Ktulu_03's Journal: Gay Marriage and Conservatives

Wendy McElroy's editorial on FoxNews.com was interesting, but I wanted to add some more to it.

It would probably really shock all my liberal friends to see that I am for gay marriage. I just got married about 2 months ago, and it really seems to make life easier. We can be on either health care plans, we get to pick the best one. We could visit each other in the hospital, if we ever had to. We'll get each other's social security benefits if one of us passes away. You almost feel as if you get some security blanket when you get married, in a financial and health sense.

So, should gay couples be allowed to form some type of permanent union to receive the same benefits and services? Absolutely. I believe everyone has the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, without the government telling you what you can and can't do. Do I think this union should be called marriage? Well, I'm kinda split on this one, not really sure I agree with calling it that. However, the name of what this union is shouldn't be the biggest stepping stone in forming a fair policy for this.

I think the biggest thing scaring conservatives, is that they feel that their churches will have to perform these new "marriage" ceremonies. I don't think that should ever happen forcefully by the government. I think we need to separate the term marriage from its legal and religious meanings. This is similar to what the catholics do with divorce. First you get a legal divorce, then a religious annulment. The same could be done for marriage. You get legally married, then, if you find a church that is willing to perform a religious ceremony, then you do that too. The government should not by any means force any church to provide marriage ceremonies to couples it doesn't want to. Churches have to be able to define their own policies outside of government control, no matter how un-PC they might considered by others. And if the liberals don't like that, we can use one phrase that they do: Separation of Church and State.

Here's what I think might work to satisfy both sides:

• Allow any couple to create a legal union, equal to marriage benefits
• Dissolving of a legal union to have to go through the normal divorce courts, child support, alimony, just as straight couples have to go through today.
• Have to pay the marriage penalty on taxes.
• Allow any couples to have wills and establish trusts
• Be responsible to the same laws that married couples have, in terms of IRA's, 401(k)'s, and other taxes
• Allow churches to decide on their own whether they recognize these legal unions, and if they want to bless them or perform them, without sanctioning them to do so by the government.
• This union should have no more rights than any married couple. They should be equal.

A Wacky Extension of a Wacky Government Intrusion

[GMontag]

This Conservative views the government keeping lists of spouses, "approved" or otherwise, an intrusion which needs to go.

I thought it was bad enough when the government could declair some people "married" whenever it benefited the government or one party, usually to the detrement of many other parties. For those unfamiliar with this practice, it is called "common law marriage". It is pretty common, but not the law everywhere and thank goodness nobody is suggesting a federally legeslated equivelant.

Certa

Moo

[Chacham]

Marriage is a religous thing. The government should not even recognize it. If the government wants to make some form of official union as a requisite for benefits, let them. The religious cannot argue that the government should recognize religion, the government won't be offending religion, and all will be happy.

Now to address each point.

Allow any couple to create a legal union, equal to marriage benefits

Actually, remove marriage benefits, and make other requirements for the benefits.

Dissolving of a

Re:Moo

[Ktulu_03]

Yeah, I think I should have chosen my terminology a bit more carefully. I think there should be a distinction between marriage and a civil union, and that new terminology should be used on it. Any government or business policies and programs should be based on the civil union, not marriage. And the points that I specified that are already in place, I just mentioned them to make sure they are protected as they are now.

Re:Moo

[Chacham]

Ah, ok, as long as you agree. :)