Arguments about marriage, married, and all other variants are just semantics. We say married to one's job, marriage made in heaven and use divorce just as frequently in semantically similar constructs.
Since California's Supreme Court ruled similarly to the Massachusetts' Supreme Court, there has been an uproar about legal semantics, with Proposition 8 seeking to make a State Constitutional definition that marriage is between a man and a women. (While statistically there is not a large population of transexuals, I wonder where they fit in this definition.) Already in California a person can be ordained via the Internet in the Universal Church of Life and be authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies.
Both presidential candidates have stated that they support Civil Unions for other than a man and woman but one campaign is against modifying the state constitution and one is actively campaigning for it.
I only mention it because the state should only be in the business of Civil Unions for everyone: gays, straight, men, women. The only reason that the state should be involved at all is to establish the property, access, and progeny rights formally and legally. This service should cost as should the dissolution of the contracts.
And these are contracts. As contracts, Civil Unions should be allowed between any consenting legal entity, or perhaps even entities. What they allow are family rights, (insurance, visitation, ...), and family responsibilities, (debt, support, ...). Entering into these contracts should not be done lightly and exiting should only be possible with agreed to splitting of the responsibilities.
In the final analysis, marriage is just a word. Even if my wife and I were "Civil Unioned" instead of "married," I would still call what we had a "marriage." It was even blessed by a church, well a pastor of a church, Presbyterian I believe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment