Comments on: How our government screwed up marriage http://zahnster.com/social-issues/the-marriage-post my name's jade. i'm a child of the internet. Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:30:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Aunt Lee http://zahnster.com/social-issues/the-marriage-post/comment-page-1#comment-1151 Aunt Lee Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:32:45 +0000 http://zahnster.com/?p=102#comment-1151 Referring to same-sex unions as "civil unions" and affording them the same legal protections as marriage would solve the problem if it weren't that the word "marriage" is written into thousands of existing laws. It would be very time-consuming to retrofit all the references in the legal code! I'd like to see "civil marriage" (legal relationship) and "holy marriage" (blessed by a church), but I sure agree that fighting over the terminology is stupid. Everyone in a committed relationship ought to be entitled to the same basic protections -- tax breaks, inheritance, custody of kids, medical decision making, etc. -- regardless of the religious standing of their relationship. The churches can then decide who to unite in religious ceremonies and who to refuse. My church is on the right side of this argument. In fact, my minister thinks we should sue the powers that be for interfering with our right to follow the precepts of our religion. We feel we should be permitted to marry same sex couples and we cannot because of legal constraints. Referring to same-sex unions as “civil unions” and affording them the same legal protections as marriage would solve the problem if it weren’t that the word “marriage” is written into thousands of existing laws. It would be very time-consuming to retrofit all the references in the legal code! I’d like to see “civil marriage” (legal relationship) and “holy marriage” (blessed by a church), but I sure agree that fighting over the terminology is stupid.

Everyone in a committed relationship ought to be entitled to the same basic protections — tax breaks, inheritance, custody of kids, medical decision making, etc. — regardless of the religious standing of their relationship. The churches can then decide who to unite in religious ceremonies and who to refuse.

My church is on the right side of this argument. In fact, my minister thinks we should sue the powers that be for interfering with our right to follow the precepts of our religion. We feel we should be permitted to marry same sex couples and we cannot because of legal constraints.

]]>