In Freddie's post we find the sad lament that the inevitability of homosexual equality may not exist; however, since his November post more states have ratified laws legalizing gay marriage, and hope shines eternal.
In the comments to Freddie's post, I argued this:
You argue that telling someone whom they cannot marry is as absurd as telling them they cannot drink from a certain water fountain, but I disagree. Would you find it so absurd if I told you that you cannot marry a panda bear?
Though I disagree with Prop 8 ideologically, and I am not anti-gay, I am anti-marry-whatever-tickles-your-fancy, and the temporary ban on gay marriage imposed by Prop 8 will hopefully allow legislators to properly define what a civil union is, making gay marriage more acceptable to some conservatives who blanche at the marriage free-for-all that would have otherwise been inevitable.
Occasional guest writer (and intellectual property lawyer) Adam sent me his thoughts:
It's not gay marriage, but the word marriage that I want banned. Civil unions between any couple should be legal. I have no problem with that. The word Marriage is a religous term. The United States was founded with freedom of religion as one of the main pillars of its foundation. Therefore, religion was thought to be excluded from our laws and regulations. Marriage is religious and those who argue for keeping it always argue, "it is my belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman" Belief, hmm. So basically their argument is based on "in my religion, same sex marriage should be banned." That is a bad argument under the U.S. constitution. I really think that the U.S. and state Constitutions should abandon the term 'marriage' and adopt 'Civil Union' and allow same sex and opposite sex civil unions.Adam is hyperbolizing of course, banning words isn't his goal and he isn't the Thoughtpolice. His point, however, is valid. The United States requires documentation of marriages for the sole purpose of legalizing the tax implications brought about by that marriage. It also legalizes the protection from testifying against one's spouse in a court of law, and legalizes the spouse as the (unless otherwise enumerated) primary benefactor in the case of a person's untimely demise.
But I want to go a step further and suggest that upholding Prop 8 is a good idea...for now. In my perfect world, a human being goes to the institution or religious facility of their choice with their lover and the two unite in whatever type of ceremony is required by their own personal religious (or non-religious) doctrine. They sign their civil union license under the watchful eye of witnesses, and that civil union license becomes the legal documentation of the union. However, the term "civil union" has been clearly defined as between two human beings (of a minimum certain age decided by the state in which they marry) who both consent to the agreement.
Until the "civil union" term has been clearly defined as clearly the term "marriage" is, then I am hesitent to invite a marriage free-for-all into existence here or anywhere. It only takes a slick lawyer and the ACLU a few months to pull together a good argument that a man who has lived with his dog for 8 years constitutes a civil union and common law marriage...I mean, they love each other, don't they? They've lived together for the required number of years, haven't they?
Only if we define a "civil union" as a compact between two human beings can I fully endorse it.
_
0 comments:
Post a Comment