My stance has changed on this a bit. It is still rooted on my having 3 grandmothers and 1 grandfather. Why should my "married" grandmother and grandfather been taxed differently or, if need be, been looked at differently than my partnered-for-life 2 grandmothers, if either couple had decided to "divorce"? The governments should not be involved in deciding what a "marriage" is, but need to offer civil union licenses only.
To be "married" should take a church of some sort. It may or may not be that a church would wait for a couple to have a civil union license before allowing marriage.
It's an oddity, that Catholics, or anyone, would insist on only opposite-sex marriages for all, when their beliefs entail no marriage is a marriage unless it takes place in their church after following their rules. For instance, a Protestant man and a Muslim woman getting married at a JP, like a same-sex marriage, would not be a marriage at all in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church. But all 50 states would "sanctify" it.
I cannot speak for my two life-partnered grandmothers, who loved and raised a family, and were terrific and loved grandmothers to the brood, but surely, they should have been viewed by the IRS and Mass Department of Revenue equal to my married grandmother and grandfather. No question. And if they would break from being Baptist in order to find a church that would acknowledge their lifelong "marriage", then why not?
My stance has changed on this a bit. It is still rooted on my having 3 grandmothers and 1 grandfather. Why should my "married" grandmother and grandfather been taxed differently or, if need be, been looked at differently than my partnered-for-life 2 grandmothers, if either couple had decided to "divorce"? The governments should not be involved in deciding what a "marriage" is, but need to offer civil union licenses only.
ReplyDeleteTo be "married" should take a church of some sort. It may or may not be that a church would wait for a couple to have a civil union license before allowing marriage.
It's an oddity, that Catholics, or anyone, would insist on only opposite-sex marriages for all, when their beliefs entail no marriage is a marriage unless it takes place in their church after following their rules. For instance, a Protestant man and a Muslim woman getting married at a JP, like a same-sex marriage, would not be a marriage at all in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church. But all 50 states would "sanctify" it.
I cannot speak for my two life-partnered grandmothers, who loved and raised a family, and were terrific and loved grandmothers to the brood, but surely, they should have been viewed by the IRS and Mass Department of Revenue equal to my married grandmother and grandfather. No question. And if they would break from being Baptist in order to find a church that would acknowledge their lifelong "marriage", then why not?