"What if straight people couldn't get married?"

I feel kinda shitty whining about this, considering how things aren't so bad here, but here's the theory:

It's a "separate but equal" kinda situation - "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. The union may be colloquially called a marriage, but legally it is a civil partnership. Marriages have a rich history intertwined with culture, and evoke a romantic image of the joining of two as one. A civil partnership does not have this history, and does not have the same cultural significance as a marriage. Would you rather "marry someone", or "enter a civil partnership with someone"?

It's about legitimising a couple. It says "a man and a woman are a legitimate couple, a same-sex couple are not legitimate enough to be married in the eyes of the law and must have a separate system designed to deal with them".



Still, even if America did adopt civil partnerships instead of full-blown marriage, it would ensure that same-sex couples could effectively function as a couple under the eyes of the law, and that can only be a good thing. Of course, then we get the problem of gay Christians not being able to marry.

Society is progressing, though we wouldn't know it by looking at Maine.

 

Maybe it's time to create that cultural heritage.

 

Very well said. And I totally agree. What it all comes down to is dignity and human rights. Gay folks are just as human as straight folks. So what's up with the separate but equal tag? Women are equal to men. African Americans are equal to white folks. They overcame society's prejudice, and I applaud them for that. But gay and lesbian Americans are supposed to settle for being thought of as separate but equal? And cannot legally get married? I don't see any dignity in that. We're Americans. We pay taxes. And even if some gay folks have no desire to legally marry -- the option should still be there. Human rights should be available to all. So, yeah: I totally agree with every word you said.

--QP

 

Wouldn't that be nice.

--QP