If Heterosexuals so desperately want the word 'marriage' let them have it

[LynneSin]

Seriously - it's just a word and to me it barely signifies the union between two people who want to share a life commitment but more along the lines of two people so uncomfortable with their sexuality that they have to bogart a word in order to say "Yes, Look at Me I'm a Straight Person". And now with the revelations that Ted Haggard, one of the leading fighters for the Federal Marriage Amendment and major Homophobe, which would define marriage as 'One Man and One Woman' now revealed to be getting a little something-something on the side with a male prostitute - well let them have 'marriage', personally the rest of us including our GBLT friends deserve so much better.

Don't get me wrong, I want same sex couples to be able to have the same committed union with all the benefits that straight couples have - tax benefits, health benefits, life & death benefits. But why give them a term that is addled with hypocrisy? I think our same sex couples deserve better because let's face it, it's highly unlikely that there is someone in the relationship is preaching vile hatred against straight couple unions while having a secret sex relationship with someone of the opposite sex.

So let's find a better term for the lasting union not only between same sex couples but the heterosexual couples that support them. Marriage is a term riddle with hypocrisy, hated and for 1 in 2 marriages - divorce. We progressives can do better!

[soleft]

1. How about maariage?

www.maariage.com

[LynneSin]

2. I don't care what the term is - just figured folks deserve better

Hey, I haven't seen you in ages - how are you doing?

[soleft]

4. Great - how about yourself?

Remember the Bush-mask-wearing little kid at Buster and Eddy's? He just applied to college.

[LynneSin]

5. Geez I'm getting old

Where is he going to school?

And does he still have the mask?

[soleft]

7. hopefully NYU

He may still have the mask. Haven't been brave enough to venture into his room for eons.

[wholetruth00]

3. I like "union" or "spoused" Like: "I am 'spoused' to him.

[mmonk]

6. Some call it just a piece of paper.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. How many times does this need to be said?

Marriage is a legal term defined under secular law. Depending on whether you are looking at federal or state law, and depending on the state, the term comes with from a few hundred to a few thousand rights, protections and privileges defined by statute. In addition, there are centuries of court rulings and judicial precedents that apply to marriage and to marriage only, which can not be just transferred to civil unions or domestic partnerships.

If the bigots don't want to share legal status with same-sex couples, THEY should be the ones creating a separate and entirely unequal alternative. Why the fuck should I be the one to give up fundamental rights under the law?

Added: Sorry for the language, but people like the OP piss me off to no end. I am sick and tired of working to claim my basic rights as a citizen and a human being, only to have bigots tell me that everything would be grand if I just gave up and shut up.

[LynneSin]

9. Who says I'm against giving you your basic rights

Hell, I'm fighting to do that

It's just that for the last 2000 years heterosexual couples have totally screwed up the word marriage to the point that 1 in every 2 marriages ends in divorce. But they are so hell-bent on that word because somehow they feel their sexuality is threatened if someone other than straight sex couples want to use their word.

I'm just saying give them that word, that's what it is - it's a word and to me, a straight gal, it means SHIT. It means hypocrisy, hate, bigotry and a load of other crap because of so-called 'straight' people like Ted Haggard and a host of other homophobic hypocrites.

I think other people who have replied to my post (and some who know me well) realize I'm not taking away your rights here, just thinking that perhaps same sex couples deserve a word (and we're talking just the word here) better than the hypocrisy known as marriage.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. There is no way to create a separate but identical "marriage"

I didn't mean to say that you were against us. I am saying that anything other than full, equal marriage -- MARRIAGE, mind you, not "civil unions" or "domestic partners" -- is Jim Crow. Consider:

1) A "marriage in everything but name" would require duplicating each and every single law that deals with marriage. Like I said, there are many hundreds to several thousands such laws in each state. It would be a monumental task to track down each and every such law, duplicate it, then pass it through two houses of the legislature and get the governor's signature. Failure to pass just one law creates a situation where this marriage-except-in-name is less than full marriage.

2) Even if you could manage point 1, there is the problem of maintaining two parallel sets of laws identical. Any bill that touches on marriage in any way would have to be duplicated and both bills would have to become laws. Otherwise, again, you end up with two legal institutions that are NOT equal.

3) Anything other than "marriage" -- notice the quotes; I'm talking about the defined legal term here -- does not have access to the centuries of court rulings and judicial precedents that deal with marriage, because if it is not "marriage," it is not marriage. There is no precedent in our system of common law that allows court rulings and judicial precedents to be transferred to something else. So even if you could accomplish points 1 and 2, you still have something that is inherently unequal and injust. Further, any ruling made with regards to marriage or marriage-except-in-name would apply only to that one institution and not to the other. There is absolutely no way around this: even if you keep two parallel and effectively identical sets of laws in sync, they will have different bodies of common law and thus be unequal.

