Why do states have to get involved with any type of marriage in the first place? (including heterosexual)
A marriage is a legal contract. Contract law is handled by states.
Rather than having a unique contract for each marriage, it makes a lot more sense to have a single contract
I think I am agreeing with Bonzi on this one, and perhaps agreeing with you as well.
The states should provide contracts. Evenly.
Call them marriage. Call them petunias. Call them by some long inscrutable bureaucratese name. I don't care.
But the religious aspects of it should be handled by your faith of choice (or optionally no faith),
and the legal part of the contract has no connection to your temple/synagogue/hall/church/ashram/commune.
All the state should care about is who gets the money when it goes bad or someone dies.
And who is committed to take care of whom and for how long.
Why do gay people believe a Civil Union with identical legal status to marriage in terms of property rights,
hospital visitation, and child custody wouldn't be "good enough" if it wasn't called "marriage"?
I cannot speak for homosexual people, but my personal opinion is that "separate but equal is inherently unequal".
Agreed. I'm not proposing separate but equal. I apologize if that is what my earlier post implied.
I'm proposing that the state provide one type of contract
and you can feel free to overlay whatever religious overtones on it that you wish.
You can get a license and not be sanctified by a church.
You can get a ceremony at a church and chose not to enter into a legal contract, though I doubt many people would want that option; it shows a certain lack of commitment.
(And of course your church can choose to refuse to perform a ceremony if you don't fill out a binding contract with the state,
submit a declaration of beliefs, or swear to eat pomegranate every second Tuesday, that's their right).
P.S. A friend from India tells me that (at least in his region), the marriage laws are even funkier.
If you are Hindu, you are allowed one wife. If you are Muslim, you are allowed four wives.
The Koran allows for up to four wives, specifically in situations of widows with children. So there is some basis for the difference.
Oh I understand the religious origin of granting different marriage rights to holders of different religious beliefs.
I just wanted to point out that I think this highlights the fundamentally ridiculous nature of the state weighing in on this.
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't sign up for "Separate But Unequal".
If I hold religious beliefs saying I can split my assets and commit my support to a harem of 25 women,
then the guy down at the courthouse should just look at me, raise his eyebrow, say "are you sure that's what you want?"
and then cheerfully write up the contract
...without caring whether or not some man in a funny hat or silly costume has said it is OK by doing a magic dance or reading some poems from an ancient book or scroll.
Previous Topic
Index
