(no subject)

[desh]

Can anyone offer a compelling argument as to why same-sex marriage should be legal everywhere in the US? Specifically, why that would be superior, in the long run, to "marriage" being removed as a legal term for everyone, and replaced by civil unions for any two un-unioned consenting adults (of whatever sex/gender)? Because I definitely prefer the latter, but I'm not sure if there are good reasons I haven't thought of as to why same-sex marriage is actually better.

(Leaving aside the question of multiple partners for now, since it raises a different set of issues...)

Comments

[machineplay.livejournal.com]

Is it not the right of every sane adult human in your country to enter into a legally binding contract with any other of their own free will? And is it not explicitly outlined that it is against the founding principles of your country to determine what is or is not within the law by an argument founded on religious ground? Is is not also against the founding principles to declare one group of humans privy to rights not allowed another?

The concept of marriage as used by law to determine rights and privileges is not a religious one, it is a legal contract. Most people in our society refer to the legal contract when they speak of marriage. It should be removed from the auspices of the church and returned to the state. Marriage is commonly used to refer to a specific contract and, I think, should be kept as marriage; it's part of our idiom, it's part of our language, and we should not give it up to the churches because they are making a fuss when they have no standing. However, if we have to use another word, no matter. Union, familial contract, contract of foundation, call it what you want. To do this, however, does open up the idea that unions may be open to more than two people. (Which I think they should be, but I think it's just fine to keep the old word of marriage.) Language has power. Why give it up?

The consecration of a marriage by a representative of a religion is another matter irrelevant to the court. It is as relevant as shaking holy water over a mortgage.