And I should have added… Legally, perhaps gays could not be excluded from these extra-legal religious “super marriages,” but, because they would exist solely for the sake of bigots who wanted to differentiate their unions from the “debased” form of “popular” marriage available to gays, no gay people would want them.
The covenant marriage movement is not really an example of what I’m talking about because, as I understand it, covenant marriage is intended to strengthen the marriage bond as an antidote to high divorce rates (like the Promise Keepers movement), not keep out gays. But something similar could be created for the anti-gay marriage crowd.
Leaving out a crucial bit of the story is as close to lying as one can get. He said he vote for the ban on the condition that gay couples were given full civil benefits as part of the deal.
Jonathan Rauch, in his very compelling argument for gay marriage, at least admits that letting gays marry DOES change the institution and meaning of marriage. It would be stupid to deny that it does. Some people, like Rauch and I, think it would be a GOOD change to make. Others, like Kerry and Bush, think it would be a bad idea. But there is a world of difference between wanting to preserve traditional meaning of a word and concept and wanting to keep gay couples from having the rights that couples need to function jointly in society. That’s why I accept Kerry’s position aswithin the realm of legitimacy even though I think it’s ultimately the wrong way to go, and don’t accept Bush’s position as legitimate at all. One actually cares about gay couples but just disagrees about exactly how best to incorporate them into society, and the other couldn’t give two shits what gay people have to go through or if they can function in society or not.
One is willing to say the obvious: that being gay is not a choice, while the other is too chickenshit to admit it. One is the sort of guy that can’t lie out into an audience where gay people are staring back, and the other can look them in the face and tell them that he just has no idea whether they really belong or not, and the matter really doesn’t seem to interest him much.
Apos I’m honestly curious. *Why * would letting gays marry, change the institution and meaning of marriage? What’s different in a wife-wife, husband-husband, or husband-wife marriage?
Because marriage is a traditional social instituion that has indeed meant the union of men and women. That may be latently sexist. It may be pointlessly traditional for the mere sake of tradition. Nevertheless, it’s pointless to pretend that gay people marrying doesn’t change what marriage is. I think, like Rauch (who is gay) that it is a change that will help SAVE the institution of marriage. It’s a GOOD change. But of course it is a change, and denying it only serves to make advocates of same-sex marriage look foolish and out of touch with the concerns and traditions of most people in this country.
You’re right, but do you see how unacceptable that is? It’s the same as saying I support public education, on the condition that minorities are given separate but equal schools. My Guy and I won’t be satisfied with mere “full civil benefits,” because there’s no reason whatsoever why we can’t have a “marriage.”
Considering that the minorities had NO schools to begin with in this particular scenario, I’d say this is a pretty fucking awesome compromise. Given that your choice is getting no schools at all for decades instead?
Hi: we’ll trade you everything substantive that we want for you getting to call it by a different name!
Hell I’d go for it in heartbeat. People would be calling the unions marriages within a few weeks anyway, and nothing was ever stopping gay people from calling them marriages anyway.
I agree with you on how civil unions will be seen as marriages by all but the bigots, but I think panache45 is also correct when it comes to the reality of being civil unioned rather than married.
I don’t think the genie can go back in the bottle.
Folks, this is a semantical distinction without a difference. The government is concerned only with civil (not religious) rights and criminal (not religious) wrongdoing. A state government does not recognize a Catholic marriage because it feels that the union in question emanated from the one true Church. An Episcopal wedding does not have more validity than a Muslim wedding, so far as the government is concerned. The Justice of the Peace and the Minister are equal, again insofar as the government is concerned, as to how “married” a couple is that either joined. For all practical purposes, my marriage has never been anything other than a civil union as far as the government is concerned. And that’s fine. Call it whatever you want, I honestly don’t give a damn, so long as I have all the rights and privileges of a civil union.
If you believe in civil unions for gays (I do), then you believe in marriage for gays, marriage as the state defines it and has an interest in the affair. Individual religions may feel free to call these unions anything they like–hell, call them non-marriages between two sinners destined for hell–just as any citizen may, so long as they don’t infringe on anyone’s civil rights. Any politician who says he opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions is full of shit. I understand the political expediency of this position, but it is bullshit nonetheless.
