Opinion: Marriage — Hey, That’s My Word!

Love Wins

Toe-May-Toe, Toe-Mah-Toe

Did you know the word “marriage” originated in the English language somewhere around 1250-1300 CE?

Honestly.

We’re fighting over a word that hasn’t even been “alive” for a full millennium. A word that is an infant in the lexicon of the English language compared to other worlds such as “love,” “child,” “whole,” and “woman.” We’re struggling over an infantile word used to describe an ancient union that has been occurring between HUMAN BEINGS for as long as can possibly be known.

Does anyone else see a problem with that?

I do.

I mean, we could call it a civil union, marriage, same-gender partnership, lover’s knot, same-sex partnership … we could call it a whole bunch of things, as long as it’s representative of the love shared between two people looking to spend the rest of their lives together. Fighting over who has the right to use the word marriage is becoming as asinine and fruitless as fighting over the usage of the word “nigger” (oh, I’m sorry, “niggah” – I forgot, it means something different when the “-er” on the end is mispronounced).

It’s not about the word. It never should have been. We’re fighting for our love to be recognized as equal under the law. The title of that recognition is NOWHERE near as important as the act of recognizing it to begin with. The fact that so many of us have been led so far astray from the central point of the struggle simply proves the effectiveness of the distraction tactic. That’s right, distraction, because THAT’S all it is. The fight over who has the right to use what word to describe what union between people of whatever gender is nothing but a distraction from the central point: people enjoying same-sex relationships deserve the right to be equally represented, recognized, and protected under the law.

If it’s a civil union, a union, a same-sex partnership, or whatever – as long as the two people in it can do all the things that two people of an opposite-gendered relationship can do, then we’ve got no problem.

That includes, but is not limited to:

• joint parenting
• joint adoption
• joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
• status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
• joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
• status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
• joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
• immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
• inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
• joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
• inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
• benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
• spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
• veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
• joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
• wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
• bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
• decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
• crime victims’ recovery benefits;
• loss of consortium tort benefits;
• domestic violence protection orders;<
• judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
• and more … (Taken from religioustolerance.org)

Listen, the bottom line is this: If Stan loves Frank just as much as Tommy loves Sarah, then what’s the difference? Both couples should be equally recognized, represented, and protected by the very government they pay taxes to. We have laws that offer more protection to animals than to homosexuals right now, and that’s just ridiculous.  The way I see it, if this country doesn’t want to recognize homosexuals as equal citizens, privy to all the same rights, protections, and privileges regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, etc. — well, then why should homosexuals be required to pay taxes?

Hey, opinions are like belly buttons; everybody’s got one.  Click “READ MORE” to leave a comment and show us your opinion (and/or belly button)!

Tune in next Tuesday to discuss the military and homosexuality.