And I want a pink pony with purple ribbons on her pretty hair. The court system cannot force people to recognize something they don’t wish to recognize even if it is ultimately based in their own prejudices.
But at the same time, trying to “destroy marriage” (w/r/t the government only) by granting only civil unions would be politically even less possible than expanding the governmental definition to include SSM, even though I personally think it is the philosophically cleanest way out of the conundrum.
But governmental recognition won’t magically force everyone to honor equality in their hearts. Even 40 years after the government intervened to nearly the best of its ability in racial civil rights, it still cannot eradicate all vestiges of prejudice, although they are dwindling slowly.
It could be, but I think you are still objecting to the lawyer being designated as the public witness and handling the solemnization, right? It’s the solemnization you object to.
This word “need.” It’s not a standard. As I said before, we don’t “need” a lot of things, so agreeing that something is or isn’t needed doesn’t actually move the ball anywhere. We don’t need to swear people in when they testify in court, but we as a society have decided we want to do it anyway. And we don’t consider it a burden.
Incorporating a group is a legal act and might also be a public act, but it’s also a social act. That’s what you’re missing. The recognition of a marriage by society is a recognition of a change in status of the two people involved. They were “single persons” and now they are “married persons.” Compare the difference between “permanent resident” and “naturalized citizen.” Or “ordinary joe” and “high office holder.”
Each of these situations involves a change in status of the people involved, in which the law and society (as a social entity) are looking on and recognizing/accepting/granting that change. For these kinds of situations–which society as a whole has decided are important enough–a declaration of intent/goodwill/whatever is being asked.
And here’s a point – The solemnization that’s required – no rituals or anything – is a simple declaration of intent on your part: “Do you take this woman? I do.” It’s a damn small thing to ask. There’s nothing mystical or religious about it. Your attitude that this somehow impinges on your freedom of speech or requires you to participate in mysticism is baffling.
Freesia’s comments don’t say whether there’s a solemnization portion of the procedure at the courthouse. I suspect there is, but perhaps she’ll come back and enlighten us. Almost anything you do before a judge involves some kind of solemnization.
Why do you keep saying this when it has explained to you that no rituals are needed as it is?
I don’t understand how this addresses either the OP or my comments.
I think everyone in this thread is perfectly aware of resistance to gay marriage. That’s why we’re discussing it.
What I don’t understand is why the civil union or “philosophical cleanliness” could be considered any kind of solution when it’s the one thing that pretty much no one wants.
Not to accuse SSM proponents of wanting this, but there really are people who religiously believe in multiple marriages. Rather than have them complain about wanting their marriages sanctified by the government, as well, which we can’t do due to the legal and economic entanglements it would create, or any other sort of additions to the government recognized definition of marriage that people might come up with from time to time, a governmental stance that for legal and tax purposes, the government only recognizes civil unions of two consenting adults would cut off these objections at the pass, as well as removing the objection that SSM is not recognized by the objectors religions and therefore must not be sanctified by the government.
Marriage historically has not had to deal with same sex marriages. That is a new concept. So the idea that marriage is a man and woman throughout history is just because gays did not have the political power to force the issue.
Marriage is a binding and legal contract which is about the wealth of the family going to the survivor and the children of the union. That essentially is what the gays want. They want their mate to be able to make health decisions,financial decisions and decisions about the adopted children. In some states, when a gay partner dies ,the health decisions are made by the family of the sick person. The wealth often goes to the family of the person who died regardless of whether the family was estranged.
I’m sick of running in circles with you. You obviously don’t want to listen to a simple little point I’m making. I’ll try once more. After that, you’re on your own.
I’m not at all. That is the way it should be. I just think the solemnization could be, and should be, nothing more than signing on the line that is dotted.
Not a burden, but certainly superflous.
I understand that perfectly well. It just doesn’t take away from any other point I’ve made.
And why shouldn’t signing your name be enough? It’s enough for Verizon to charge me $200 if I cancel my cell service. I didn’t solemnly swear to not go with Sprint
Now you’re just being ridiculous. I’m not saying anything about freedom of speech. I’m merely saying, again for another umpteeth time, that I don’t see why saying it out loud should carry any more weight than signing a piece of paper.
I’m not screaming that too much time has been wasted in this world with solemnizations, I just don’t understand, knowing what I know from our constitution and current laws, why it *must *be that way. It’s not a huge burden, but I do find it superfluous.
I was initially responding to someone’s point, can’t remember if it was you, that in order to get married, one must go through some sort of ritual. If you’re telling me that in this case the ritual is nothing more than saying to a judge, “Yep” then we just need to get on the same page as to what ritual is.
I was viewing it as extra-legal, not part of the legal process. Judges don’t conduct rituals, they conduct the law.
