Civil Unions
About time! Okay, I’m getting ahead of myself but long ago when the idea of civil unions, domestic partnership and/or gay marriage was new I thought the state should get out of the business of deciding who’s morality should trump in deciding who can get married. I figured the state should get out of the marriage business and provide nice equal civil unions for any couple capable of giving informed consent free from duress (just like any other contract).
According to the Washington Post (Bill Would End Civil Marriage, Create Domestic Partnerships), a Maryland lawmaker has put forth a bill that would do exactly that. No one believes the bill will pass and it is just a stalking horse for a more “reasonable” civil union bill, but I’m fairly certain the state getting out of the marriage business will be the eventual end state.
If your church doesn’t choose to honor marriage between homosexuals than the church doesn’t have to perform such marriages and your priest can go around saying so and so isn’t married to so and so in the eyes of god. Then all the humane people can leave that church and join one that doesn’t get all misty eyed over the fourteenth century.
The state in the meantime can get on with what it cares about the orderly distribution of property after someone dies, appropriate defaults on who gets to make medical decisions in absence of a medical power of attorney, etc, etc.
The true art of this bill is it lays bare the lie that separate but equal, which worked so well in the civil rights era, is equally faulty in the realm of homosexual rights. It shines a light on the lie told by those desparate to have their relationship deemed special by the state. They claim that there’s no reason for homosexuals to be able to marry civil unions are just as good. If they speak the truth they will have no complaint in the state recognizing their relationship as a civil union and allowing a church to make it a marriage if they (and the church) so desire.
On the other hand if they had “misspoken” and a civil union as defined isn’t as good as a marriage under law. Than it will be only a short time before everyone’s interest is in that problem being corrected. If this law doesn’t pass, the only gain is the lie being laid bare.
In any case I’m glad a lawmaker has the guts to put forth this bill. In all likelihood it will be rejected but it needs to be part of the conversation on this issue and I’m proud my state could contribute.
I read about this in the Post and I had two reactions. First, this is the perfect solution. The state has no business deciding who can join whom in “holy matrimony.” Second, I have to talk to Todd about this. BTW, I think empirically the state’s biggest role in family law is making sure kids are cared for and resolving disputes among former family members (members of former families?) about parental rights and responsibilities.