marriage for everybody!


kathy griffin gif

Should not even be an issue.

Government needs to get out of the marriage business all together.


Marriage, after all, is a religious institution. Let the churches handle marriage, let the government handle Civil Partnerships.

See, everybody should have a partner in life, someone who’s got your back. And that person should be designated your “next-of-kin” for legal purposes–insurance, benefits, debts and assets. Health directives.

A Civil Partnership could be two seventy-year-old widowed friends with no family, no interest in remarrying, living a Golden Girls life.


Maybe two people do not want to marry but are committed to raising children together–for whatever reason. A partnership might be two siblings who must live together and raise six orphaned nephews. Why shouldn’t those siblings have the tax advantages and insurance rates a married couple has? They certainly have the expenses that the married benefits were designed to mitigate.


Yeah. No one’s brought that up. Because they are nimrods.




Yes, in my perfect world, just as religiously married people currently are also civilly married, a religiously married person would also have a legal Civil Partnership. But you would not HAVE to be married, to enter into a Civil Partnership.

It’s none of my effin’ business, what floats somebody’s boat. And it’s just plain rude to speculate on such matters.


So quit waggin’ your collective finger. Quit judging each other. Allow everyone to decide what is best for them, guided by religious, philosophic, and scientific institutions.

The only thing left for the government to decide, is what is equitable.


About Lisha Cauthen

Lisha Cauthen writes YA novels for guys that girls like to read too.

Posted on April 3, 2013, in life and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. As a conservative evangelical seminary graduate and step-father of gay twin boys (grown-ups) I agree abut the distinction between the religious and civil aspects of the union between people – and it doesn’t trouble me since deciding such issues is the proper role of government.

    Other aspects trouble me more, such as gay couple’s adoption of children, but if someone is willing to love a child no one else will have, how can I object? I don’t think the presentation to children of same-sex relationships in equivalent terms as traditional nuclear family situations is a good idea, though. While we may accept less than ideal (by empirical measurements) family situations, including single parent situations, it doesn’t mean we should in any way promote them.

    Even my step-sons acknowledge that their orientation has painful consequences and is not something they would willingly choose. I don’t think we should hide the fact that we are biologically designed to operate in hetero family units.

  2. Thanks for stopping by, Q.

    The view of gay vs hetero relationships as morally equivalent or not morally equivalent is a value judgement best made with input from religious, philosophical and/or scientific institutions. Not the government.

    What the government CAN do is support the stability of its society–which often means a traditional, nuclear family–but not always.

    I understand your points and appreciate your input.

%d bloggers like this: