Marriage by Any Other Name

[torasama.livejournal.com]

While a rose may be a rose by any other name, the same does not hold true of marriage. Marriage is marriage. Civil unions are not equal to marriage, both in society's eyes and the law's - couples joined under a civil union do not have the same rights as a married couple. Denoting long-term, committed same-sex relations as 'lesser' opens a legal Pandora's box and provides a venue for continued discrimination, by applying a different set of rights to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

To deny a civil marriage to a same-sex couple is blatant discrimination per the 14th Amendment. Just as the anti-interracial marriage arguement that all races had the "same right" to marry others of their own race didn't work in Loving vs. Virginia, the arguement that homosexuals have the "same right" to marry people of the opposite sex doesn't work, either.

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Why should the government have to "get rid of the religious opposition"?

Not the government. The "pro-gay marriage" people. If they want the government to give them legal benefits, then they should want to remove the opposition.

What happened to seperation of church and state?

Doesn't exist and never has. Not respecting an institution of religion however is still in effect.

The original post was about giving gays a civil marriage.

And the easiest, quickest, and best way to accomplish this is to explicitly separate the ideas of civil marriage and religious marriage, and the easiest, quickest and best way to do that is to remove the word marriage from the law code.

[torasama.livejournal.com]

It isn't about being easy and quick. It's about being equal in the eyes of the law. The religious aspects of marriage should not have any bearing on the civil aspects. Without the religious arguement, there really is no good reason for denying gays the same right to marry.

Doesn't exist and never has. Not respecting an institution of religion however is still in effect.

Have to agree with you there.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Calling it marriage in the civil arena gives people a religious argument. Again, there's confusion between the two things. Separating them would allow you to get what you want in the civil arena and placate those who don't want any change seeping into the religious arena.

The religious aspects of marriage should not have any bearing on the civil aspects.

Which is what changing the civil name for it would accomplish.

[torasama.livejournal.com]

Right. That's the problem, the misinformation campaign. These things are already seperate.

I just think changing the name would do more harm than good - if you were married already, you would more than likely resent suddenly having it reduced to a "civil union."

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't be suddenly reduced to civil union, unless you had only gone to a JotP for your wedding, and those people probably don't care anyways.

[torasama.livejournal.com]

...You aren't making any sense. The point is that making ALL civil marriages into civil unions had this problem. It doesn't matter if it was Justice of the Peace or a priest, if you are legally married, your marriage is reduced to a civil union in the eyes of the law.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

And those married by a priest would still be married and have a civil union.