Barking up the Wrong Tree?

[Pablo Rafael]

Sometimes I wonder whether the struggle to make gay marriage legal is the right approach.

Is marriage a legal matter or is it a religious matter?

I think it might be better for marriage equality if the government simply issued licenses for civil unions to any couple requesting one. Only the government could issue the license, not priests or other religious figures. The government would be in charge of the legal matters. The religious organizations could then perform marriages according to their own preferences and customs.

A majority of people in this country support legal rights for gay couples. The problem comes with marriage which is religious in background.

Maybe separation of church and state would gain us more than fighting for gay marriage state by state. Maybe that is where our energies should go.

[Daniel]

Sometimes I wonder whether the struggle to make gay marriage legal is the right approach.

Is marriage a legal matter or is it a religious matter?

I think it might be better for marriage equality if the government simply issued licenses for civil unions to any couple requesting one. Only the government could issue the license, not priests or other religious figures. The government would be in charge of the legal matters. The religious organizations could then perform marriages according to their own preferences and customs.

A majority of people in this country support legal rights for gay couples. The problem comes with marriage which is religious in background.

Maybe separation of church and state would gain us more than fighting for gay marriage state by state. Maybe that is where our energies should go.

It's both!

And they've tried Civil Unions in NJ and more than 10 % of couples have had to SUE to have their piece of paper recognized. Gee. Do straight couples have to do that?

I don't think so.

It's about MONEY and RECOGNITION. It's about being able to take care of the person you love. Recognition in the eyes of the God you don't or do believe in.

It's about LOVE.

The RIGHT to LOVE.

Of course you know this. I just don't know what you are losing your NERVE.

[Daniel]

Q. Why aren't straight people clamoring for civil unions?

A. The same reason that gay people aren't.

We all want love, we all want happiness. We all want the same stuff. Marriage. Not a Union.

Johnny...will you union me?

Doesn't sound right. Words really are important.

This boy isn't settling.

[bnmoore]

Opposite sex couples can marry outside of each other's faith without having to ask. Depending on who you ask some don't consider those unions blessed either.

What you're proposing isn't equality.

It also takes away the fun of calling divorced/remarried heteros serial bigamists that are going to burn in hell.

I am also not settling for less than full humanity.

[BenL]

Whoa! What Pablo suggested is the actuality in most of Western Europe ... except for the word "marriage." In most of those countries, a couple gets legally married at the city or town hall or registry office. They then proceed to have a religious ceremony if they wish. If they don't have a church service, they're still just as married in the eyes of the law.

Of course, what's in play here is the word "marriage." And, yes, it carries with it societal recognition of a relationship, hopefully a loving one. And, yes, many hetero couples and religious institutions are hung up on letting queer couples into the marriage club.

I am fortunate to have legal marriage here in Massachusetts. When people ask me if I plan to relocate to warmer climes in retirement, I tell them in no uncertain terms that it won't be until same-sex marriage is fully recognized in those semi-tropical paradises. So, even if civil unions or domestic partnerships carried all the rights of marriage, I think I'd still hold out for marriage. Sorry, Pabs, but your concept is good, but people want equality ... not just legal equality, but social equality too.

[Daniel]

Whoa! What Pablo suggested is the actuality in most of Western Europe ... except for the word "marriage." In most of those countries, a couple gets legally married at the city or town hall or registry office. They then proceed to have a religious ceremony if they wish. If they don't have a church service, they're still just as married in the eyes of the law.

Of course, what's in play here is the word "marriage."

And I really wish we were more like them. As it is, you talk to just about any European and find out that they speak fluent English and another language or two. They are educated. Are we? Not quite like they are. However, they do have an advantage: the country next door is a stone's throw away. They have to be bilingual to do business. It's part of the deal. Us? We're so big a country we think we can do without the rest of the world. And how stupid is that?

The powerful United States of America? More like the United States of Ignorance. I'm not hung up on the word marriage as much as I am fighting for the full recognition of rights in the set-up as it is. And when gay couples have to sue in court to get what the law says they already have (in NJ for instance), then something is really really wrong.

This boy is not going to go around begging for people to recognize his civil union.

Lastly: Europe doesn't go to church. By and large, their houses of worshop are tourist destinations. We, as a country, have a much larger attendance record. Faith is very much a part of our lives. And I don't see that changing.

Here's the good thing as I see it: working for full marriage rights is all about people in the pews realizing that God loves gay people. That gay people are not monsters and are indeed blessed as much as anyone else is blessed.

Either we are all children of God or we are not! In this, our country, where we have the right to have faith (and not have faith), we are demanding nothing less than the right to be married just like any idiot who gets drunk in Vegas and falls into a chapel. Why should his union be 'blessed' with full marriage rights, and the long-suffering gay couple not?

It's not about the morality of the person getting married. It's about us all being the same in the eyes of God AND the law.

That's our system. Ain't it grand? :rolleyes:

PS- Plablo, I apologize for the caps. They are like yelling. And your post really got me going. Pax.

