I don't support Gay Marriage

[Mythsaje]

I think there are some who probably believe this is true.

Why? Because I argue that marriage is, ultimately, a function of religion. As an ordained minister, I would be more than happy to perform a gay marriage, or even a multiple marriage.

Yet, because "marriage," as it's defined, is a contract between two people (a man and a woman, at the moment) who have entered into a domestic partnership agreement for the purpose of making certain joint agreements regarding finances, home ownership, and other things of common interest that is accepted and ratified by the U.S. government, I can perform the ceremony, but it is not legally binding in any fashion unless it falls under a specific set of rules as outlined by the current law. i.e. "between a man and a woman," and duly licensed as set by the relevant legal code.

My position is that the government has no right to determine the rules of "marriage," any more than a specific sect of a specific religion (or several sects of any religion, for that matter) should have the right to determine who can enter into the above named contract (a domestic partnership) and if that contract should be ratified by the government.

In short, I think that the agreements that people enter into and that are ratified by the government should be SEPARATED from the religious connotations of marriage. If two (or more) people want to get "married," they should approach the religious group of their choice and undergo the ceremony of that religion in order to do so. The churches should have the right to agree or disagree to perform said ceremony based upon their own beliefs about the situation presented by the people to be married. If the church doesn't believe in performing a ritual binding two people of the same sex together in the eyes of its "God," then, it shouldn't have to do so. Likewise, if a church believes that "God" understands, and approves of such a union, it should ALSO have the right to act accordingly.

The government's ONLY say in the matter should be in ratifying the contracts between consenting adults and dealing with the economic and social implications of said contract with regards to child rearing, taxes, and subsequent distribution of possessions and other assets in case of dissolution or death. The same as any contract, basically.

So, in point of fact, I DO support gay marriage--in that I believe people have the right to stand before a minister of whatever religion they choose, assuming the minister believes it to be right within the strictures of his or her own conscience, and be joined by a religious ceremony. I do not, however, believe that this ceremony should, in and of itself, automatically render them contractually obligated to one another in the eyes of the government.

A civil union, on the other hand, is a function of government, outlying the government's recognition of the contract between the participants--the agreement to share assets, financial obligations, and the task of raising children (should this be an issue). It would require only the signing of said contract (currently seen as a "marriage license") before witnesses and before a person duly authorized by the government.

All people, in my view, are entitled to either, or both. But one should not in any way imply the other. A religious minister may, if it is within the bounds of law, act as a "person duly authorized by the government" to ratify this contract, as is the case now, but I think the role of both religion and government should be clearly defined and the two arrangements, religious and legal, should be completely separate entities.

And this should apply to EVERYONE. EQUALLY. Let religion handle the religious side, let government handle the secular side. They should have NOTHING to do with one another.

I actually think this approach could even sway hardcore fundies, if presented the right way. "We want to get government out of your religion," we could tell them. "Isn't that a good thing? No one is going to force your pastor to marry anyone he or she doesn't want to marry. That's between him (or her) and God."

The fact is that gays engage in what are called "commitment ceremonies" all the time. They are, in fact, WEDDINGS. But because of what I consider the unConstitutional interweaving of religion and government, they're not called what they, in fact, are.

In one respect, it's all about semantics. SOME people don't want gays to be able to "marry," but have no issue with "civil unions," when, in point of fact, gays can ALREADY marry. For all intents and purposes, anyway. I can go out tomorrow and perform a ceremony that binds two people of the same gender together in the eyes of the universe and NO ONE could say anything about it.

So where's the conflict? It's all because religion and state are linked together in this issue to an extent that should never be tolerated in the first place.

Would this open things up for polygamy? Probably. But that's another issue entirely, if you ask me. I mean, I could go out there tomorrow and marry ten people to one another. Hold a "multiple-partner-commitment-ceremony." And NO ONE could say word one about it.

This would complicate things for the state, of course, if they were to allow multiple partnership contracts, but, if it was done correctly, it would be similar to a limited partnership arrangement in business. Or incorporation. Doable.

So before someone accuses me of being AGAINST gay marriage, please think again. I'm not. I'd be more than happy to perform a ceremony tomorrow. And arguing in favor of civil unions the way I just did indicates just the opposite. I honestly think it's the only way to level the playing field and silence the fundie objections. And make sure the rules applied equally to everyone.

Am I wrong?

[American Jesus]

1. Sounds about right to me

There is no rational legal argument for denying same sex couples all the legal rights of heterosexual couples, and that is what the argument should be. Legal equality. Not "separate but equal" just equal. If the word "marriage", even as a government function is objectionable then call it a "civil domestic partnership contract" (or whatever) for ALL couples.

That takes care of the paperwork. The marriage ceremony or commitment ceremony or whatever you want to call it is not the business of the government, so that should be left up to the individual churches, synagogues, mosques, and/or their religious hierarchies as they see fit. Obviously some will acccept some ceremonies and some won't.

Likewise, the religious organizations have no right to dictate the law. So just let the piece of paper be the same for everyone and let the "happy couples" and their families deal with the rest of it.

[aquart]

2. Hmmm.

Well, marriage began with the patriarchal take over of family and political structures. Religion was inseparable from economics and politics back when, and kings were sacred figures hedged about with taboos and powers. But our priests are no longer kings, and no politician can cure leprosy by the laying on of his hands.

Judging by our extant mythologies, humans seem to have begun with social and property systems currently exemplified by lions and macaques. That is, a family unit of females holds a territory, and males come in from the outside to compete for it and the females. That's the evident underlying structure in Oedipus, for instance.

The only possible way, in the days before blood tests and dna, for a male to be sure that offspring were his, was to sequester the females under his control. When females were in charge, it didn't matter. In matriarchal structures, the mother's brother is the important figure in the lives of her children.

So, marriage began as a way to control women. And much of religion devoted itself to the same cause.

But, as society developed, advantages to marriage other than control of female wombs and property began to creep in. In our complex society, there are many small and large benefits to marriage, the least of which is being able to take advantage of two for one sales. Those advantages are almost universally civil. That is, outside of and irrelevant to religion.

To grant marriage rights to same sex couples is to remove the ancient element that engendered marriage: the control of one sex over another.

Gay marriage smashes patriarchal control.

Now, if the principal point of religion is to maintain the control of men over women, I can understand all the panic in the pews. But if religion has another reason for its existence......then I simply don't get the fuss.

What were you saying again?

[Mythsaje]

4. Excellent perspective...

Thanks for that. I think I mentioned something along those lines in one of my more famous essays/rants.

"Gay marriage is only a threat to people who don't understand that marriage is a partnership, not a ownership contract."

[cool user name]

8. That was way too confusing.

I mean it really is simple. Since, as you say, our structure is more complicated - then no one rule can really apply, can it? If so, then who's the arbiter of the rule that applies?

Make it simple. Whoever wants to marry (and suffer the consequences :)) should be entitled.

Yes, we are a human animal, but we also bring with it, our evolved sense of self, our evolved sense of what it is to be human. To bring an anthropological perspective to this only serves to confuse and complicate matters. Actually, in the animal world (lions and lionesses included), homosexuality is normal.

So it is in the human world.

It should really about individual liberty - something everyone can understand.

[aquart]

24. I don't hold with simplifying things

because I'm not that contemptuous of the understanding and intelligence of my fellow man.

[cool user name]

26. Neither am I ... but am confused about how that's relevant to our posts.

[LeftHander]

3. I agree that should be the case...

Government should not be in the "marriage" business.

I wrote and essay that is very similar to yours three years ago. (see below)

This I believe will ultimately become true. Marriage should be in the realm of religion. Then same sex couples wishing to marry can go to a church that welcomes same sex couples like Unitarian Universalists. (the church I attend)

Our minister recently wrote saying she feels that the Wisconsin amendment that effectively bands gay marriage is unconstitutional at a federal level because it prevents her from precising the ceremonies to wish she has been fully ordained by our faith.

So no you are not wrong. And this is the type of thinking that is needed.

But this thinking is not happening, is it? And it is why I am so opposed to Amendments that define marriage.

INstead we have Christian Conservatives dictating and projecting a belief system upon all Americans.

http://wherearetheweapons.blogspot.com/2004/03/marriage-who-defines-it-who-uses-it.html

Thursday, March 18, 2004

Marriage: Who defines it? Who uses it?
Posted to Where Are The Weapons on March 18, 2004

Marriage: Who defines it? Who uses it?

According to Democratic presidential candidate front runner John Kerry's website, he supports civil unions of same sex couples. The recent Massachusetts ruling on civil unions for same sex couples does throw this centrist stance on this issue off balance. By striking down the civil union for same sex couples as unconstitutional when it co-exists with a similar legal definition of "marriage" of heterosexual couples. The simple stance of creating another definition of marriage for non-heterosexual couples and to call it a civil union seemed to be the prevailing stance on this issue. The ruling, however, has opened a Pandora's box and set the stage for a battle over who defines marriage and who can participate in it. It is the process of addressing issues like this that has made the United States a model for the rest of the world when it comes to social change. These changes are difficult and racked with emotion and tend to force the redefinition of social mores. How can such a divisive issue be resolved? How can we as a society be fair and just to people of diverse religious beliefs?

The real debate is going to be in the semantics used as the identifier of the legal recognition of a permanent social bonding between two people and who defines what that term means and how it is used. We have two choices emerging, Marriage and Union.

