Monday, June 20, 2005
Marriage or Union
The word "marriage", whatever the English-language dictionaries may say, is by implication bound up in religion - and only a few, at that. The State used that word because "partnership" or others were not quite the same, and why invent a new one?
But what the State actually does is, for a fee, record a limited partnership and agree to define certain legal consequences (eg inheritance) without the need for a more formal arrangement, while allowing for actual more formal arrangements (wills, pre-nups...) to override the default.
Alas, since first implemented (Republic of Rome, pre-Empire?), the State certificate has been used to engulf more and more areas - my (un-)favorite horror is the ICU at most hospitals and how they define "family" for visitation access.
Replace current legal references to "marriage" with some other term ("civil union" is clumsy, but what else has been proposed?) and there is no effective change to those laws - not even in who may sign the certificate (not necessarily a religious figure even now). Then [attempt to] argue about the definition and qualifications without the religious connotations. Gays (and others) who want "marriage" can argue about it with their (putative) co-religionists, those who want the protections - and yes, privileges - of the State certificate can argue about who qualifies.
Oh, there would still be people against altering the qualificatiion, and many would cloak themselves in "religion", but I do believe a bit more rationality (as opposed to rationalizing) would come to bear.
But what the State actually does is, for a fee, record a limited partnership and agree to define certain legal consequences (eg inheritance) without the need for a more formal arrangement, while allowing for actual more formal arrangements (wills, pre-nups...) to override the default.
Alas, since first implemented (Republic of Rome, pre-Empire?), the State certificate has been used to engulf more and more areas - my (un-)favorite horror is the ICU at most hospitals and how they define "family" for visitation access.
Replace current legal references to "marriage" with some other term ("civil union" is clumsy, but what else has been proposed?) and there is no effective change to those laws - not even in who may sign the certificate (not necessarily a religious figure even now). Then [attempt to] argue about the definition and qualifications without the religious connotations. Gays (and others) who want "marriage" can argue about it with their (putative) co-religionists, those who want the protections - and yes, privileges - of the State certificate can argue about who qualifies.
Oh, there would still be people against altering the qualificatiion, and many would cloak themselves in "religion", but I do believe a bit more rationality (as opposed to rationalizing) would come to bear.
