?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
05 November 2008 @ 09:07 am
Two steps forward, one step back  
The religious right has spoken out in a loud and underwhelming majority, and declared that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman, and "enshrined" that definition in the California constitution.

Why does that matter to me? I'm heterosexual and not even married. The religious right has declared that marriage is theirs to define, not mine to share with my LGBT friends if i want. They control it, they define it, and they don't want my friends to have it, and you know what, they probably don't like me much either.

Well fine, they've defined what marriage is, they've "protected' it from people who are different from them. Well i'm different from them, if not in the way they were originally thinking, and maybe if they want to keep marriage to themselves then i don't really want it.

The ones who are trying to sound more rational claim that they don't care if LGBT people get the same legal rights through civil unions or something like that, they just don't want then "sullying the holy institution of marriage" or some crap like that. Well fine. Let's make a legal alternative to marriage, open to anyone and discreet from any religious institution. And you know what? Let's make it possible for anyone who was married to switch over to this new legal status if they want, and let's require the two states to be tracked separately in the census and such, we wouldn't want to "sully" marriage by mixing the two together after all. And if some day far in the future there are more people under the legal contract than the religious contract i'm just going to laugh and laugh at how good a job the religious right did at "protecting" its "own" institution.

We need to come up with a better name than "civil union" though. Can you imagine the following conversation?

"Are you two married?"
"No, we're unionized."

The best i've come up with so far is "civil joining," but that still sounds a bit weird.
 
 
Current Mood: angryangry
 
 
 
Catbirdcatbird on November 5th, 2008 05:16 pm (UTC)
The French do this apparently http://www.france-property-and-information.com/marriage.htm I have a friend who's parents are French diplomats in LA and have a PACS agreement. Her mother can't work in the States because she isn't 'married' to her father.

I propose a new amendment: Remove 'marriage' from CA. Marriages can now only be recognized as a religious institution and everyone who was married is now in a civil union in the eyes of the great State of California.
Sister Atom Bomb of Courteous Debateakiko on November 5th, 2008 05:18 pm (UTC)
Europeans in general do this. In Germany, if people want to be legally married, the ONLY option is to show up at the town hall and have it done there. Religious ceremonies do not confer the legal rights. They don't have separate words for it, and the world hasn't ended yet.
(Deleted comment)
Andrewneonelephant on November 6th, 2008 04:00 am (UTC)
I assume the actual verb you'd want to use for a civil union would be "unified". I realize that still leaves some things to be desired.
Brie2gouda4u on November 6th, 2008 05:50 am (UTC)
I've already gotten Geoff to agree to get a divorce should a "separate but equal" state become available to us. I don't care what the hassle would be.
Vesperasol_rei on November 8th, 2008 03:44 am (UTC)
I say abolish marriage! The institution is causing more problems than doing what it is supposed to be for: expressing your love for another person

Perhaps I should start protesting by refusing to acknowledge the marital status of others...hmmm.....

But your solution sounds good, too...and undoubtedly more practical. :)