Re: [UUPoly-L] marriage/civil union/whatever



The problem with how government treats marriage is that it assumes it means a couple. The real issue is why give couples any special rights? I agree that marriage is a sacrament and belongs to religious institutions. Since in the US, anyone can make up their own religion, that works out fine.

What we really need is a set of uniform personal rights, not special rights for couples.

The government should be looking out for the interests of children, the elderly, disabled, etc irrespective of their or their parents marital status. The government might be an OK place to register any marriage contracts, like we register real estate contracts, but I have never heard anyone say the felt they should be able to keep a copy of their prenups on file at city hall.

John U

Fantine wrote: (On 08:19 PM 11/24/2008)
Why do people say they don't want government involved
in marriage?  Marriage/Civil Union/whatever is a
collection of LEGAL agreements, the stuff government is
made of, as legislatures make law and courts enforce
them.

Personally, I think we should give the word "marriage"
to churches etc. (with whatever sticky wicket rules
each group wants to play by) and have a different term
for the legal arrangement, such as "civil union" or
"domestic partnership" for EVERYBODY gay or straight.
You would have to have a "civil union" filed to get a
"marriage license", in order to be "married" by a
spiritual leader.

Have fun with this thought,
        Francesca






This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.