Mawwiage... is what bwings us... togevah... today

[chargirlgenius]

Many people have suggested a particular solution to the same-sex marriage conundrum. They would have the government recognize civil unions of everybody, and leave marriages to the church. This allows marriage to remain a religious institution, but allows everybody the exact same civil rights.

Only, I'm not really so keen on it.

You see, we were married in a civil ceremony, and that's the only ceremony we had, and likely the only one that we ever will have. I'm not any less "married" than the rest of you, and yes, I WANT to use the word "married". I'm also a religious person, and I know that in the eyes of God I am married.

Marriage is a human condition, not a religious one. Marriage is not something that only religious people have done. Marriage has always been considered a contract, and it wasn't even until the 12th century that the Catholic Church made it a sacrament. In the early Christian era, the presence of clergy was not required to make a partnership a marriage, even in the eyes of God.

I understand the idea of leaving government out of marriage, and once liked it. But it's not historically correct (at least from a Euro-centric perspective). Government has MORE business in the process of marriage than the churches. Once you were married, THEN you were subject to whatever expectations put were upon you by your church.

There's no reason to overhaul the whole system. There's no reason to make a complicated new set of laws to create a separate but equal condition. Use the laws we already have, and give people equal access and protections under those laws. Simply put, two people who love each other should have the ability to MARRY. Period, end of story.

Comments

[thornbury.livejournal.com]

Simply put, two people who love each other should have the ability to MARRY.

Why only two? Why not three, or four? Who determines that polyamory is immoral and illegal? Why not "Marriage, LLP"?

[usagi629.livejournal.com]

Go to UTAH!!

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

First of all, that's generally used as a slippery slope argument, and it is an incorrect assumption that allowing same-sex marriage automatically leads to that.

Secondly, same-sex marriage doesn't actually change anything. Legalizing a poly relationship as a marriage does, and the poly people that I know, that I've heard express an opinion on this topic, know this and understand this. I've never heard anybody seriously ask this as a right. (Maybe it's happened - is there clamoring for poly marriages in the countries that have already legalized same-sex marriage?)

For one, it changes dependencies, insurance, etc. I could go on, but I think you get the gist.

Secondly, one of the main reasons to allow a same sex couple to marry is to give the life partner the right to make next of kin decisions. In a poly situation, you have multiple spouses, and that designation is less easy to pin down. Every poly person that I know has slightly different rules, and they are thoughtful enough to KNOW that their rules are their rules. It would be nigh impossible to codify them into law.

I have enough poly readers who could probably correct me on any of these points, if I'm incorrect or misinformed.

Point being, a couple legalizing their same sex relationship in a marriage has no real impact on anybody else's marriage. Trying to legalize poly would be difficult, and nigh impossible to define.

way back when...

[kevindharner.livejournal.com]

you would first go to the local lets say court house to get legally married (all the docs and all) and THEN there would be a religuous aka church ceremony

Re: way back when...

[usagi629.livejournal.com]

yes.. this. The 'church' ceremony is really more for ritual than anything.

[usagi629.livejournal.com]

I always thought allowing the gays civil unions and leaving marriage alone was a good compromise... and only recently have I realized that they shouldn't have to compromise... I agree that abolishing marriage entirely as a state issue isn't the way to go, although it sounds good and smart and wise, it isn't really.

I agree with all your points.. it's just stupid that it's even an issue.

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

I kind of thought that as well, but civil unions just aren't as equal as I'd thought they were. Good first step, and all, but they still leave a lot of legal rights unmet.

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

Yes, the problem (as the Supreme Court said fifty years ago in another context) is that "separate is inherently unequal." If we have marriages for some people and civil unions for others, there will be a feeling that the former are "really" married, and the latter are imposters.

[hazebrouck.livejournal.com]

To me, marriage is about your status within your community. You get your community together, you say "we're married", they say "yes, you are", they you say "let's eat" and they say "mazeltov". And you're married. It's not really about God. Honestly I don't think God cares all that much if we're married. He cares if we are kind.

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

Yep! I like your way. Only we ate first, because my witness had a young son who couldn't stay up too late, who came along to the judge's basement. :-D

Once upon a time, you said "I marry you" and he said "I marry you" and that's about all that had to happen.

Well, then you trade some goats or something, and all is well.

The Bible has rules about how married people act, but not about the marriage itself.

[pinkleader.livejournal.com]

Amen!!!

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

...it's not historically correct (at least from a Euro-centric perspective). Government has MORE business in the process of marriage than the churches....

There's no reason to overhaul the whole system. There's no reason to make a complicated new set of laws to create a separate but equal condition. Use the laws we already have, and give people equal access and protections under those laws. Simply put, two people who love each other should have the ability to MARRY. Period, end of story.

Yes, I would prefer that answer myself, in the best of all possible worlds. I was brought up to believe marriage was primarily about love, and that sex was the icing on the cake.

The question is whether we have any reasonable hope of achieving that, over the sincere and visceral objections of many millions of people for whom declaring a same-sex couple to be married is as patently and unalterably false as declaring pi to be equal to three.

I'd be willing to hand over the word "marriage" to the religious organizations, if it meant getting religious organizations out of the business of defining who pays how much income tax by the shapes of their sex organs.

OTOH, given that Prop. 8 passed by only 52/48, maybe we can just wait for a few more homophobes to die off, and things will work out eventually.

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

I think there is hope of it happening. It's happened in several countries already, and it's happening in some places here. I think that as people get used to the idea, and realize that it doesn't actually affect them, it'll happen. I think that having an interim solution that actually changes everything *will* change everything, for everybody, which is what has people upset in the first place.