I honestly cannot understand anyone’s objection to what this union is named by the state. The state does not confer any spiritual meaning to my marriage. The state does not imbue my marriage with religious value. My church and I do. I honestly don’t give a @#$% what the state calls my civil union, so long as I have all the rights and obligations this union implies. And if you’re waiting for the rest of the country and all the churches to agree a gay civil union is a marriage, good luck–but, again, why would you give a shit? This cannot be legislated, only your civil rights and obligations can.
Change the word “marriage” to “hrumbah.” If a heterosexual couple has all the rights and obligations of a civil union, and so does a homosexual couple, what’s the difference if anyone arbitrarily decides one union is a “hrumbah” but the other is not. Who gives a shit, as far as government is concerned?
Civil unions without the religious conotation of “marriage” is discriminatory how? My parents were of mixed religion and they did just fine. My jewish dad married my gentile mom in a church on a military base officiated by an army chaplain. Big whoop! They got over it and eventually my dad’s mother did too. They’re still married after 35 years. Religious differences never got in the way of their commitment to each other. I have other friends that are of mixed religion that went the opposite way. My husband and I don’t share the same beliefs and we were married in a park by a minister of some faith neither of us can even remember. Who cares? It’s so not even an issue. Seems to me if a couple can’t agree on how to get married, they probably shouldn’t be getting married in the first place.
And if you’re gay and want to have a spiritual marriage ceremony, I believe the Unitarians will accommodate you.
Marriage is a universal social institution, not a religious one. Some religions have additional components, but those are on top of the central recognition of the formation of family – which belongs to all human beings, whether or not they claim allegiance to one of the religions that has the cherry-on-top.
My religion holds that marriage is purely a civil contract. And I am married, according to that civil contract. Married, not “civilly unificated”. “Civil union” is a sop, something made up specifically so some people could be denied access to the meaningful cultural institution that is marriage while claiming that equality was served.
Those people who are not religious, do not want to commit to the obligations of a specific religion’s additional gewgaws, or who profess religions that don’t have marriage rituals have just as much right of access to marriage as people who associate with religions that have an additional ritual. It is no more right to take away marriage from them than it is to prevent gay folks from being able to participate in that same universal social institution.
Religiously mixed civil unions, atheist civil unions, agnostic civil unions, civil civil unions… I don’t quite see where the discrimination comes in…
The linked post is interesting, but considering the current rhetoric is about the “sanctity” of marriage… I’d say that bit of history is essentially unknown to, oh, just about everyone.
I’d believe that, except for the fact that Montgomery County Tennessee chose to include the phrase “Holy Bonds of Matrimony” in VERY LARGE BOLD TYPE on our marriage certificate. Since I don’t view marriage as either bondage or as holy… I don’t appreciate the state choosing to characterize it as such for me.
And if you had been issued a Civil Union Certificate v. a Marriage Certificate… you think, you’d tell folks you were “civilly unificated” or you think you’d just say you were married? I can tell you now I don’t tell people I’m in the holy bonds of matrimony… though that’s what it says on the paperwork.
“The Bible makes it clear that God does not consider a homosexual relationship at best to not be part of His plan for us, and at worst an abomination. Why should I support laws that would force immoral relationships to be considered an acceptable part of society?”
This is not my position, mind you, but as a church-going liberal, it’s one I hear a lot (though far more often regarding abortion). As for me, I’m with 1010011010: the government should treat everyone equally under the law, and let the churches marry or not marry whomever they wish. But I thought that this thread should hear an anti-SSM argument that wasn’t simply “I’m not comfortable with gays.” Most of the people that espouse the above aren’t bigoted; they just feel that SSM is something they can’t support if it goes against the word of God.
I would argue that if they oppose SSM for the reason you outlined, they are absolutely biggoted. Sexuality is not a choice: religion is. If someone chooses to believe something bigoted, then they’re a bigot. Wether their opinion come from God, or Dad, or George W. Bush makes no difference.
Right. A social institution. I know many social gays. Some who even consider themselves part of a family gasp and one who has already established her own family with mate, kid, dogs, picket fence. Sounds exactly like what you’re describing.
All well and good for your religion as long as the government recognizes your marriage. Unless you meant civil as in “polite.” Entering into a “civil contract” via your church does not make it legal, hence the need for marriage licences and certificates filed with an office of the government.
