A few months ago, a notary in Sao Paolo, Brazil, approved the union of three people, claiming that the formalising of the union did not contravene any national statutes. The "marriage" only became public at the end of August, but since then there have been outcries form various quarters of "respectable" society, particularly from certain religious groups, who consider the decision an insult to the sacrament of matrimony.
The trio, made up of one man and two ladies, had been living together in Rio de Janeiro for three years, pretty much as many couples would: sharing expenses, chores and bank account, as well as moments of intimacy. The notary, Claudia do Nascimento Domingues, considered the Ménage à trois a fait accompli and therefore claimed to be acknowledging what was already an existing arrangement. Wow! Considering that the first gay marriage in Brazil only took place just over a year ago, in July 2011, this was quite a big step!
When state and religion are separate: if the judgement is ethical, we should be able to live with it. In fact, we should probably be delighted with it. But ethical is not necessarily moral or economical. Religious groups consider matrimony their monopoly and this would be fair enough if the marriage in question demanded to be carried out through their rites. It is understandable that gay marriage, for instance, could be controversial if the couple should want it performed through a religious ceremony. The boundaries of the faith would be challenged and this would undoubtedly generate controversy, hostility and in time, perhaps, change. A union that is sanctioned by the state, however, should be free from such attacks. If anything, declaring commitment is more praiseworthy than not. Picking on people for choosing to do so, is like condemning people for preferring to assist the needy, than going to Church on Sunday or the Mosque on Friday. Religious dogma cannot be imposed: only ethics is universal.
As for the financial implications of such unions, that will vary from country to country. Marriage perks may revolve around having children, so the emphasis may have to change from the union itself to its wider commitments. There are, after all many heterosexual couples who do not have children. Why should they get tax benefits and not the two elderly sisters who have been living together for decades?
No comments:
Post a Comment