Jul/09©Chris Farley
Marriage
David Boies wrote a remarkably well-reasoned op-ed about gay marriage published in The Wall Street Journal on Monday. His legal insight makes it painfully obvious that keeping gay marriage illegal is ideologically inconsistent, alarming idiotic, and demonstrates a harmful attachment to a sadly defective belief. Read his editorial for the specifics, but he makes a reasonable argument from a legal perspective. Boies wrote about interpreting gay marriage to be legal under our current laws, but I think this should be more about changing laws than changing interpretation. We need an ideological and a legislative shift, and the sooner the better.
I don’t think we should change the definition of marriage. I think we might even be able to save ourselves the struggle of deciding what the current definition of marriage actually means. We should instead eliminate marriage all together.
What is marriage but the joining of assets? After the legal side is done, people add to the concept of marriage whatever special significance they want to. I see no reason why the joining of assets, agreement to joint custody in the case of children, and all the fun tax requirements cannot be independent of “marriage” in the emotional, spiritual, or religious sense.
Marriage is not something that should be dictated by the government. Who you love and how you love them should not be subjected to debate. Let’s make the legal side open to everyone, and keep any special significance people want to attach to it separate. “Marriage” should disappear from law, and be replaced with some terminology like “domestic partnership,” or one of the terms previously used for the almost-marriages that homosexuals are allowed. These are essentially what I just described — marriages in the legal sense, but not automatically carrying the history and struggle around the term “marriage.”
If for no other reason than it’s easier, marriage should be left to individuals. Treating gays differently than anyone is just plain wrong, but treating them differently in the eyes of the law is just plain alarming. This way we can allow people to unite themselves legally, and the religious nuts can preserve the “sanctity of marriage” in their own churches.
Leave a comment
No trackbacks yet.
11:14 pm on July 21st, 2009
I agree to a great extent what you're saying… though there are some complications with that (we're talking almost 1,500 legal rights associated with marriage). But a bigger issue is that these anti-equality people a) don't necessarily believe LGBT people should be allowed to adopt or have children, file joint taxes, have inheritance rights, partner-immigration rights or a bunch of other things …and/or b) still don't want the word marriage being used by same sex couples in a civil capacity–as if they own this word, which is the real issue.
1:44 am on July 22nd, 2009
I love you sound all objective until the end, when you call them religious nuts. According to the Bible being gay is a sin. What most people don't realize is that according to the Bible it is also a sin to swear, eat too much, be jealous, get mad, be selfish. God forgives us of these sins. I think people blow homosexuality way out of the water. It's just another sin. People treat gay people like they are demons or something spawned of satan, but they don't think twice about their pastor who is many hundreds of pounds overweight. They will kick a gay person out of their church, and get road rage on the way home. In this way most christians are hypocrites. I would accept legalizing gay marriage. I think gay people are great. There is such a hatred towards them by most christians though. If my family knew my views on this subject they would kick me out, and I'm only 16. I'm dead serious. If my family knew I thought it was ok to be gay, they would not acknowledge me as a son anymore. My friends wouldn't talk to me either. Christians are actually missing a great opportunity to reach many people just because they're gay. I think who you have sex with should be between you and that person. No one else needs to get in the middle of that. Well that's just my opinion.
12:04 am on July 23rd, 2009
With regard to point A: You are right, I was simply addressing marriage here. The adoption/having of children was not addressed, but as that is generally part of marriage, it should certainly be allowed. The anti-equality people will just have to sit down and shut up.
With regard to point B: Unfortunately, no one can \”own\” a word. No one includes both the anti-equality people and the LGBT people. If the nuts want to use the word in their twisted religious rituals, then fine; that doesn't mean they own it.
12:07 am on July 23rd, 2009
I'm not a religious scholar, but if the Bible does indeed call the Bible a sin, then the people who use the Bible as fact are even more flawed than I thought. I think it's insulting to say that being gay is a sin, regardless of the gravity attached to it.
It's most unfortunate that you're in a less-than-tolerant family. It's good to see that you're breaking the mold!
12:10 am on July 23rd, 2009
Agreed. Civil marriage should be the only marriage that the law cares about. Everything else should be someone else's problem. And since civil marriage is essentially just a contract, it seems wrong to be restricting who can make that contract.
11:18 am on September 17th, 2009
I definitely agree that there should be a distinction between civil and religious marriage. I am fine giving up the word marriage as I think (not 100% sure) that it started as a religious ceremony. Let religion keep marriage and let's make civil unions(Man/Woman, Man/Man, Woman/Woman) the thing that is needed for legal purposes.
11:10 pm on October 27th, 2009
Being gay is a sin and this type of immorality is killing our nation. Now we have a generation of young people that think this type of behavior is normal when indeed, it is not. Yes, a sin is a sin BUT there are different consequences from these sins. This is where the problem lies; homosexuality has, if not birthed AIDS, has given it power over all of society now. So, you may want to justify your actions (homosexuality, gay unions, etc) but God will have the final say when all is said and done, whether or not you believe in HIM or not.
12:09 am on October 28th, 2009
Your comment has all the sensitivity of a paranoid member of the religious right and all the intelligence of a tea pot.
From what authority, divine or otherwise, do you draw your claim that "Being gay is a sin…" And what makes "this type of behavior" not normal?
I will be curious to hear your answer, but while you're pondering that, can you please tell me what kind of psycho-religious cult could possibly believe that these "sins" are killing our NATION?
12:54 am on October 28th, 2009
Hi Chris.
I was watching T.V. with my sister this evening and there was a new NBC News/ Wall Street Journal poll that said 41% of Americans now are in favor of allowing same-sex marriage, up from 30% in 2004. Also, the disapproval is down from 62% in 2004 to 49% currently.
Thought you would be interested,
Ron
2:37 am on October 28th, 2009
Adultery is also a sin and how often do children see their own parents commit this sin compared to how many see their parents commit the sin of being gay? Who do kids follow? People they don't know or their parents? Why would any half wit think behavior exhibited by a fraction of the population is "normal?" By definition it clearly isn't. But railing against homosexuality is far more self serving and convenient than expending the same amount of effort on an act that breaks up far more marriages.
12:32 pm on November 10th, 2009
You are tired of it all, but why? How on Earth does two people loving each other affect you in any way shape or form? Because a book written by man (rewritten and translated many times over) says so? Those passages and many more were probably taken WAY out of context.
There is no proof that homosexuality "birthed" AIDS. That is someone trying to place blame of a virus on a specific group of people. That is just plain ridiculous.
If you are god fearing, then be so for yourself and let people that love each other do just that. I would rather a man love a man or a woman love a woman, then be at war.
I am not going to call your talk psycho-religious babbling, only because that has already been made very clear. Ooops, guess I did any way.
Let GOD make the judgements, while you let people live the way the want (homosexually or straight) as long as they are not hurting anyone else.