Continuing in the series I started yesterday, the second poll question was “What is the “She’s Right” view on marriage?”
The answers were: She thinks that marriage should be between a man and a woman; She thinks same-sex marriage should not be legal; She thinks same-sex marriage should be legal; She thinks civil unions do the same thing and should be good enough; She thinks the government should stay out of marriage altogether and let churches and individuals work out their own marriage contracts; She hopes to someday officiate the marriage of her gay brother and his partner.
Four people said that I think marriage should be between a man and a woman. This is correct – to a point. I think of marriage in a religious context and in that context, it is between a man and a woman.
Three people said that I think same-sex marriage should not be legal, nobody said that I think it should be legal, and three people said that I think civil unions do the same thing and should be good enough.
To the last one, I agree with that statement only because the rhetoric used by the gay marriage lobby is that they want the same legal protection as heterosexual couples and civil unions do provide that. If that was the sole motive behind the movement – and it’s not – then civil unions should be enough. (Although, Cathy Resmer explains in the comments why civil unions do not offer the same legal protection.)
The most popular answer, given by five people, was that I think the government should stay out of marriage altogether and let churches and individuals work out their own marriage contracts. This answer is correct. As I said above, I think of marriage in a religious context and I do not really understand why the government regulates it anyway. For those who are not religious, they could enter into a civil marriage contract with each other.
The government should not be regulating marriage. It then follows that they also should not dictate who can marry (other than that the persons must be doing so of their own free-will). That includes marriage arrangements that I would never enter into, such as polygamous or homosexual. Even though I believe that God designed the family to have one man and one woman as the parents, I also do not believe that I have a right to force that view on others through legislation.
That being said, my view reflects a perfect world where the government is much less intrusive. That is not the case, as unfortunate as that is.
As far as the current brouhaha over marriage, I do not think the government has the right to redefine marriage in a way that undermines the beliefs of religious organizations. For a better understanding of what I mean, you should read this previous post.
It would really benefit all sides if we banded together to get the government out of marriage altogether, but I do not see that happening because (1) both sides hate working together, (2) the left likes it when the government is powerful, and (3) if marriage isn’t government regulated, then it cannot be used to force religious organizations (and others) to embrace homosexuality. (It would be really helpful if you read this post before you launch into your barrage of hate mail/hate comments, to understand where this is coming from.)
The final question was a trick one. As some of you know, I do have a gay brother. However, he has no plans to get married that I know of. Two of you were stumped.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Hmmm. Well, I agree that in an ideal world, the government would stay out of the marriage business altogether.
But I disagree that civil unions give you the same rights as marriage. It’s almost true, and in Vermont, it pretty much *is* true. But civil unions are still this separate thing, and separate is not equal. Though, of course, our families and friends refer to us as “married,” and talk about our “wedding.”
And I will use this opportunity to point out that it sucks that other states don’t recognize my civil union. Every time my partner and I travel to Michigan or North Carolina, which we do often, we run the risk of one of us landing in the emergency room and the other one not being able to make decisions about care because some hospital doesn’t recognize our civil union. That sucks!
And I hate having to check “single” on my federal tax forms. That’s the worst thing, I think. It’s such a lie.
But all in all, I’m not unhappy about civil unions. My union is very civil and happy and I wish the same to everyone.
Cool survey, Charity.
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Cathy, you raise some good points. I’ll have to add a note that people should look at your comments.
Filing single on the tax return must be hurtful. It’s like telling you your relationship is not real or legitimate. Why anyone thinks that will stop people from being gay is beyond me. People are clueless!
As for the ER thing, you two can have legal documents drawn up to make you each others decision maker (that’s a legal term, you know) when you are in another state. You should, if you haven’t.
Thanks for your comments.
August 3rd, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Yeah, I get the legal documents thing, but, I mean, why should I have to pay to get some kind of special thing to prove to some hospital administrator somewhere in a moment of panic that I am legally able to make decisions relating to my partner’s care?
I just think it’s ridiculous.
But then, so are many, many things in this world. Like, for example, why is it taking so freaking long to finish the construction on Riverside Ave.? Jeez.
August 3rd, 2006 at 3:43 pm
No, I don’t think you should have to and it doesn’t seem fair, but I would also hate to see such a tragic thing happen to your family, so I was thinking you should do it.