?

Log in

No account? Create an account

The Fairytale of Replacing Marriage - Nothing to See Here

Sep. 5th, 2012

10:40 pm - The Fairytale of Replacing Marriage

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

The (often libertarian) idea of ending government recognition of marriage is about as realistic as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Marriage is a concept which is recognized internationally. You can get married in one country, go to another country and have it be recognized. You can travel to, e.g., Germany and if your spouse has to go to hospital, you have spousal rights.

I'm sick and tired of the factually bereft argument that marriage is a religious institution and shouldn't be recognized by government. It is not a religious institution, and it has existed in many forms (including same-sex) for thousands of years. Religions can recognize whatever they want. They *can't* own marriage.

Making a half-assed attempt like allowing revisionist *nonsense* like marriage being "between a man and a woman" and replacing it with AltMarriage (domestic partnership? something else?) and giving that the recognition in the US that marriage currently has ... is a naval-gazingly provincial notion that ignores the larger reality.

Replacing marriage with AltMarriage in the US means US citizens have AltMarriage, so when they travel to other countries they don't get spousal rights. This could hurt heterosexual couples (who, not being religious, get AltMarried because that has the government recognition) just like it hurts homosexual couples (who the marriage-replacement-fantasists would deny the right of marriage to).

If a gay couple married in New Hampshire travels to the Netherlands tomorrow, they are married, and that marriage is recognized there. If they travel to another country, it might not be today, but it might be 6 months from now. What is almost guaranteed is that if they are AltMarried it will not be recognized as equivalent to married in other countries.

In conclusion:

(1) Religions don't own marriage. Why should they get to restrict the rights of others? The answer is simple. They should not. EVERYONE should have equal rights.

(2) Any argument on this topic, to be worthwhile, has to consider rights internationally, not just within the US.

Current Location: Fremont, CA
Current Mood: rushedrushed

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:embers_log
Date:September 6th, 2012 10:46 am (UTC)
(Link)
I really agree... marriage has always had a lot to do with property rights (inheritance) and recognizing the rights of 'legitimate' children. My cousin and her partner have three children, and those children are less safe (although my cousin and her partner have drawn up all the legal protections available to them) because their parents are not married.

I think they deserve the full/equal rights other families enjoy.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mavjop
Date:September 6th, 2012 09:09 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I couldn't agree more.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)