Tweet
This idea was partly inspired by...MrFun, I think. Well, somebody on this board said that gay relationships are not all about sex, but are complex, multifaceted things just like straight ones. I can't recall who it was exactly. I guess I was just a little too stunned by the news that straight relationships *aren't* just about sex. 
Anyway, the gay marriage brouhaha is primarily not about the right of certain persons to stick certain body parts in certain other body parts of certain other persons. All the op-ed pieces I've read by members of the gay community have been most distressed by the fact that, if their partners get sick/die/whatever, they can't get hospital visitation rights, inherit, make decisions in their absense, take care of the kid, file taxes jointly, and so on.
So, rather than asking, "should there be nothing like gay marriage, gay marriage, or gay civil unions," why don't we all switch over to civil unions? With Civil Union, or some equivalent term, defined to mean a state of legally defined codependency between two adults, regardless of whether or not they are porking each other. Two close, straight male roommates could have a civil union if they wanted, just so neither gets treated as an outsider to the other's family by the law. "Divorce" laws could still apply under a different name, because a split in a previously interdependent group of people is always worthy of regulation, to make sure one doesn't get left high and dry. The SCOTUS ruling on the sodomy law seemed to set precedent for an age wherein the government really doesn't care what its constituents willingly do for fun anyway.
The idea of "marriage" as it most upsets conservatives is so upsetting because marriage is associated with sacramental life in the common mind. I don't think that needs to be preserved. If people want to be united in the eyes of God, they can go to a church. Moral certification from the Federal government-a group of people famous for screwing secretaries and interns-is a dubious honor at best.
Questions? Comments? Flames?
Anyway, the gay marriage brouhaha is primarily not about the right of certain persons to stick certain body parts in certain other body parts of certain other persons. All the op-ed pieces I've read by members of the gay community have been most distressed by the fact that, if their partners get sick/die/whatever, they can't get hospital visitation rights, inherit, make decisions in their absense, take care of the kid, file taxes jointly, and so on.
So, rather than asking, "should there be nothing like gay marriage, gay marriage, or gay civil unions," why don't we all switch over to civil unions? With Civil Union, or some equivalent term, defined to mean a state of legally defined codependency between two adults, regardless of whether or not they are porking each other. Two close, straight male roommates could have a civil union if they wanted, just so neither gets treated as an outsider to the other's family by the law. "Divorce" laws could still apply under a different name, because a split in a previously interdependent group of people is always worthy of regulation, to make sure one doesn't get left high and dry. The SCOTUS ruling on the sodomy law seemed to set precedent for an age wherein the government really doesn't care what its constituents willingly do for fun anyway.
The idea of "marriage" as it most upsets conservatives is so upsetting because marriage is associated with sacramental life in the common mind. I don't think that needs to be preserved. If people want to be united in the eyes of God, they can go to a church. Moral certification from the Federal government-a group of people famous for screwing secretaries and interns-is a dubious honor at best.
Questions? Comments? Flames?
.
Comment