November 9, 2005
LET'S GET OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT
Let gays wed, says top woman judge (Joshua Rozenberg, The Telegraph, November 9th, 2005)
Britain's senior woman judge argued last night that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry.Lady Hale, the only woman to have been appointed a law lord, said that from next month the Civil Partnership Act would allow same-sex couples "a status which is marriage in almost all but name".
"Not all homosexuals are equally thrilled by this," she noted, but added: "If people want both the privileges and the responsibilities of marriage, I do not see why we should deny it to them."[...]
"It still provides the best protection for the more vulnerable members of the family: the children and their carers," she said. "It is still convenient for bureaucrats who would otherwise have to make qualitative decisions about whether a couple qualified for certain advantages."
But not necessarily in that order.
Posted by Peter Burnet at November 9, 2005 5:51 AMI think it's a reasonable compromise.
Gays aren't going to be wished away by those who dislike their very existence, and if they want to commit to each other, they should be allowed to.
The business she mentions about "in all but name" is not trivial, but crucial.
The name "marriage" has an important, specific meaning to most people, and so the word should be only used for the union of a man and a woman.
Posted by: Brit at November 9, 2005 6:35 AMSince we have a separation of church and state, I never could figure out how and why, what is essentially a civil contract of marriage, has been lodged with the clergy in the first place. All couples, straight or gay, should be required to enter into a legal civil union at city hall which can be followed by a religious ceremony for those who want to sanctify their unions.
This simple solution has been rejected by the professional gays who don’t want civil unions which would give them the legal rights and responsibilities they claim to want and that’s why, I think, their demands can't be taken seriously. They don't want to legalize their relationships, they want society to declare that gay relationships are the exact equivalent of the relationships between men and women.
That ain’t never gonna happen, so, like abortion, gay marriage will continue to be a hot button item for the left to demagogue.
Sorry. Wasn't I clear?
My point is that it's the old render unto Caesar ...
People who want to legalize their relationship should be required to go to city hall, not only for the license, but to sign for the legal civil union contract with the state.
Clerics could perform only the religious rites of a wedding ceremony which would not be a binding legal contract
Posted by: erp at November 9, 2005 10:19 AMerp - States can deputize anyone to fulfill the duties of state officers. They can deputize priests and ministers to fulfill the town clerk's marriage duties. What's the problem?
Posted by: pj at November 9, 2005 4:46 PMIt's not a problem for me. It's a solution for gay marriage that doesn't stigmatize them or single them out as different. Let the state un-deputize clerics. Call it a civil union instead of a marriage and let it be required for everyone.
In Europe, well France at least, couples have a civil ceremony followed by an optional religious one.
Why keep giving the left peripheral social issues like gay marriage to deflect debate from what's important like our national security.
Posted by: erp at November 10, 2005 3:19 PM