At the legal level "Union" poses a problem when it co-exists with Marriage because it creates a separate but equal scenario deemed unfair and potentially open to discriminatory practices. This was all too evident in the "Separate But Equal" rulings stuck down by Brown vs. The Board of Education. Thus the Massachusetts ruling has taken this same course in preventing another mistake like "separate but equal" by deeming this unconstitutional.

Same sex "Marriage" becomes problematic for the bible literalists because there are specific passages in the bible pertaining to marriage that reference a man and a woman. Also, for many, there seems to be a problem separating a spiritual marriage from a legal one. The religious conservative feels the need to own the definition of marriage and dictate to the rest of society and government what the definition is. Our society has made that very easy to be done by empowering the religious organization to legally bind the couple to one another by witnessing and signing the marriage license by the minister, priest, reverend or rabbi. The problem lies directly with lawmakers refusing to let go of the term "marriage" as a descriptor for legal bonding of two individuals.

To appease all sides of this issue a compromise must be reached that meets specific needs of all parties. First same sex couples must have the same rights under the law afforded to them as heterosexual couples, anything less would be discriminatory. History has shown that discrimination of any type leads to a host of social problems. Second, religious institutions should retain the right to marry who they will based on the creeds or beliefs they hold. The only way to do this is to remove all references of marriage found in public policy and change them to a union. Marriage occurs in the church and union is the legal portion that enables the rights normally associated with marriage. Marriage is a term derived from religion and thus it is faith and religion that should be the keeper of it. We as a society must separate the word marriage from the public vernacular and reserve its use for religious public ceremony celebrating the bonding of a couple. The exact definition is determined by the respective religious organization be it Catholic, Unitarian Universalist, Muslim, Jewish, Baptist etc. Every single faith in our diverse country defines marriage differently based on creed or lack thereof.

Our government needs to return to a more Jeffersonian idea of separation of church and state and take the state out of marriage business and put it back in the hands of our religious organizations. Some faiths already will marry same sex partners in public ceremonies. The key to allow this to happen legally is to remove marriage from the hands of government. If a church wishes to not perform same sex marriages they are free to do so. The couple can simply walk away and find another church to marry them or go to the Justice of the Peace and take care of the legal binding. Most states don't care where you got married as long as it involves a license, a witness and a legally appointed representative of the state. (Judge, minister, ship captain etc...). It is important not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation to occur in this supposedly free society. If it requires the state to get out of the marriage business so be it.

What this does is to afford those religions who will not "marry" same sex couples the right to do so without impeding on anyone's rights to be married and enjoy a legal union. This would allow the religious conservatives to maintain their freedom while affording same sex couple to have the right to be joined legally with no special class or distinction made by the states between same sex or heterosexual couples. The underlying issue here is to what extent does the state have over the beliefs of the public.

It is clear that many religious conservatives feel that it is their duty to convert and change society to match their beliefs so they tend to frame public policy debates around a moral code that comes straight from their religious dogma. There is nothing wrong with using personal judgment that may come from religious teachings to help leaders form policy but it must be tempered with equality and fairness for all who are influenced by such legislation. Continuing to press on this issue will reveal the religious right to become what many have suspected, a intolerant, discriminatory dangerous movement that threatens the American democracy. The religious right will push the issue and ignore the fact that retaining control over the marriage rights for all in will continue to discriminate against and entire segment of our society. A segment that has existed since the beginning of the human species. That is why the states must push to remove marriage as a term used to identify a legal life partnership bound by love.

Men like senate leader Bill Frist, George W. Bush, Trent Lott and John Ashcroft profess to be devout Christians, they wish to project their beliefs and terminology of their religious community (and base supporters) onto policy without much regard for people who may not adhere to the same religious creed as they.

The recent ruling in Massachusetts on gay marriage at first glance appears to shoot down civil unions as the moniker for marriage of same sex couples because of a separate but equal argument thus forcing the issue to raise to a new level where the state must determine if they are right in being in the "marriage" business at all. After all we don't have laws that recognize coming of age ceremonies, you don't really become a legal adult after you become a confirmed member of a church. You are also not considered a legal person when you are baptized there is no legal equivalent. You aren't legally dead just because you had a funeral. Though one can imply by inference that you are "most likely" not alive. Not until a coroner signs the death certificate are you "legally" dead. You don't gain any specific legal recognition by being circumcised either yet in some religions it is a significant spiritual event. One also is not absolved of the legal ramifications of committed crimes after they are confessed to priest. God and Jesus may have forgiven your soul but the state will still require justice and reparations (It makes one wonder, though with recent scandals in the Catholic Church if this is indeed true).

There is only one solution that is indeed fair, democratic and progressive. The states need to stop trying to define marriage and recognize that marriage is a religious right and the union formed from a marriage ceremony is accompanied by a legal, secular union, as distinctly different entity. There is an argument marriage is deemed to be a religious term that defines the status of two people's relationship in the eyes of their respective spiritual communities. This would force states to draft laws that remove the word "marriage" from public policy and return the use and return the definition and usage of "marriage" to the individual religious groups for interpretation. Marriage should first and foremost be a public affirmation the couples commitment and love in a spiritual community.

In basic terms "marriage" needs to divorced from public policy and returned to the spiritual community. This is the only way that will allow all faiths to be free to retain control of their beliefs without interference by the state and allow all who enter into marriage the same rights under the law. Many states already will not recognize a marriage ceremony as a legally binding contract unless accompanied by the appropriate license so why not take the next step and return the term marriage to the religious organization? Those that argue against that marriage is being destroyed by the gay agenda are only masking their hate and fear. In the end if the religious conservatives are allowed to influence the states to force a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman then we will enter the path that slowly turns our democracy into a theocracy.

American democracy has tackled larger issues than this in it's past and has proven time and time again that our government can change, it can be fair and compassionate even when vast numbers of people refuse to do so.

[Mythsaje]

5. We're most definitely on the same page here...

And I too MOST STRONGLY oppose amendments to define "marriage." I think they inherently violate the 1st Amendment.

[cool user name]

6. That sounds reasonable ...

First, I had to read that a couple of times. I was conflicted. I didn't really understand where you were coming from - and I'm a straight male.

I wasn't quite sure where you were coming from. As someone which firmly believes that everyone is absolutely equal before the law, I had to mince your words so to speak. I wanted to make sure that there was no ambiguity in your thought that gays are allowed to marry or that they deserve the right to marry like any other citizen. After re-reading your post, I'm convinced that you are on the same page.

It seems a perfectly reasonable proposition to me. It's logical in its foundation. It's pragmatic. It's just.

I can't speak for the gay community, but that sounds okay to me.

Good job and good post.

[Mythsaje]

7. Thank you...

I also believe everyone is entitled to the same rights. I think that if that's not possible the way things are now, we have to re-define a few things. Like marriage.

It is my understanding that this is how it's done in parts of Europe.

[TheBaldyMan]

9. Marriage is a legal contract not a religious function.

Sorry to point this out to a minister of religion but marriages performed by a minister of religion are only legal because the court allows it.

The legal status of a marriage is defined solely within the civic legal code. You can have a ceremony in a church you may be considered to be married in the eyes of your church but if you don't sign the licence you aren't married in the eyes of the law. In short, you aren't married.

Your argument is fundamentaly flawed, marriage is not ultimately a religious function, it is ultimately a legal contract.

[Mythsaje]

10. This is only true because of the current structure...

At one time, the church determined these things, not the government.

And in a religious sense, people are married in the eyes of God. Government is a late-comer to the game.

[TheBaldyMan]

12. with respect Mythsaje - utter bollocks.

marriage has always been a legal state, it predates Christianity. The church didn't exist. Religious ceremony was the late-comer, indeed within the Christian church couples sometimes had religious celebrations to commemorate the marriage but it was to celebrate the more important legal union.

Even gay people had religious ceremonies in mediaeval times to celebrate them shacking up. But it was a addendum to the pairing, a solemnisation of another more central act.

This goes back all the way back to the beginnings of history, there may have been some fertility rites performed at a wedding but the taking of a spouse never a religious ceremony, it still isn't.

[Mythsaje]

14. What church?

Depending on the culture, we're talking about de-facto ownership, not marriage. Not a partnership contract. Legally sanctioned bondage.

Most of the Earth's cultures have something akin to marriage. And, oddly enough, for something that is not religious in nature, as you say, the people performing the wedding ceremony are predominately religious figures in that particular culture. It is, in fact, a religious ceremony.

I still argue that they are two separate things. The ritual performed in the eyes of "God" and the religious community represented, and the legal contract ratified by the civil authorities.

[TheBaldyMan]

18. I mean the christian church

As an example, Romans were getting married and divorced before Jesus was born. Roman marriage was an exclusively legal arrangement, it was about property and legal rights. It pre-dates the Christian church by hundreds of years. Roman women were not possessions of their husbands. They may have had far less rights as a roman man but they had legal status.

Marriage is a purely legal state, any religious ceremony is just a religious ceremony like baptism or taking communion. You may be shocked to learn that without the civil license you are most definitely not married, you are co-habiting.

[Mythsaje]

21. I understand the legal fiction involved.

But I say it's a legal fiction. From a religious view, the marriage could be considered binding whether or not the state approves. Take the polygamous Mormon sects, for example. The state certainly doesn't recognize multiple wives, yet the community does. In its eyes, those people ARE married.

[TheBaldyMan]

22. there is no legal fiction here,

in the eyes of the law a marriage ceremony in a church by a minister that is not licenced to perform a legal civil marriage does not produce a marriage that is recognised legally.

