Prop. 8 live-blogging--Should the state be in the marriage business?
March 5, 2009 | 10:03
am
Justice Ming W. Chin raises a point during the hearing that has been much discussed by the editorial board, as well as posited by our readers: What if the state didn't bother with recognizing or performing marriage at all, but instead performed civil unions for all, recognized them with all the same rights, and left marriage to religious and other private organizations to define and perform as they wished?
The question disappeared rather quickly from the courtroom, but it's one that the editorial board expects to pursue.
Well isn't that the whole point of all of the arguments and discussions right now? People want the state to perform marriages with no preference, and other people are against that. Quite obviously if they make this change then religious organizations will start dictating and defining this sort of thing.
Posted by: Marc | November 18, 2009 at 11:27 PM
The problem comes down to legal rights:
"Marriage" is defined federally - so we're talking IRS Tax forms, medical forms, etc.
"Civil Union" is handled differently - so even a "civil union" (which would be at least a step in the right direction) doesn't afford the same legal rights as a "marriage" in the eyes of the law.
So, the wording - the language - DOES matter. If it didn't, then we wouldn't be having this debate.
Posted by: mparke | March 05, 2009 at 01:48 PM
In the Netherlands all people must first marry in a civil service before they are allowed to marry in a church. This removes the ability of churches to determine the boundaries of an institution that has non-religious consequences.
This procedure goes back centuries to when some religions allowed polygamy.
Posted by: Lori in LA | March 05, 2009 at 12:00 PM