would be prescribed as part of a licensed civil union. Civil unions would be conferred and regulated solely under the auspice of the government.
But to whom should these benefits be conferred?
As the representative body for a population as diverse as the Republic, we are obligated to consider the rights of those individuals and species whose sexual customs and reproductive biology differ from what we consider the norm.
Many in this august body have presented the idea that any kind of civil benefit of a shared household is solely the province of reproducing members of a species. That is to say, the purpose of such a union is to produce children and those species who do not rear young in the way most humanoids consider normal should not be allowed to enter into such a union. I would argue that this kind of exclusivity unfairly punishes those who can not or choose not to reproduce in this way. Members of species who reproduce asexually may benefit from forming households with another adult in order to pool their resources to raise their children and should be accorded the same economic benefits as sexually reproducing species. Furthermore, many of the insectoid species choose to form nests with multiple queens with each queen accepting the members of any brood as her own. Cohabitation with males is impossible due to the male life cycle of their species ending after the nuptial flight. With broods numbering in the hundreds or possibly thousands, these species would face dire economic consequences without the relief from Republic taxation that a civil union would provide.
While the immediately preceding example would suggest system specific regulations for polygamy and group civil unions, I would encourage the Senate to carefully examine the effects such unions. Having to split any government benefits among numerous beneficiaries would become a procedural nightmare. Additionally, as unlikely as it may seem, it is conceivable that whole worlds could circumvent our protocols for induction into the Republic by marrying their entire population to Republic citizens. Thus I would stress the need for civil unions to be considered an exclusive contract by most systems.
Regardless of the specific rules and regulations put in place, a coherent legal structure of civil unions would benefit the whole of the Republic. On a more personal level, the benefits of this system could provide relief for a member of this very Senate.
There has been much talk behind closed doors about a Senator who, for proprieties sake, I will not name. While this Senator has made no secret of her pregnancy, her partner has remained safely anonymous. Frequent visits by a certain young General however, have generated rumors heard throughout these chambers and, admittedly, their acting is so transparent, it’s laughable.
The Senator is quite capable of protecting her own interests but I can not in good conscious help but wonder about the well being of her unborn offspring. Despite the General’s religious prohibition against marriage, a purely secular civil union would guarantee both the anonymous Senator and her unborn offspring certain legal protections. What would become of this child, or these children in the case of multiple births, were to be orphaned? I need not remind this august body of the numerous attempts that have been made on the lives of Senators since before the beginning of the war.
Under the current system, because marriage is an option denied to them by his religious order’s beliefs, the ultimate destinies of any offspring are clouded. It is not beyond imagining that an impoverished orphan would be forced into a life of toil, scraping a meager existence from the most barren of worlds. I challenge any Senator to describe how this could be preferable to growing up with one’s father, despite his devotion to an ancient religion.
Senators, I implore you. The system as we know it is broken and can not be fixed. Instead, consider the wisdom of separating the government from the issue of sanctity, which we admittedly have no business judging. Instead I suggest adopting a policy of acceptance and equality for all our member species.
Photo Credit: Untitled by Mooninsean on Flickr