This has a great many ramifications if you are considering travelling abroad, financially it can cause problems as well with issues of legitimacy of any issue, matters of inheritance, pension rights, etc.

Would the church be willing to compensate a spouse or child when these shortfalls came to light? If your health insurance covers your spouse this means your legal spouse. If you don't have the marriage certificate you aren't married.

[Mythsaje]

23. This is a red herring...

If one specifically separated the religious ceremony of marriage from the civil contract drawn and approved by the government, it would eliminate a roadblock to equality in these matters.

This IS, by the way, how it's done in parts of Europe. Germany, at least, I believe. The church does its thing and the government does its thing.

A marriage can exist WITHOUT religious ceremony, and a religious ceremony can be performed without being legally binding.

[TheBaldyMan]

25. what did I post that was a red-herring ?

I suspect that if you examine US law that is how it operates anyway, marriage is a legal contract.

Any legal status for a religious ceremony is conferred by the civil power not the other way around. I think you will find that this arrangement predates the US constitution and the US legal system inherited the principle from English law, I don't know about those areas of the Louisiana purchase that inherited the Code Napoleon from Second Empire era France but I presume those states are the same.

[WhollyHeretic]

32. You've made some great points in this thread

:applause:

[Mythsaje]

36. Because none of this matters to the argument.

The problem is, now, that certain religious sects successfully inject themselves into the argument, as if their POV is more important than anyone else's. They've dirtied the dialogue and the ONLY way to salvage rational discourse out of the whole thing is to say "Fine. Have your definition. But in the interests of fairness, we're going to have to sunder the connections between church and state in this matter."

[nofurylike]

77. very important point. thank you for this info, TBM. eom

[KittyWampus]

113. As an anthropologist, I can tell you that religion was the BASIS for every cultural

institution throughout history until societies slowly and gradually began to seperate religion out over the last several thousand years.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[readmoreoften]

153. Oh really? You're an anthropologist? An anthropologist would know

that categorizing non-western belief systems as religions is a no-no. So there was no marriage during Confucianism? No marriage during Taoism? Those aren't RELIGIONS, those are ethical practices.

[cool user name]

11. Well, in that case ...

Those that oppose gay marriage don't have a leg to stand on either.

Since, as you say, the state is the authority, and religion can play no part (1st amendment), then gay couples can marry and be legally defined as such.

So, it seems we are at a paradox, if what you say is true.

[TheBaldyMan]

13. In my view a civil pairing between two people of the same sex would be acceptable within law

there is no impediment, a gay couple would be entering into the same legal contract as a straight couple.

[Mythsaje]

15. Except that religion is mixed into the whole thing

which is why I recommend separating the two concepts.

[Ms. Toad]

33. States generally have a two part test for recognition of marriage

1. Marriage eligibility under state law (things like two people, opposite gender, not related to each other beyond a certain degree of kinship, age, etc.)
2. Solemnization (by a judge, by a minister who has registered with the state (most denominations), or by a religious entity certifying that the marriage has been carried out in accordance with its traditions (the Quaker exception, since we don't use ministers).

You have to meet both tests for a marriage in order for the marriage to be legally recognized by the state. Until two years ago, I was married, but that marriage was not legally recognized because I meet the second test but not the first.

(In my case it is further complicated because I am now legally married - meeting both tests in the jurisdiction in which my marriage was legally recognized - but because I still don't meet the first test in the state in which I live my state refuses to accept the state's role in the marriage contract.)

[tavalon]

17. Marriage IS fundamentally a religious function

Just because it has been bastardized into being a all encompassing legal partnership doesn't mean that is what it is supposed to be. You seem to be confused on this point. The government has done a good job of usurping what used to be a religious ceremony, eh?

[TheBaldyMan]

19. I beg to differ, marriage is not a fundamentally religious state, it is a legal one.

[tavalon]

29. And there we disagree

[TheBaldyMan]

30. It is not a matter for opinion it is a matter of law.

[kiahzero]

38. Begging the question much? (n/t)

[readmoreoften]

72. It's a matter of history. Of course marriage predates religion.

To say that Native American ceremonies were religious is to confuse religion with culture. When gay marriage becomes legal it will become part of the culture and either cultivate its own cultural rites or become meshed with the already existing rites of marriage. However, RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE will still be up to the individual churches and synagogues. Last time I checked, Catholics could deny a Jewish couple a Catholic ceremony. Ex-communicated gays will also be denied such a marriage ceremony. And that's the way it should be. HOWEVER, the state should not deny a couple marriage.

[nofurylike]

89. yes. eom

[KittyWampus]

114. for most of mankind's history, the Law rested upon a culture's worldview/religion

[readmoreoften]

168. Worldview and religion are entirely different concepts.

I have a worldview. I don't have a religion. But you should know that, you're an anthropologist.

The Nazis had a worldview.
The Communists had a worldview-- by the way, they also had marriage.

[mondo joe]

42. "Supposed to be" is irrelevant.

What it IS is relevant.

[kiahzero]

130. You support the entanglement of a religious rite with a legal contract?

This thread is about normative suggestions, not claims about the way the system is today.

[mondo joe]

131. Fantasy solutions interest me very little. Practical solutions so.

:-)

[kiahzero]

133. It's politically untenable here and now.

That doesn't make it a fantasy solution. It can still be seen as a goal, if one so chooses.

[mondo joe]

134. My goal is equality, first and foremost.

Marriage is a legal contract that has an optional religious component. I have no problem with that.

[tavalon]

16. In my multipartner household

We call the governmental "marriage" a "certificate of insurability" and of course that brings up a whole other can of worms. It's funny how living a life that is outside of the sanctioned constructs can allow one to step outside and really look at things.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mutley]

27. Is this what you're saying?

All such unions -- whether gay or straight -- between two or more consenting adults should be called "civil unions" in the eyes of the government, with all receiving the same rights and benefits. If those people want to get "married," then they should do so at the church. A "marriage" would be nothing more than a social standing within the religious community.

[Mythsaje]

34. That's it.

It's the only thing that makes sense to me.

[TimeChaser]

82. That's what I've been saying for years

Glad to see that there are some people who won't look at me like I'm a total idiot for suggesting that

[Mythsaje]

85. Nah...

You can stand next to me and take the same flogging as I am, though. :D

[Heidi]

28. Call Me Wesley and I were married in a civil union in Switzerland.

We were married a few years ago, and the civil union law here has been extended to _all_ consenting adults under a new federal provision (which I believe goes into affect in 2007) stipualating that any two consenting adults can enter into a civil union. That's how "marriage" is now here: first and foremost a legal contract sanctioned by the federal government which protects our rights as individuals and as a committed couple. Anyone who wants a religious "wedding" here has to find a religion/church/pastor willing to sanction the union in a religious sense. I wish it were so straightforward in the US.

[Mythsaje]

35. That's exactly how I think it should work. n/t

[Jokinomx]

31. Thank You....for posting this solution...

I have been saying this for quite some time....


The solution is so simple it boggles my mind. The state should get out of marriages completely and only recognize civil unions. If a couple wants to be "married" then they should go to a church of their choice.

All marriages would be considered civil unions..but not all civil unions would be considered marriages.

If a church is not opposed to gay marriages that is their choice...if a couple wanted to be married in a pagan ceremony... so be it....

End of story.

:toast:

[ecstatic]

37. I know 4 older women who live together: Mother and 3 daughters all over 50 yrs of age

None of the daughters will probably ever get married and move out. I believe they should be able to contract with each other the same way any married couple would. I think the government should revamp the whole process of who gets certain types of benefits and who doesn't.

[Mythsaje]

39. This is another source of contention, I think...

It frightens them to think people like this will make use of a new law in that respect.

I, personally, have no problem with this either.

[mondo joe]

43. I don't see why. Marriage represents a legal partnership.

Why grant partner status to people who are not partners?

[ecstatic]

55. oh, but they are partners

Not in a romantic way, but they are family. They all put their incomes together just to survive. They literally need each other just to make it and pay the bills.

[mondo joe]

117. Thhen it's not marriage, nor do I see why the particular responsibilities

or rights of marriage are called for. They can already pool their resources, and already have the rights of next of kin.

[Ms. Toad]

195. Don't know about expanding the definition of marriage that far

but there are enormous societal benefits to individuals agreeing to take on the legal responsibility of care for one another - whether it is based on a romantic partnership or something else - in exchange for some additional rights.

My daughter, for example, will be unable to get health insurance on her own once she reaches the magical cutoff age. Once she reaches that age (actually, before) I have no more legal responsibility to pay her bills. Unless she can find a job with health insurance benefits, she will likely have fairly substantial medical bills which will end up being paid for by society as a whole (through emergency care programs, disability, or medicaid for example). It would be beneficial overall for us to be able to create some sort of family unit that involves both rights (to my health insurance) in exchange for responsibilities (my legal responsibility to pay the premiums, coinsurance, etc). That would likely end up with her having more regular medical care, keeping her chronic illness better under control, lowering the overall cost, and keeping her off of the public welfare system. Everyone wins.

[gollygee]

46. I disagree with that

First, it is much more complicated than what needs to be done. We don't need to completely re-write laws about marraige, we just need to eliminate gender specifications.

Second, marriage is specifically a romantic partnership between two unrelated people who become legally related through the procedure. It isn't just any group of people who hang out together for any reason at all.

[ecstatic]

57. why does romance have to be involved?

