Heavy Meddle, Washington-Style
The really big threat to the institution of marriage is politicians who want to put their greasy little hands all over it. So says yet another smart article by Wendy McElroy, suggesting, as I have, that ìwhat constitutes a marriage should be determined by contract between the consenting adults involved, not by government.î
She lets GLAD respond to the notion that gay people should make do with the civil union solution adopted by Vermont:
"Civil unions are a good first step, but they don't go far enough. ...Gay and lesbian couples want and need what everyone else has -- the right to receive the full protections bestowed by the state and federal government that come through marriage." A main difference between a marriage and a civil union is that the former has an automatic claim on various federal entitlements.î
I donít think marriage makes sense for our times, but if straight people are allowed to not make sense, gay people should be allowed to not make sense, too. Hereís more of what McElroy had to say, rather eloquently, about it:
"Politicians should be stripped of the power to dictate which consenting adults may marry or the terms of those marriages. The only proper concern of law should be to enforce the contract and to arbitrate any breach that occurs.In performing this function, it should give no more weight to the sexual preference of those involved than it gives to their skin color -- that is, none at all. The only ëentitlementí that should accompany marriage is the enforcement of the terms of that contract.î
Amy says: "I don’t think marriage makes sense for our times..." You've said this before. I'm curious as to why.
Patrick at August 9, 2003 6:11 PM