My marriage is important to me. Emotionally it’s important because of the support of my loved ones; legally it’s important because of the bundle of rights it confers. My loved ones are the ones that make it a marriage; the government just makes it so our finances are combined on tax returns.
People keep saying that what I’ve proposed is unrealistic, and then skewing what I’m saying to some bullshit “Just grin and bear it!” nonsense. So let me ask this:
If what I proposed came to pass, would you be satisfied with it?
Don’t answer right away. Imagine living in a world in which people set up their own marriages without either government approval or disapproval; in this world, people petition the government for a set of administrative rights.
Is there something specific about this world that bothers you? If so, what? And please don’t answer with another question; please answer with something specific.
Also, since you’re the one who thinks we need to present our plan so as to appeal to those who don’t support same-sex marriage, it seems to me that any plan that takes the right to marriage away from everybody would be even worse, considering that the primary charge against us is that we’re “destroying the institution of marriage.”
Let’s try again, then: Since doing away with legal marriage would give lots and lots of ammunition to those who think we’re trying to destroy the institution of marriage, it is probably a bad tactic for winning hearts and minds.
Perhaps. If it happened, would you be satisfied with the results? I’m not asking whether it’s worth trying for; I’m asking whether its success would be a good thing, from your perspective.
If what happened? Removing marriage for everybody and replacing it with civil unions? I would much rather marriage be implemented for everyone, as you well know.
I know you would prefer that. Would you consider the replacement of the word “marriage” with the phrase “civil unions”, and having the rights referred to by the latter phrase be available to all adult couples, satisfactory?
It seems like a simple yes-or-no question to me. The only complicated part is the follow-up question: if it wouldn’t be satisfactory, what specifically would be wrong with it?
Any two people can establish a domestic partnership, and they get a choice of names for same: marriage, civil union, domestic partnership (perhaps others).
I don’t believe that will ever happen, because there are too many people opposed to the idea that I’d be calling my “domestic partnership” a “marriage,” or else this never would’ve been such a hot debate point in the first place. I’ve simply heard too many people tell me that homosexual marriages are an “insult” to heterosexual marriages to believe that there’s anything going on here other than homophobia.
But hey. That proposal, if implemented, would completely float my boat.
Under my proposal, each partnership would get the exact same rights.
The choice of names is there not only to satisfy those who wish to call their partnerships “marriage,” but also because certain partnerships would be explicitly non-sexual in nature (since any two people, related by blood or not, would be eligible).
Yes, but it’s only being implemented in one (two, if you count civil unions) relatively small state. The vast majority of the US population won’t ever even meet a married gay couple for years. So it’s still the Great Unknown.
I’m not sure if I was implicated in the above list of people being called out, but I have expressed a preference for civil unions for all and marriage being given over to the churches because I’d rather not fight religious fanatics for the word. Acting on the assumption that I was included in the OP’s calling out, here’s my statement.
Get the church out of the state or get the state out of the church. That’s all I care about. Now if this means civil unions for all(accept “marriage” as the province of the church and get the state out of it) or if it means get the church out of the state(no ministers performing legal ceremonies and define the word along the secular, gender-blind rules the state operates by) I don’t care. But one of the two needs to happen. Absent a theocracy(which I realize would be some people’s preferred solution) Church and State are not compatible.
I’m not sure if I was implicated in the above list of people being called out, but I have expressed a preference for civil unions for all and marriage being given over to the churches because I’d rather not fight religious fanatics for the word. Acting on the assumption that I was included in the OP’s calling out, here’s my statement.
Get the church out of the state or get the state out of the church. That’s all I care about. Now if this means civil unions for all(accept “marriage” as the province of the church and get the state out of it) or if it means get the church out of the state(no ministers performing legal ceremonies and define the word along the secular, gender-blind rules the state operates by) I don’t care. But one of the two needs to happen. Absent a theocracy(which I realize would be some people’s preferred solution) Church and State are not compatible.
