If I had my way, "marriage" would be a term confined to churches and religious rites. Couples could get a blessing from their priest (or pastor, minister, rabbi, imam, shaman, whatever), but they'd have to go to the courthouse to sign a license and a contract and make it legal. A contractual obligation with legal privileges and responsibilities by any other name smells just as sweet. Civil unions for everybody.
*Just to be clear, until clergy get out of the notary-public business (when pigs fly), then it should be marriage for everybody. And I mean every couple willing to make that pledge to each other to stay faithful to one another and to the family they make together no matter what and unto death.
The pending legislation in Washington is something I'm willing to settle for (for the time being); nine tenths of a loaf is better than nothing. Since it's still short of a clear unequivocal declaration of equality, I have a hard time mustering a lot of enthusiasm for it.
3 comments:
Non uno die roma aedificata est.
New Jersey's court passed its gay marriage bill because of extensive evidence that even the most generous DP/Civil Union is not treated the same as marriage in fact, regardless of what it says in law.
Words DO matter.
Still, as you say, someething beats nothing.
IT
I hate being an agent of the state. I asked my vestry if I could refuse to perform marriage liturgies until there was marriage equality, but that upset them....
sigh.
Post a Comment