01 March 2003

Semantics

I have been reading a lot of law recently. I find it very interesting, well bits of it, probably because I am by nature somewhat pedantic. So I was reading some semantic musings on whether or not the term 'relationship in the nature of marriage' can apply to same-sex couples given that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Anyway, I am inclined to think that excluding them is hair splitting and discriminatory (the thrust of the article), but more than that really the category should be confined to same-sex couples and other people who are legally barred from marrying. I tend to think that giving legal status akin to marriage to people who aren't married entirely by choice is stupid. I mean 'shit or get off the pot' people as the vulgar, yet apt, American saying goes. If your relationship is really in the nature of a marriage, then why the hell not just get married? I understand objections to getting married because of its appalling religious, sentimental and patriarchal associations. But if that is not your thing you don't have to have them, you can view it for what it really is, basically a contract for establishing an economic partnership and a family unit. And if you aren't establishing one of those, then your relationship is not in the nature of marriage and I don't see that you should get the legal protection that comes with it.
The law and politicians are just tying themselves in knots making distinctions to accommodate peoples' prejudices.
It is quite simple, secular legal 'marriage' needs to be separated out from all its baggage. It should be a state that all consenting adults should have the option of entering into and all people who do not actively and consciously make the decision to do so should not be deemed to have done so after an entirely arbitrary lapse of time. The baggage should be allowed to exist as a quaint social custom but it no legal status. Yes all this may lead to back to the inequities that extending rights got started to address in the first place, but is the purpose of the law really to protect people from the consequences of their own stupidity?

No comments: