The Civil Unions Comprimise
What it really comes down to for most people is what sort of couples they are comfortable applying the term "married" to. I have no issue with the label being applied to same sex couples, but many people do. However, I have to admit I'm not comfortable with siblings and other couples among immediate family members being referred to as "married."
However, among the benefits of marriage are the legal rights and responsibilities. It is my understanding that same sex couples wanting to establish these legal arrangements have to hire an attorney and pay several thousand dollars. I can understand why they feel discriminated against.
Also, a brother and sister wanting to get married could respond to the birth defects argument that people with genetically transmitted medical problems can still legally marry, despite the risk of passing medical problems on to children.
Therefore, I would be happy with the establishment of civil unions that allow any two people to establish marriage-like legal relationships between each other, available with the same cost and convenience as marriage licenses. Same-sex couples could still have weddings in churches that are willing to perform them, but the legal term "marriage" would still only apply to opposite-sex couples who are not related. I have heard of people getting married for the legal reasons who but have no interest in sex or children with each other, and this arrangement would suit them as well.
As for siblings and other immediate family members, this might make sense if both are single and want the other to speak for them critical medical situations, or pass assets in case of death outside of probate. Civil unions don't have to presume the partners are having sex together, so if they do that's their own private business (as it is now).
As for polygamy, current family law is not adequate to address all the issues that may arise. For example, is one or more of the wives divorce, then what are the child visitation rights among wives and ex-wives? Unless such issues can be sensibly ironed out, polygamous relationships will just have to exist outside of legal recognition for now.
So I would think that civil unions would satisfy most reasonable people. But there are some that oppose civil unions, as well as company health plans that offer benefits to same-sex partners. I still see that as little more than bigotry.
However, among the benefits of marriage are the legal rights and responsibilities. It is my understanding that same sex couples wanting to establish these legal arrangements have to hire an attorney and pay several thousand dollars. I can understand why they feel discriminated against.
Also, a brother and sister wanting to get married could respond to the birth defects argument that people with genetically transmitted medical problems can still legally marry, despite the risk of passing medical problems on to children.
Therefore, I would be happy with the establishment of civil unions that allow any two people to establish marriage-like legal relationships between each other, available with the same cost and convenience as marriage licenses. Same-sex couples could still have weddings in churches that are willing to perform them, but the legal term "marriage" would still only apply to opposite-sex couples who are not related. I have heard of people getting married for the legal reasons who but have no interest in sex or children with each other, and this arrangement would suit them as well.
As for siblings and other immediate family members, this might make sense if both are single and want the other to speak for them critical medical situations, or pass assets in case of death outside of probate. Civil unions don't have to presume the partners are having sex together, so if they do that's their own private business (as it is now).
As for polygamy, current family law is not adequate to address all the issues that may arise. For example, is one or more of the wives divorce, then what are the child visitation rights among wives and ex-wives? Unless such issues can be sensibly ironed out, polygamous relationships will just have to exist outside of legal recognition for now.
So I would think that civil unions would satisfy most reasonable people. But there are some that oppose civil unions, as well as company health plans that offer benefits to same-sex partners. I still see that as little more than bigotry.
posted by Dancar | 9:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home