Yeah, a few of my friends have also been ruminating on the topic, as you can see by my journal entry.
I've read that this may well become the "Roe V. Wade" wedge issue of our time. It's interesting to view it as a wedge issue, and I fervently hope that people as a whole decide for equality and fairness rather than religious frothing.
Gee, guess you can easily guess which side I'm on. :)
I think it would be much safer, if the judiciary is going to bring us equality, to have them basically rule that the gov't has no business defining marriage at all. Let's abolish marriage licenses, and replace them with a set of one-page forms that designate one's default inheritor, default recipient of medical power of attorney, and so on. Heck, some of the benefits of marriage (e.g. joint tax filing) could be replaced with a system that allows two or more people to file jointly. Plus this would remove blocks to giving marriage like benefits to an arrangement like two widowed siblings who move in together and function as a family.
It's much less threatening to say, "The gov't has no business defining sanctity," than to suggest that the gov't has to sanctify all comers. (Which is, of course, how the conservatives see gay marriage.)
Read over my journal entry -- the second half, written by fionnbharro talks about the idea of Civil Union and leaving marriage as something that is solely religious. Thus, all marriages would be a smaller subset of Civil Unions.
Check out the journal entry, and tell me what you think.
Why exactly would the atheists care, as long as they still have the right to get a civil-union license that grants all the rights and privileges?
And if they really want, they can still go hold a sort of marriage/handfasting ceremony with secular vows. IIRC, there's actually a Secular Humanist hall somewhere around the Berkeley Area, with stained glass windows depicting people like Newton and Galileo. :-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 12:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 04:08 pm (UTC)I've read that this may well become the "Roe V. Wade" wedge issue of our time. It's interesting to view it as a wedge issue, and I fervently hope that people as a whole decide for equality and fairness rather than religious frothing.
Gee, guess you can easily guess which side I'm on. :)
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 07:18 pm (UTC)It's much less threatening to say, "The gov't has no business defining sanctity," than to suggest that the gov't has to sanctify all comers. (Which is, of course, how the conservatives see gay marriage.)
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 07:42 pm (UTC)Check out the journal entry, and tell me what you think.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-21 08:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-21 10:51 am (UTC)And if they really want, they can still go hold a sort of marriage/handfasting ceremony with secular vows. IIRC, there's actually a Secular Humanist hall somewhere around the Berkeley Area, with stained glass windows depicting people like Newton and Galileo. :-)