Wow, what a great simulpost! That’s a good point - I didn’t read very carefully, or consider that option. I may bring it up later in a different thread.
Exactly. And that’s the root of the problem with this proposed ammendment and political argument in general. Our government is supposed to be separate from church. It should be up to the church whether they recognize a gay marriage or not, not the state. The whole idea of excluding gay people from marriage is based on the belief that homosexuality is a sin. Sins are not a concern of the government.
First off, I’m pro-gay (and polygamous) marriage.
Yes, it’s discrimination not to allow gays to marry. The law is saying “no” to what they want. Right now, under the law, a certain type of couple (of the opposite sex, of a certain age, etc.) can join in a marriage contract and thereby enjoy certain other rights. Gays say, “Why not us?”
In the US, we have come very close to separating completely social practices from legal rights. This is what makes gay marriage viable today. Gays (and other groups) can get their rights without really having the support of society at large. In the case of gay marriage, I personally feel that the rights gays are asking for should be given to them.
But gays need to recognize that receiving those rights will not automatically result in society as a whole subsequently validating those relationships, or feeling that gays are “really” married. I am not sure whether that will ever happen.
And this is intertwined in another reality: the fact that this debate ends up being not about sexuality at all. For the right of two gay men to marry implies that two straight men could also marry–for whatever reason. This can and WILL happen. Hence, the argument that gays should be allowed to marry because their relationships are just as good and valid, and should be recognized as such by society, is not really pertinent.
In fact, the upshot of it all is that a new concept of domestic partnership will arise that is divorced from sexuality. Precisely because gays are acquiring marriage rights without society (as a whole) recognizing their relationship as a substance, as it does heterosexual unions.
It really is an interesting trend, as it will have a domino effect throughout society, and the Law of Unintended Consequences will definitely apply.
Because, you know, there is no such thing as an opposite-sex marriage of convenience…
There is, absolutely. And there’s nothing “wrong” with that, either. For example, I despise the immigration policies in which people have to prove that they’re “really” married. Whose f*cking business is that, anyway? If someone wants to marry someone from another country, whether they’re gay or straight or just buddies, they should be able to do so.
But this just brings is back to my point: Rights are one thing, how society views particular types of relationships are another. Let’s not mix the two elements together when debating.
What kind of mobius strip did we just travel in. The point you made was that we can’t argue for gay marriage on romantic relationship grounds because two straight men could get married. It was pointed out that marriages of convenience, ie a heterosexual marriage devoid of romantic commitment, was not exactly unheard of. Which now brings us to having to consider how society views relationships…? The same relationships you just said we couldn’t consider, or some other ones?
OK, now I’m confused.
Position: Gay marriage should be allowed because it would not be fair to disallow any two (or more) adults the rights that heterosexual couples may enjoy.
It is, however, a dangerous argument to make, however, that gays should be allowed to marry because they deserve it (because of the value of their love, etc.). That is, contrariwise, that it might be OK to disallow gay marriage if they did not deserve it. And, in fact, we do not disallow heterosexual couples from marrying because their is not pure enough, etc.
From this we may conclude that marriage is not directly connected to sex. That is, if two (or more) persons wish to form a domestic partnership in which sexuality is not a factor, that should be their right, too.
First of all I am all for same-sex unions, and same-sex divorces (which will ultimately become an issue) that are recognized by the states. However because of my my upbringing (which is Roman Catholic) I see marriage as a “religious union between a man and a woman.” I think this is an issue with some people. Call what government calls “marriage”, “domestic partnering” and have states issue partnering licenses to people. The main problem is that the government is using the religious term to define these unions and to provide tax breaks. If they stop doing that I think more people would be accepting of same sex domestic partnerships. This way gays could get the tax breaks for living with their partners, two men or two woman who are sexually not involved but live together could get this tax benefit if they mutually provide for the good of their household. The sad thing is that this idea is probably too radical to pass. If God is listening, please add this to my list of sins. Yes I support Gay unions. :smack:
And, friend, it depends on what your definition of “marriage of convenience” is and who’s doing the defining.
My mother had two sisters, one who died young and the other the object of this post. Her father had a sister whose husband was a hard-nosed Wesleyan minister with an exceedingly strict attitude, against which his sons rebelled. In consequence, my grandfather took in his nephew Lee on his 18th birthday, got him the job he held all his adult life, and gave him room and board (in exchange for money after he got stable work, to be sure). He continued living with them until their deaths, and stayed on living with my aunt until he died.
My aunt worked briefly before the Depression, lost her job and stayed home taking care of my grandparents, my grandmother being severely ill for several years. After their death, she did some part-time and occasional work, giving (non-professional) home care to the elderly and other relatively unskilled work, but essentially lived off grandpa’s estate since she was nearly 60 and had no marketable skills. Lee’s contributions kept their household afloat, for all practical purposes.
Lee was hospitalized after his retirement, and that turned his thoughts to his own mortality. And he was horrified to realize that he would leave my aunt almost no estate, since his substantial pension, he being unmarried, would end at his death.
Accordingly, he proposed to my aunt, and they married shortly thereafter. And he died just shy of a year later, the day after her rights to inherit a widow’s pension vested in her. (You will forgive me in seeing God’s hand at work in that “coincidence.”)
Did they love each other? Unquestionably – but before the marriage everyone would have said yes, as cousins who were the next thing to brother and sister. Did they sleep together? They had separate rooms and separate beds when I stayed overnight – and what they did in private is quite frankly none of my business or anyone else’s. I have no idea and no problem having no idea.
Why did they marry? First and foremost, because he loved her and wanted to assure that she was taken care of financially after his death. And because she loved him.
Does that count as a marriage of convenience? A love match? Or are our categories simply not applicable to the myriad of things that motivate people?
I have no trouble seeing your love for and commitment to supervenusfreak. And I had no trouble seeing my aunt and Lee’s love for and commitment to each other. And the same goes for Airman Doors and MsRobin, or Mr. and Mrs. RTFirefly, or any other couple in a loving, committed relationship, gay or straight.
Poly, I totally agree with your post above. My meaning, apart from the acerbic flavor in which it was posted, was that the whole argument about two same-sex roommates marrying to reap the benefits of marriage is moot because it’s just as likely, and undeniably happens, that opposite-sex marriages are contracted right now for the same reasons.