![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ok, so, clearly I need to reiterate this point courtesy of absolute and obnoxious stupidity on the part of these Retardican Party nominee crazies.
The vast majority of the gays that I know that WANT to be married, want it as a means of sealing and assuring the relationship they have with their partner. They have zero interest in the religious aspects of the union. They only want the civic aspects. So. It's clearly time to disentangle the magical merger of the religious with the civic.
The only reasonable, real solution is to build a 'second system' of civil union. This civil union will be identical to the current marriage rights for all contract and civil and criminal aspects. Period. Marriage will henceforth be a term applied solely to the religious ceremonies. Consequently, if a couple pick up a marriage license, it will by itself also serve as the civil union documentation. And beyond that the civil union license will be available for anyone else that wants it, gay, straight, and in between. And yes, this will be between two consenting adults of contract signing age, as marriage is now.
It's time to grow up. It's time to get over it. And it's high time to recognize that an expansion of 'rights' occurred over and around a religious symbol of property ownership and transfer. And let's not pretend here. The notion that marriage was about anything other than taking literal ownership of a daughter, with a bribe from the bride's family (dowry), and then kicking out as many children as possible. Love wasn't part of it. It was only about political alliance, money for the groom's family, and many things that these people just don't attribute, at all.
Oh, yes, this will also allow them to continue to pursue an exclusionary status to their precious 'marriage' without actually denying fundamental rights to everyone. This is critical to this discussion since this is clearly the main point of their argument, when their 'supporting statements' for it are things like allowing two men or two women to get married will lead inexorably to forcing the country to accept marriage to a canine, or a lamp, or something equally absurd.
The vast majority of the gays that I know that WANT to be married, want it as a means of sealing and assuring the relationship they have with their partner. They have zero interest in the religious aspects of the union. They only want the civic aspects. So. It's clearly time to disentangle the magical merger of the religious with the civic.
The only reasonable, real solution is to build a 'second system' of civil union. This civil union will be identical to the current marriage rights for all contract and civil and criminal aspects. Period. Marriage will henceforth be a term applied solely to the religious ceremonies. Consequently, if a couple pick up a marriage license, it will by itself also serve as the civil union documentation. And beyond that the civil union license will be available for anyone else that wants it, gay, straight, and in between. And yes, this will be between two consenting adults of contract signing age, as marriage is now.
It's time to grow up. It's time to get over it. And it's high time to recognize that an expansion of 'rights' occurred over and around a religious symbol of property ownership and transfer. And let's not pretend here. The notion that marriage was about anything other than taking literal ownership of a daughter, with a bribe from the bride's family (dowry), and then kicking out as many children as possible. Love wasn't part of it. It was only about political alliance, money for the groom's family, and many things that these people just don't attribute, at all.
Oh, yes, this will also allow them to continue to pursue an exclusionary status to their precious 'marriage' without actually denying fundamental rights to everyone. This is critical to this discussion since this is clearly the main point of their argument, when their 'supporting statements' for it are things like allowing two men or two women to get married will lead inexorably to forcing the country to accept marriage to a canine, or a lamp, or something equally absurd.