That's the part that I take issue with. The benefits that are conferred to married couples should also apply to platonic friends who live with (longterm of course, not just fly by night roommates) and depend on each other to survive.

[gollygee]

61. That's what a marriage is

People who are not married but in a partnership would at least in most cases be open to the idea of marriage, if not actively seeking a romantic partner. This scenario you come up with would in most cases be temporary. I know marriage sometimes works out that way, but the intention is that it is permanent. A permanent relationship. It's making two people become one family unit. That's different than "friends" or "roommates" or "business partners."

[ecstatic]

69. gotcha, although

these days, the words "marriage" and "permanent" are not as synonymous as they used to be. But I still see your point, regardless.

[SidDithers]

40. Call it Civil Marriage...

and take churches completely out of the equation.

Sid

[readmoreoften]

83. That's already what it IS called. You don't have to get married in a church.

My parents were married in a civil ceremony by the mayor. And they call themselves married, not civilly unionized.

[SidDithers]

198. Me too...

my wife and I were married in a park in a non-denominational, non-religious ceremony.

I don't see why a same-sex couple shouldn't be able to have exactly the same type of ceremony, with the same rights and benefits, and the same governmental recognition that I and my wife have. To me, it's a no-brainer.

And if a same-sex couple has a minister or pastor who is happy to perform the same legal ceremony in a religious setting, then so much the better - if that is what the couple wants.

But I do strongly believe that it must be called a marriage, not a civil union.

Sid

[mondo joe]

41. You are wrong, because it will not silence fundy objections, and overhauling

the entire law as concerns MARRIAGE is a much greater task than simply including same sex couples in existing law.

[gollygee]

45. A trillion times more complicated

which shows how bigoted this whole position is. People would rather spend millions - no, probably billions - completely re-writing all laws about marriage, divorce, etc., than just slightly change existing law by eliminating gender.

[Mythsaje]

58. I'm more the "back to the drawing board" type...

...for a variety of reasons.

I happen to believe we need to do more than just eliminate gender from the question. I'm sure polyamorous groups wouldn't mind similar legal protections too. And I hate to say it, but YOUR preferences don't trump theirs any more than the preferences of fundies trump YOURS.

[gollygee]

67. I haven't seen a lot of action from polyamorous groups

If a large number of polyamorous groups fight for marriage, more power to them. But that isn't happening now. Just like there aren't huge groups of brothers and sisters, or people and their pet dogs, looking to get married. Those are the other groups fundies assume would get marriage rights if gay people get them. I haven't seen any movements for marriage rights by any of those groups, only by same-sex couples. And what they're looking for is an easy easy thing to accomplish.

[Mythsaje]

68. Sure it is...

That's why the movement has been so successful.

There are more gays in this country than people involved in polyamourous groups. And many of them are still in the closet. A lot of them are not only sexually "deviant," but also members of minority religions. Not an easy place to stand.

[nofurylike]

126. "preference"? eom

[kiahzero]

132. It has nothing to do with bigotry.

It has to do with designing our civil laws to not be excessively entangled with religion.

[mondo joe]

135. Our civil law is not enntangled. Civil marriage exists now. Religious service

is purely optional and does not, in and of itself, bestow any legal recognition.

[kiahzero]

159. If I read the OP correctly, the poster is suggesting changing the terminology

So that very distinction will be readily grasped by all.

[Mythsaje]

50. Yeah, because the current tack is working SO well...

:sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

119. I don't see any advantage in taking up a worse one. n/t

[KittyWampus]

115. But not everyone objecting to 'gay' marriage is a Fundie. Many fairly liberal

openminded people are happy with civil unions but balk at using the word 'marriage'.

[mondo joe]

120. Regardless, these same people do not wish to surrender the term MARRIAGE

for themselves, and as describes a legal partnership.

[nofurylike]

192. absolutely! on both excellent, important points! eom

[gollygee]

44. There is nothing religious about the word "marriage" - if you want your own word

that other people can't use, you can make up something new. You don't get to take over a word that's already being used.

[readmoreoften]

140. Thanks for noticing what this whole things is about.

I don't see them banning atheist weddings.

[mvd]

47. I could certainly go with

the government not being in the marriage business, with churches deciding whether to give the title of marriage. Gay people would then have the opportunity to marry.

[Maven]

48. Sorry, I know your heart's in the right place, but this whole line of thinking has to stop

"Marriage" may be a religious term for you, but I assure you it is also a legal term that defines not merely "rules" but also status under the law. It is written into thousands of statutes at the state and federal levels, and appears in a massive body of decisional law from old English courts to the Anglo-American common law system we have today. Civil marriage is a reality, and it's not going anywhere.

Essentially, to accomplish what you propose, we would have to first establish civil unions, then abolish civil marriages, then write some statute saying "wherever you see the word 'marriage,' substitute 'civil union.'" You will now have given the right wing all the ammunition they need to claim that the evil gays want to literally destroy marriage. Not to mention that the public wouldn't stand for it; they'd see it as a "downgrade," because in fact from the American point of view that is what "civil union" is code for: something less than. Not to mention that the statute would probably be overturned by the Supreme Court on substantive due process grounds.

This is, frankly, a fairy tale ("in an ideal world...") and isn't particularly helpful. It's the same thing with the old copout about the government "getting out of the marriage business altogether"; the government is the arbiter of legal status such as marriage, and that's the whole point. You can call it whatever you want to in church, but understand that as a legal concept and a social construct, "marriage" is here to stay. If you actually want to help obtain equal rights for your GLBT fellow citizens, then just support marriage rights for all and call it a day.

[Mythsaje]

52. One word.

Switzerland.

It's already been done. Not a fairy tale at all.

[Maven]

97. Three words:

Different legal system. Not to mention a different culture.

Seriously, you're not operating with a clear sense of the legal (and, I believe, political) ramifications of the solution you propose.

There's no "thinking outside the box" when it comes to civil rights. Either the minority is included in a system of rights, or it isn't. End of story.

[Mythsaje]

100. Funny--that's the same argument (different legal system and culture)

the Righties use when arguing against ending the Drug War.

Interesting.

[Maven]

103. ?

What are you talking about?

You're comparing our country to a civil law (as opposed to common law) country that's a fraction of this size and doesn't have the same system of federalism we do or the same Constitution. Not to mention it's a European country with a far more progressive political landscape. Much easier on all counts to make large-scale changes to bedrock legal institutions.

You can't refute what I've said, which other posters on this thread have also said, so you compare me to the "other side?" Who's imitating the Right now?

Why don't you just come out and say, "I support full marriage equality for GLBT people?"

[Mythsaje]

107. I was comparing the arguments...

They are remarkably similar.

The fact is that the clash here seems to be between two groups who absolutely refuse to compromise with one another. The fundies want to keep the term "marriage" the way it's always been, and gays want to use it too. The reality of THAT situation is that they're NEVER going to give it up. And they have way more support than I wish they did.

I'd like to strip away ALL the language in the law that promotes certain religious or religious-oriented points of view over others. In my eyes, this is one of them. They are using religious and cultural arguments against the issue of gay marriage--as long as they have that to stand on, they've got the "higher ground," so to speak. You're trying to assail them and they're holding more a more strategic position that's easier to defend.

I'm just suggesting stripping away that advantage.

[Maven]

145. It's a noble intention

But like I said, it just won't happen.

Fundies will never compromise on this issue, and the fact is, they don't want us to have civil unions either. They don't want any legal "sanctioning" of our relationships because they hate us. That's where it's at. Any progress will be and has been made despite them, not in cooperation.

This debate on "language" is really a smokescreen. It has nothing to do with the particular language itself; it has to do with the relative terms, i.e., whether GLBT relationships should be treated the same as straight relationships. If straights had only civil unions, we'd be inventing some *new* term to describe same-sex relationships. That is where your plan would ultimately fail, even if, in some alternate universe, it came to pass.

There's no shortcut to equality. There was no shortcut during the civil rights movement, and there isn't one now.

They will always use religious arguments, the same way they used religious arguments against feminists, against pro-choice activists, against the civil rights movement, and against interracial couples. There is no way to "out-rationalize" irrational thinking. You must stand up for what is just, what is right, without any consideration for what the haters might think.

So I ask you again: Can you simply support full marriage equality without reservation? The answer is either yes or no.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

49. WRONG! "I don't support marriage" would have been a better title.

You are homophobic in some ways. Your title alone hurts my feelings as a gay man.


You make SOME good points, but if you have a problem with marriage, why not title your
thread about marriage in general rather than targeting gays.


I am very offended by your title of this thread "I don't support Gay Marriage".


Don't try to tell me just because you approve of equal rights you are accepting. Your title is misleading
and hurtful. I wouldn't want you to "marry" me... Oh excuse me, "Civil Union" me.

[Mythsaje]

53. The title got a lot of responses

and made for an energetic debate. Which was what I wanted.

Sorry if it hurt your feelings. People here can be very good at ignoring threads in favor of others with more stimulating titles. I spent almost five minutes trying to figure out a good one.

Frankly I don't give a rat's ass about "marriage" in general. I think the damned fundies have been successful in co-opting the term for their own purposes and, personally, think we should just hand it over to them.

Basically, "Fine. Fuck you."

I'd like to see everyone get equal protection under the law. I'm just not sure I see a way to do it in this current environment without changing the dialogue completely. By changing the rules.

[savemefromdumbya]

51. get the religion out of it and leave sex out of it

it is a contract between 2 people.

