Civil Unions

There is much debate on gay marriage these days. The other day I saw a clip from the Republican Presidential debate from New Hampshire. Ron Paul, when asked about gay marriage, responded by saying that marriage is a religious and cultural custom and of no concern of government. I tend to agree with this position.

Where it becomes a government issue is when there are certain rights granted to married individuals by virtue of the fact they are married. I believe these issues can be and are addressed in civil unions. The argument I have heard are not about these rights but about the morality of homosexuality. In insisting on the right to marry, I believe the gay community is looking for the government to resolve the moral issue that it cannot. Morality is very subjective and not a purview of government. Civil union, on the other hand is a legal matter in which government has a very legitimate role.

I would like to propose the following. Extricate the term “marriage” from legal documents and cede it to religious organizations, allowing them to assign whatever definitions and moral judgments they want as long as they do so within the discrimination statutes. Expand the civil union concept and benefits to include mating couples (current married couples) and gay couples along with arrangements beyond two individuals living as lovers. We had friends where a mother shared a home with her daughter and a son’s son. There are other cases where older brothers or sisters live together or for that matter, just friends who are not sexually involved. They share chores and expenses. There could be identified a “sharing arrangement” (or a family, though that term so broadly applied, will ruffle lots of feathers) whereby consenting adults sign a document agreeing to share their assets and costs and through this agreement legally gain the advantages of a family. Part of the agreement would also be the disposition of assets upon termination of such an arrangement. Children could not enter into such arrangements. However, they could participate as long as their legal guardians have entered into the arrangement. There could be a limit set on the number of participants. This would also address some issues of polygamy facing some Mormon sects.

Such an act gets the government completely out of the bedroom and morality. (In an interview Ahmedinajad, the president of Iran, responded when his statement that there are no homosexuals in Iran was questioned, that since he doesn’t go into people’s bedrooms, as far as he knows there is no homosexual activity.) All the arrangements described above now exist and are expanding. I believe people living in families by whatever name or legal definition benefit society. This should be encouraged. There are others to share the burdens and responsibilities when there is illness or in the case of rearing a child. These burdens might otherwise fall on societies shoulders. We should recognize these benefits by bestowing some advantages to all families as we do now to the so-called “traditional” family.