If it is so important to the bigots that they not share the same legal institution as same sex couples, let THEM be the ones to have this separate and unequal situation. This is THEIR problem, not mine; let THEM be the ones to face the inherent inequality of the so-called "solution." I refuse.

[LynneSin]

24. Who wants anything identical to what most marriages are

Mind you, i'm not talking about the rights & benefits. But people like Ted Haggard or Jim McGreevey who are in these loveless hetero 'marriages' because society has deemed anything else an abomination.

And this post wasn't just for same sex couple - I think every progressive thinker out there should stop using 'marriage' because of the sham that this WORD represents.

The equality when it comes to any union, regardless of the sexual preference should, without a doubt, be 100% equal.

[mondo joe]

27. The legal status hinges on the legal term "marriage".

There is no other arrangement in US law that provides the rights and benefits.

[LynneSin]

29. That's the unfortunate thing

:cry:

[mondo joe]

32. Well, since I'm living in the real world that is the problem I have to deal with.

:-(

[Tyo]

26. Thank you. This is exactly the point

Why should we have to reinvent the wheel? Heteros take marriage for granted. I doubt that most of them have any idea what a complex and layered legal structure it is.

[MuseRider]

11. That is the bottom line.

You should not have to fight for equality but since you have to you should never have to accept separate but equal or be expected to change all the language to make those uncomfortable with your rights get out of their responsibility to accept and become comfortable with the fact that you are indeed equal.

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. Exactly

The one and only set of marriage Jim Crow laws I would support would be a marriage-except-in-name for bigots who don't want to share the legal status with same sex couples. As I said above, it is THEIR problem; THEY should be the ones dealing with separate and unequal. Not me and mine.

[dubykc]

17. Absolutely, here is a case in point...

My wife is a Hospice nurse and one of her patients was a man who had been living with his "domestic partner" for over 30 years and just a day or two before this patient died he was comatose and his "blood family" transferred him to a hospital and directed the hospital staff to not allow his "partner" in the room. The hospital had to abide by the "family's" wishes because the couple wasn't married. So, the patient's spouse (for lack of a better word) was not able to be with his dying loved one in the final hours before death. My wife tried very hard to convince the "family" to allow his partner into the room but to no avail. This is just one example of why same-sex marriages MUST be made legal everywhere.

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. There are far, FAR too many stories like this

You get all kinds of legal protections, rights and privileges with that $55 marriage license fee. Most of those protections, rights and privileges are absolute. Without legal marriage, it can take thousands of dollars to get a fraction of the same protections, rights and privileges; even then, blood relations can almost always claim precedence if they have a mind to.

[dubykc]

20. The same family ultimately locked

the partner out of the house they shared for those 30 years and he had literally no recourse because the deed was in the patient's name alone. Had there been a legal marriage, he would have been the legal heir. Unfortunately there was no will either, but even wills have been contested by "blood" family and domestic partners have been literally left out in the cold. It's a pathetic view of our society, if you ask me.

[blondeatlast]

10. Caring commitment.

I don't care if consenting adults marry for money, security, love, tax breaks, fringe benefits, whatever--and I've been happily straight married for 10 years now.

Let's make it strictly a legal contract and allow the contract to be recognized within their religion the benefit of a ceremony--but we shouldn't insist on it.

Yeah, gays just hate me for my Nicole Miller bridal gown. I KNEW it... :sarcasm:

[kenny blankenship]

12. "Separate but equal" is the hypocrisy

Always was, and still is.

[sqarebis]

15. It's true

The hypocrisy is rampant with the religious right

[LynneSin]

19. Who says that I'm suggesting that

I'm strictly saying that for all progressive thinkers, regardless of sexual preference, to abandon a term that has been nothing more than a farce for the past 2000 years. Hell, I'm straight and I know I don't want a marriage, but a lifetime legal commitment that's a different story

[No Exit]

16. There is only one way to "strengthen marriage":

If you are thinking of getting married, think carefully about it and envision the long term; don't let a desire to get married cause you to pick someone who will be just impossible to live with (such as, say, he/she has a habit of chewing tobacco and spitting brown spit... he/she is a cowardly bully, etc.) If you are married, try to make it work--don't sweat the small stuff, and try to only call it quits if there is a major problem. (Hint: a "major problem" is NOT that "he likes to go out a lot and I don't" or "she's older and my friends don't ogle her--and envy me--any more.")

It's an individual thing--hence, it cannot be done with a "consensus" or a "caucus" or a "movement" or "leadership" or other such bullshit.

These are plans that have NOTHING TO DO WITH LAWS. For Chrissakes, those assholes up there making laws can't even keep their hands off underage boys and girls; why in the HELL would you ask THEM for help in "strengthening marriage"??? 99% of those assholes making laws know NOTHING about the day-to-day steadiness that keeps a marriage going "till death do us part". Isn't that obvious?

