The intention of my previous post was to propose that a new legal term be used to formally define the union between same-sex couples. As homosexuality became openly acceptable within contemporary society, gay couples sought legal status to enable them the rights and privileges of married couples (i.e. joint tax status, inheritance rights, family privileges when hospitalized, etc.) that seems clearly defensible yet there is strong opposition. I contend the same-sex union needs its own identification. As I see it, the problem has arisen from choosing to define the union as marriage and altering that time-honored institution. Throughout human history there has been universal understanding that marriage is a permanent union between a man and a woman. It is the foundation upon which family is built. Not all marriages are ideal, and children are born out of wedlock but the concept of marriage is fundamental to social order. It is through marriage we trace lineage, identify ancestors, and pursue genealogy.
A respondent to my post said marriage is "just a word" that means join something together (yes, a word has more than one meaning) . . . and quoted that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet . . . But this is not changing the name of a rose, it is calling another flower by the rose's name! My argument is not about "just a word", it is about changing a time-honored institution. A homosexual union IS different from a heterosexual one, just as adopting a child is different than birthing one--but become equal in the eyes of the law.
I suggest legalizing another term for the formal bond of same-sex couples (such as life-partners or whatever unique term is favored) and change the law to include that term rather than change our understanding of marriage.
Post a Comment