and who says I have no interest or stake in marriage? I’ve had the same partner for 6 years now. I just don’t consider it because A) It’s not legal in my state and B) I feel that I am much too young for it.
You are far too consumed with the actual words themselves. It doesn’t really matter if they use squiggly lines for the concept of domestic partnerships that supply benefits to individual’s families. As long as it holds meaning when my husband is dying or my insurance plan covers him.
What does that have to do with this discussion? Most people around here are already familiar with this statement. It has nothing to do with whether there should be civil marriages or not.
Yes, of course, the United State is not a Christian nation–I agree wholeheartedly. But what does that have to do with “marriage”?
Your mistake–like that of the OP’s–is in buying the propaganda that marriage is a “Christian” institution. It isn’t. The institution is as old as the human race–maybe older–and has been practiced in all sorts of ancient, “pagan”, pre-Christian (and pre-“Judeo-Christian”) societies. Julius Caesar didn’t say “Caesar’s girlfriend must be above suspicion”–he said “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion”. Ancient Egypt had marriage (sometimes, if you were a pharoah, to your own sister); the Chinese have had marriage for millennia; pre-Columbian American Indians had marriage. Even the Communists didn’t ever succeed in getting rid of marriage–Lenin was married, and Stalin was married twice (not to both of them at the same time). Even the word “marriage” ultimately goes back to Latin and the pagan Romans, not to the Bible.
Sometimes marriage has been between one man and one woman. Somtimes it’s been between one man and several women at the same time. (Much more rarely, between one woman and several men at the same time.) Now, having already tweaked the definition of marriage from “one man and one woman” to “one man and one woman who love and cherish one another” and “one man and one woman who love and cherish one another, and live together as equal partners”, we’re expanding the definition to encompass two men or two women (presumably, who love and cherish one another and so forth).
The only reason that marriage is not legal for gay couples is because the definition of marriage, according to those who disregard gay marriage which is outlined in the Bible, claims that marriage can only occur with one man and one woman.
However, as Americans, we can not let the bible affect law making decisions. Also, I think that quote will be a surprise to many people. Good job reading between the lines.
I was just making a claim to marriage’s relevancy to contemporary American society. Of course, marriage has always been around. However, to American life - marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Solely because that is how the Bible defines it. However, we can not take anything about the Bible as fact when making decisions. The concept that any beneficial partnership needs to be approved by any religion is a violation of my rights.
Nor is it a government institution.
I think the main issue here is the fact that generally, the American public believes marriage to be a Christian ritual. Although, I disagree with this, if a systematic civil union (or other word, for those caught up on that) was put into place, all partnerships would be equal in the eyes of the government. For religious people (regardless of religion), it would be up to them IF they wanted a separate ceremony for their god.
A documented license, in the government’s eyes, would be for all people - straight or gay.
True, sort of. It is a social institution, and people are married if (a) they say they are married and (b) their community recognizes them as a married couple. The government, however, recognizes and registers marriages. The problem is, the government only recognizes and registers a portion of the marriages that the society it claims to represent recognizes.
And, frankly - I don’t think I would want my partnership defined by a word that is generally associated with Christianity. Why would I want any affiliation to a religion that, on the most part, says what I do on a daily basis is wrong?
Bolding mine. Why do you think that marriage is generally associated with Christianity? Do you think that there is a separate term for pair-bonds among Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc.?
Not specifically. But that is how marriage is being portrayed now. It’s the one, real argument against gay marriage, and I think it will always be the final word of Christians who are against gay marriage. Why is Chik-fil-a or most politicians against gay marriage? Because of their religion, and how marriage is defined in the bible. It’s a shame, but a realization of how our society is. Many other religions prohibit homosexuality, why should my partnership be defined by entire populations that think it’s wrong? I think that, in itself, is an injustice.
Laws should be relevant to contemporary society, I agree. In a Utopian society, the word marriage should not be associated by a religious sect, but we live in America. Everyone gets their two cents, and the vast majority see American marriage as a ritual straight from the Bible. Therefore, I think declaring all marriages, bound in religion or not, should be identified by the government as a civil union between two consenting adults. Personally, I’m much more comfortable with that.
