Monday, June 16, 2008
Ok, here's a topic I'm prepared to take the heat for. I'm sure you're all well aware that in California the Supreme Court decided to legislate from the bench and say gay marriage is okay. Well I'd like to take issue with that. In my opinion, and in the written text of most dictionaries I am aware of, marriage is between a man and a woman.
Now before everyone blows up at me for being intolerant let me say that I am fine with gay people having civil unions with legal rights similar to marriage. However, my problem is in the wording. Marriage should not be used when referring to a gay union. It is a union, but not a marriage. It would save everyone a whole lot of trouble if that's how we kept it.
Here is the webster definition of marriage:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
And here is wikipedia's explanation of a civil union:
A civil union is a legally recognized union similar to marriage. Beginning with Denmark in 1989, civil unions under one name or another have been established by law in many developed countries in order to provide same-sex couples with rights, benefits, and responsibilities similar (in some countries, identical) to opposite-sex civil marriage. In some jurisdictions, such as Quebec, New Zealand, and Uruguay, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples.
Most civil-union countries recognize foreign unions if those are essentially equivalent to their own; for example, the United Kingdom lists equivalent unions in Civil Partnership Act Schedule 20.
Many people are critical of civil unions because they say they represent separate status unequal to marriage ("marriage apartheid"). Others are critical because they say civil unions allow same-sex marriage by using a different name.
Now that wasn't so hard now, was it?