This is definitely a hot-button issue and for that reason I'd almost rather avoid answering it, but I'll give it a shot anyways. At this point I personally agree with the traditional view that marriage is between one man and one woman. However I think that if a state wants to legalize gay marriage it should be up to that state and should be determined by the legislative branch rather than by specific court cases. That being said, I am in favor of civil unions, which at this point are only legal in a handful of states in the U.S. (
link). This grants rights, benefits and responsibilities similar to (and in many cases equal to) opposite sex couples. However the definition of marriage is not adjusted.
What are your thoughts? Should gay marriage be legalized? If so, how should this be done?
I just answered this Featured Question, you can answer it too!
Comments (7)
"Civil Unions" that give ANY two people marriage benefits (not rights) would fly with me. Give 'em that, and NOTHING more, so they'll just shut up about it!
Your thoughts mirror mine.
@vwagenjetta - I don't understand the distinction you draw between benefits accruing from civil unions, and "rights"; moreover, what rights would you give opposite sex couples, but deny to same sex couples? Most persons who oppose "same sex marriage" do so due to religeous convictions/beliefs. Yet "rights" is a civil concept. If the voters of a state were to define a status of civil union and extend it equally to same sex and opposite sex couples, would then the opposite sex couple have a different relationship in the eyes of the state from that for the same sex couple? What difference would that be? Wouldn't the difference be only a semantic one, specifically the words "civil union" on the same sex license, and "marriage" on the opposite sex license? If the same sex couple, with their civil union license in hand, sought out a sympathetic religeous community that performed a marriage ceremony, would the state that adheres to the semantic distinction have an obligation to interfere? I understand that the idea of "same sex marriage" is one that some persons cannot accept due to their religeous convictions. I'm not so sure how the extension of the rights and benefits normally afforded to committed opposite sex couples so destabilizes society when afforded equally to same sex committed couples.
@youniversl - marriage is not a right guaranteed by anything, but a privilege. If gay people want that privilege, I say give it to 'em. But two people of the same sex living together with "next of kin" benefits (to keep it short) is not marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman, "Civil Union" is whoever and whoever, and each have similar benefits.
I think its terrible to assume that a gay marraige is in anyway less of a union than a straight marraige... I know plenty of people gay and straight that shouldn't get married. Marraige is about the law, what counts as a spouse, not where they poke each other. It counts in terms of property rights should something suddenly happen to your spouse and thats the only real issue.
@OwenHiggins - I agree with you mostly, but do you think that the current definition of marriage as "one man and one woman" to be bigoted?
I am very happy to read this. This is the type of manual that needs to be given and not the random misinformation that is at the other blogs. Appreciate your sharing this greatest doc.