If it were 3 people you would raise your eyebrows!

[Mythsaje]

54. Not I...

While I don't get why someone would WANT two partners, (one wife is quite enough for me, thank you) if you take sex out of the equation, that is, I wouldn't blink an eye if we could allow three-way, four-way, or more-way contracts.

[savemefromdumbya]

64. you could have whole communes!

LOL!

[Mythsaje]

66. There's a song by Gaia Consort

"Move to the Country."

"Let's move to the country with half a dozen lovers" is one of the lines.

Sure, why not? If that's what works for you.

I don't want the fact that I'm married to a single woman to have anything to do with preventing other people from doing what makes THEM happy. My marriage is no excuse to deny other people similar economic advantages and protections under the law that fit their circumstances.

I KNEW this would piss some people off. <sigh>

[noamnety]

56. Marriage is no more a religious function than death is.

There is a difference between a secular activitity which the church has opted to create special ceremonies for, and an actual religious function.

Here's how to tell the difference:

If it predates the church, and spread from outside the church to inside it, and THEN the church made up some ceremonies for it, it's not a religious function.

If the church predates it, and it spread from the church to other people, it's likely a religious function.

[Mythsaje]

60. Maybe I should say, instead,

that religion has successfully co-opted the terminology.

[noamnety]

62. or, more accurately,

you are personally working to co-opt the terminology for religion.

[Mythsaje]

65. Oh, yeah.

Until I came around religious folks had NO stake in the game.

:sarcasm:

Are you serious?

[noamnety]

98. yes, I'm serious

You, personally, in your OP, are advocating (and thus working toward) the right of religion to co-opt pre-existing secular activities, and then disallow others to continue to participate in those activities.

You may as well start telling people they can't drink wine anymore outside of communion, because it's become an important ritual in the church. Have your ritual, we're fine with that, but just because you've decided to use it in a ceremony doesn't mean you've got some legal or moral right to prohibit others from partaking in it outside of your church.

Not sure of the purpose of the sarcasm in your post - if you are making the point that other religious people are working toward the same goal of dictating what people can or can't do outside of the church, well, obviously that's true. You won't get an argument from me there.

[Mythsaje]

104. It's the terminology they're claiming...

not just the ceremony behind it. I think they're screwy, and wrong, but my thoughts on the matter aren't going to amount of a hill of beans.

I was just trying to come up with another argument...not to pick a fight.

Obviously this is now a subject I will no longer address in the future, since now I'm painted to be a homophobe and bigot and all for my troubles.

This is a LOT like arguing with fundies, when you get right down to it. And I've done plenty of that in my time as well. I know that the only time I've gotten this pissed off in a debate is when I was arguing with them. Ah, well. :shrug: Live and learn.

[readmoreoften]

75. Excellent point! /nt

[KittyWampus]

116. not really, marriage now has a religious and secular connotation. To deny that

is just being obtuse.

And for the greater part of man's history, laws were derived from religion. The seperation of church and state is a fairly recent development.

[readmoreoften]

139. Yeah, the separation of church and state is a fairly recent development...

AND ONE OF THE CORNERSTONES OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY!

Legal marriage in the United States does NOT have a religious function. My parents were married in their LIVING ROOM by a CITY OFFICIAL. They are no less MARRIED than any other couple. No one ever CHALLENGED their marriage. EVER. You're full of shit and you know it. Marriage is a civil act in the United States. You want your church to say a prayer over you after, do it like they do in Europe. And you know what Europeans who didn't have a church marriage call themselves-- MARRIED. And you know what people who went through the drive-thru Elvis chapel in Las Vegas call themselves-- MARRIED. And you know what the federal government calls gay couples with civil unions--PERVERTS WHO HAVE NO STANDING UNDER THE LAW.

[phiddle]

144. As regards marriage being co-opted by the church,

you are just plain wrong. Marriage existed before there was any distinction between religious and secular law. (Read the Torah and talmud.) In tribal societies, including some today, the laws and religious practices are intertwined, made and enforced by the same elders and no distinction can be made---marriage was both civil and spritual, a unified state. Religion did not coopt secular marriage (which had no independent existence), rather it was one of the essential sacraments insofar as we can tell, in all times and places.

One radical, and wonderful thing about our constitution is the concept of separation of church and state. Originating in a society peopled by refugees, mystics and misfits, it has such a compelling force that many more homogenous modern societies have adopted it after their own fashion.

While practices vary from state to state, we generally accord civil and legally binding status to any matrimony performed by a licensed minister, justice of the peace, leader of an indigenous tribe, or (in my state) "person so designated". (So that I can have my friend register to perform one and only one ceremony.) The concept of separation of church and state is deemed fulfilled because ANY licensed minister or none can perform a legally binding ceremony.

I lived in Mexico for 8 years where their concept of separation of chuch and state has a totally different expression, similar to that of Switzerland described upthread. For a priest (90% of the country is Catholic) to perform a civilly binding ceremony would be deemed a violation of the secular/sacred distinction. So most couples (85% or so) have a wedding in the church and then a justice shows up at the party to perform the civil ceremony. Vows are repeated before witnesses, documents signed, pesos exchanged and the couple continues the important work of getting totally shitfaced. (About 10% of the population has only a civil wedding.) This is similar to what the minister is advocating. This often gives rise to a curious situation: a couple later gets divorced legally, but remains married in the eyes of the church, as the Catholic concept is marriage for eternity!

But it's hard for me to see that the minister's solution solves the issue, as the mere change of form does not change the result. That is, in neither Mexico nor most of the US can same sex couples, nor polyamorous people marry WITH CIVIL CONSEQUENCES. Yes, the pastor could "marry" anyone in the religious sense, but the act only has legal results within the state's definition of elegible persons. If we were to adopt a dual system like Mexico's the act of CIVIL marriage would still apply only to those elegible. Therefore, the crucial question is one of legal definition, which is why the right wing (wrong wing) is trying so hard to "define marriage" by referenda. Lacking other statutory definitions, our courts have begun to and will probably continue to insist on equal treatment under the law.

[readmoreoften]

170. I'm so sorry you wasted your good mind on this thread.

You are absolutely right. But they won't read what you said. People have been screaming at gay people for weeks about this topic. Many people who advance this position are immovable and convinced that they are brilliant tacticians on this matter. But thank you for your insight.

[phiddle]

196. Thanks, readmore. I appreciate the kind words.

However, I don't feel that I have wasted anything. The topic is a particularly combustible mix of civil rights, justice and personal life. And, this is why it tends to generate much more heat than light, and which is exactly why it is so attractive to the right wing---they need to inflame the public. If I can tip the balance even slightly I am happy. (I do wish that some people were not so quick to impugn others' motives.)

[schead]

59. If marriage is a function of religion

then I am not married. I am a devoted agnostic, but I have a marriage certificate that shows that I am married to a devoted atheist. Does this mean that I am not married?

Marriage is a legal function that has been allowed to be performed by religious ministers, (as well as, for example, ship captains and judges).

For example, how could a wedding that was performed by an atheist captain of a ship, between an athiest bride and an atheist groom, be declared a "function of religion"?

[Mythsaje]

63. In THEIR minds it is...

I'm an agnostic (more or less) married to a witch in a Las Vegas Chapel. The religious connotations meant NOTHING to me, and pretty much the same to her.

The fundies and their ilk have dug their teeth and claws into the term so hard you'd have to kill them to get them to let go. Fucking fanatics.

I'm offering an alternative. One that HAS been done elsewhere and that makes some amount of sense.

[nofurylike]

70. spoken by a man who is married. eom

[Mythsaje]

71. So what? n/t

[nofurylike]

73. SO, you had a *REASON* for MARRYING. eom

[Mythsaje]

78. Do you have a point?

If so, care to explain it?

[nofurylike]

81. please honestly give your *reasons* for choosing to *"marry."*

then, we'll talk some more.

oh, and please, when you give them, it would help the discussion if you would comment on whether your wife would agree in her reasons, and what she would think of your reasons.

honestly, please.

thank you.

[readmoreoften]

74. When the law annuls your marriage, then we'll talk. /nt

[Mythsaje]

76. Oh, right...

You're one of those who believe people who aren't directly affected have no reason to be involved in the discussion.

Whatever.

[readmoreoften]

80. Hey, you've already equated gay marriage with the rights of pot smokers. in another thread.

And I support the legalization of marijuana, but that shows me how trivial you think my life is. And frankly, no, I think you have no business deciding whether or not I get to have equal representation under the law.

[Mythsaje]

87. I'd like to see you get equal protection

instead of watching this goddamn grudge match between gays and fundies continue for another couple of decades with neither side willing to compromise. I offered a reasoned alternative that HAS been done elsewhere. But obviously it's as much an all-or-nothing deal for you as it is for them and I humbly apologize for exercising my right to an opinion on the matter and thereby fucking with your program.

Good luck with that.

[readmoreoften]

93. This isn't a "grudge match". Gays have never picked a fight with fundies.

They are a threat to our survival. Your opinion obfuscates the issue by insisting that marriage is a religious concept and not an issue of civil law. Yes, of course, it would be great if we could be like Europe and have civil unions (civil marriages) for everyone and religious ceremonies added on top. But I guarantee you. I GUARANTEE YOU two things:

1) People with civil unions throughout Europe refer to themselves as MARRIED COUPLES.
2) The fundies will accuse progressives of destroying marriage if they must have civil unions first and marriages in the church later.

