I have an idea.

[Joshua N]

There is a discussion on the front page about gay marriage and civil unions. Some say they are basically the same, others say they are not.

Well, I have an idea.


A straight couple must sue to have a civil union.

Hurrah! The benefits of marriage without being married! I mean, since there really is no difference between the two unions, right?




My point is that although the only difference between the two unions is a name, there is something cultural about the name "marriage" that carries weight. It is called something different because it is different.

Some, in their mind, can think "I want the rights and damn the name, I know what this commitment is in my heart, regardless of what it is called." More power to you, sirs and madams. I agree, that is what is most important. You must have the basic right.

However, many, many people will not help but feel their relationship means less because it is shut out from the normative definition. One way to point this out? Allow heterosexual couples to have civil unions.


Everyone, and I mean everyone will be howling about how that is not right, how marriage is a commitment, is sacred, etc. etc. and then...


it becomes clear that separate but equal does not exist. They never looked at civil unions with the same respect as marriage.



Any unmarried heterosexual Massachusetts couple out there ready to give it a try?




Oh, and FYI: Marriage was around long before the church. The church began presiding over marriages as witnesses to the act, not gatekeepers who validated the act.

[Oregone]

1. I brought this up earlier. The term "civil marriage" is culturally insensative to some people

And straight people would have the leverage to sue, in order to receive their legal benefits, and to not enter into a union called "marriage" (which they may not religiously or socially agree with).

If you can change the name of the legal construct to "union", then many of these issues would be solved.

Everyone and anyone can still get "married" in a socio-religious context, but the government could then call it a "union" to be more culturally sensitive. Once its legally called a union, opening it up to gay couples may be much, much easier.