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!!

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

[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.

Re: way back when...

[usagi629.livejournal.com]

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

[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]

The Mormon Church officially prohibited new plural marriages after 1904.

[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.

[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.

[usagi629.livejournal.com]

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

[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.

[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?

[thornbury.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Why discriminate against them?

[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.

[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...

[pinkleader.livejournal.com]

Amen!!!

[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.

[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.

[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.

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. ;-)

[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....

[usagi629.livejournal.com]

Right, and I totally agree with that.

[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.

[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.

[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.