[Previous entry: "Iraq council votes for war crimes court"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "from the mailbag"]

07/16/2003 Entry: "civil unions"

INTERESTING POINT ON CIVIL UNIONS, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE: In stereotypical blogging fashion, I present you with some from The Corner that I found via Eve Tushnet's blog. An NRO reader made an interesting point in an e-mail to Jonah Goldberg - if we're going to have civil unions, why limit them to homosexuals or even to people in a sexual or romantic union? This is a propoal I think I could support, as long as some benefits remain reserved for traditional marriage.

Replies: 3 comments

This is a point that I've repeatedly made in several articles on the subject, including in a piece I wrote in reaction to the Canadian legal decision permitting same sex marriages in Ontario.

Government shouldn't be in the business of regulating marriages. It would neatly sidestep all the problems. Churches who continue to bar same sex marriages out of conviction may do so and those people who still want to be married or form some sort of union can do so outside of religious authorities. Everyone wins...the traditional view of marriage promoted by religious groups survives and same sex couples are allowed to enter into a union.

Posted by Steve Martinovich @ 07/16/2003 12:23 AM EST

OK, Steve, but what would you do with tax benefits? Inheritance rules? Next-of-kin medical forms?

Would you honestly leave them up to your neighbourhood "Bob and Jo's Church of the Furry Pussycat and Taxidermy Shop"? (Not arguin', jes' askin'.)

Posted by angua @ 07/16/2003 02:16 AM EST

A good question and not easily answered. We would probably though end up with both civil and religious unions both being treated as being equal under the law when it comes to those things that you mentioned.

Posted by Steve Martinovich @ 07/16/2003 04:53 PM EST