0 Votes
RE: Why not?
Here’s another question to think about: Will not being called marriage hurt a gay relationship? It doesn’t seem to. Like you said, the only individuals capable of messing up those relationships are the people in them.
I’m not saying that constitutes a sufficient argument to not call them marriages; I’m just saying it’s good to think about it from this direction, too.
One other question: When you say freedom, do you mean the “freedom to have the government define the relationship I’m in as a marriage?” Or something else?
RE: Why not? by Occams
“freedom to have the government define the relationship I’m in as a marriage?”
I think that is what they are asking for. The Marriage Act would need to be changed from “a union between a man and a woman” to " a union between two people".
RE: Why not? by Jackson
When you say freedom, do you mean the “freedom to have the government define the relationship I’m in as a marriage?” Or something else?
When I say freedom, I mean the freedom to have the same protections under the law that come with heterosexual marriage. The right to jointly own property without creating a business entity. The right to not have wills contested by one partner’s family. The right to immediate acceptance as “next of kin”. The freedom to adopt and raise kids. There are lots of protections that aren’t there for gay unions. Even in places where they have set down legislative rules in a separate-but-equal kind of way (civil unions), gays often find out that, in practice, hospitals and others just disregard them.
Personally, I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business. Protect unions of two consenting adults and allow them the same benefits. Call your union whatever you want, but one name under the law for legal purposes.