March 21, 2010 4:01am 247 online Daily: How long have you been in your current or most recent relationship? Click here to answer
Home Articles Forums Blogs Chat Win Stuff Games Pics Advice Writing Tests Listings More...
The Community - GLBTQ Student Blog
Marriage? Not for me, not for you
Marriage. It's just a word, but it is a word that gets very strong reactions from a lot of people. To many, it represents the joining of two people, usually a male and a female, in a religious ceremony under the blessing of God. To others, it is a way of making their relationship legitimate, a way for them to get mutual benefits, and to grant them certain rights. Still others see it as a right of all people to engage in, gay or straight, to showcase their love for their friends and family.

Personally, I agree with the religious right. This may be unpopular and non-politically correct for a gay man to say, but I agree that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman, if that is what the majority of religious institutions want. Marriage started as a religious event, and I think it should continue as just that, a religious event. That does not, however, mean that I believe gays and lesbians should be refused equal rights and protections under the law. Quite the opposite actually. I feel that marriage should no longer be a legal matter. If you dissolve the legal standing of marriage, you dissolve the reason the word polarizes so many.

This is what I propose. Instead of using marriage as the benchmark for relationships, and for granting rights to couples, instead use civil unions. Allow anyone to get a civil union, and make hose unions equivalent to what marriage is today. Grant them the same spousal rights in terms of visitation, inheritance, next-of-kin, legal standing and insurance benefits. If you provide an equal footing for everyone, nobody cares what you call it.

Now, I'm not saying we should get rid of marriage completely. What I'm proposing is redefining it. I personally believe that if a man and a woman want to get married, they should be allowed to do so in a church with the priest of their choosing. I don't, however, think that that union should be given any legal rights. Priests and religious leaders the world over keep saying that marriage is a religious thing, and that they should not be required to perform it for people they feel are unworthy. I say, give them their religious marriage. I'll take my legal Union.

Comments

Ponzi23 said:
TOTALLY AGREE!!! I've always seen it that way and I don't understand why this hasn't happened.
Neko150 said:
I agree whole heartedly, and have felt this way for quite a while. If there is indeed a separation of church and state, the state should not be a body that recognizes and grants financial incentives from religious institutions. Let anyone get a civil union, and if you choose, get married as well at the religious institution of your choice.

This, however, does raise an issue of illegitimate civil unions, two people "getting together" simply for the state and federally issued benefits of two individuals in a union, however this issue exists already in the current definition of marriage; I simply think the problem would be exacerbated with civil unions only (sans gender restrictions).

Leave a Comment

Your Name: 
Your E-mail 
 
Your e-mail address will NOT be published.
Comment: 
To help us prevent spam, please enter the words you see in the box below:

Share This Post

Digg this!submit to redditshare on delicious share on facebookmixx it up!Stumble It!

E-mail This Post

Click here to e-mail this post to friends
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author(s) alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of Student.com, The Student Center, Inc., or its partners and affiliates.