The point you seem to be making is “I don’t like to say it out loud.” But you’ve failed to offer any harm that is being done to you by requiring you to say it out loud. Society has decided it wants you to say it out loud. If you’re going to persuade society to change it’s mind, you’re going to have to come up with a reason why it’s actually harming you rather than just “Well, it doesn’t have to be that way.”
If it’s functionally the same to you, then what’s the point in changing it?
A lot of damn things are superfluous. That’s not an argument that it shouldn’t be that way.
The sole point you’ve made is “I’d rather not have to do it (because it makes me feel icky or something which isn’t entirely clear) and metaphysically speaking things wouldn’t be much different if I didn’t have to do it, so I shouldn’t be made to do it.”
If you’re arguing that something should be changed you’ve got to come up with a reason for people to change it.
Because society sees a marriage as something quite different from a service contract. You’ve just given a reason not to change it. Society sees marriage or citizenship as changing what you are in the eyes of society. Changing a phone service provider doesn’t do that.
You haven’t offered any reason why the constitution and current law would prefer things to be different.
Of course it doesn’t have to be that way. Of course there’s no reason it must be that way. Of course there are conceivable realities in which it isn’t that way. But so what? If you want things to change you have to come up with something more than “Things could be different.” You have to show that there’s something wrong with the way things are done now.
It is very much a part of the legal process, and little different from a judge swearing in a witness to tell the truth. Do you consider that a “ritual”? If so, then judges definitely do conduct rituals.
It has nothing to do with what I like to do or not do.
Saying something out loud, solemnizing, holds (or at least should hold) no extra special sway over something as signing a piece of paper does. End of my argument. You’ve offered me no proof why it does – just that that’s the way it’s done.
Beyond that, I’m just sorry that I didn’t give you enough text to really get your coding freak on and make up my points for me. But I’m sure you’ll do you best.
This is a social construct. The only “proof” there is is that the majority of people think it does. What other proof could there possibly be? For that matter, what’s the “proof” that putting your signature on a piece of paper does anything? What’s your argument that one is preferable to the other?
In this case - marriage- one must sign one’s name and then solemnize. Superfluous. I’m just saying, pick one. If Verizon wants me to swear to stick with them for two years without requiring me to sign anything, then fine.
I just find the concept of somemnizing, like holding your right hand up imparts some mystical wisdom, to border on the hitrionic.
Look, Jack. Compare it to changing your name. You can call yourself by any name you choose in this country. If you wanted to start calling yourself Django Obama no one would care. The only trouble comes when you sign your checks “Django Obama” instead of “Jack Batty”. You can go by any name you like, but if you want to legally change your name you’ll have to go before a judge. And the judge doesn’t just allow name changes like a robot, he’ll make sure you actually understand the ramifications of legally changing your name.
That’s the difference between requiring a solemnization for marriage and an oath to become a citizen and an oath to join the military and an oath to become president and an oath to testify in court, and merely signing your name to agree to your cell phone plan. The cell phone plan is not important enough, and you can back out of your cell phone plan just by paying some money.
But if you’re a soldier in a war zone you aren’t allowed to quit just by paying a small penatly fee. If you don’t tell the truth during a trial you could go to prison. If you’re married you can’t just quit the marriage on a whim.
Some legal agreements are recognized as more important than others, and require you to jump through a few hoops before they can be entered into. You can scrawl a will on a cocktail napkin, but after you’re dead how does the judge in charge of disposing of your estate treat that cocktail napkin? This is why we require witnesses and notarization for a will to be valid. This is why require a legal proceeding before we recognize a legal marriage and a legal divorce.
Again, if you don’t care about the legal aspects of marriage…custody of children, estates, power of attorney, and so on…then you’re prefectly free to just declare yourself married in whatever way you like, and it won’t bother the rest of us one bit. Until you’re in a coma and some strange woman says you should be taken off life support. Who is this woman and why should we listen to her? Unless you’ve left behind some documentation…like a certificate of marriage, or a power of attorney…there’s no reason for the doctor to listen to her.
It’s not like marriage is the only legal arrangement that has to be witnessed and solemnized rather than just two people filling out a form and signing on the dotted line.
When you testify in court, the purpose of swearing to tell the truth isn’t mystical. I have no idea why you think it is. When you swear an oath when you become a citizen the purpose isn’t mystical. When you swear an oath when you join the army the purpose isn’t mystical. When you swear an oath when you are inaugurated president, the purpose isn’t mystical. When you swear an oath when you become married the purpose isn’t mystical.
Listen, all I’m saying, and I promise this is the last time I pester anyone about it, is that I don’t see why a marriage should be treated any differently than any other legally binding contract.
I think it should be perfectly legal for two people to have a sit down with a lawyer, have him draw up the appropriate paperwork and file them with the court and then … be married.
Equally, I think that swearing in at court should be handled by a simple, “Sign here before you testify affirming you’ll tell the truth.”
