It seems to me you’re comparing apples and oranges. People want civil marriages. If we as a society want to institute the kind of civil unions you describe, we can do that to, but it’s a separate issue.
I’m not going to repeat myself again. I’ve made my points. If you don’t understand them I’ll try to clarify, but I’m not going to go on a point-by-point detailed breakdown of every last post in this thread.
Actually, you haven’t made any point to what I said there, other than you think it’s “retarded.”
Because a ritual is never *needed *for anything. Do you need it in a different language or something?
Under that standard, marriages are not needed either, nor is any other civil institution. If you’re an anarchist, then just say so.
Every single one of your objections has been shown to be based on a fundamental misconception.
If you don’t want to get married, then don’t get married. No one is making you. If all you object to about marriage is that you have to stand in front of a representative of the public and affirm that it is your goodwill intent to adhere to the obligations of marriage, then your objection is trivial.
You can’t get your marriage solemnized by a notary public, but you can get your marriage solemnized by a justice of the peace, a judge in other words.
A judge has no more mystical powers than a notary public.
A judge signing a piece of paper is all the solemnization needed. But the judge won’t sign the peice of paper without a few things. First he has to confirm the identity of the two people, he has to satisfy himself that the two people really do want to be married, and so on…some states require that you get get tested for several STDs for instance.
Then he’ll sign the piece of paper and you’re married.
That’s fine with me, but I don’t consider that a ritual. That’s the judge doing some legal shit.
What would be even better for me, is if the judge would give the consideration to whomever wanted it, and not just straight people.
I’ll admit to anarchist leanings, but no … I know society wouldn’t quite work that well if it was just every man for himself.
If someone wants to get married they ought to be allowed to without having to stand in front of anyone, besides the judge. That is only one thing that irks me. What irks me more, is that not everyone can get married, with or without a ritual. And for mostly religious reasons. The government should not be taking into consideration whether or not it bugs Christians.
My only misconception was I was giving to much legal power to a notary as opposed to a judge. I suppose I was just using “notary” as a place holder for “the state.”
Sorry for the hostility. What I was saying is, the term means something important to a lot of people, on both sides of the argument. So don’t change the term. Add a modifier to create a retronym if you like.
Marriage law is already set, in a lot of statutes and precedents spread across 50 states, the federal government, the common law, etc. Make it applicable to civil marriages. Period.
As for the “ritual” – nobody says you have to promise to plight your troth, till death do you part, and all the other formal language. But as my example was intended to convey, formalized avowal of intent is a part of a lot of things, from signing your name on a contract to swearing to tell the truth. Heck, you went through a ritual signing up for the board – you agreed to the Terms of Service. It’s a legal contract, by which Creative Loafing Media Inc. has certain rights over your work. If someday the words and wisdom of Jack Batty become worth money, they have the right to reprint anything you’ve posted here. And you went through a ritual there – you avowed to them you’d read the T.O.S. and clicked “I accept” (or whatever the present procedure is; it’s been 8 years since I signed up). You entered into a legal contract with the Reader or CLM in doing that.
Legal rituals, from swearing to tell the truth to signing a contract, give legal effect to what you are agreeing to do in undertaking them. They’re designed to recognize in and by law that you’re you and you’re agreeing to do whatever it is that you intend to agree to. They don’t have to be anything fancy or sonorous, just a clear statement of identity and intent. And the same thing goes for wedding vows. “I, John Quincy Doe, take you, Mary Rosetoes Roe, as my wife” is as simple as it can get. You’re committing to marriage with her, and identifying who you are and who you’re intending to marry, and that what you’re intending to do is marry her. If you want the “sickness and health” traditional language or a florid self-written promise of eternal love and cuddly puppies, fine – but they’re not required. Signifying who you are and what you are engaging to do, whether by public vow, signing a document, or American Sign Language, gives legal effect to what you contract to do and to the state’s recognition of your so contracting.
This is a great idea, and is certainly how things should be. However it’s not a solution to the SSM problem. Religious people who care about the legal aspect of this issue want more religion in government, not less. They seem to have forgotten that most of the religions in America have benefitted from separation of church and state. That indeed, it was created in the first place to prevent persecution of religion by the government as much as if not more than to keep religions out of the government.
I think what’s confusing about your argument is that you seem to be implying that there is something religious about solemnization. It may have had its origins in religious rituals, but today, in the US, it is wholly a secular process.
What would folks think about placing the word “civil” in front of “marriage” on marriage licenses and in the laws, and making them available to all unmarried consenting adult couples? I wonder if something like this could be a compromise that could get everyone (or at least that crucial 2%) on board.
Daniel
Civil Marriage Movement does have a nice ring to it. And it acknowledges the civil rights genotype without stepping on the toes of the Civil Rights Movement phenotype, if you’ll forgive a little bio-geek analogy.
