"New Jersey's highest court opened the door Wednesday to making the state the second in the nation to allow gay marriage, ruling that lawmakers must offer homosexuals either marriage or something like it, such as civil unions."
I have to agree with the majority in this case as well. I know the dissenters wanted more, but this is the problem I have always seen. Gay couples rally that they want marriage, but the term "marriage" is too wrapped up in the religious institution. That marriage has both legal and religious connotations has always been the problem, even though people could get legally married with out any religious involvement.
I have always believed that if activists asked for a legal institution that was the same as the one afforded marriage, but that was called something else, far less people would object.
I know, they will say gays have the right to be called married, but no one can stop you from saying it that way. But, no court in the world should be asked to make a religious institution perform or recognize a marriage.
Just as religion shouldn't govern how we make our laws, government is not supposed to govern religion. As long as a gay couple can be afforded the same LEGAL rights as a hetero couple, this is a victory. It doesn't matter if it is called a civil union or a marriage. A rose by any other name ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
So now I hear that in many places, "civil union" doesn't necessarily afford the same legal rights as "marriage". It may allow a couple to present themself to get certain benefits, but some aspects are left out?
Whose stupid idea was that? I hope this ruling means NJ is getting it right.
Post a Comment