Hmmm...the whole marriage bill crap is definitely to divert eyes from other stuff, to tire us out on all sides.
It's not all crap. Frankly, I couldn't give a damn about a church wedding.
Many of my friends, though, are counting on the legal rights attached to marriage. What happens to the friends of mine who are sponsoring a spouse's immigration as "family class," if they're suddenly no longer family? What about the man whose medication plan only extends to a spouse, and his spouse is about to become a stranger in the eyes of the law?
A lot of suggestions have been thrown around about civil unions, but this is dangerous because such things are purely provincial, and have no national or international weight. A same-sex marriage will be recognized in the Netherlands. A civil union in Quebec is not recognized in Alberta.
And if you're travelling in a foreign country that, say, only lets spouses into a hospital room if your spouse is in an accident, or something of that sort, it can become a major issue.
I also refuse to let the religious right set a precedent for the mingling of church and state. Even a word is too much to allow them.
Lastly, I think it's an important issue from a social perspective as well. In the years I've been helping to fight this battle, I've noticed it forces dialogue.
Marriage is something concrete -- not like abstract theories of representation that only people with a post-secondary education in the humanities are likely to know. Marriage is within common experience.
I've had hundreds of conversations with hundreds of people on this in the last few years, and almost everyone who isn't an evangelical thinks the evangelicals are being assholes. This issue is solidifying support in response to the solidifying opposition on the other side.
And we can use that solidifying support for other issues, too, I've found. I've used same-sex marriage conversations with straight people as inroads to discussions of queer teen suicide, and queerbashing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-24 05:18 pm (UTC)It's not all crap. Frankly, I couldn't give a damn about a church wedding.
Many of my friends, though, are counting on the legal rights attached to marriage. What happens to the friends of mine who are sponsoring a spouse's immigration as "family class," if they're suddenly no longer family? What about the man whose medication plan only extends to a spouse, and his spouse is about to become a stranger in the eyes of the law?
A lot of suggestions have been thrown around about civil unions, but this is dangerous because such things are purely provincial, and have no national or international weight. A same-sex marriage will be recognized in the Netherlands. A civil union in Quebec is not recognized in Alberta.
And if you're travelling in a foreign country that, say, only lets spouses into a hospital room if your spouse is in an accident, or something of that sort, it can become a major issue.
I also refuse to let the religious right set a precedent for the mingling of church and state. Even a word is too much to allow them.
Lastly, I think it's an important issue from a social perspective as well. In the years I've been helping to fight this battle, I've noticed it forces dialogue.
Marriage is something concrete -- not like abstract theories of representation that only people with a post-secondary education in the humanities are likely to know. Marriage is within common experience.
I've had hundreds of conversations with hundreds of people on this in the last few years, and almost everyone who isn't an evangelical thinks the evangelicals are being assholes. This issue is solidifying support in response to the solidifying opposition on the other side.
And we can use that solidifying support for other issues, too, I've found. I've used same-sex marriage conversations with straight people as inroads to discussions of queer teen suicide, and queerbashing.