Gay Marriage: The Debate Continues

In one of the many comments made about our Friday editorial, one writer stated that the United States should get out of the marriage business. I couldn't agree more with that statement. The biggest issue with civil unions is the separate but equal aspect of the argument:

Civil unions are not equal to marriage, nor would they ever be considered so. Imagine a child asking his parents why some people can get married--like mommy and daddy--while others have civil unions. Regardless of what people say about civil unions, you are separating people into groups--again. We've tried this before, notably with ethnicity, and it didn't work.

The differences are clear: Some people are granted marriages (heterosexual partners exclusively), while others are given something...a little less (our homosexual counterparts.) And again the discrimination continues.

So here's the logical answer: Stop using the word marriage. The word itself carries religious implications, which shouldn't be allowed under our Constitution anyway. When a couple, gay or straight, decides to enter into a legal partnership, they should be granted a civil union by the state in which they live. If said couple wishes to include faith and religion into their partnership, they must ask their church, synagogue, mosque, etc. to grant a certificate of marriage. If a particular religion decides that homosexual relationships are sinful and prohibited by the laws of their faith, then no marriage certificate is granted.

But we have to change the language first: Civil unions for all, or civil unions for none. If you can't treat people equally, shame on your government's bumper sticker approach to "Freedom for all."

Rob Verhein
DI Editorial Writer