In short, if signatures are perfectly acceptable as legally binding, then they should acceptable as legally binding. Including for marriages.
The big picture is – the government should only be concerned with whether or not a marriage, or civil union, or whatever, is legal – it’s been signed off on and appropriately handled by the courts. I don’t see the need for “swearing” to anything if it is already covered by a signed legal contract.
That’s it. I swear. I’m not trying to re-write society’s laws or redefine marriage or anything like that. I just think things don’t need to be as complicated as we make them.
The purpose of verballing swearing or affirming to tell the truth is so that the jury can hear you do it, and you can hear yourself doing it.
Some decisions aren’t easily revocable. Legal decisions that aren’t easily revokable often require a bit more than signing your name on a piece of paper. Things that can be made whole by the mere payment of money are easy to rectify if you change your mind, you just need to pony up the dough. Other things aren’t so easy to solve if you change your mind, and so we need to make sure you’re in your right mind, not subject to undue influence, that you understand what you’re getting into.
Think about it. If all it took was a signature on a form for you to be legally married, wouldn’t it be pretty easy to fake?
Marriage-related name-changes and SSM bring up a whole other variety of double standards and different circumstances depending on the state.
Judges don’t necessarily have to approve name changes that are prompted by a legal marriage. What exactly “prompted by a legal marriage” means varies from state to state (and these days, moment to moment).
A couple of pastthreads of mine touch on some of the observations I’ve made while trying to (admittedly half-assedly) research the issue.
I’m sorry, but when I see people being wedded to hookers by an Elvis impersonator at 3AM in Las Vegas, I don’t tend to think that “faking” marriage is all that difficult in the first place.
Okay, then, Jack, this should be pretty simple to work out. You say that you don’t understand why [LEGAL OBLIGATION TYPE A] can’t be entered into the same way as [LEGAL OBLIGATION TYPE B] is executed, because, after all they are both legal obligations and the standards for entering into them should be the same.
Right?
Here’s the answer: The law, the culture, and the bulk of the society doesn’t agree with you that all legal obligations are the same. Not by any stretch. In fact, there exist more than just two classes of legal obligations.
Some examples:
When you buy something at the corner store with cash, you’re entering into a contract. It’s a pretty easy contract to enter into and the obligations on both sides are clear. You hand over $1.05 and the shop assistant hands over your toothbrush. Final, done, no signatures, no solemnization, nothing. If you have a problem with the toothbrush, the shop assistant can tell you to go chew cud and there’s little you can do about it. The law and society don’t care too much, because, hey, it’s just $1.05. Who’s really being put out here?
When you buy something more expensive, like a new car, things get a little complicated. In fact, the law says that you are allowed a certain amount of time to change your mind and return the car for a full refund. The dealer can’t just tell you to pound sand.
When you buy something else – real property, that is, land – it could conceivably be less expensive than a car, but, in fact, it is considered so important, that even in the common law, you had to do it in writing. There are more hurdles to jump through than buying a toothbrush at the druggist’s.
When you enter into an even higher class of obligations, like those listed by Lemur and other posters, law and society have set even higher hurdles – you have to stand up in front of (at least one) deputy of the public and speak certain words indicating your goodwill and intent to claim a change of status and fulfill your obligations.
These difference exist because we, collectively, as a body of people governed by law, as a culture, and as a society, have decided that not all obligations are the same, and that marriage is among the category of obligations that requires the highest hurdle.
So, that’s why you can’t enter into a marriage the same way you can enter into a cell phone contract: Because society has decided that (although they are both kinds of legal obligations) they are not the same.
The fact that they are all kinds of legal obligations is not the sole concern of the government, the law, and the society. The government, the law, and the society deems some of these things more important than others, with more serious implication than others, and as having more serious consequences in the event of default than others.
So if you want to make any more headway, what you’ll have to do is argue that they are the same and explain why you think so. But, really, there’s no more reason for you to continue to not understand why.
This isn’t the Pit, so I won’t attack you for continually accusing me of not understanding what you’ve said, even though it is quite an irritating debate technique of yours.
I understand quite well. I’ve made my points (which been nothing more than a matter of opinion) quite clear … a number of times. You just seem to want to type to hear yourself type like you’ve invested in this as though it were your friggin’ senior thesis and any concession that my opinion is a valid one (while not claiming it to be the only valid one, or one I want enacted toot-effing-sweet) might cause your head to melt ala Raiders of the Lost Ark or something.
Sorry if I misunderstood you when you said “I just don’t understand …” I was hoping to help ameliorate that.
And just one more thing. You don’t believe a marriage is any different than a telephone contact. The point of solemnization is to send you the message that even if you think it’s no more important than a cell phone contract, the law and society thinks it is more important. Making you say it out loud is a way for society to ensure that you get that message.