[lbo-talk] Kerry Says He Might Support ConstitutionalAmendment to Ban Gay Marriage

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

Doug:
> So it's "religious" - then people are, consciously or unconciously,
> saying that there's something sacred and natural about a union
> between a man and a woman but there's something profane and unnatural
> about one between two men or two women. All these games about making
> civil unions the functional equivalent of marriage are dodges,
> because it implies that there's something unspeakably special about
> marriage, and it has to be reserved for partners of the opposite sex.
> I think a lot of liberals feel guilty about saying this out loud,
> which is why they find it so hard to explain why they want to
> preserve the distinction. As they used to say, separate is inherently
> unequal.

I do not know about other liberals, but I do not think that heterosexual
marriage is 'special' in any way.  All I am saying is that there are two
different aspects of ANY relationship, homo- or heterosexual alike): the
legal/institutional aspect that deals with property rights and
contractual obligations and the moral/subjective/spiritual aspect which
pertain to individual perceptions, values, feelings, emotions, etc.  The
former one is called the civil union and is already a pre-condition to a
legally recognized marriage.  Therefore, such civil unions should also
be available to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation, skin
color etc.  Not allowing same sex couple to enter such a legally
recognized union is equivalent to miscegenation laws in apartheid South
Africa.

But beyond such legally recognized union, every relationship is subject
to individual moral preferences and interpretations, and there is little
that law can do about it.  One can abolish miscegenation laws, but that
will not prevent some people from not recognizing an inter-racial
marriage as a "real marriage."  Likewise, in my old country, many people
did not recognize civil unions (the only legally recognized form of
marriage) unless the couple was married in a church (which is why my
wife #1 insisted on a church wedding despite my objections).  But the
fact that some, or even most, people do not recognize such a union as
"marriage" does not mean that it is not legally recognized and binding.
Ditto for same sex unions/marriages.

I do not understand why this basic distinction between law and morality
is so difficult to grasp.  

Wojtek