skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Atheist. Skeptic. Libertarian. Revolutionary?
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(115)
-
▼
June
(26)
- Me Fail English? That's Unpossible!
- Occam's Razor
- Acupuncture? I Hardly Know Her!
- Sew Age Medicine
- Oh, Sharon...
- Two Posts in an Hour? What Gives?
- Something About This Seems Wrong
- rEVOLution (I think I've used this title before)
- Shit Piss Fuck Cunt Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits
- Another Comic
- (Un)Intelligent Design
- On Friendship
- Poe's Law
- The Illusion of Control
- The Perfect Resolution of Nerd and Drunk
- Love and Marriage
- Step 1 Boards Had Sex With Me (Figuratively Speaking)
- My Day Off
- You Don't Mess With The Sharon
- Moral Oral
- The Nicest Thing I've Ever Said About a Socialist
- Video to a Christian Nation
- Let's Give It A Shot
- Videoness
- Guys, I'm Super Serial...
- John Oliver Strikes Again
-
▼
June
(26)
About Me
2 comments:
I really don't think there's any argument against gay marriage that doesn't incorporate religion into it somehow. There's no reason to put a ban on it, for the same reason you shouldn't ban anything else. It's a choice, and people deserve the same human rights universally, whether gay or straight or black white male female whatever. When I press people who are not religious about the gay marriage thing, the answer is always, "I just don't like it." When people finally stop assuming that the universe has to coincide with their predispositions about how everything should work, the world will be a better place.
Many states get out of the 'discrimination' stigma by asserting that gays in same-sex unions can go through various legal channels to achieve the same 'rights' as male-female unions. Unfortunately, several rights are unachievable (health insurance coverage for one; though one partner's insurance may cover a 'spouse,' it would not cover a same-sex partner), and those that are possible can rack up tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to actually put them into effect, instead of a $35-$42 (Las Vegas) marriage licensee fee. This also effectively requires the same sex couple to carry around documented proof of their legal battle for emergency situations, where a 'wife' or 'husband' in a heterosexual partnership would rarely need proof of their rights as spouses (we'll get to the "spouse" status in a minute).
As for the religious connotation associated with marriage, the government has an answer for that too, one that satisfies separation of church and state (and state and church). According to US Code Title 1, Chapter 1 § 7; the term "marriage" is recognized as a "legal union" between a man and a woman; effectively, the state only recognizes the civil union portion of the "marriage." It also defines "spouse" as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html)
Post a Comment