“Marriage is not a religious institution.” -- exactly this.
My husband and I were married in 1979. On our “wedding” day, we went to the courthouse with the results of our blood test, paid a fee, and signed the papers.
That’s it. There were no blessings, no prayers, no invocations to a deity. None were desired and -- more importantly -- none were required.
I’m not suggesting, of course, that all same-sex couples should be willing to settle for the same, “no-frills” arrangements we did -- this was simply our personal preference (we’re private people, and weren’t interested in an audience, let alone festivities). The point is that our marriage was a wholly secular affair from start to finish: it was a contractual arrangement that was legally recognized and sanctioned by the state and federal government. Religion had f***-all to do with it.
Not surprisingly, I’m 100% in favor of same-sex marriage -- there are zero reasons to deny the same right and opportunity that we had to others… as you say, “no BUT!”
No “but” indeed. Keep telling it like it is, Yemisi.
There’s NO reason that any pair of consenting, uncoerced adults should not be able to enter the same LEGAL CONTRACT as anyone else. And thus take on the same responsibilities AND enjoy the same benefits as anyone else. That this particular contract is called “marriage”, and the word has unfortunate religious baggage shouldn’t change that fact at all. Certainly not in secular societies like those of the UK and US.
That is my purely rational, personal go-to argument: secular civil society, legal contract.
My more emotional, humane and humanistic argument: Love is hard enough to find in this world. If two people want to make the sort of long-term, loving commitment to one another that is commonly meant by the word “marriage”, nobody, but NOBODY has a right to get in their way. Certainly not on behalf of their invisible, undetectable sky daddy.
“Marriage is not a religious institution.” -- exactly this.
My husband and I were married in 1979. On our “wedding” day, we went to the courthouse with the results of our blood test, paid a fee, and signed the papers.
That’s it. There were no blessings, no prayers, no invocations to a deity. None were desired and -- more importantly -- none were required.
I’m not suggesting, of course, that all same-sex couples should be willing to settle for the same, “no-frills” arrangements we did -- this was simply our personal preference (we’re private people, and weren’t interested in an audience, let alone festivities). The point is that our marriage was a wholly secular affair from start to finish: it was a contractual arrangement that was legally recognized and sanctioned by the state and federal government. Religion had f***-all to do with it.
Not surprisingly, I’m 100% in favor of same-sex marriage -- there are zero reasons to deny the same right and opportunity that we had to others… as you say, “no BUT!”
No “but” indeed. Keep telling it like it is, Yemisi.
There’s NO reason that any pair of consenting, uncoerced adults should not be able to enter the same LEGAL CONTRACT as anyone else. And thus take on the same responsibilities AND enjoy the same benefits as anyone else. That this particular contract is called “marriage”, and the word has unfortunate religious baggage shouldn’t change that fact at all. Certainly not in secular societies like those of the UK and US.
That is my purely rational, personal go-to argument: secular civil society, legal contract.
My more emotional, humane and humanistic argument: Love is hard enough to find in this world. If two people want to make the sort of long-term, loving commitment to one another that is commonly meant by the word “marriage”, nobody, but NOBODY has a right to get in their way. Certainly not on behalf of their invisible, undetectable sky daddy.