This article adds some depth to the gay marriage question, complicates matters. While I unambiguously support gay marriage (out of the belief that different kinds of partners should be treated equally under the law), I've often said that a better solution would be scrap marriage altogether. This would address not just the grievances of the gay community, but also thousands of years of implicit gender inequality.
One indication we should be reassessing the marriage institution more generally is all this talk about "civil unions", a term which implies that there's something beyond the civil in a marriage. Why not civil unions for everyone? So far I've resisted the temptation to spring this possibility on my fiancé... as far as I know we don't even have them in Illinois, but are civil unions even open to hetero couples in for instance Vermont?
MORE: Jeff Alworth makes a similar argument about civil unions for everybody, on church-state grounds.
Post a comment