CF -
I don't think the term "marriage" is a straw man as much as it is simply a "fighting word."
What I mean is that marriage is already primarily a legal institution at this point. People who get married by a judge aren't considered any less married than those who get married in churches. Conversely, a priest, rabbi, or minister may preside over a wedding, but if you want your marriage to be recognized by the state, you have to meet the requirements and get a license.
The church does not have the power to create legal marriages without the consent of the state, but the state may create them without the consent of the church.
Nevertheless, many people still attach a religious significance to the term. For better or for worse, marriage is either a religious or a legal institution, or both, depending on who you ask.
I agree that just having civil unions for everyone would be an equitable solution. At one point I thought that would be the best way to handle the issue. My thinking has changed. For one thing, if we tell heterosexuals that they can no longer get "married" by a Justice of the Peace, then we could be said to be contributing to the destruction of the institution of marriage.
It's still a solution I would accept, but I think true equality would mean that homosexuals could get married, just like heterosexuals can now. Of course, churches would be free to either sanction such marriages or not.
- Allen |