Fundamentalists only want one thing: to deny gays and lesbians legal recognition for their relationships. Period. End of story. Call it a civil union. Call it a domestic partnership. Call it whatever you want. They will oppose it. It is the very fact that we exist and want our relationships protected by law that infuriates them, not ceremonies or titles.

They will oppose us to their last breath. There is no reasoning with them. There is no appeasing them.

[Mythsaje]

102. It's sure beginning to look like a grudge match

from the outside. The fact is that they're in this fight for good. As you yourself point out. And unless you come up with a way to change the dialogue, it's just going to go around and around and around with no clear winners. THAT is the reality of the situation.

And apparently the only possible stance for anyone else is either with you or against you. At least that's what it seems like from here.

God forbid anyone try to change the dialogue.

[readmoreoften]

136. Awwww, gay people are beating up the poor Christians. Spare me.

It's easy to come up with solutions that won't work and say you're "changing the dialogue", o wise one. How about a little humility?

What else looks like a grudge match to you? The civil rights movement of the 60s? Women's sufferage? Nazi Germany? It's fucking offensive. You want to help gay people? Stop acting like we're "50% of the problem" as we would be in a grudge match and GET OFF YOUR HETEROSEXUAL ASS and go out to churches and start a REAL DIALOGUE with the people who think gay people are going to harm them. That dialogue comprises every day of my life. If you think that gay people ARE going to harm fundamentalists, then you're part of the problem.

The only possible stance is with us or against us, huh? Of course it is! Either help us or get the fuck out of the way. What do you expect? For us to say, "Hey we accept that you're only a little bit against us? Oh, I can see why the fundies sort of hate you?"

This is a pretty damn clear cut moral issue. 90% of DU has no problem grasping that. I don't know why you have such a hard time getting it.

If we fight for marriage, we MIGHT get civil unions.
If we fight for civil unions, we MIGHT get city-wide domestic partnerships, but we'll probably get nothing.

If you want to run around telling Christians that they can only be "civilly unionized" by the federal government and their church marriage holds no legal weight, you go right ahead and see where that gets me and mine.

[Maven]

146. ...

Fundamentalists only want one thing: to deny gays and lesbians legal recognition for their relationships. Period. End of story. Call it a civil union. Call it a domestic partnership. Call it whatever you want. They will oppose it. It is the very fact that we exist and want our relationships protected by law that infuriates them, not ceremonies or titles.

Thank you. I said something similar below, and I don't know why this isn't sinking in.

[readmoreoften]

152. No it's all these genius heterosexual tacticians that will save us.

They know so very very very much about the issue. They've consulted three polls, their own opinions, and a lifetime of no experience whatsoever with being gay in America.

[nofurylike]

79. by the way, it is NOT "gay marriage." it is EQUAL marriage. eom

[immoderate]

84. Marriage is a social custom and precedes any current religion.

Religions co-opt marriage and as many other social customs as they can to increase their power over people. I suspect that marriage may be older than even tribalism.

In short, marriage does not depend on religion for its existence.

--IMM

[KittyWampus]

118. You are wrong. Religion was the central point to cultures worldwide until recently.

Every other cultural institution proceeded from a culture's worldview/religion.

Your tribe, your land, your laws... all were prescribed by your religion.

[immoderate]

123. People had religion before they had land?

How about sex, or food? Give me a break.

Animals have tribes, land and laws -- what religion are they?

--IMM

[mondo joe]

127. If that's your rationale, you should make everything legal a religious issue.

Naming your baby? Passing on property? Divorcing?

[readmoreoften]

138. Education was most certainly founded upon a religious basis. Let's start telling

people who graduated from public colleges that they have a Civil Diploma and not a full Associates, Bachelors, Masters, or Ph.D.s--which will be equal in every way to those degrees only people pursing a Civil Diploma can't apply for federal student loans because according to federal law funds can only go to support Associates, Bachelors, Masters, or Ph.D.s.

[nofurylike]

86. there is already a structure for marriage. a new other

structure would be a waste of revenue, but pander to those obstinately opposed to us being RECOGNIZED AS TRULY EQUAL.

[Mythsaje]

88. self-delete

Okay. I'm done here. Now I'm pissed off. Nothing good can come of the debate now. Not on my side. Once I get emotionally involved in the discussion, I'm finished.

[nofurylike]

90. self-delete

[Mythsaje]

91. I know that debating

while in an emotionally agitated state is just stupid. It accomplishes nothing and generally leads people to say things just to aggravate the other person.

[nofurylike]

94. i have wondered why you feel so strongly opposed to equal

marriage. i first thought you were specifically debating. but it seems, to me, to be more loaded than that for you. do you think so? will you talk some about that? are you really that fiercely opposed?

thank you.
and thank you for taking down that prior post. i will take my retort down too.

[Mythsaje]

99. I'm NOT opposed

and I can't figure out why some people have taken this post to mean that I am. It's a strategic argument. As things stand now, I don't know how gays can accomplish "marriage" over the objections of the fundies. They've claimed the terminology and they are NOT letting it go. They may not be as powerful as they were, but they're sure as hell as loud.

All I was doing was offering a reasoned alternative. And I've been insulted and degraded for it, which doesn't exactly give me a lot of warm fuzzies at this point.

If gays can actually GET "marriage," great. I just don't see how it's possible in the current political climate. Even the win in Congress doesn't make it all that more likely, in my opinion.

[nofurylike]

92. this is an economic reality, well analyzed, already. please

consider it and reply to it reasonably?

thank you.

[Mythsaje]

95. Being told, in so many words, to "mind my own business"

does not entice me to continue in the debate. My business is usually to promote civil discourse. It's pretty obvious that THIS subject, at least, only allows two points of view. All or nothing on both sides of the aisle. Either gays beat out the fundies, stripping away the terminology THEY'VE so vehemently claimed and refuse to surrender, or accept perpetual second-class citizenship.

Good luck with that.

I'm not going to argue my POV any longer. I think I made myself pretty goddamn clear to begin with and the debate is sliding ever closer to something I never meant it to be.

I have no horse in this race and I think I'm going to stay out of from here on out. Obviously my contributions are neither needed nor appreciated.

Fair enough.

[nofurylike]

96. yes, it is all your ball, isn't it? is what we're up against.. bye. eom

[Mythsaje]

101. Yes, of course...

refusing to be dragged into a flame war is EXACTLY the same as taking my ball and going home.

It's nice to see some people have such a grasp of nuance.

:sarcasm:

[nofurylike]

105. the flames were yours. i hope you'll consider... it is not your say

whether i get my equal rights, but at least i was willing to discuss this with you. you just want to win a debate.

or other reason you will not honestly discuss.

as i said, this is what we are up against. do you care about that? ah, yes, you care enough to so sympathetically recommend submitting our equal rights to fundies' judgment.


bye.

[Mythsaje]

108. I'm saying I'm starting to get pissed off

and I don't like to debate in that condition. It's fruitless. And insulting.

The fundies are standing on cultural and religious terminology and using that to bolster their arguments. I wouldn't say they're completely unassailable, but it's an uphill battle any way you cut it because of the general assumptions about language and culture common to many, many Americans.

All I did was recommend coming at it from another, less protected, direction. And got slammed repeatedly for it.

I'm not particularly fond of religious nonsense in the first place, and it wouldn't hurt my feelings if it was eliminated from the argument.

I'm done debating this because I'm getting angry, I covered my primary POV in the OP, and I'm starting to get a headache. Beating a dead horse isn't going to accomplish anything or make my point any clearer.

[Divine Discontent]

110. hater...

lol... really, chill out. you just said, "The title got a lot of responses

and made for an energetic debate. Which was what I wanted.", that's not cool at all, you intentionally made a hurtful thread title just to get responses? You would've got responses none-the-less! You make a good argument in your OP, good job for that.

[Mythsaje]

157. How, exactly, is a threat title "hurtful?"

It's a statement of opinion, at worst. Not my opinion, actually, but arguably, hardly the same as calling someone bad names.

[readmoreoften]

167. I don't support Mythsaje's marriage. Is that hurtful? Because that's how it sounds to GLBT DUers

[Mythsaje]

173. Why would that be hurtful to me? n/t

[readmoreoften]

175. Right. Why did I bother replying. You'll say you don't get it even when you do.

My question is why post all this passive-aggressive "gosh guys, whadda ya think about my lil idea" BS, when you really don't care what anyone thinks, and you really don't care what people with experience and knowledge on the subject have to say? All you want to do is hear that you are right and gays and lesbians are unreasonable. That's the entire gist of this OP.

You're right. You're absolutely right. What a brilliant idea. Those gays and lesbians who disagree with you must be self-righteous zealots who don't know what's best for them. Feel better?

People have explained this to you for weeks now. You just don't want to get it.

[nofurylike]

124. i haven't read the entire thread, but in skimming, i don't see you

being slammed. i think you are calling someone coming back with debate per your point, "slammed."

the problem is that your suggestions are about making it easier for non-lgbtqci democrats, not about making it easier for us. if you care about what is best for us, then please learn about this issue from us. i have been trying to demonstrate points that would help, and you are experiencing that as being slammed.

as one important political leader here in mass recently said, "if we'd left it up to the voters then, interracial marriage would still be illegal."
should we have asked biracial couples to settle for a separate arrangement back then, rather than, as johnson pointed out as signing the equal rights amendment, lose the southern vote?

what say you?

