what’s a word like “uxorious” but in reference to your child?
Is it weird that after the boy goes to bed, we look at pictures of him (instead of heading off to bed ourselves)?
Archive for November, 2008
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?
