Same-Sex Unions Do Undermine Traditional Marriage
California ’s gay faction refuses to acknowledge that same-sex marriages are inherently different than heterosexual marriages.
Using standard dictionary definitions accepted all over the world for time immemorial, the male partner in a marriage is the “husband” and the female partner is the “wife.” Gay marriages would involve two husbands, two wives or, to keep things entirely gender-neutral, two spouses.
Many homosexuals don’t even like using the terms “husband” and “wife” because in their view, those terms imply that one partner (the male) has dominance over the other (the female) when the two should be equal partners. That’s why California ’s marriage license applications now read “Party A” and “Party B” instead of “bride” and “groom.”
A heterosexual couple in the California city of Roseville , located near Sacramento , recently took issue with those designations. The couple wanted their license to acknowledge the male’s role as the “groom” and the female’s role as the “bride,” and noted those roles on their application. The County of Placer refused to process the application.
In an effort to avoid a potential court battle — the couple, who remain legally unmarried, have already filed suit — the state said it would revise its applications to allow couples to choose marital designations corresponding to their genders. Still, California’s concession aside, the state’s use of cold, contractual, gender-neutral language on its marriage license applications makes the gay community’s assertion that same-sex marriages in no way undermine heterosexual marriages appear laughable.
No person who hopes to get married ever dreams of the moment where the person officiating the ceremony says, “I now pronounce you Party A and Party B.” Why? Because that statement is nowhere near as powerful as "I now pronounce you husband and wife."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I'm not sure why this weak argument was even included. The heterosexual couple feels that their rights are being infringed upon? Becuase of the wording on a legal document? They are still allowed to get married. What about the rights of the gay couple who wish to marry and won't be able to if this proposition passes? Who's rights have really been trampled? Words on a document vs. actual legal rights as a citizen of the U.S.
This argument seems to rest on the fact that gay marriage would require different labels for the partners. While I agree that "Party A" and "Party B" are unromantic and absurdly bureaucratic designations, this seems more like a matter of taste than of fundamental values.
"Cold, contractual" language? Well, yes. To the extent that marriage is a legal issue, it is in fact a contract - it involves two people making a commitment, in exchange for which they will receive certain rights and benefits. In New York it is possible for a gay couple to enter into such a contract, only they have to call it a domestic partnership rather than a marriage. In theory, this protects their rights, giving them access to the same benefits associated with heterosexual marriage.
My question is this: why do we need a legal distinction between marriage and domestic partnership? If domestic partnership truly protects gay rights, the contract should be equivalent to a marriage contract. If this is the case, what is the significance of the label "marriage?" If it is a matter of tradition, or taste, or religious preference, it has no place in the law.
If you check the laws, domestic partnerships do NOT offer the same protections as civil marriage. Domestic partners are not allowed the same health coverage by Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Part D coverage policies for disabled and retired people or under the taxation laws of the United States or most states that have such laws. The Supreme Court Decision stating that "Separate but Equal" is invalid in cases dealing with ethnicity (race, for those who believe there is more than one human race) needs to be expanded to cover all segments of society.