A case for Gay Marriage using logic
I've been reading a lot about gay marriage after Washington's latest ban went through. I wanted to document my thoughts before they leave my head.
Disclaimer: I am a generic, white, married female. Raised in a conservative religion, don't (currently) smoke, do drugs, and drink in moderation. If it weren't for my liberal thoughts, I could easily pass for a Republican.
First, in order to be clear about things, we must define "marriage" and what it means in different contexts. From what I see, there are three separate definitions of "marriage", each with their own rights and responsibilities:
Lawful Marriage(LM): This definition of marriage deals with all the rules and regulations defined by government, insurance companies, and other like-minded entities. This definition of marriage addresses things like inheritance, insurance claims, and tax credits. For the most part, legal marriage consists of paying a fee and signing a document, and sometimes a legal name change is registered.
Religious Marriage(RM): This, of course, defines marriage as a spiritual contract. It deals with blessing the couple in the name of God and (sometimes) how their souls will be linked after death. Churches, temples and individual clergymen can choose whether a couple should or can be married in their religion. Customs and rituals for a religious marriage differ from one church to the next.
Personal Marriage(PM): Everyone has their own definition of marriage, but for the most part, it is a personal committment to another person, a promise made, sometimes before witnesses. As with anything, a personal marriage is only what you put into it.
Now that we have the definitions out of the way, let's address the question at hand. How would Gay Marriage affect the types of marriage outlined above?
LM: Changes to allow Gay marriage would entail the following: additional paperwork filed at the local level (marriage certificates). This would be offset by the additional fees paid by applicants. Some additional name changes required (this again entails a small fee). The main impact here would be on the insurance, heathcare and death benefit/inheritance side of things. Legally married people, regardless of gender, would be allowed to share insurance with their spouses. Spouses would be able to instruct doctors when their loved ones were not able to speak for themselves. And of course there is the obvious inheritance: the spouse would get most everything when a will is not present. The main strain here would be in the healthcare/death situations. This may affect a small strain on insurance companies during the initial rush of applicants. But as roughly 10% of the population is gay, and only a percentage of them will be willing to "take the plunge" so to speak, this will be a small amount of the total population, which will plateau. Additionally, there are some tax breaks afforded to married couples. I expect these will likely be lowered or removed once gay marriage is approved (I believe it will be, someday). The tax credits for children may be raised to offset this.
RM: Religious marriage will only be affected at a church level, and the effect will differ at each church. I am sure that several congregations will immediately distance themselves from gay marriage, and will not perform these ceremonies. This is fine, as several unitarian churches and justices of the peace will fill this gap, no problem. Churches will not be asked or required to marry gay couples, or even recognize them from a religious standpoint.
PM: This one's pretty easy - on a personal level, not much will change. Some gay couples will have a bit more hope because of the chance at an "official" marriage. Some couples currently conduct commitment ceremonies, which address the public declaration of their commitment, nothing more. I have yet to see a straight couple in Canada break up because of gay marriage.
So, since the gay marriage movement is only trying for Lawful marriage approval, I can't see a logical explanation for why gay marriage *shouldn't* be approved. If anyone can find one, please let me know. I just can't get my head around why people are so against this!
Disclaimer: I am a generic, white, married female. Raised in a conservative religion, don't (currently) smoke, do drugs, and drink in moderation. If it weren't for my liberal thoughts, I could easily pass for a Republican.
First, in order to be clear about things, we must define "marriage" and what it means in different contexts. From what I see, there are three separate definitions of "marriage", each with their own rights and responsibilities:
Lawful Marriage(LM): This definition of marriage deals with all the rules and regulations defined by government, insurance companies, and other like-minded entities. This definition of marriage addresses things like inheritance, insurance claims, and tax credits. For the most part, legal marriage consists of paying a fee and signing a document, and sometimes a legal name change is registered.
Religious Marriage(RM): This, of course, defines marriage as a spiritual contract. It deals with blessing the couple in the name of God and (sometimes) how their souls will be linked after death. Churches, temples and individual clergymen can choose whether a couple should or can be married in their religion. Customs and rituals for a religious marriage differ from one church to the next.
Personal Marriage(PM): Everyone has their own definition of marriage, but for the most part, it is a personal committment to another person, a promise made, sometimes before witnesses. As with anything, a personal marriage is only what you put into it.
Now that we have the definitions out of the way, let's address the question at hand. How would Gay Marriage affect the types of marriage outlined above?
LM: Changes to allow Gay marriage would entail the following: additional paperwork filed at the local level (marriage certificates). This would be offset by the additional fees paid by applicants. Some additional name changes required (this again entails a small fee). The main impact here would be on the insurance, heathcare and death benefit/inheritance side of things. Legally married people, regardless of gender, would be allowed to share insurance with their spouses. Spouses would be able to instruct doctors when their loved ones were not able to speak for themselves. And of course there is the obvious inheritance: the spouse would get most everything when a will is not present. The main strain here would be in the healthcare/death situations. This may affect a small strain on insurance companies during the initial rush of applicants. But as roughly 10% of the population is gay, and only a percentage of them will be willing to "take the plunge" so to speak, this will be a small amount of the total population, which will plateau. Additionally, there are some tax breaks afforded to married couples. I expect these will likely be lowered or removed once gay marriage is approved (I believe it will be, someday). The tax credits for children may be raised to offset this.
RM: Religious marriage will only be affected at a church level, and the effect will differ at each church. I am sure that several congregations will immediately distance themselves from gay marriage, and will not perform these ceremonies. This is fine, as several unitarian churches and justices of the peace will fill this gap, no problem. Churches will not be asked or required to marry gay couples, or even recognize them from a religious standpoint.
PM: This one's pretty easy - on a personal level, not much will change. Some gay couples will have a bit more hope because of the chance at an "official" marriage. Some couples currently conduct commitment ceremonies, which address the public declaration of their commitment, nothing more. I have yet to see a straight couple in Canada break up because of gay marriage.
So, since the gay marriage movement is only trying for Lawful marriage approval, I can't see a logical explanation for why gay marriage *shouldn't* be approved. If anyone can find one, please let me know. I just can't get my head around why people are so against this!