a proposal for resolving the same-sex marriage debate
On Tuesday, citizens in Arizona, California, and Florida will vote on controversial proposals that would amend their state constitutions to explicitly ban same-sex marriages.
Opponents argue that the amendments are discriminatory and a backward step for civil rights. Indeed, in California, where same-sex marriage is currently legal, it is a fact that a “yes” vote would remove rights from one group of individuals while retaining it for another.
Proponents of the bans, however, argue that the amendments are really about defining the term “marriage” rather than about taking rights away from gays and lesbians. For example, ProtectMarriage.com, the group behind the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in California, claims on its Web site that Proposition 8 “does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have under California’s domestic partner law.” Furthermore, it says, “California law already grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple.”
If that is the case — if current domestic partnership laws already bestow full legal rights to any two citizens who wish to commit their lives to one another — then one wonders why the extra legal status of “married” is even necessary in our civil code. Shouldn’t we strive to keep our laws as streamlined as possible by removing clauses that don’t provide any additional legal benefits?
So my proposal is this: Let’s strike the term “marriage” from our state constitutions.
In other words, let’s take the definition of marriage out of the hands of the law and let’s only involve the state in granting domestic partnership rights. That way, states can continue to provide equal rights to all citizens, and “marriage” can be defined and bestowed by whatever church or official a couple chooses to respect.
The truth is, I suspect such an amendment would not get much support. After all, many people would ask: Why should I give up my right to be married to placate a group of people who believe differently than I do?
Consider that question again: Why should I give up my right to be married to placate a group of people who believe differently than I do?
It’s a question same-sex couples in California are being forced to ask themselves at this very moment.
The shoe is not so comfortable on the other foot, is it?
Good thoughts, Amit. If only our political process were this rational. I share your sentiment–why is government even in the business of defining these terms for us?
–jeff
I love your idea Amit. I have had similar thoughts but never simplified it down to the bare bones the way that you have. It has been my opinion for some time that the government has to provide equal protection under the law without all these “extra” provisions. Eliminating the need to define “marriage” and the word itself from legislation solves that problem. If the government simply looked at a union and left it at that, each group or religious entity could call it whatever they like. Personally, I like the term “marriage” with both its legal and religious implications. But for those who want to argue the religious implications of it, that is really not a place to legislate. I’m not sure about anyone’s “right” to be married in the first place, so you have my support.
I agree with your thoughts. As human beings We need to see this become a universal thought. Countries like india, africa, china may still be looking upon gay people with a frown. Life is not easy in those countries, a normal straight couple cant even kiss each other in public or show signs of affection. The thought of the politicians and the general public must change. I am not talking about a revolution but a general openess to accept certain aspects which are bound to come in every society as it progresses and becomes modern.
cheers
kashman
http://www.tvfordesis.com