Reply #30: "Marriage" needs some re-defining

[SoCalDem]

There should be a "marriage" option between ANY two consenting adults..regardless of sex.. This should be the LEGAL union of two people..

IF those two people CHOOSE it, they should also be encouraged/allowed to SANCTIFY that union in their church/temple/cathedral/mosque...BUT as far as the STATE is concerned the LEGAL CONTRACT of marriage should be for ANY TWO people ....ADULTS of legal age.

Allowing ministers/pastors/priests/imams to perform the marriages and have them be legally binding should also be allowed....

As long as "marriage" conveys LEGAL and FINANCIAL benefits, it's OBSCENE to only allow a certain segment of people to participate in the option.

If marriage offered NO legal/financial benefits, that would be different, but in our country married people DO get extras, that unmarried people do not.

If two unmarried people want to partner-up and CHOOSE not to marry, they willingly forego the benefits, but they should be ALLOWED to "marry" if they want.

Of course if EVERYONE had the same rights, stuff like this would be moot.. Universal health care, and the right to "unite" as partners, legally with anyone one chooses would make this whole issue disappear..

If we all had universal health care, people would not "need" to marry , in order to get medical coverage through employment for another person, and if single people could adopt easier, many would not NEED to marry in order to adopt.