03-01-2009, 05:48 AM
Actually, the U.S. has already changed the definition of marriage twice, both by federal legal decisions. First, by supporting the right of blacks to enter into a legal marriage after the Civil War. Previously they were treated as cohabitants and either of the "spouses" could be yanked by their owner and sent elsewhere. At the time this was controversial, to say the least. Then, in 1967, the rules and legal definition of marriage was altered in sixteen states (as I remember) by striking down their miscegenation statutes to support the right of separate races to marry, black and white in the particular Supreme Court case. This was also controversial and caused a lot of outrage in the affected states. Such was the state of race relations back then. So in 2009, after decades of cultural change, it doesn't seem a stretch at all to recognize that same sex couples are citizens too, and entitled to the rights and privileges already enjoyed by opposite sex couples.
However, I don't really care about the definition of marriage. There are really too many definitions in this world for a nation based on freedom of religion to write laws defining marriage as just one kind that aligns with a particular religious conservatism. For a long time I have had the same opinion as Jon (common ground for once!) that the government should be out of the business of defining marriage. Beneficial relationships, or whatever you want to call them, should be legally defined by our civil government as civil unions specifying all the civil issues pertaining thereto. Whatever the heck you want to define as marriage should be you and your partner's kuleana and carried out as you please in whatever institution you choose. Sign your papers at the Civil Union office and then go off and do whatever means most to you and not worry (or try to prevent) others from doing whatever means most to them. In my opinion, while the Hawai'i state legislature might be moving the laws progressively with the proposed civil union law, I think they are still sweeping the real problem under the rug.
However, I don't really care about the definition of marriage. There are really too many definitions in this world for a nation based on freedom of religion to write laws defining marriage as just one kind that aligns with a particular religious conservatism. For a long time I have had the same opinion as Jon (common ground for once!) that the government should be out of the business of defining marriage. Beneficial relationships, or whatever you want to call them, should be legally defined by our civil government as civil unions specifying all the civil issues pertaining thereto. Whatever the heck you want to define as marriage should be you and your partner's kuleana and carried out as you please in whatever institution you choose. Sign your papers at the Civil Union office and then go off and do whatever means most to you and not worry (or try to prevent) others from doing whatever means most to them. In my opinion, while the Hawai'i state legislature might be moving the laws progressively with the proposed civil union law, I think they are still sweeping the real problem under the rug.