Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
Basically that's what marriage does now, except that all those things you would have to write up separately are codified in a vast multitude of laws and are granted automatically at signing. Honestly the biggest problem with the institution of marriage is that people are unwilling to mentally and emotionally disassociate the religious and personal aspects of marriage from the government benefits.
If it is a legal contract there should be no gender restrictions on it.
I'm not opposed to your ideal EW but I think it's far beyond what's plausible in the forseeable future.
|
I agree with you, Drole. That is what marriage does now except that the contract doesn't have to be written for every single couple who wants to enter into that contract. They get one license that in turn stipulates all the other legalities. I really don't understand what people mean when they refer to a civil union because, in the United States, that's exactly what marriage is. If you were REQUIRED to involve a religious entity in a marriage, then it would not be a civil union, it would be a religious ceremony. However, you can have all the religious ceremonies you want and you are not married unless you have a license. That makes marriage a civil union as it stands right now. Nobody distinguishes between the ceremony performed by a justice of the peace vs. a Catholic priest vs. a rabbi vs. a minister, etc. Marriage is a civil union. Those who choose to make it more by including a religious component are no more married than those who do not.