Marriage should be abolished as a legal institution

We'll start off with some definitions: 1) Marï¿½riage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law Miriam-Webster @2009 2) abolï¿½ish: to end the observance or effect of Miriam-Webster @2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is my contention that marriage should cease to be recognized as a legal institution as it is discriminatory in nature and in violation of any number of Constitutional amendments (The 14th in particular). In turn, all the social and economic benefits inherent to a "marriage" should be transfered to the legal contracts defining civil unions, thereby reaffirming marriage as a solely religious exercise. My reasoning for this course of action is two fold: 1) Constitutional Requirement for Equality. The 14th Amendment states: " No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (1). I will now demonstrate that "marriage" licenses as they are now understood are unconstitutional. Example A: Immigration rights A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration. Those with Civil Unions do not have the opportunity to do so, effectively denying them equal rights and protections under the law guaranteed by 14th Amendment. (2) Therefore, the ability of a marriage license to "abridge" the rights of one group of people when compared to another is illegal and must be abolished. Example B: Taxes. Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so they cannot file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples. (2) This viewed in any legal context would be defined as systemic discrimination and economic persecution of a distinct minority group - something forbidden by the 14th Amendment as a lack of "equal protection under the law". Therefore, marriage licenses on the basis of their discriminatory application of federal benefits are unconstitutional. Example C: Socio-economic Benefits: The N.O.W. lists 1,400 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples, not also universally available to homosexual couples (3). The benefits exclusive to heterosexual couples, and denied to civil unions on the basis of legality, range from: 1) Federal Survivor Benefits through Social Security 2) Federally guaranteed "Sick Leave" for an ailing partner / child. 3) Access to COBRA unemployment insurance benefits. 4) Numerous tax breaks provided by the IRS to "married" couples. 5) Veteran's benefits ranging from health insurance to disabilities. 6) Legal visitation right of a spouse in the hospital / prison system. 7) Making medical / legal decisions if your partner is unable to. Any one of these benefits conferred to only heterosexual couples violates the 14th Amendment, again requiring that "marriage" be abolished as a legal contract based upon its discriminatory and selective application of benefits to a majority. It should now be resolved that we must remove these arbitrary benefits inherent to possessing a "marriage" license as is Constitutionally mandated. In turn, society must legally transfer those same benefits onto a non-discriminatory civil union contract, effectively curtailing the socio-economic discrimination and conforming to the legal necessities of equality as delegated by the constitution. 2) Rights of Religion Despite by personal beliefs about Religion, it has become a foundational belief of our society that people of faith should be allowed to believe whatever they want. In turn, their "rights to belief" as provided by the First Amendment must be protected. Therefore, I cannot morally justify forcing them to allow the "marriage" of people they see unfit to do so - they cannot legally be required to change their religious ceremonies as it would violate their "freedom". Instead, what society can do - and in my opinion morally must do - is remove any economic and social benefits granted to a discriminatory contract or belief system. Therefore those people that still wished to be "married" after receiving a civil union for the socio-economical benefits, and who are allowed to under the tenants of that particular religion, can do so knowing that the "sanctity" of their marriage is intact while society at large avoids supporting such "protected" discrimination. It should be readily apparent that this contention is the only logical course of action as it would both promote both a necessary and required equality under the law - a Constitutional obligation we have to uphold - and simultaneously would also reaffirm the rights of religions and their followers to be intolerant ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1: http://www.law.cornell.edu... 2: Kathy Belge; About.com 3: http://www.now.org...