kimberkit | On gay marriage

You're viewing

kimberkit's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

A 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.

Current Mood: awake

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

ppaladin.livejournal.com

As I understand the issue, mainly from conversations with lawyer friend Jen Cartee, the important piece of the issue is the legal weight that the label of marriage carries. Our legal system works on precedent developed and supported by courts over the years. Marriage has a strong a solid legal precedent attached to it. If I get married in Mass, then move to Kentucky, that marriage is valid and recognized immediately. A civil union inherits none of the precedent marriage already possesses. Thus, if I get civilly united with somebody and move to Kentucky, that civil union is not worth the paper it is recorded on until I fail to receive the benefits I expect, sue the state/organization which failed to provide them, and fight a protracted legal struggle over the course of five years until the case inches its way up to a court that can set a powerful enough precedent to stop the process. Then the next time the discrimination happens, the process restarts.

From:

kimberkit.livejournal.com

oh, definitely! But if you call ALL marriages "civil unions," changing all the documents to reflect that name change for all couples who are currently "married" then you don't get the stupid religious smokescreen over the NAME of marriage.

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.