There are actually several separate issues here:
1. co-opting of the definition of the word "marriage"
2. what exactly would the new def be?
3. what entitlements would it grant?
4. what is the role of government in all this?
________________
Questions to have handy for those advocating that
"marriage" be legally re-defined to accomodate same-sex
unions (and this is an entirely separate issue from the
same relationship under other names, e.g. "civil union").
* What is the proposed new definition, precisely?
* Does the new definition exclude consanguineous partners?
Can someone marry their sibling, child, parent, cousin?
If not, why not - there's no risk of genetic defects in
the offspring if the partners are the same sex, after all.
Think this is an exaggeration? Check out CousinCouples.com
If you are related to your amour, you already need to pick
a state carefully to get a full-faith&credit ceremony.
* Does new definition limit a person to one partner?
If so, why? That sounds pretty arbitrary and
discriminatory. There's a lot more historical precedent
for polygamy than for same-sex marriage. The polygamists
await the answer.
* What ages must the partners have obtained?
If we're gonna codify marriage at the national level,
we need to consider the fact that minimum age varies
from state to state. Are we sure we want to go there?
It will arise as another unintended-consequence issue.
And before laughing at the following, keep in mind a
recent nuptial in France wherein a bride was wed to her
deceased finance.
* Does the new definition require a living partner?
If not, when can you re-marry?
* Does the new definition require a human partner?
Any number of lonely sheep-herders await an answer.
* Does the new definition require any partner at all?
If the number of partners can be different than "1",
why not "0"? Since this movement is in part a benefits
grab, why bother requiring a partner at all? Just marry
yourself.
Opener.
Can.
Label: Worms - quantity & and variety unknown
My prinicpal beef with the gay-marriage is not with
arbitrary collections of people having marriage-like
cohabitational contracts - that's already possible.
Nor do I have a problem, per se, with people seeking to
get benefits extended to their civil partners - such
efforts will succeed, or not, on their merits.
The real problem is the Orwellian assault on the
dictionary. When women decided they wanted a "Mr."-like
term that was marriage-neutral, they didn't demand a
redefinition of "Miss" or "Mrs.", they coined "Ms.".
I advocate a similar approach.
And turning the Constitution into an official dictionary
is not the solution.
The pro-gay-marriage activists are those who would pretend
that definition of "marriage" found in dictionaries doesn't
mean what it plainly has said for centuries.
These people will just as easily argue about the
definition of "define". This is a cultural (and judicial)
problem, and cannot trvially be fixed by legislation.
ping
Maybe kerry and edwards should for a "union"
That would make a REAL John-John
I think gays should be married and it should be very public record just like any marriage.
It's just not that important to think about.
How about making a deal:
Dan Rather and Sandy Berger get a speedy trial and all gays can get married!
Then the talk about gays in the news just comes to a halt!!!
Clearly it doesn't make much sense to oppose gay marriage, yet support civil unions that grant to same-sex couples the same legal status of marriage. To hold such a view means that one does not support the protection of the institution of marriage, but rather supports the protection of the word 'marriage.'
That's not to say the word is meaningless. It has symbolic meaning, and therefore should be protected. I mean, that dictionaries may start expanding the definition of marriage beyond the union of a man and woman would be huge victory for the Left.
And to be honest, its clear that many Americans are fine with this semantic game, this distinction w/o a difference. The polls show that majorities consistently oppose gay marriage, yet when it comes to civil unions the polls tend to vary a lot more, with the edge going towards recognition of them. But this is no doubt regional. Solid majorities in conservative states, for example, no doubt oppose the legal recogintion of same-sex unions altogether, no matter what euphemism for marriage is used.
That is why defenders of real marriage should consider changing their approach. Many Democrats and Republicans claim to oppose gay marriage, but oppose the Fed Amendment because they favor letting the states decide. Therefore those behind the Amendment that recently lost in the House and Senate should consider calling their bluff.
They should offer an Amendment that does not ban gay marriage, but instead says that with regards to marriage and the legal incidents thereof, Congress shall set federal policy and the people and their state legislatures shall handle it for state purposes.
This would have the advantage of putting many of those politician's feet to the fire. They would then have to vote for or against an Amendment that makes law their stated beliefs. It would also effectively remove the Courts from having a say, thus leaving it truly to the people and their accountable representatives.
Of course this means that the Right would have to accept that a handful of states would eventually go for gay marriage, but if the people of a state want it then the battle is already lost there. It is best to accept that, and concentrate on putting into place protections for the states (probably a majority) that would not now or for the forseeable future grant any legal recognition to same-sex unions.
Otherwise, I fear that the Sup Court will try to go for a Vermont-style compromise whereby they give the states a choice between gay marriage or equivalent civil unions. As I said earlier, this may be fine with New York, Mass, Calif, etc, but for Texas, Mississippi, Idaho, Alabama, North Carolina, Louisiana, etc it would no different than an imposition of gay marriage.