(no subject)

[ramtops]

it's very good to see gay couples getting the same rights as heterosexual married couples (see Guardian link).

but where are the rights for straight, unmarried couples. I have many friends living in long term unmarried relationships, and this is discrimination, pure and simple.

what's the justification? The "sanctity of marriage"?

Comments

Sever the ties that bind!

[pickledginger.livejournal.com]

I think the government should just get out of the marriage business entirely. And religion should get out of the business of civil unions.

I would propose that the government, or rather, the governments, be required to accept the registration of any two legally competent adults in a civil union. Regardless of gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, sex life, et cetera.

I would propose that the rights - private and civil - now accorded to people who are now considered "married" be extended to any couple so registered.

I would propose that religious institutions be permitted to bless, or not, the uniting in marriage of whosomever they see fit.

I would propose that these marriages have no legal weight whatsoever.

One therefore could partake in the benefits of civil union, with or without the benefit of marriage, and vice versa.

And no, it wouldn't be more paperwork - one has to get a "marriage" certificate now, from whatever jurisdiction, and have it legally signed and witnessed. The same would be still be true for folks registering a union that also was being formalized by marriage. For those opting to forego civil recognition, it would mean *less* paperwork.

And yes, I would also propose that existing marriages be "grandfathered" in, so there was no requirement for the parties involved to re-register their union.

I do think that separating the two concepts, of "the blessings of holy matrimony" and of "contract law, next-of-kin, and insurance benefits", would help a lot to defuse the fundamentalists' criticism of same-sex unions. (After all, two people of the same sex already can be united in the eyes of God, or at least, their church; they just can't have that union legally recognized. The portion of the program to which objections are being raised on religious grounds is the portion that they already can accomplish!)

[ias.livejournal.com]

Government cannot get out of the business of marriage unless you are proposing to completely redefine marriage as a religious act and only a religious act. Quite frankly I would find redefining a term solely to shut up some homophobic, religious bigots offensive.

Marriage has always been about property and inheritance and thus requires definition in law and therefore the government has to be involved. The western church was a johnny-come-lately when it came to marriage, and if it hadn't been for the established church being handed the administration of marriage by a ruling class that believed in small government in the mid-18thC, we probably would have developed a system similar to France's with the only legal marriage being a civil one.

I do think that separating the two concepts, of "the blessings of holy matrimony" and of "contract law, next-of-kin, and insurance benefits", would help a lot to defuse the fundamentalists' criticism of same-sex unions.

We already have - it is called civil marriage. Personally I would prefer we changed to a system like France where the officiants in some religions (but not all by any means) were not able to act as registrars and everyone had to have a legally binding non-religious civil ceremony which they could then follow with whatever religious ceremony they wanted. Separate out the legal ceremony from the religious beliefs rather than tell those of us who are not religious we aren't allowed marriage but can only have civil unions.