On gay marriage
Apr. 9th, 2004 06:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kimberkitA stance on the entire gay marriage issue, after talking to Matt: why not just remove the word "marriage" from the government's vocabulary, and leave social engineering to the churches? Then, everyone could have civil unions, and could then elect to be married if they chose to be, in the churches.
The heart of the opposition to gay marriage is the argument that runs, "but the government is telling me to go against what my religion tells me." And it's correct. The government shouldn't have a right to say what the institute of marriage-in-the-eyes-of-God is -- the church should say what God says.
The government should, however, have a right to say what benefits people who wish to tie together their personal finances should be able to do. By removing the word "marriage" from the rights that the government is actually granting to people, we're making the issue much more about tangible benefits, not private beliefs.
The heart of the opposition to gay marriage is the argument that runs, "but the government is telling me to go against what my religion tells me." And it's correct. The government shouldn't have a right to say what the institute of marriage-in-the-eyes-of-God is -- the church should say what God says.
The government should, however, have a right to say what benefits people who wish to tie together their personal finances should be able to do. By removing the word "marriage" from the rights that the government is actually granting to people, we're making the issue much more about tangible benefits, not private beliefs.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: legal weight of marriage
Date: 2004-04-11 12:12 am (UTC)That was my point, not the fact that the government grants a lot of rights to married couples. Obviously they do, and obviously the word "civil union" as of now doesn't mean the same thing it would mean if it *actually* meant "marriage" as it's currently defined.
Of course, it's far too idealistic a scenario -- too many changes to legal documents for it to happen.
Re: legal weight of marriage
Date: 2004-04-11 09:05 pm (UTC)