Attention lawmakers of New Jersey:
There is no need to neuter your state marriage licensing so as to issue marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples.
Your civil unions, like California's domestic partnerships, should be more than enough, as they treat participants like spouses. That means the dispute is over the word "marriage". Why can't the state continue to have a word that distinguishes bride+groom couples from other couples?
Keep your marriage licensing for those partnerships that unite a bride and groom. You are under no obligation to neuter marriage licensing into a generic, arbitrary "two people who want legal recognition together and aren't closely related" licensing. It is legal, moral, fair, and good to distinguish between marriage (bride+groom) and other voluntary associations.
Do not allow yourselves to be intimidated by or subservient to the feelings of a minority within a minority. These people are asking for (or, in some cases, demanding) something from you, and you have the right to say "no". Bride+groom marriage licensing already provides equal access to individuals regardless of sex or sexual orientation. You are under no obligation to change your laws to cater to someone's feelings, or because they do not want to use what is already offered.
Most states have reinforced their bride+groom requirement in marriage licensing. In California, we amended our state constitution, and nobody was harmed as a result. California has yet to slide off into the Pacific.
For more in-depth analysis of related issues, search this blog.
Also see: Opine's Defend Marriage Resources
Previously:
Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant
Marriage Showdown in California
(This is essentially a repost of an earlier entry.)
0 comments,:
Post a Comment