Okay, for those of you who are keeping score, there are a lot of folks with the rainbow bar, representing support for gay marriage. This has started a backlash of people making up their own bars (greyscale for "marriage sucks", blue and pink for heterosexual-only marriage, etc.).
I have friends that are gay. I have friends that are straight. I have friends that are bi. I have friends that don't cotton to being put in a category.
Here's the thing. The "hetero only" pundits say that marriage is a holy union between a man, woman, and God, and that same-sex marriage is impossible and an abomination.
You know, I'm okay with that.
The important issue is that same-sex domestic partnerships are not recognized legally in the same way as marriage. If the only objection is the definition of marriage, then let's go ahead and require "marriages" to be a religious union, not a legal one. And provide domestic partnerships the same legal status as marriages are today.
I for one would be absolutely behind domestic partnerships. I would have one myself. And if you got joined outside of a church or by a justice of the peace or a secular officiant, you would as well.
What I am against is using the religious definition of marriage as a legal one, and providing special legal benefits to those parties. To me, that violates the church-and-state separation principle.
In my personal and business dealings, I do not provide benefits or advancements to anyone based on their gender or sexual orientation. Nor do I choose to do business with companies that discriminate on those bases.
This does bring up some questions about poly relationships. WOuld a three-person domestic partnership be allowed with a legal definition? Somehow I don't think so. Monogamy is still enforced in most places, and the general populace is still pretty stodgy when it comes to that kind of thing.
So my feeling: relationships are legitimate whether or not they have the "marriage" label. So for that, and partly because I think the whole thing is getting annoying:
I have friends that are gay. I have friends that are straight. I have friends that are bi. I have friends that don't cotton to being put in a category.
Here's the thing. The "hetero only" pundits say that marriage is a holy union between a man, woman, and God, and that same-sex marriage is impossible and an abomination.
You know, I'm okay with that.
The important issue is that same-sex domestic partnerships are not recognized legally in the same way as marriage. If the only objection is the definition of marriage, then let's go ahead and require "marriages" to be a religious union, not a legal one. And provide domestic partnerships the same legal status as marriages are today.
I for one would be absolutely behind domestic partnerships. I would have one myself. And if you got joined outside of a church or by a justice of the peace or a secular officiant, you would as well.
What I am against is using the religious definition of marriage as a legal one, and providing special legal benefits to those parties. To me, that violates the church-and-state separation principle.
In my personal and business dealings, I do not provide benefits or advancements to anyone based on their gender or sexual orientation. Nor do I choose to do business with companies that discriminate on those bases.
This does bring up some questions about poly relationships. WOuld a three-person domestic partnership be allowed with a legal definition? Somehow I don't think so. Monogamy is still enforced in most places, and the general populace is still pretty stodgy when it comes to that kind of thing.
So my feeling: relationships are legitimate whether or not they have the "marriage" label. So for that, and partly because I think the whole thing is getting annoying:
Threesomes are cool. |
|||||
- Current Mood:
cynical
Profile
magicmarmot- Tom Ramcigam
- Magic Marmot Studios
Comments