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

[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.

[soucyn.livejournal.com]

Exactly, that's a marriage law based on the (understandable) taboo of incest. It ties marriage to sex and procreation. I don't actually have a sister, but if I did, I don't see why we couldn't form a legal contract that would allow her to publicly trust me to handle such decisions.

[pinkleader.livejournal.com]

Of course the Terry Schiavo case showed us that even a spouse's decisions can be questioned, so I don't know how much your argument holds water. Powers of Attorney doesn't seem that much more reliable than a civil union partner, and does have the benefit of already being defined.

[luscious-purple.livejournal.com]

Ah, but in Virginia, didn't the state government remove the power of same-sex couples to draw up a legal contract that covered some of the decisions that spouses can make for each other?

Such contracts are something I think about as an unmarried woman in Maryland. I have a longtime friend in Virginia who would be a trustworthy person to give a power of attorney to, but he lives in Virginia, and if some accident should befall me while I am in Virginia for an SCA event or something, I don't trust the laws of that commonwealth to honor such an agreement. (Yes, he and I are opposite sexes, but I'm not sure if the law banning such contracts is explicitly limited to same-sex people or covers ALL people who are not related to each other.)

[soucyn.livejournal.com]

Or, say you did both live in the same state, like Maryland (it's a nice state, so why not). You draw up power of attorney, and all the other documents (it's actually quite a lot, and a real PITA for gay couples to do this), then that accident happens in North Carolina down here at Crown Tourney this weekend. Do all those legal documents made up in MD have the same force down here in NC? Are there different statutes to draw from?

If you were "married" or "civilly joined", then that would cross state bounds with no real question - regardless of the sexual (or lack there of) nature of the relationship.

[luscious-purple.livejournal.com]

I honestly don't know the answers to your questions -- I guess I need a lawyer, don't I?

I do know, however, that I do NOT want to spend the rest of my life married to someone I do not want to be married to just on the off chance that I might be in a car accident.

[soucyn.livejournal.com]

Chances are good that you would need a lawyer. Chances are you would get different answers depending on what court you end up in.

While I understand not wanting to be married to someone just to have potential car accident decisions made, I think this helps illustrate the injustice of keeping gay folks out in the cold on marriage (not that I'm saying you personally are advocating this).

With national action on gay marraige, we can secure for everyone, all of our friends, the ability to safely cross state lines and understand that their wishes will be honored. If we take that example and run two gay guys through it, you can see how frustrating and terrifying it could be to suddenly be told your spouse is not going to be making decisions, but instead your parents/siblings/etc.

[luscious-purple.livejournal.com]

Oh, I am *so* in favor of same-sex marriage in all 50 states. I can definitely see how the case you mention in your last sentence would be frustrating and terrifying -- especially in the case where the parents/siblings/etc. have already disowned the gay person because of prejudice or whatever. (Sometimes people disown each other for reasons other than sexuality....)

I think the slogan "Civil marriage is a civil right" sums it up best.

[soucyn.livejournal.com]

Yes, but you'll notice that every time it got in front of a judge, it went; "So, is she your wife?" "Yes." "Done, do what he says, get the hell out of my court room." It was the various legislatures and executives that were throwing their weight around.

The reason for that is, it's assumed that your spouse will have a closer relationship and better know your wishes than a parent or other family member. I know my wife knows stuff about me, that my parents don't know.

My hypothetical situation with my non-existent sister is there to show that sometimes people may have a close bond with someone that they can't marry, and thus, that person is excluded from making decisions about healthcare.

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

That contract would be made for the sole purpose of you making medical decisions for her? I think that existing power of attorney laws should be strengthened to cover that. If it were only about end of life decisions, that would be one thing. But marriage covers a whole gamut of other contracts that might be theoretically possible to obtain, for quite a bit more money than one marriage license fee.

Marriages historically have to be consummated to be considered valid. Think about medieval European history. If a marriage wasn't consummated, it could fairly easily be set aside.

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

Again, if the State were out of the business of defining "marriage", that rule would be gone. In its place, somebody would need to decide whether there was a compelling State interest in a "civilly united" couple having sex, and if so, how often. I'm almost certain that the courts wouldn't want to touch that with a ten-foot pole. (How many married couples are there now that don't have sex? :-))