|
Given that some churches, members of which would call themselves Christians, although some other Christians would say they are not, currently DO marry gay couples, I will find it supremely ironic if and when (and arguably that is now) gay marriages are only sanctioned by (some) religions, the exact entities that everyone is saying make gay marriage taboo, yet the law continues to reject gay marriage.
There are many gays that are already married, and I am not just talking about people that have been going to San Francisco. Ones that participate in denominations of Christianity or other religions that choose to recognize and sanctify marriages of homosexuals. In addition, no church will ever be required to perform gay marriages, even if the law changes to disallow the illegality of it. As another poster said, all churches already have the right to recognize or not recognize whatever marriages they so choose, on whatever grounds they so choose. So, really, it only comes down to whether or not people want to see gays have those legal rights. As valkyrie posted, there are a host of them, most of which may be entered into through other types of contracts, although some of which are only obtainable through actual marriage. Is there some compelling reason that heteros should have the convenience of one-stop shopping for all these benefits, whereas homos should have to go through much more contractual work to obtain the 80% or so of them they can legally access?
Again, I see that it comes down to the word "marriage." And again, I would say that separate but equal didn't work before, although it's better than acknowledged inequalities.
|