That's it.
Less than three months.
I remember when California was about to vote on Proposition 8. Voting Yes would eliminate same sex marriage. Voting No would have allowed persons of the same gender to marry each other. Voting No on Proposition 8 would have given the right to marry to ALL persons, gay, lesbian, as well as straight.
Marriage can be defined as:
1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding.
Based on that, marriage is the legal union of two people. Done. Religious or legal, it's considered a marriage. Civil union, church wedding, religious ceremony, justice of the peace... it's all considered a marriage.
But I am straying from the main point of this blog entry. Some members in support of Proposition 8 believed that allowing same sex marriages would ruin the sanctity of marriage... that it would cheapen the institution of marriage. There were also supporters that claimed allowing same sex marriages would cause a "snowball" effect, meaning once same sex marriages were legal, then a person could marry an animal or an inanimate object.
As far as ruining the sanctity of marriage, or that it will cheapen marriage as a whole, I think divorce has had that covered since the 1960's. Marriage is supposed to be a union of two people that ideally should last "until death do you part." But now that divorce is something that can happen at any time for any reason (as shown by Kim Kardashian), and annulments are also available (as shown by Brittney Spears), the sanctity of marriage is gone.
As far as the "snowball" effect, that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of...
A friend of mine suggested we have something similar to what England has. In England, same sex couples are allowed to enter into a civil partnership, which grants same sex couples the same legal rights and responsibilities as an opposite sex marriage... but it is NOT a marriage. However, a man and a woman are allowed to enter into an actual marriage. To me, that's not equality.
The same friend also suggested legal, civil unions for all couples and then religious marriages for opposite sex couples who are interested. However, my friend's concern is that churches may be prosecuted against for not allowing gay couples to be married in their church. I'm all for civil unions across the board and allowing those who want a religious ceremony to be a separate event, but a civil union is a legal, binding agreement between two consenting adults... that's a marriage!
My husband and I chose to have a judge marry us; there was NO religion involved, but we are considered married. My gay friends were married in a civil union ceremony; however, since they're both men, they are not considered married, just "partners." To me, both couples are married; it's just different terminology because some people don't want to allow gay people the same rights that straight people have as far as getting "married" is concerned. If I wanted to get married in a church, I would have found one that had similar beliefs as myself and my husband. If my gay friends wanted to get married in a church, they would have done the same. Call it a hunch, but I'm pretty sure no same sex couple is going to attempt to get married in a church that doesn't agree with their marriage and they're not going to sue a church simply because they won't marry them, especially if they don't attend that church and/or believe in that faith. Also, if the church has specific rules for ALL weddings, gay or straight, then that's not discrimination... and there's no grounds to sue the church because of that. On that same note, I'm pretty sure a Jewish couple wouldn't be allowed to be married in a Catholic church, nor could a Catholic couple be married in a Jewish Synagogue... and no one sues over that.
Here's my thoughts:
1. Equal rights for everyone. No discrimination. The right to get legally married to the person you love is a basic right that everyone should be able to share with the person of their choosing, whether it be a man or a woman. Love doesn't discriminate, why should we...?
2. Terminology needs to be challenged. Marriage, civil union, legal partnerships, matrimony, wedlock, and wedding ceremony... they're all synonyms. Call it what you want to make yourself fell better, but treat them all the same as they should be.
And most importantly...
3. If the Republicans truly want the government to stay out of our lives and to stop with "nanny laws," then this shouldn't even be an issue! There needs to be documentation of the marriage for several various legal reasons, which is the reason for a marriage license. However, I'm pretty sure that who marries who is getting into the "nanny" part.
Same sex marriage will not cheapen and it will not ruin the sanctity of marriage; Opposite sex marriage already does both... frequently.
1 comment:
I see what your saying, but still think that if it's legalized, everyone should do a civil union and then do their religious ceremony separately if they so choose.
Post a Comment