A judge in Iowa signed a divorce decree for two women who entered into a civil union in Vermont. Not that he meant to recognize a same-sex marriage; he just did not realize that both parties were female when he signed the decree. I can understand this sort of slip-up if one party was, say, "Chris" or "Pat" or "Francis," but the judge divorced a "Kimberly" and a "Jennifer"--not the most unisex names in the book. You'd think something would have jumped out at the judge if he actually read the divorce decree he was signing.
Many people still insist that the prospect of same-sex marriage will bring down the institution. I'm beginning to think part of the problem with marriage is that divorce is apparently so easy to come by that two people who were not actually married can get one.
The different-sex-marriage-only crowd claims that civil unions are "marriage in everything but name" as they provide all of the legal benefits of marriage. We tried this separate-but-equal thing before, and if I recall correctly, the Supreme Court did not take very kindly to it.
Anyone who believes that civil unions are really just marriages with a different name, and not a second-class legal arrangement, should ask themselves one question: if I had a choice between a civil union and a marriage, would it matter to me which one I had?
If civil unions and marriages are really the same thing, there should be no reason that someone would object if the person at the county courthouse flipped a coin and issued a marriage license if it came up heads and a civil union license if it came up tails (or vice-versa). If someone has reasons for personally wanting one over the other--meaning that there really is a difference, if only in perception--I really want to hear why they should be the one deciding who gets the more prestigious label to their legal arrangement.
No comments:
Post a Comment