"Connecticut became the first state to legalize civil unions without being forced by the courts after lawmakers passed a law endorsing the unions in April. Massachusetts allows gay marriages and Vermont recognizes civil unions because of lawsuits. ... The law affords all the legal rights of marriage -- such as spousal health-care benefits -- to same-sex couples, but defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Heterosexual couples cannot get civil unions. The license application is identical to one for marriage, except 'bride' and 'groom' are replaced with 'party 1' and 'party 2.' "
So, it has all the legal rights of a marriage granted to every other couple through a civil ceremony. It looks like a marriage. It sounds like a marriage. Why, then is it not called a marriage?
Religious institutions, of course, offer marriages within their churches, synagogues, temples and mosques. That is a religious ceremony and is not legally binding. It is government that grants marriage rights. So why should governments be forced to change their nomenclature for the civil ceremony called a marriage? Why can't religions change their ceremonies. No church is forced to bless or otherwise acknowledge any marriage that might have been granted by the state. Nothing would change by calling these "civil unions" what they really are: marriages.
Meanwhile, one state away, in Massachusetts, the state assembly did not vote successfully to place an constitutional amendment on the ballot that would ban same-sex marriages, already legal under a court order.
Now, in our own Washington state, we await a ruling from a state court that would declare same-sex unions legal here, too. Same logic. Same rights.
The earth has not stopped spinning. The sun has continued to rise. Even when giving state recognition to couples of the same gender -- couples who already had been living in monogamous, committed relationships. Imagine that.
-- Wenatchee, Wash.
No comments:
Post a Comment