- Students use alternative art materials for one-night-only exhibition June 18
- Digital Media wins national prize for TEDxBirmingham video
- Trip to New York brings national attention to Birmingham renaissance
- Clothes that work for new grads hitting the market
- Hagel emphasizes leadership to Naval Academy graduates
- Birmingham Chosen To Host 2015 C-USA Basketball Championships
- On The Money: How new graduates can take on the job market
- Canvas unrolled for new school year
- Tornadoes Leave Trail of Devastation (Photos)
- Campus closes early Tuesday due to severe thunderstorm
- Alabama does a double take: ‘Urinetown: the Musical’ hits home twice
- A+ Performance by Legend
- UAB Women’s Softball defeat Charlotte 49ers (8-0)
- A Fun and Fluffy Study Break In Lister Hill
- UAB Earth Month Festival
Civil union more preferable than marriage for couples
During my senior year of high school I read a series called Ex Machina by Brian K. Vaughn. In one of the books, the mayor Mitchell Hundred addressed a crowd, and a heckler asked him his opinion on gay marriage. He said, “I propose that the government stop issuing so-called ‘marriage licenses’ and instead start issuing civil union licenses”.
After reading that I had a slightly new perspective on civil union and three years later that premise is what I will say is my position on the issue. I think that instead of using the term “marriage equality” the LGBT community and supporters of their rights would be better served if they used “civil equality” instead.
After all, it is not God that gives a married couple federal benefits and tax breaks, it is the people. Our society values marriage and thinks that the government should award benefits to married couples and so a man and a woman who decide to become legal and/or spiritual partners get 1,049 benefits that unwed couples and legally married homosexual couples do not have. If we as a society want to award Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries special privileges, why should we not also give those rights to Ellen and Portia or Neil and David?
The next question from someone might be, “What happens to traditional marriage?” I would say that one man, one woman is not traditional, that one man and multiple women was more traditional in an earlier time period. I would also say that nothing changes to “traditional marriage.” As Mayor Hundred went on to say, “If that civil union then wants to get married, they’re welcome to do so at whatever chapel, mosque or synagogue will have them.” For most, it is hard to believe that one panel in a comic book could say so much about a real life issue.
The brilliance of this semantic change is that the right wing loses a talking point. If they believe that God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman then they can hold on to their antiquated and quite literally wrong view (as David and Abraham, for example, had multiple wives). When they lose this critical talking point, possibly we will stop seeing gays’ rights infringed. By and large, the term “civil union” is more preferred or less hated than the term “gay marriage” so it would stand to reason. I, as a straight man, have no stake in this fight but I think my suggestion, this simple change, could help the LGBT community in their pursuit of civil equality.