Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankster
A word is just a word, but if the state is going to be in the business of managing marriages, different is not the same. For those that want to bring a tax argument in, how about the added cost of managing both civil unions and marriages? Or wait, would those seeking civil unions be forced to pay more?
Marriage may "just be a word", but different is also different.
At the end of the day though, we currently have the right to legally marry, so this conversation doesn't matter.
Interesting side note for some of you...the first Marriage Commissioner we contacted would not marry us because it was against her beliefs. No one is being forced to marry anyone they don't want to.
|
I ask because I think the fight in the US is a lot different than the fight was in Canada. Church and State are far more separate in Canada and the Charter can't just be changed whenever a judicial ruling goes against a majority. Also in the states you have a much more politically active religious minority that holds a lot of power. My question really comes down to strategy of the movements in the south trying to get marriage legalized. Would it be more productive and more likely to succeed to gain the rights they are looking for first and then work on true equality.
My personal position is that marriage is one of those words that is uniquely defined by individuals so when the state defines it differently than the individual does it offends people even though it shouldn't. My thought would be for the state just to get out of the marriage business all together. Leave that word for individuals to define how they want to and just have the state give out civil unions for everyone (gay or straight). This way everyone gets to define their word the they want to. Would a simple find and replace on the laws solve this problem or at least get it passed a referendum on the ballot in the US.
I know in some of the republican states they specifically oppose granting rights so it wouldn't solve the problem immediately.