I agree. We’re squabbling over semantics. Marriage is civil union. Civil union is marriage. I just don’t think we need to glorify the word, “marriage.” There ain’t a heck of a lot of glory in some of the marriages I’ve seen.
Exactly. You can be married without some honorific ritual, doves and holy bonds, and “obey” and all that, right? So, how about a party. That’s pretty social! Oh, I guess that’s why we’re doing that already. Now I get it. Social institution!
I see we are on the same page. What were we arguing about?
But this is exactly my point. Tennessee can call it anything they like, but what are the practical implications of these semantical games? Nothing, I’ll wager. I bet that atheists married in Montgomery County Tennessee, joined by the Justice of the Peace, are exactly as “married” as those who consider their marriage bonds blessed by God–which is to say that as far as the state is concerned, everyone married has certain civil rights and obligations bestowed upon them. Period. Call it whatever you want, that doesn’t change, I don’t think.
First we have to get the genie out the bottle, then we can piss and moan about what it’s named. The idea that people are actually dead set on having NO rights for gays instead of all the rights minus a name is… I dunno. At the end of a long struggle, to find such people MY allies is just… extremely frustrating.
As I noted, no, I don’t think they are full of shit at all. This might come as giant surprise, but not everyone thinks like you do or has the exact same values than you. And, incredibly, not quite EVERYONE is absolutely evil and hypocritical just because they don’t agree with you.
What the hell are you ranting about? Strawman much? I don’t consider said politicians evil. In fact, I said I understood politically why they’d take such a position. If this posturing gets civil unions for gays, I’m fine with it.
You may describe the condition whichever way you’d like, but a politician who attaches a meaningless qualifier to a position because of political expediency is obscuring the real issue. As I stated previously, I understand why they do so–because it makes it somehow more palatable for the mainstream–but that doesn’t change the fact or my point. Do you think that the government has a legitimate role in regulating unions in any way beyond determining civil rights and obligations? I do not, so when I hear a politician implying a government interest outside that province, I like to point it out.
To say, “I agree with civil unions for gays, unions that give them all the rights and obligations that heterosexuals enjoy, but I will NOT call it marriage,” is silliness, and I believe that the politicians understand that this distinction has zero practical implications. If this says to you that I consider these politicians to be evil, you’re deluded.
Gays either have the rights of heterosexuals or they don’t. And, again, I believe they should, in case that got lost somehow.
Ah, not evil, but “full of shit” and insincerely posturing. Nice!
Again, surprises in store for you, but not everyone agrees that it is a meaningless qualifier. Not even all advocates of gay marriage agree with you. Unfortunately, your surely brilliant opinions do not get to magically shape reality to your own liking.
Sure, but your’s is a minority view. Most people want the government to legislate all sorts of patrician things, and many politicians sincerely agree with them. And yet, you act as if this were some fantasy pretend game.
But not all of them do, and not all of them agree with you that it has zero practical implications. In fact, most social scientists who actually study the subject would agree that traditional ideas are not simply inconsequently tossed aside with little effort and without repercussions. People’s traditions matter to them, and calling them silly and meaningless is simply no way to win them over to the idea of changing them slightly for the betterment of society.
We’ve addressed the “gay people are oogy” argument, and the “God says gay people are bad” argument, but we forgot that classic slippery slope argument: “If we let gay people get married, then we have to let polygamists get married, then people can marry their cousins and men can marry radishes and the world will fall apart and the robots will take over!!!” Those are the three arguments against same-sex marriages or civil unions.
The “Civil unions only, please” argument is generally, “But it’ll change the meaning of the word!” While I love the English language as much as anyone else, I can’t get up in arms about it. Marriage has more than one definition anyway: Lookitup. I personally am fond of “A close and intimate union;” I think that’s the most accurate. Should civil unions be allowed, the distinction between a civil union and marriage will soon be lost anyway. It’s already been said - no one’s going to say “Yes, we’re getting civil unioned soon.” No one’s going to say “This is my civil union-ee. We were united in June.” It’ll be “We got married. This is my wife/husband.” And that’s where the definition changes - not in the law, but in the usage. So what’s the point? If you want to save the English language, save it from l33t-speak.