[geniealisa.livejournal.com]

There is a great book called Gay Marriage: Why it is good for gays, good for straights and good for America (http://www.amazon.com/Gay-Marriage-Good-Straights-America/dp/0805078150/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226033839&sr=8-1) that argues that using the same term means you hold everyone to the same standards. Everyone knows what is expected of a spouse as a commonly accepted social contract and that helps people understand each other.

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the rec! I'll try to look into it.

When in Mexico...

[ballistabob.livejournal.com]

As belfebe could probably more eloquently explain, that is *exactly* the way marriage is handled in Mexico. The Mexican government does not recognize church marriages. You have to be married in a civil ceremony for anything to be legal. You can then go and have the religious ceremony, but it has no bearing on the legal status of your union. Personally, I think it is a great way of handling the situation. Covers that whole "separation of church and state" thing rather nicely. ;-)

Re: When in Mexico...

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

It makes sense, but I think it would change our current system quite a bit. People are afraid of change, and any of these big overhauls would change it for everybody. Allowing same-sex couples the same rights as the rest of us would only change things for them, not for the rest of us.

[mare-in-flames.livejournal.com]

It's funny about the "marriage as religious act" thing, because I've always seen it as a community act - marriages always seem to be something you declare before witnesses, and usually before the entire town/village/family/group. The religious aspect of it, well, yes, you're taking a vow before God, that's for sure, but I always saw that more as a natural result of the role of religion in the community - and again, marriage as community act.

But WTF do I know, I'd rather eat a live scorpion with my hands tied behind my back than ever get married. ;) Still, for the sake of my brother and everyone else who can't marry their partner because of plumbing issues, I have given it some thought....

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

Community act - absolutely. Those are the words I was casting for, and couldn't find when I wrote the post.

[syrrichard.livejournal.com]

I know the religious right is fighting the gay marraiage thing, but I wonder if there is not also a movement among insurance companies and gov't entities. Alot of benefits acrue to people who are married through established insurance policies and tax regulations. Denying "partners" those financial breaks puts money in someone's pockets.

90% of the time, you just need to follow the money...

As for Gay Marriage in my book, it's the ssme rules as any other sexual issue-

1. Must be mutually consentual.
2. Must involve adults.
3. Must involve persons mentally capable of consent.
4. Don't do it in my lap without my consent.

Why do we try so darn hard as a culture to restrict love and enable violence? Might we not have this sdrawkcab? It's like opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty.

[lorebubeck.livejournal.com]

Exactly. It's like the insurance companies that pay for Viagra but not birth control pills. ARRRRGGGGG

[sskipstress.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I agree with you, but then I'm not already married.

But as an interesting point, my church's service book does not have a ceremony to perform marriages. There's a format for blessing a marriage, but not one for performing them. Yes, the ministers may perform marriages, that's a power granted to them by the state, not by God.

[thornbury.livejournal.com]

And yet, the state won't give you a blanket license to perform marriages unless you're clergy - any ordained minister who can show proof of ordination. Judges (Circuit Court, District Court, or retired) in Virginia may also perform civil weddings.

VA-resident non-clergy can sign up for a one-time permit to celebrate a wedding, but you've got to post a hefty bond. I think it's something like $500, which is why I went the 'clergy' route to be able to perform weddings.

[soucyn.livejournal.com]

(Thoughtful post, btw).

There are a few counter arguments where it might be handy to have the government handing out "civil unions" and not marriages.

Let's say my (unmarried) sister is deathly ill, and in the hospital. My parents want to continue treatment, but she doesn't want to. Every time she falls asleep, my parents have the doctors jack her up with the meds, she gets loopy, and can no longer make decisions. She could and I could get a civil union, thus making me her "spouse." We obviously have no intention of sleeping together, we're just using a quick legal contract to let her designate someone to make medical decisions for her when she's not able, and making sure that I inherit all her belongings after her passing. Our current option would be powers of attorney, living wills, regular wills, etc., all of which can be challenged in court. At the same time, if someone asked me, "are you married to your sister?" in the social sense no, but in the legal sense, yes.

[greta-k.livejournal.com]

I believe that most states, if not all, have laws regarding how close a relative you may marry. In some instances, third cousin is the closest that you can marry. Blood siblings is right out.

[quodscripsi.livejournal.com]

I hate to disapoint but much of your ideaological history of marriage isn't correct. Under Roman law marriage is a contract and therefore under government legal control but not so in Germanic societies where the legal issue is more about legitimate or illegitimate offspring. The Church and medieval society pushed marriage into cannon law courts to bring concubinage under control and most importantly because it was taking an oath so the validity of the marriage is bases upon the validity of the oath and therefore a matter of Church jurisdiction. Even to this day Roman Catholic theology and I believe most branches of the Catholic church deny the need for a priest or clergyman to be present at a marriage. The sacrament is make between the couple and God with the priest as witness. The move to try to enforce the priest upon the marriage was to reduce incidences of clandestine marriage which was largely eliminated in Europe during the Reformation except in England which did not do away with it completely until the 19th century, which is one of the reasons some states still have common law marriage because it is a remainder of clandestine marriages. Interestingly many of the same processes that brought marriage back under civil jurisdiction also reduced the rights of women.

In the end the issue boils down to this. Do you want to force change that is contrary to the legal principles of your society. That is always a dangerous road that almost always leads to a place where one is trying not to go when one starts down that path.