It pisses me off when politicians and activists go on about “gay marriage.”
My view: people who make a lifelong commitment deserve recognition as partners whether they have the blessing of a god, the signature of a judge, or simply publicly pronounce their commitment. No matter what the method, the results are the same. A stable and committed relationship.
Maintaining a stable relationship is hard work, regardless of the sexes involved or the method used to create it. It should be treated with respect and given legal status.
People on both sides of the issue freak out over the wording. But it’s just a label. A lifelong commitment is not an easy thing—the label is a throwaway.
Call all committed relationships “unions.”
If “marriage” is reserved for religious unions, then Tod & I have a union, not a marriage. Does it matter? No. We mark our 15th anniversary this year and a label doesn’t convey anything at all about our experience together.
My message to the politicians and activists: Ignore the labels and support all committed relationships.
Posted by kuri at January 21, 2004 10:35 AMhttp://www2.b3ta.com/mirror/klingonwedding/
at least those two can’t file for divorce on the grounds of permanent alienation.);-))
Posted by: axel on January 22, 2004 06:58 AMYour absolutely right about recognising all loving, committed relationships.
But marital status becomes more than a label when your beloved is in a coma and you are the only who knows his/her wishes. Less drastic examples include joint health insurance, inheritance rights and tax matters.
Posted by: Michael on January 22, 2004 08:51 AM>marital status becomes more than a label when your
>beloved is in a coma
Right. Which is why I wrote “It should be treated with respect and given legal status.”
Posted by: Kristen on January 22, 2004 09:28 AMOK, if you define “civil union” to mean “marriage” in every sense, then it is just a label. :)
Posted by: Michael on January 22, 2004 11:42 AM