Why Civil Union Is Not Good Enough

From guest blogger, Leona.

Some argued that if civil unions can be granted the same benefits and privileges as marriage, there is not point for queer people to pursue marriage equality. In that way, the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman will not be challenged and the government granted all citizens equal rights. I would argue that this kind of practice couldn’t be regard as equality. Marriage is a social construct that has its meaning in the word itself. Just two long-term partners taking care of each other and sharing responsibilities is not a marriage. For example, people are not necessarily married to their roommate even though they might be perfect living together and feel fondly of each other. Having/raising children or having the potential to do so is not a necessary requirement of marriage. Two elderlies can get married. It is also not required to have mutual romantic feelings. No one is testing whether two people truly love each other before they get married. Sometimes, romantic feelings diminish through years and people wouldn’t necessarily get a divorce. The power of marriage is just as the power of money. Money has no intrinsic values. 20 bucks is only a piece of paper without the meaning assigned by the society. The numbers in your account would just be numbers but a form of properties. Marriage is a commitment to keep a union. Just like by imposing an imaginary deadline, a person can be more efficient in writing; by getting married, people can be more aware of the union and their obligations in sustaining the family unit. Stable family units are valuable for a society thus should be encouraged. Most societies do not see civil union as equivalent to marriage and the union will not be given the same meaning by the society.

Marriage-equality and Defining 'marriage'

From guest blogger, Rachel.

Today in class we talked about the morality of Gay marriage and we briefly asked what is the historical definition of the word.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/114320?redirectedFrom=marriage#eid

 a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.

The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex (see gay marriage n. at gay adj., adv., and n. Special uses 2b)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

a (1) :  the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) :  the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sexmarriage>

Thus, due to the objection that some have against gay marriage, that it is only between a man and a woman, it seems that these two dictionaries leave the definition to include both heterosexual and homosexual couples. I tried to find the definition throughout the ages, but I couldn’t find the right information. Many of us know marriage in the Catholic sense, between a man and a woman and blessed by God. Is this maybe where the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman came about? Or that without scientific intervention, offspring can only be produced by a man and a woman, thus, it is merely for species survival and practicality that man and woman are in a relationship/union/marriage.

I think another reason that the biblical argument against gay marriage, that the bible states that a marriage is between a man and a woman, is weak is that for this argument to be logical, those who propose it would need to follow all of the rules that God proposes. Is it moral to pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow? To adjust to your specific lifestyle but then condemn the lifestyle of others?

This leads me to one last thought: Is it moral to make laws based on a particular religion? Well, I guess according to Utilitarianism, yes, if it benefits the majority.

I really liked how the topics of marriage, family, and gender tied together, and I’m honestly surprised we didn’t have more discussion about it. I think more education can go a long way in the discussion of morality.