Two Pepperdine law professors are featured in a new Time Magazine article offering a new way of thinking about the gay marriage issue.

Check it out HERE.


5 Responses to “Whaddayathink?”

  1. Sandi Says:

    Not a new idea, this has been talked about for years, and I have advocated it for years, but, YES!! If so many people are getting hung up on the word, let’s get rid of the word in the legal context. Personally, I don’t care a fig for the state blessing my union by calling it a specific word that people seem to have an emotional attachment to. I think that after an initial outcry, people would adapt to it being called something else legally and would continue to use the word marriage in their personal conversations anyway, whether or not they themselves have a religious ceremony, because that’s what we’ve always called it. So the only difference would be the words used on government paperwork — NO BIG DEAL.

    To the extent that hetero couples want to feel “better than” by being called “married” by the state, and to the extent that gay couples want equality in the religious realm as well as the legal one, there is no help for them in this solution, but that’s as it should be. Religion is its own context and must be worked out church by church; that’s the great thing about America, you can always find a church that accepts you because there are so damn many of them! Hetero couples with a superiority complex can get over it already.

    However the details shake out, the die is cast on this issue. Gay couples have become mainstream at lightning speed, and public opinion has moved decisively in favor of equal rights. No, not everyone will get there, and that’s too bad. I honestly have no sympathy for people who get their underwear in a bunch over the existence of gay couples because in my opinion, there is no merit to their views. I guess I just know and love way too many gay people. 🙂

  2. Whitney Says:

    I actually like the idea. Would I continue to say people are married, of course. Should the holiness of what I call my marriage be a paperwork point for the state, not at all.

  3. alsturgeon Says:

    Yeah, it isn’t a brand new idea, but may be the first time it has received some air play on the Time magazine level.

    I was especially proud that it was associated with Pepperdine Law. One of our profs appeared on commercials during the campaign for Prop 8 with the school name listed – created LOTS of hard feelings. Then, Dean Starr was hired by the Prop 8 folks. Just nice to have some PR that doesn’t appear so one-sided.

  4. alsturgeon Says:

    And I wish I wasn’t so tired from my LRW project – I know my hero, Will Campbell, had a neat passage in one of his books on this very subject (years ago now). Maybe I’ll get around to looking, but don’t hold your breath.

  5. mrspeacock Says:

    Hmm… It’s definitely interesting and I actually like the idea. But I’m not sure it would change anything. Those who are upset by the term “marriage” are going to be upset by the term “civil union.” It’s the government’s stamp of approval that upsets them more than the term itself. The idea that “what they have is just as legit as what you have.”

    Personally, I think we should all be able to get the same thing (license, marriage certificate, whatever), and we can make it a religious thing if we so desire.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: