Thursday, December 16, 2004
The civil marriage option solves nothing for the opponents of gay marriage. People could still marry someone of the same sex and it would have the same legal standing, viz., nothing, as someone marrying someone of the opposite sex. This they do not like and so no social con speaks of Holland as having workable compromise.
Divorced from the rights issue, churches would be free to marry whom they pleased, gay or straight. Social conservatives want to retain the legitimacy conferred on their viewpoint by having the state sanction it. Without this sanction the biblical interpretation of, say, the Baptist council has no more legitimacy in the eyes of the state than does Unitarian interpretation.
Besides, the civil union option is disingenuous. Changing the name of something does not transform it into something else. Civil unions would just be marriage by another name.
That said, there is a lot invested in the word “marriage”. What Harper’s proposed amendment amounts to is this. People can marry someone of the same sex, but the state will not semantically equate these marriages with someone marrying someone of the opposite sex. Equal rights, but not equal recognition. (The so called tradition definition of marriage as being between a man and women is really no definition at all. It is simply a legal clause limiting who can enter into such a legal contract, which is better defined by the rights and legal obligations assumed by two people upon them entering into that contract – which also means it has changed countless times over the years. The Conservative proposal would change this. Marriage would be defined not only by these rights and obligations, but also by who entered into the contract.)
Why is this problematic? Well, go back a ways. There was a time when mixed race marriages were not allowed in some parts of the States. I imagine everyone here has no problem empathizing with the people who wanted to change this. That said, for those of you who think that civil unions for gays and marriage straights is no big deal image a similar proposal having been made for mixed marriages. What would be the basis for you calling one a small difference and the other substantive?
The fact of the matter is that enshrining bigotry in law by mandating that different terms by used to describe the same thing is affront to those seeking equal rights.
Divorced from the rights issue, churches would be free to marry whom they pleased, gay or straight. Social conservatives want to retain the legitimacy conferred on their viewpoint by having the state sanction it. Without this sanction the biblical interpretation of, say, the Baptist council has no more legitimacy in the eyes of the state than does Unitarian interpretation.
Besides, the civil union option is disingenuous. Changing the name of something does not transform it into something else. Civil unions would just be marriage by another name.
That said, there is a lot invested in the word “marriage”. What Harper’s proposed amendment amounts to is this. People can marry someone of the same sex, but the state will not semantically equate these marriages with someone marrying someone of the opposite sex. Equal rights, but not equal recognition. (The so called tradition definition of marriage as being between a man and women is really no definition at all. It is simply a legal clause limiting who can enter into such a legal contract, which is better defined by the rights and legal obligations assumed by two people upon them entering into that contract – which also means it has changed countless times over the years. The Conservative proposal would change this. Marriage would be defined not only by these rights and obligations, but also by who entered into the contract.)
Why is this problematic? Well, go back a ways. There was a time when mixed race marriages were not allowed in some parts of the States. I imagine everyone here has no problem empathizing with the people who wanted to change this. That said, for those of you who think that civil unions for gays and marriage straights is no big deal image a similar proposal having been made for mixed marriages. What would be the basis for you calling one a small difference and the other substantive?
The fact of the matter is that enshrining bigotry in law by mandating that different terms by used to describe the same thing is affront to those seeking equal rights.
Comments:
Post a Comment