[Pablo Rafael]

Good points made by everyone.

I am not willing to settle for less than marriage either. If religious marriage could be separate from legal marriage, then those of us who wanted to get legally married (or a legal civil union or whatever it would be called) could do so and not have the whole thing blockaded by the conservative religious groups. Whatever the terminology used, it would have to be the same for gays and heteros.

If religious marriages were the domain of the church, then we could easily find the church of our choice and get married in religious ceremony. For Episcopalians like Dan and I that would be no problem, and the conservatives would have no say in what we do in the more liberal church.

If only we were more like Europe in a multitude of ways...sigh! It is disturbing for those of us who are proud to be Christians, that areas that are more churched are generally LESS likely to adhere to the principles of Christ than are areas with lower church attendance. Look at the US. The least churched areas are New England and the Pacific Northwest. The most churched areas are the deep South and Texas.

[bnmoore]

If religious marriages were the domain of the church, then we could easily find the church of our choice and get married in religious ceremony. For Episcopalians like Dan and I that would be no problem, and the conservatives would have no say in what we do in the more liberal church.


Any of our staff ministers will preside over any type of wedding or commitment ceremony now. If your family, friends, God, and you recognize your marriage then you are married. (And we'd also quote "Be in the world,not of it".) Getting a license from the state is often skipped anyway although from what I hear Common Law isn't recognized any more here for opposite sex couples.

If I sounded a little harsh I'm sorry. It's the Eastern Alabama white trash roots.

[Alecto]

The focus on marriage is problematic in a number of ways, honestly. First of all, yes, unions for all (legally) and marriages for whoever your church wants to have 'em (religiously) WOULD qualify as "equality". It would also be such a major, major change (people are hung up on that word not just cause they don't want us to have it, but because they WANT their relationships to be special and superior) that I think it's regrettably unrealistic.

Aside from all that, there's a growing and dangerous mentality that once there's same sex marriage, everything is magically ok for queer people. Bam! We're equal! And this is incredibly untrue: there's the military issue to deal with, there's hate crimes, there's workplace and housing discrimination, not even getting into the criminal justice system and it's multitude of inadequacies (50% of transgender people will end up in jail for some amount of time: Something's wrong here). It's interesting to note that marriage only applies to a percentage of queer people (whereas we all need job and housing protection, we're all potential targets for hate crimes or the justice system itself), but it's the ones that have enough money that they don't need to worry about their job or housing (right now) that are directing the rights orgs.

[Daniel]

The focus on marriage is problematic in a number of ways, honestly. First of all, yes, unions for all (legally) and marriages for whoever your church wants to have 'em (religiously) WOULD qualify as "equality". It would also be such a major, major change (people are hung up on that word not just cause they don't want us to have it, but because they WANT their relationships to be special and superior) that I think it's regrettably unrealistic.

However, I am cannot agree on one point here for the simple fact that any two people who fall in love behave as they they are special. Superior? That implies a great deal of ego. And not everyone who is in love thinks they are better than everyone else. My sense is that if human beings can be rather myopic and self-referential about their experiences. Does that mean that straight people believe that they must be 'better' than gay people? I don't see that. What I see is that straight folks can be freaked out by what they see as the 'ickiness' of gay sex. They judge everything according to their own desires.

Aside from all that, there's a growing and dangerous mentality that once there's same sex marriage, everything is magically ok for queer people. Bam! We're equal! And this is incredibly untrue: there's the military issue to deal with, there's hate crimes, there's workplace and housing discrimination, not even getting into the criminal justice system and it's multitude of inadequacies (50% of transgender people will end up in jail for some amount of time: Something's wrong here). It's interesting to note that marriage only applies to a percentage of queer people (whereas we all need job and housing protection, we're all potential targets for hate crimes or the justice system itself), but it's the ones that have enough money that they don't need to worry about their job or housing (right now) that are directing the rights orgs.


Now this is worthy of a great deal of attention. Of course you are right. Having gay marriage isn't going to stop gay people from being bashed, killed and thrown out of their house and fired from their jobs. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will only change, I believe, when laws and education work together.

Too bad their isn't a Law of Love.

But oh...it's that tied up with marriage?

[Alecto]

I do believe that for many people (Not all), it totally is about preserving a special, socially revered place for heterosexual relationships. Many people literally do believe that their love is better and more "real" than our love. And for many people, that's definitely a part of why they have an issue sharing the word "marriage"; it's ok if you want to like visit in the hospital or whatever, but don't you dare imply that YOU are the same as ME (goes the thinking).
If these people (some of whom are for civil unions but against marriage but wouldn't dream of encouraging the solution proposed by Pablo) truly believed that gay relationships were equal to straight ones, they would have no problem sharing the word.

[Daniel]

If these people (some of whom are for civil unions but against marriage but wouldn't dream of encouraging the solution proposed by Pablo) truly believed that gay relationships were equal to straight ones, they would have no problem sharing the word.

