Over at the Huffington Post, Alvin McEwen writes:
It’s time for this “we need to protect marriage” con to die. And it will. It could happen in North Carolina or Minnesota. Both states are facing anti-marriage-equality votes next year. Or it could happen before then. But rest assured, it will happen.
Amen. I’m all for defending marriage, provided we recognize that the biggest threat against marriage right now is excessive government intrusion into people’s private and personal business. Let’s defend marriage—gay or straight—from the legalistic machinations of bigoted busybodies who want to take it away. And when it comes to putting that kind of protection into the Constitution, I’m all for that too.
You would think the first amendment would cover this one, but sometimes you have to clarify things for the slow members of the class… I’m all for tacking on a “don’t be a bigot” on to the end of the Bill of Rights so we can make that more clear.
I’ll just add an amen to that, too: Amen. Their con game isn’t about marriage–it’s about money. They are rolling in money being sent to them by clueless, easily terrified bigots everywhere. All you have to do is take one glance at that bigoted movement to see the farce that it is. Most of the people running the “protect marriage” con appear to have very unhappy marriages themselves or, considering the priests, live loveless lives devoid of any close personal friendships.
Hear, hear. The bogus arguments against same-sex marriage fail any logical scrutiny. They’re no slippery slope toward pedophilia or beastiality. Come on. Marriages are between consenting (human) adults. I know same-sex couples whose relationships have outlasted plenty of hetero marriages.
You might want to drop the human part if that goes into your constitution or you’ll just have this same fight again in the future when someone wants to marry a consenting adult alien
What’s the big deal with marriage anyway?
If people want to make some public commitment to each other then it should be a matter for them to arrange between themselves to suit themselves. And if that includes some sort of contractual material commitment e.g. to sharing a house, domestic arrangements, child-rearing costs, then I’m sure the lawyers will be happy to help.
Where the state may need to be involved is in making it possible for one person to specify that [an] other[s] be allowed to visit them in hospital, say. Or who counts as next-of-kin. Marriage is a one-size product that doesn’t fit all, whether straight or gay: plenty of people have close friends, whether platonic or sexual, who they might be glad to have visit them in times of sickness or injury; and significant numbers live in either declared (e.g. “polyamorous”) or de-facto (e.g. the quietly accepted but not-spoken-about lover) relationships which extend beyond the standard-issue couple.
The big deal with marriage is that so many rights are automatically conferred with the civil recognition of such. Yes, gay people can draw up contracts and such that mimic a very few of the benefits of civil marriage, but it takes lots of time and money and lawyers to do it, while with marriage it happens automatically. There is also the case of federal marriage benefits, that are not given to couples who are married in states that allow marriage equality.
Here’s a decent list of some of the hundreds of rights: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
The real question about it being a “big deal” is whether it’s acceptable that rights that are available to one group of people should be denied to another group. That, I believe, is a very big deal. Try substituting another group for gays, and think about denying them marriage, and it becomes a bit more clear.
Sorry, I expressed myself badly. I meant “why *should* marriage be a big deal anyway?” Why should any form of marriage – straight or gay – be accorded some special status in society? I think it’s analogous to the question of why any given religion should be granted a special status in a society.