...ban all marriage as recognized by the state in favor of domestic partnerships for all couples.
...While marriage may be a religious institution, adherence to any religion is often ignored, and the state does not require any religious affiliation for marriage.
...Certain groups would recognize some marriages, and others would not, all in compliance with their personal beliefs.
...It would be hypocritical to assert that labels are valid in one instance and frivolous in the next.
...Oppression, whether by the majority or the minority, is wrong.
http://www.newuniversity.org/main/article?slug=ban_marriage_to_break155 In his article "Ban Marriage to Break Barriers" Matthew Quan, UC, Irvine makes a valid point. As one who believes in equal justice for all citizens, I have long been leary of the gay marriage initiative. I have viewed it as a battle against religious oppression where a minority is fighting against a bigoted idea that marriage is somehow more sacred or sanctified if it is between a man and a woman.
In who's world? The obvious answer to that question is in the world of the religious bigot. A 'marriage' can take place in any congregation of people with shared ideas whether they be Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, Pagans, Satanists, Aboriginals and the list goes on and on. Marriage is a spiritual union best left to religious groups who share common beliefs.
In order to provide equality and justice to all and to protect the rights of children, our government would use civil union (domestic partnership) as the legal terminology in determining inheritance, health care, child support and other benefits and burdens between legally bound individuals.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