Not sure I understand the logic of your thought, that those who are for civil unions but against marriage, and truly believe that straight relationships are equal to gay relationships, should/would have no problem with sharing the word.

Yes they should. But they don't. And that is what I was endeavoring to address. They reason for why they don't. I think the reason they don't support it is not because of thinking, but rather, something more primal.

I think it's about sex. The icky-ness of gay sex.

[Alecto]

I think we're saying the same thing, but maybe you're giving people more credit than I am with regard to whether or not it matters that they're aware of what's influencing their decision.

[Daniel]

I think we're saying the same thing, but maybe you're giving people more credit than I am with regard to whether or not it matters that they're aware of what's influencing their decision.

I think we are saying the same thing. :)

As for giving people credit, I don't think most people are aware of their reactions to gay people at all- not consciously anyway- those with no awareness at all are in the 'recoil' camp. I think they are clueless until they actually meet and talk and become relatively close with a member of our wonderful tribe. It's only then that the moment of choice arrives and awareness can ripen.

I guess I think it matters because these are people who go out and vote- mindlessly.

[Alecto]

I've known of too many people who DO know us, and just don't connect why they're not ok with marriage. Like, the reasons they give don't make sense, and it feels like they MUST be trying not to see that. Or maybe I'm just hardcore projecting experiences with my Dad.

It's like people who start a sentance with "I'm not racist / homophobic, but..." They literally don't see that what they're saying IS inherently racist or homophobic or whatever, but they recognize other people will see it that way. How they don't see it that way is the part I will just never understand.

[bnmoore]

I think we are saying the same thing. :)

As for giving people credit, I don't think most people are aware of their reactions to gay people at all- not consciously anyway- those with no awareness at all are in the 'recoil' camp. I think they are clueless until they actually meet and talk and become relatively close with a member of our wonderful tribe. It's only then that the moment of choice arrives and awareness can ripen.

I guess I think it matters because these are people who go out and vote- mindlessly.

I had a similar discussion with a few people on an un-moderated Usenet newsgroup where I proposed that some people couldn't seem to get past the creepy factor. It got really graphic. I asked how much of their time and lives were spent in the pursuit of sex. There are other things in life.

I wound up with a few that said they would like to get together for a beer sometime but weren't sure why. A few got more virulent. I don't have to say much any more. My allies seem willing to step up when I'm attacked. There are also a few atheists around to keep me humble.

[Daniel]

Newsweek article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957/page/1) worth reading about the court case that begins today.

Relevant to the discussion!

[BruceChris]

If I could get all of the legal rights, and the tax and inheritance rights. If anyone asks, I'll just tell them I'm living in sin.

Bruce Chris

[bnmoore]

If I could get all of the legal rights, and the tax and inheritance rights. If anyone asks, I'll just tell them I'm living in sin.

Bruce Chris

Unless I'm mistaken marriage requires a license before any magic words and hand waving are performed by civil or religious authority. Opposite sex marriages are already civil unions IMO. Try getting out of one.

Sin, if there is such a thing, can freely be lived in by those of any sexual orientation. Personally I could skip the guilt trip.

If my parent's second marriage was about insurance fraud were they living in sin? I gave my mother away. Does that make me an accomplice? Love didn't seem to live in the house either time.

[Alecto]

Religious authority / religious marriage requires no such license. That marriage also doesn't mean anything to the government, but that's kind of the whole point.

[bnmoore]

I'm pretty sure that is why it's about Human Rights to me. And human rights include civil rights.

[tdogg]

Civil (legal) marriage and religious (ceremonial) marriage are actually two separate events, tied together by the thing that both most often share - a legal document called a marriage license. The license is totally civil, applied for and obtained from government, issued by government after the ceremony. The ceremony itself does not necessarily come with the license - anyone can have a ceremony and call it marriage. Doesn't make it legal.

If we could change what we call it, and label anything issued by the government "civil" union or marriage or whatever, I guess it COULD work. But think about the work and money that would take, to change our laws, forms, etc. It's not going to happen.

That's why I firmly believe we should not settle for anything less than full marriage. When marriage equality is a reality for everyone here in the states, then the opposition will give in and go fight against something else. They will completely forget they ever thought "marriage" was just a straight term. I think some great documentaries can be made from this trial, especially in terms of the 'history' of marriage. It's anything BUT what the pro-Prop 8 folks claim it is.

[bnmoore]

Civil (legal) marriage and religious (ceremonial) marriage are actually two separate events, tied together by the thing that both most often share - a legal document called a marriage license. The license is totally civil, applied for and obtained from government, issued by government after the ceremony. The ceremony itself does not necessarily come with the license - anyone can have a ceremony and call it marriage. Doesn't make it legal.

I went back and looked and it seems to vary by state and even by county and municipality within the state. Although it's validated by the Justice of the Peace, clergy, ... after the event, the application and license still come first.

Where do breach of promise lawsuits come from? How are they actionable?