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!!

[thornbury.livejournal.com]

The Mormon Church officially prohibited new plural marriages after 1904.

[usagi629.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and so that means people aren't still doing it... sure...

[thornbury.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Why discriminate against them?

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

My only objections to them are the underage issues, and possible coercion. There are others who can provide a much more lively opinion on those groups...

[paquerette.livejournal.com]

Utah actually has worse legislation against poly cohabitation, iirc.

[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.

[thornbury.livejournal.com]

Trying to legalize poly would be difficult, and nigh impossible to define.

No more impossible to define than the text of a contract. We already have partnership contracts for business; I'm certain there are lawyers out there that could draft a multi-part civil union.

But I'm not declaring the doom and gloom of a slippery slope. I'm dead serious - if it's so important to grant equal rights separate from anyone's church - basically to uphold the Free Exercise Clause, then why do we let the Edmunds Act of 1882 stand? That states that polygamy is a felony.

The polygamists aren't going to come out with a political action to legalize their situations, to form a bond, to marry someone they deeply love. They'll go to jail. You think the underground sects that believe in this wouldn't do it if it were legal?

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

Every single insurance form and contract that two spouses sign would have to be changed. Every single form where you list a spouse. Come now, you work in IT. You know what changing forms does.

A same-sex marriage is still a marriage between two people. A poly marriage is not. It's different. There is no reason to distract from the issue at hand or muddy the waters.

It's different enough that it's a different issue. It's also an issue that I'm not particularly interesting in arguing at this time. I don't know enough of the facts to make an informed opinion, other than that some very vocal poly people that I know don't wish to make it an issue.

[soucyn.livejournal.com]

I'd hate for something like paperwork get in the way of rights.

That said, I do think we should separate the poly-marriage issue from the gay-marriage issue. If we can keep it to baby steps, we're better off. I think opening the entire marriage structure up is a great long term goal, but might not be feasible to happen all at once.

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

At this point, I've only ever heard the poly argument used as a slippery slope or distraction.

It's not so much that the paperwork has to get in the way, rather that something like same-sex marriage is so *easy* precisely because there are few, if any, paperwork changes. It should be completely transparent to those who are not entering into a same-sex marriage. It can happen, and if you don't want to know about it, you don't have to pay attention. It doesn't affect anybody negatively, and only affects those positively who need/want it. A change for poly *would* actually redefine what marriage is, but allowing same-sex marriage does not.

[thornbury.livejournal.com]

It's an issue that encompasses both religion and politics, and it's really better to leave it alone. Let's just say I don't agree with you in assigning special rights to special interest groups.

[pinkleader.livejournal.com]

I would argue that it isn't special rights, but equal rights.

We're not talking about poly or animals, but a union contract between two adults. In a sense it is saying that your heterosexual marriage is more valid than say James and Daniel of Rutland who have been together likely longer than either of your marriages.

Personally I could never look at Nikulai and state that he can't marry the one he loves. It hurts me to think that others could.

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

I don’t see marriage as “a special right” and I don’t see my gay friends as a “special interest group”.

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

I also sincerely believe that the purpose of a constitution is not to limit rights of a subset of our population, but to protect rights.

[thornbury.livejournal.com]

So do I.

I'd like to reiterate that I don't see the value in discussing the issue in this medium. With love and respect, I disagree with you.

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

Fair 'nuf. I still am awaiting the day, though, when somebody who disagrees can explain to me, rationally, why allowing a same sex couple to marry affects any of the rest of us in any real sense.

[thornbury.livejournal.com]

I'd be happy to do just that in person. Let me know when you want to do that, and I'll prepare for it.

[paquerette.livejournal.com]

Heck no, I don't even want to be married the first time!

Seriously though, it's not something I even have a clear opinion on. I've waffled through the years. Right now I'm leaning toward getting government out of the marriage business and making it easier for people to draw up those contracts that designate next of kin and power of attorney and all those other things that I probably don't even know I'm entitled to as a married person.

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

The idea is nice, but I don't like the thought of non-religious people not having access to the word "marriage".

[paquerette.livejournal.com]

I dunno, couldn't they have personal non-spiritual marriage ceremonies? You just throw whatever kind of wedding you're inclined to have, invite whatever person you respect to stand up there and recite vows with you or do it quaker-style yourselves.

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

The idea of the separation is to make the government do civil unions, and leave it up to people to get "married" by a religious figure. A marriage in front of a judge should be considered a marriage just as much as one done in front of a priest.

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

I don't think I suggested that only a "religious figure" could perform marriages; it's not my business what anybody else considers to be a valid marriage ceremony.

Marriage means whatever the couple getting married say it means. If they say it means a Catholic mass presided over by the Bishop, and they have that, then they're married. If they say it means a civil union ceremony presided over by a judge, and they have that, then they're married. If they say it means a party in the back yard for their friends presided over by a portrait of Bugs Bunny, and they have that, then they're married.

I'm not suggesting for a moment taking the word "marriage" away from non-religious people (among whom I count myself). I'm only suggesting taking the word "marriage" away from the State.

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

same-sex marriage doesn't actually change anything. Legalizing a poly relationship as a marriage does....
For one, it changes dependencies, insurance, etc.

By "marriage" here you mean "a personal commitment that has legal standing," right? So if the State stopped recognizing marriages but recognized only civil unions, your point would be that having more than two parties to a civil union would change the way insurance, etc. are handled. Which is probably true, and there would presumably be some court cases about whether there's a compelling State interest in civil unions being only two people. There are all sorts of other legally binding contracts with more than two parties, so it's not out of the question that it could be made workable.