[radfringe]

21. been saying that all along

as one member of a committed non-heterosexual couple - I really don't give a flying f--- what it's called as long has we have the same rights and recognition as our heterosexual counterparts

call it a union, civil union, domestic partnership or call it a rutabaga.. I really don't care about the label

[LynneSin]

22. I'm voting for Rutabaga

It's about the rights - which is the most important thing out there.

Hey, 7am in the morning you have 4 votes at 5.0 already!

[radfringe]

25. yesh, but the freeps are awake now

[TechBear_Seattle]

23. If you can figure out how to get everything that comes with marriage

... in something that is not marriage, and all for the same fee as getting a marriage license, I'm all ears. (Or eyes, as the case may be.) :hi:

The problem is that you can not just create something like that by fiat. We are a nation of laws, and those procedures must be followed.

[LynneSin]

28. That's the problem - "We are a nation of laws"

And we have a society of hypocrites who feel that if they have to share their word (and again, just the word - not the benefits entitled with that word) that somehow the existance of their 'marriage' will be invalidated.

It's a shame what these hypocrites have done to marriage, I just think we can do better than that!

[TechBear_Seattle]

37. Since they are the ones who can't stomach sharing "marriage"

Make THEM be the ones to create and use an alternative.

[dubykc]

31. So very true. My wife and I considered not getting married but...

we ultimately decided to go through the proces because of the laws that dictate the rights (or lack of them) for domestic partners. We are in a lifetime committed relationship that really didn't need a piece of paper to tell us that, but the laws forced us to get that piece of paper anyway.

[mondo joe]

34. I just don't get this.

There is no law that forces you to get a piece of paper to say you are committed.

But if you want the rights of a LEGAL arrangement then of course you need to make the arrangement.

[TechBear_Seattle]

38. The $55 marriage license comes with superior legal rights

Unbreakable, inviolate, absolute rights.

The closest you can get without marriage is to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees to get powers of attorney, joint property and residency documents, shared trusts, etc., etc. and end up with a fraction of those rights in a form that is pretty easy for relatives to overturn in court.

[mondo joe]

43. Absolutely - I don't disagree in the least. I thin there's been a

misunderstanding.

What I'm saying is for those couples who can marry but think they shouldn't have to in order to get the benefits, that's their choice but if they want the legal benefit of marriage they ought to go through with the legal process to get it (ie, marriage).

[brook]

30. Just to embellish on what you said...

Other countries require a civil union for people to be considered married and receive whatever benefits accrue to that. Many, not all, follow up the civil ceremony with one of a religious nature. Based on that, it seems to me that it's the 'civil' union that would be preferable in ensuring that all committed couples, no matter who they are, have the same rights and privileges. I have had both 'civil' and religious marriage ceremonies and it is that piece of paper from the states that recognized the union and later allowed the bonds of both unions to be dissolved.

[radfringe]

33. that's one vote for rutabaga unions!!!!

[crikkett]

39. that looks more like a heliotrope doesn't it?

I remember when Gavin Newsome declared gay marriage legal in SF. What happy days those were.

[anarch]

35. no way. If we allow heterosexuals to marry, what will that do

to the moral fiber of our nation? No heterosexual marriage, dammit!

[crikkett]

41. right now we're watching the moral fiber being lited right off the eyes

of our poor, frightened populace so that they may see the real world.

[seabeyond]

36. i am willing to get divorced and have a civil union. no skin off my

teeth. and since i was "married" in a court house and not a church i guess i am already there. they say it will destroy marriage.... well if we support civil union of our gay brothers and sisters, and enough back from marriage, they will create exactly what they are griping about

[porphyrian]

40. This hetero doesn't give a fuck what you call it. - n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

42. I say let the churches/temples etc. have it, in a legally nonbinding form

That way everybody gay or straight would have to go to the courthouse to get partnered, and if they want a marriage in addition to that, they go to whatever church is cool with it.

[helderheid]

44. were you the one with the animated coulter picture?

[Imagevision]

45. Heterosexuals to use "marriage" --> glbt should use "gay marriage" and move on already!!

Of course all marriages should be entitled to the same benefits as americans!!

I got this from my 14 year old daughter!

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. I'm fine with marriage for gays, but I think "Legally Wed" beats...

"Domestic Partner", has no tradition whatsoever and it doesn't reflect the depth of the commitment or the spiritual dimension many gay couples feel that their marriage has. To wed someone, though, has deep traditional meaning and cultural resonance. It opens up the door to traditional framing of a deep committed relationship, such as: "Jack and Joe have been wed for ten years."

In areas where resistance is too high to get the legal term "marriage" defined to include same sex couples, I think the transition push should be for state law to allow same sex couples to be "Legally Wed". It pushes "Domestic Partners" onto the dust heap of discarded tortured phrases and ushers in the natural use of "Spouse" to define one's same sex mate.