Marriage v. Civil Union
Nov. 12th, 2008 11:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deirdreRick was a proponent of changing California's marriage laws to be civil unions for all and keep marriage for the churches, then I said that was a good idea.
I'm reversing my stance.
Here's why. Marriage is a fungible commodity throughout the world [1]. If someone were married in California and hetero and got injured in Arkansas, they could act as family for that person. Same thing in Saudi Arabia.
Change California's -- and only California's -- law to be civil unions for everyone, and all hell breaks loose. We'd have the same problems in other states and other countries that same-sex couples have now. Unless the entire world changes simultaneously -- no. Just no. It will cause problems for people traveling and moving and you don't even want to begin to imagine all the paperwork.
So. Better idea. Let the churches keep "Holy Matrimony" and the Mormons could keep their "sealing" and whatever terms all the various faiths use to denote marriage that are sacramental. The state keeps the word marriage.
Like it or not, marriage is a secular thing.
Here's the start of the California law (California Family Code), emphasis added:
No one's objected to that before. [2] Let it stand. Instead, let's separate church and state on this issue for real. I have a modest proposal.
[1] There are countries who don't recognize mixed-race or mixed-faith marriages, but those marriages that conform to law (or treaty) in other nations are recognized.
[2] Well, no one that mattered.
I'm reversing my stance.
Here's why. Marriage is a fungible commodity throughout the world [1]. If someone were married in California and hetero and got injured in Arkansas, they could act as family for that person. Same thing in Saudi Arabia.
Change California's -- and only California's -- law to be civil unions for everyone, and all hell breaks loose. We'd have the same problems in other states and other countries that same-sex couples have now. Unless the entire world changes simultaneously -- no. Just no. It will cause problems for people traveling and moving and you don't even want to begin to imagine all the paperwork.
So. Better idea. Let the churches keep "Holy Matrimony" and the Mormons could keep their "sealing" and whatever terms all the various faiths use to denote marriage that are sacramental. The state keeps the word marriage.
Like it or not, marriage is a secular thing.
Here's the start of the California law (California Family Code), emphasis added:
300. (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).
No one's objected to that before. [2] Let it stand. Instead, let's separate church and state on this issue for real. I have a modest proposal.
[1] There are countries who don't recognize mixed-race or mixed-faith marriages, but those marriages that conform to law (or treaty) in other nations are recognized.
[2] Well, no one that mattered.