Demography will get that crucial 2% on board.
Look, about 1.1% of the population shifts in favor of gay marriage every year. Based on such trends Kevin Drum predicted that Prop 8 would win 52%-48% - back in May 2008. He was spot on. [1]
In 4 years, the numbers should be reversed. So there’s no reason why we shouldn’t just wait for the big prize.
Incidentally, the right to marriage is encoded in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Of course they don’t mention gays, but they do say that, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.”
So eliminating marriages would technically take away a universally recognized human right.
[1] I exaggerate. Click the link if you’re interested.
Why is “judge” a magic word for you? Especially since under the current system, you can choose from one of possibly thousands of people, even a judge, if that’s your choice.
I completely agree with the underlying point here, but it is completely unrelated to your other objection.
I don’t quite get what you’re saying here.
In the Netherlands all marriages are made legal at the courthouse. After that,
a couple can choose to get married-or, more precisely, have their union blessed-
in a church or not. The religious ceremony by itself does not confer any legal
status upon the union, and most churches actually decline to perform such a
ceremony unless a legal union exists.
Couples who marry only at the courthouse are considered just as ‘married’ as
those who have a religious ceremony following their courthouse wedding.
Unlike in the U.S., where courthouse ceremonies are usually shorter, low key
affairs, the typical courthouse ceremony in The Netherlands is a full-fledged
wedding; flower girl, horse-drawn carriage and all.
BTW, many couples, straight or gay, choose not to marry at all. They can own
property, have visitation rights etc. under a law that recognizes “durable partnerships”,
much like common law marriages used to be recognized (or still are?)
correct me if i’m wrong but…
I’m curious to know the difference between ascenray’s viewpoint and mswas’s viewpoint. It seems the only real discrepancy is between the words “civil union” and “marriage” . Both envision the same secular definition of marriage/CU as having nothing to do with religion but rather a commitment between two people. Both seem to believe that the two people’s gender is not an issue, and yet they’re on opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue. I can only see nuances between the connotations of marriage and civil union as the real divisive issue in question.
When my former bride and I married, she pointed out something I hadn’t considered: we didn’t have children, but we got a tax break. Obviously when you start having kids, you may not be able to afford to pay as much in taxes because some of your money is earmarked for their upbringing. Maybe the legislators or tax code people didn’t want to make a separate “Married but no kids” status and so lumped it all together. It’s kind of ironic, really: single people, who have to pay 100% for their own room and board etc., are taxed higher, like they all live some playboy lifestyle.
Anyway, I point this out b/c many (most?) same-sex marriages will never have kids, the exception being via adoption.
I basically agree with the idea of SSM. I’m not gay but then, I’m white and I still oppose slavery, so it doesn’t matter whether I have (or am) a dog in the fight, from an ethical POV. For instance, IMO the fact that SSM hasn’t been allowed means that some gays who would like to marry have forced to pay taxes at the “single” rate, which I think is unfair.
It seems to me that the ban has to fall, much as slavery had to. Banning gay marriage = violating the separation of church and state, but IANAL.
It’s not. Quite the opposite. In the current lay of the land, I’m perfectly happy having a judge give the seal of approval on a marriage. The point I was making earlier, which I guess got buried, is that I don’t see why a marriage couldn’t be handled in a lawyer’s office (legal papers to be filed with a court afterward or whatever).
You say a marriage is a “contract between you and society” (I paraphrase). And that’s fine. But it’s no different than a group incorporating – that doesn’t need to be solemnized in front of a judge. Merely handled by a lawyer and filed properly.
That’s pretty much all I’ve been saying. Apart from whatever legal machinations one must go through to settle any legal issue, I don’t see why it should be different for a marriage.
I’m not even decrying rituals that people do want to throw themselves. I just think it doesn’t need to have a damned thing to do with the legality of marriage.
See freesia’s comments for how it is in the Netherlands. This is pretty close to my ideal as to how it should be handled.
Just that, for some reason, I kept referring to a notary when I should have shot a little higher on the legal food chain. As if to say, one doesn’t need anything other than the state’s (or governement’s) okay to make a marriage legal. No rituals needed.
I’m not sure what mswas’s specific position is, but the kind of civil union that LHoD is describing seems to me something completely different from marriage.
Gay people want “marriage,” in the same way that straight people have it. It’s an institution comprising a bundle of legal and social rights and responsibilities that has been a part of human society and relationships for the length of human history.
This civil union that absolutely anyone could enter into – even non-couples – perhaps it would be worthwhile instituting, but it’s besides the point. Gay people want marriage. They want that institution that includes the piece in which society is recognizing a change in status from two separate single people to couplehood, a romantic relationship with sexual exclusivity.
If you make all civil marriages into “civil unions” you’re taking away from straight couples something they do want and failing to give to gay people something they do what. How is that a solution?