[Jamastiene]

106. Yes, I hate to be the one to inform you, but you may be wrong.

When you do that "pronouncing" part of a marriage ceremony...assuming that's part of the little thing you say, don't most religious preachers/priests/etc. say "by the power vested in me by the state of (insert state here)?" In that case, it's legal issue, not a religious one. As long as the government is involved in defining marriage, the religious aspect of marriage is merely secondary.

[Mythsaje]

109. You don't HAVE to include that part.

I can smack two people on the head with a wiffle bat and go sign the papers and they're legally married once the witnesses have also signed the papers.

You don't have to actually SAY anything.

I obviously need to reconsider parts of the argument regardless.

[readmoreoften]

141. But the power is still invested in you by the State.

And if the State didn't invest you with that power, you'd be beating people over the heads with wiffle bats for no reason.

[rpgamerd00d]

111. Your idea is very, very close. Let me adjust it a tiny bit.

As has been said, marriage today is (and for many decades has been) a civil contract, issued by the government.

The real problem with "gay marriage" is that too many people in this country instantly think "religion" when they hear the word "marriage". Sure, they know that its also a legal union, in fact mostly a legal union, but to them, "marriage" means "religiously supported". And a lot of people belong to religions that DONT support gay "marriage". So, when someone says "gays should be allowed to marry" they actually hear "the law should be allowed to force your religion to accept homosexuality against its will."

I have heard many times that civil unions do not have the same "power" as a marriage. Instead of trying to legalize marriage for homosexuals, the Democrats could easily pass bills that strengthen civil unions to the point that they are legally synonymous with marriage. Then, homosexuals would have the exact same rights as a straight couple, and can still go find a happy religion that would perform a religous ceremony to unite them under their god.

[Divine Discontent]

112. exactly...

the Dems need to strengthen the civil union laws to have identical rights for anyone who forms a romantic union and decides to live together as citizens in the US. good wording..

[Mythsaje]

161. You're so right...

That was my point, with a little nudge in the right direction to clarify.

Thank you

[KittyWampus]

121. I agree with you. But gay activists who want 'gay marriage' seem to think that

if they just repeat their argument over and over enough times people will magically suddenly say "Oh, you are RIGHT".

There is no real plan or strategy amongst gay activists on how to educate American voters or opening their minds.

And meanwhile, even blue states continue to pass bans on gay marriage.

I am totally sympathetic to the cause. But too many people have an axe to grind and ultimately aren't interested in finding a solution to this.

Tell them that other European countries have adopted similar strategies as you suggest in your OP and they don't give a crap.

[readmoreoften]

137. Why do only "gay activists" have to educate anti-gay people? Why can't you help?

You tell me one European Union country where the people who hold civil unions don't call themselves "married" and I'll give you a fucking cookie. I'd love it if we all had civil unions. IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. Only about 30% of Western Europeans consider themselves to be religious. And that's why it happened there.

You tell us that we have an axe to grind whenever we tell you that we don't think your so-called solution is going to work. What the FUCK do you expect from us?

[mondo joe]

143. Actually, "gay activists" HAVE made significant progress.

Take a look at polling on attitudes toward civil union and marriage - that's progress. We have marriage in 1 state and unions in 2. That's progress.

As far as not having a strategy is concerned, you're wrong. Look up HRC.

[mondo joe]

122. The most obvious demonstration that your argument is flawed: many of the same

people who oppose same sex marriage also oppose ANY legal recognition of same sex couples. They don't want gays to have the same legal status, no matter what you call it.

Beyond that, most married people are not going to want to surrender their own legal marriage anyway.

[Time for change]

125. I tend to agree with your basic point

It seems to me that what you are advocating in a nutshell is the separation of church and state. That is something I am confident that Jefferson and most of our other Founding Fathers would have agreed with -- though that degree of separation of church and state has never taken place in this country with regard to marriage.

One point where I disagree with you is your contention that the hard core fundies would be satisfied with your idea. I doubt that very much. Hard core fundies do not want a separation of church and state. They want a state that pressures the population to accept their religious ideas and make them into law -- much like the hard core fundies of Islam.

[B Calm]

128. by the power invested to me by the STATE, hmmmm......

[Quixote1818]

129. I think the Gay Marriage fight is about 10 years away

This issue is going to lose us elections right now and we should lay off until a good chunk of the old farts who oppose it die off. In about 10 or 15 years the Nation will be ready for this fight but right now it's too early.

[Bluebear]

142. Oh, DO let us know just at what point we can start asking for those rights.

>This issue is going to lose us elections right now and we should lay off until a good chunk of the old farts who oppose it die off. In about 10 or 15 years the Nation will be ready for this fight but right now it's too early.<


:eyes: How exactly did it "lose" this election for us?

[readmoreoften]

147. You heard the man, Bluebear. 10 years. We can start talking about it in 2016./nt

[mondo joe]

148. But I'll be over 50 by then.

I was really planning on being married before I was 40.

Grrrrrrrrrr...

[Bluebear]

169. Now, is that BEFORE or AFTER the election in 2016?

I don't want to be perceived as uppity.

[readmoreoften]

171. That would be after. But you can lobby your congressperson as early as 2017.

I feel positive about the 2018 election! I think it's going to be a big win for us! Too bad a lot of us will be dead by then.

[Maven]

149. Didn't you hear? The gays lost us New Jersey!

Oh wait, no they didn't.

[readmoreoften]

150. Yes they did. The gays will cost us everything. Damn gays.

And it will all be because they are so concerned about silly semantics! Marriage! Civil Unions! Nothing at All! What's the difference? They're just words! Americans just don't like gays because they are so pigheaded and unreasonable. It has nothing to do with bigotry. Nothing at all!

[ThomCat]

154. That is the most rediculous post I've ever seen on this topic.

Sure, what the hell, we'll just postpone all discussions of equal rights for GLBT people until you feel comfortable with it. And then in 10 years you get to say, "oh, wait 10 more years."
:eyes:

[Quixote1818]

158. Thomas Jefferson wanted to end slavery in the Declaration of Independence

but at the time that most certainly would have prevented the South from signing on to the Revolutionary War. They asked Jefferson to strike that line or they woulden't have signed on. So that "ridiculous" nut head Benjamin Franklin told Jefferson to wait until the country was ready for that battle.

I am not suggesting people postpone all discussions of gay marriage but I will say that Republicans have used the "gay marriage" issue very effectively as a wedge issue and it's cost us dozens of elections. Like it or not, it's an issue that has effectively been used against us and hurt us in the current political climate. To not recognize that is simply not seeing the cold hard facts.

Of course we continue to discuss the topic but don't expect much to happen on this for at least ten years or so.

[ThomCat]

197. And how many people

lived their lives in slavery because of that decision? How many people were owned, subject to rapes, beatings, humiliations, abject poverty, and denied access to damned near everything society had to offer?

Nobody asked them what they thought of the arrangement. Perhaps we would have been better off if we had been formed as two allied countries instead of one, with slavery absolutely prohibited in one. History has already told us that slavery was doomed for economic reasons in the south, so slavery would have ended there too, but we would have been far ahead of the game. And, it would have been easier for escaped slaves to get to a northern state than all the way to Canada.

The acceptance of slavery, and the 3/5 clause are two of the biggest stains on American History.

[Change has come]

156. Can I hold off on paying my taxes

until I'm a Real American? Can I stop supporting the old farts with my social security contributions? Am I working against my own interests when I vote for Democrats that have promised to fix the Medicaid drug debacle?

[NMMNG]

165. Do you know how many times we've heard that sh*t?

Every bloody time there's an election coming up it's the same freaking thing. "You gays need to pipe down or you're going to lose us the election. Just wait until after the election and we can worry about your rights."

Then as soon as the election is over you're worried about the next election.

WHEN THE F*CK DO WE GET TO STOP WAITING AND GET TO START WORKING FOR OUR RIGHTS???


PS, We didn't lose this election if you recall.

[Quixote1818]

188. See my post # 180

nt

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

180. Rights delayed are right denied.

I'm not waiting for the likes of you to inform me when it's appropriate to ask for my rights. Which one of your rights do you want to give up for 10-15 years? Obviously, you don't need your rights, if you think I should just wait for mine.

[Quixote1818]

186. We are not that far apart.

I think most Americans are fine with "Civil Unions" based on a bill similar to Howard Dean's. Why many feel a need to change the name at this particular time and risk close elections is what I worry about. In ten or 15 years Americans will be so liberal they won't even care what it's called much less what rights you have. Thats all I am saying. We are on the same side her. Can't we all just get along? :shrug:

Just because we have a slight disagreement doesn't mean I am against you. I constantly take up your side in arguments and my best friend is gay.

[NMMNG]

190. The "Domestic Partnership" bill was voted down in CO

So it's apparent that "most Americans" are not fine with Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships. We need to fight for our rights now. Not tomorrow, not ten or fifteen years from now, but today. If Rosa Parks and MLK Jr. had decided to wait until White people were "ready" for Blacks to have Civil Rights Blacks would likely still be waiting.

We have waited too long already.

[Warren DeMontague]

151. I'm not religious in the slightest. But I'm married.

And my marriage is about more than filing joint tax returns with my wife.

Marriage used to be primarily religous. No more. That's an antiquated way of looking at things. If the fundies can't deal with Gay couples being "married", that's their problem. Fuck 'em.

I say, let Gays get MARRIED, legally, ---and religiously in the denominations that can cope with it. You're never going to win any arguments by saying we have to take away civic marriage from straights.

