The purpose of titles and deeds it to establish ownership. When a person sells a car to someone else, the title is transfered and little is made of it. The only part of the transaction the government has in the deal is acknowledging that he transfer was in accordance with the local and state laws.
Ditto for civil unions. The government only has to register its existence.
The real government involvement comes when the ownership of the car is challenged. Then the government is dragged into by way of the civil courts. Once the courts are involved, it becomes the people's business.
That's because enforcing contracts is the people's business. But that doesn't mean that every individual has a legitimate reason to oppose certain contradicts that would not normally harm anyone.
It's the same with relationships. Two adults in a relationship can decide amongst themselves the terms of their relationship. However, once they bring the government into it, they expect all the protections and privileges that come with the contract.
Yes, just like our car dealers expect all the protections and privileges that come with a sales contract that the government would enforce if necessary.
They can't demand these protections and privileges but claim the government has no business in their relationship.
They absolutely can. I absolutely can sell you a car, I can expect the government not to interfere wish our deal, and I absolutely can demand that the government will enforce the contract, despite the fact that the government had no say in my selling the car originally.
That is what this whole argument hinges around. Same sex couples want all the protections and privileges of the marriage contract, but they don't want the government (or the people) having any say on the terms of that contract.
Yes. In other words, they want the same rights and privileges for that contract as car deals and heterosexual couples have for theirs.
Would you agree to a contract the other two signatories of that contract tell you you have all the responsibilities but no say about the terms?
I disagree that a marriage or civil union of two people I have no reason to care about should give me any responsibility at all.
On the other hand I understand that our car dealers can demand that I acknowledge the change of ownership in the car, so perhaps married couples (of any type) do have a right to demand that I recognise the existence of their contract.
For example our car buyer might have a separate contract with me that grants him permission to park his but not somebody else's car on my land. In that case it becomes necessary for me to accept the car deal (the contract) even though I had no say in that contract.
I will still refuse, perhaps, to recognise a homosexual "marriage", simply because I believe that such a thing does not exist. But a civil union with equal rights and privileges I might have to accept since free individuals have the right to make deals with each other and, apparently (see the car example) I will have to live with it.
Maybe I run a hospital and some guy is ill and I should contact his close personal friend, not knowing whether I can talk about that person's illness in front of his contact. But if I know that those two people are in a civil union, I might have to recognise that contract as giving me permission to talk freely to that very close personal friend about his partner's condition.
