A Solution to Gay Marriage: Remove the Word Marriage

[spicedogs]

 

According to this article in Time magazine, one way of solving the problem we have against gay marriage is to remove the word "marriage" and create the word "civil union." In other words, you exchange your vows in a civil court or perhaps have a civil ceremony and get a certificate that says that legally you are a couple and, as a couple you have legal rights. If a couple is adamant about being "married," after the civil ceremony, they would go to a religious facility to get married.

I know that in Europe that's how you get married. First you have a small ceremony in court and then the bigger ceremony in your religious facility. I wonder what this new way of tying the knots would do to the wedding industry. Could civil ceremonies be handled in lavish halls? I guess that it could. My daughter’s officiate was friend of the family. He was a medical doctor. In Maryland anyone can marry you. But just for good measure, he became ordained with the Universal Life Church.

 

 

Comments

[venckman.livejournal.com]

This is what I have always thought, less as a solution to any "problem," but because I am not sure what the state is doing getting into the business of "marrying" people at all. As far as the state goes, it's about sanctioning a newly created legal arrangement between two people. Any two consenting adults. To me, "marriage" is a religious sacrament, administered in a spiritual setting of some sort by one ordained to do so by whatever religious body one is applying to be "married" to. It carries no legal weight. That's why if you have only a church wedding, you're not married. You need a state granted license and a few other state-sanctioned hurdles. That the state ever called what they were doing "marriage" was kind of overstepping their bounds, I think. I did not used to be so, and it should be again. IMO, of course.

[spicedogs.livejournal.com]

So you agree that a civil union would be OK with you. Whethery a couple is gay or straight, all the benefits that "married" couples now have would be the given to all. If you had the legal arrangement with your partner than you would have all the rights that now married couples have.

Those who want to be "married" would need to seek it out through their religious facility. Marriage would only mean that in the eyes of the couple's "god" the union is an approved union.

Many gay people's main concern is that they cannot visit each other in the hospital; cannot make decisions for each other's well being; in case of children, at the moment, only one has full guardianship; in case of death, the surviving partner would inherit half of their belongs; etc.

[venckman.livejournal.com]

1. Yes, absolutely.
2. Yes. I believe it is a religious sacrament, and that's where use of the word "belongs."
3. These are valid human rights concerns as far as I'm concerned. Lack of equality under the eyes of the law is a big problem. And not just for gays, but for anyone in a committed relationship who is not "married." This is the issue.

The upset over the lack of the "marriage" label applied to one's relationship is one wants it might give offense or hurt someone's feelings, but this does not constitute an actual legal or moral issue that needs addressing. Lack of actual equal legal protection is very much the very important human rights issue at hand.