[nofurylike]

189. well said, impeachdubya!

beyond the main excellent points you made, i also like this one, so important to this particular 'discussion':
"You're never going to win any arguments by saying we have to take away civic marriage from straights."


peace

[readmoreoften]

155. I don't support Atheist Marriage.

Why should atheists have marriage. Marriage is a religious concept. It is for religious people. I think that there should be civil unions for all atheists and the rest of us should have marriage. You can't just overthrow 1000 years of Western tradition (and fuck Eastern traditions because they might contradict our thesis) just because atheists want to get married. I think atheists should have the rights of all Americans, but it's going to take about half a century for Americans to wrap their heads around "Atheism". And in the meanwhile, if atheists don't have the right to marry, fuck 'em.

[NMMNG]

163. Why don't you support my right to get married?

:cry:

[Ksec]

160. Civil Unions are fine with me

Why does it have to be called marriage anyway. Who gives a fk.

Just call it civil unions and just move along to more important matters. There are more important matters we need to take care of.

[Quixote1818]

164. I agree! What if it had been called "Civil Union" in the first place

and Gay's and Lesbians were forced to call their relationship a "Marriage"? Would gays then be fighting to call it a "Civil Union"? It's just a name Religions have have attached to it so why not come up with your own name? It doesn't make it any less important. It's just a name!

The important thing is that they have all the same rights under the law. Worrying about what to call it is meaningless.

You say Tomato I say Tomotto, so let call the whole thing off!

[readmoreoften]

166. Because if two different words mark two different legal statuses, then gays won't have the same

rights.

It isn't what the words are, it's that the same words are used to describe both. It is federal law that you can get the social security benefits of your spouse through marriage. Civil unions will not count. If you said that straight "civil unions" count and "gay marriages" don't, then it doesn't solve the problem it only switches the words.

The only people who care about the words are the fundamentalists-- and actually, they really don't care about the words. They simply don't want gay people to have the same rights as they do. That's why all these anti-marriage amendments cover civil unions and domestic partnerships too.

If you allow same-sex marriage, the fundamentalists will say that their religious culture has been infringed upon.
If you make everything equal by saying that "we all have civil unions; if you want to be married in a church do it as an afterfact", then the fundamentalists will say "look they destroyed marriage and now the government doesn't recognize our marriage in the eyes of god."
If you says straights get marriage, and gays get civil unions, civil unions will be not much more than domestic partnerships that deny GLBT folks over 1000 financial and legal benefits of marriage.

[Quixote1818]

172. What about Howard Dean's "Civil Union's Bill"?

I would like to know where you are getting your information. It's not consistant with the actual laws we have seen.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_15_117/ai_62324426

[readmoreoften]

176. I'm getting my information from the Human Rights Campaign and every other

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/WhyCivilUnionsAreNotEnough.pdf#search='why%20civil%20unions%20are%20not%20the%20same%20as%20marriage'

Here's a list of the practical differences.

[readmoreoften]

177. Quote

"Under the current legal framework—which is based on marital status—the only way to extend federal protections associated with marriage to couples who have entered civil unions would be to amend more than 1,000 separate laws and regulations." --taskforce

[Quixote1818]

183. Or put forth a Bill like Howard Dean's in each state or Federally.

You don't have to change the old laws if you write a new one that over rides the old ones. It's that simple.

[readmoreoften]

185. I don't know if you noticed, but Bush isn't going to sign a federal civil unions bill.

And states are passing anti-gay bills that ban same-sex marriage and "anything that approximates marriage". The whole "civil unions vs marriage" argument is spin. The fundamentalists are not going to allow gays to marry or "civilly unionize" period. So arguing semantics with us is fairly pointless. As I said, if you call it "otterpeeling" and it gives me the same federal rights as marriage, I won't care. But it most likely won't work out that way and we both know that. Because it's not about "words" it's about a large segment of the population opposing the legal existence of GLBT couples.

[Quixote1818]

187. Getting them to call it "Gay Marriage" is an even longer shot though

Why not take what you can get with bills like Howard Deans for the meantime and hopefully in two years you will get someone like Dean or Gore as President, who will change the law and give you all the same rights Married people have without changing the name and pissing off all the fundies?


On edit: Come on, just admit you want the name changed as well. :P

[readmoreoften]

Seriously. I could give a crap. I'm deathly serious. I do not care.

I never really wanted the ceremony, even as a kid. But my partner is a cancer survivor with health issues. Her family lives in Texas and we are there about 40% of the year. Even if we had a civil union, chances are if something happened to her while she was in Texas I would not be permitted to make medical decisions for her, or possible even see if her if her family decided in that direction. I worry about when we drive across country (beyond gay bashing), if we're in a car accident, will the hospital allow me to see her?

Those are my concerns

[nofurylike]

194. it is not "gay marriage." it is equal rights. equal marriage. it is you

calling it something other than it is.


yeah, don't want to piss off the fundies. like our even existing doesn't, anyway.... well, really, our having the courage to be honest about it, versus their fury that they have to hide it to keep privilege.

did you feel that way about interracial marriage too? don't want to piss off the fundies.

[Quixote1818]

179. But the law can be changed with or without the "name" being changed

Just as we saw with Howard Dean's bill. Their is NO law that forces couples laws to be attached just to that name. If their is I would like to see the Federal version of it.

[readmoreoften]

182. Deans bill doesn't do anything other than give couples state benefits.

If every single law in America said "marriage including civil unions" then, yes, GLBT people would be happy. But over 1000 laws would have to be rewritten at massive cost and inconvenience. Why? So that straight people can hold onto the word "marriage"? Why invent two terms for the same legal concept?

If you care to, read the white papers at the NGLTF on the issue, lord knows there are plenty.

[readmoreoften]

178. An article from "the Christian Century" is not a good place to get your info. Here.

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/WhyCivilUnionsAreNotEnough.pdf#search='why%20civil%20unions%20are%20not%20the%20same%20as%20marriage'

[Quixote1818]

181. Ok, then how about gay-civil-unions.com ?

http://www.gay-civil-unions.com/HTML/Politics/Dean_for_America_2004.htm

Not exactly a Religious site and it says the same thing.

"I’m proud to say that as Governor of Vermont, I signed legislation to grant homosexual couples the right to enter into civil unions. This law, the first of its kind in the United States, guarantees lesbian and gay couples the same basic legal rights that married couples enjoy: the right to inherit property, obtain child custody, visit a partner in the hospital, and control a partner’s affairs upon death."

[readmoreoften]

184. So what? it's a webname. Gaymarriage.com was already taken.

"I’m proud to say that as Governor of Vermont, I signed legislation to grant homosexual couples the right to enter into civil unions. This law, the first of its kind in the United States, guarantees lesbian and gay couples the same basic legal rights that married couples enjoy: the right to inherit property, obtain child custody, visit a partner in the hospital, and control a partner’s affairs upon death."

Show me where it says all the things that are left out on the Taskforce chart: death benefits, etc. They're not there because they will only be there when same-sex marriage is recognized by those federal agencies, which is the very practical goal.

Howard Dean is a fine man. Civil unions are better than nothing. But they are not legally the same thing as marriage.

[NMMNG]

162. Oh boy

Because I argue that marriage is, ultimately, a function of religion.

No it isn't. My mother has been married three times and not one of those marriages was performed in a church or by a religious figure. My father has also been married, never once in a church or by a religious figure. Nonetheless they were and are legally married. I knew a woman and man who had a ceremony performed by a reverend but had no marriage license. As such they were not legally married. If the state is not involved there is no marriage.

Certain religious folk, fundamentalists in particular, have hijacked the term "marriage" and are trying to hold it hostage so that others (specifically gays) cannot use it. This is insidious, bigoted and wrong.


In one respect, it's all about semantics. SOME people don't want gays to be able to "marry," but have no issue with "civil unions,"


While polls show this to be the case, the recent election results in CO show otherwise.


Would this open things up for polygamy? Probably.


And there's that standard slippery-slope argument again. "If we let the gays get married next thing you know there will be polygamy, people marrying their pets, adults marrying children and all sorts of abominations!". If we're going to use that line of reasoning we'd better revoke the Second Amendment because if civilians are allowed to have guns next thing you know they'll want grenades, then rocket launchers and even nuclear weapons!



The fact is that many people don't want gays to be able to get married (or have civil-unions/domestic partnerships or whatever you would call them). They don't want gay couples to have the same rights as straight couples because they are bigots, primarily due to religious reasons. It is high time that these bigotries stop interfering with gay couples' rights to equal marriage rights.

[Mythsaje]

174. If a group of consenting (human) adults want to enter into a multiple partner contract

why should anyone care? Why should the government care?

What I'm talking about could open up things for polyamorous unions, but so what? I'd hazard a guess it's the next step one way or another. Maybe twenty years down the road, but yeah. :shrug:

[NMMNG]

191. I don't give a hoot about polyamory

If that's what people are into that's fine with me.


I'm just tired of the myth that allowing gays to marry automatically leads to allowing polygamy. They are two completely different things and people link them just to try to scare people about gay marriage.

[nofurylike]

193. because that would be communism, which they fight just as hard.

class privilege is just as involved in this as male privilege is.

anyway, something you do not seem to understand is that each person already has the right to marry the one person of her/his choice, within the law. it doesn't take a new law to simply acknowledge that. that is not so with polyamory, -andry, -gamy, dogs, box turtles... mothers children gangs....


*edit to spell