Before 2004, same-sex marriages were not recognized in any part of the United States.
Between 2004 and 2009, the only place in the United States to recognize same-sex marriages was Massachusetts–well known as a very liberal state*–and that was by “judicial fiat”. In that same time period, a whole mess of laws and state constitutional amendments were passed defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and $#@% them queers. Perhaps most disheartening was Proposition 8 in California, which struck down same-sex marriage after many couples had already gotten married.
(*These days; Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards must be spinning in their graves.)
In 2009, Iowa–kind of a purple state–also began recognizing same-sex marriages; but again as the result of a court decision. BUT…starting in 2009, Vermont established same-sex marriage by the normal legislative process, even overriding a gubernatorial veto. Connecticut legalized (but in response to a court decision); but New Hampshire passed a bill by normal legislative process. There have been disappointing setbacks in Maine and North Carolina, but the District of Columbia, New York, Washington state, and Maryland all moved to legalize, through the normal process of lawmaking.
There is a real possibility same-sex marriage will win in popular referendums in several states this November (including Maine) and/or that new SSM laws will not be struck down (in Maryland and Washington state). If so, that will be new (and it will be interesting to see where the Religious Right moves the goalposts to this time). Recent polls are starting to show a major shift in popular attitudes, with (slim) majorities now supporting it. And it’s been clear for years there is a sharp generational gap, with younger people being way more likely than the old folks to think that of course gays and lesbians should be able to get married; why the heck not?
Given all this, and given that the OP and supporters of the proposal in the OP say they are in favor of marriage equality–why do y’all want to start “compromising” when we’re winning?
These ideas are what’s made me abandon calls for civil unions to replace marriage in government documents. I still think there’s a minor benefit associated with such a change (specifically, the rights currently reserved for long-term romantic partners could be extended to folks in platonic households, e.g., an adult child caring for an elderly parent, or cohabiting siblings, or the like).
However, I suspect that this benefit would accrue to a small number of people, and the momentum for same-sex marriage is so strong now that SSM is the appropriate place to put energy. It’s not my ideal path to equality, but it is a path to equality, and I’m thrilled at the pace at which we’re hurtling down that path. Calling for civil-unions-for-all is, at this stage, a distraction.
Me either. That’s why I’m glad I’m married, not holy matrimonied, or Jesus-bonded, or Christ-snuggled, or anything like that.
And my point right along has been that civil marriage, distinct from the religious union though often contracted through the same set of vows, exists in all 50 states and in Federal-jurisdiction territories. It is a simple matter (in terms of law) to fold same-sex unions into that existing framework on the basis of complete equality as and when either judicial recogtnition of equal protection or legislative approval with popular support becomes available. The creation of a new category of civil union necessitates the amending of literally tens of thousands of laws and regulations to implement the new language.
If people are concerned about the state having the power to decree which marriages are legally valid, then one law per jurisdiction is needed, to the effect that [clerks or registrars of vital statistics] heretofore charged with issuing marriage licenses shall now merely act as registrars of marriages duly contracted before an officiant and witnesses. If desired, additional clauses could be added prohibiting registrars from registering fraudulent bigamy or marriages below the age of consent without parental/guardian’s consent.
What constitutes an officiant? If there are any qualifications for an officiant, and if the clerk can’t act as one, I don’t like this change. Butg if the clerk can act as one, or if I can choose literally anyone I want to be my officiant, I think that’s okay.
Do we keep laws on the book against marriages between close relatives? If so, your solution doesn’t solve the minor problem I discussed above, namely, that there may be cases in which these mutual legal rights would be helpful to have between cohabiting family members.
And the idea that it’d be difficult to change marriages to civil unions is not, I think, a valid objection. Give me a crayon and the law books and I can do it in a month. Give me electronic copies of the statutes and a Control key and an H key, and I can do it in less than sixty seconds.
Someone upthread used this example and it’s a good one.
“Marriage” is a governmental institution to the same extent “Parent” is a governmental institution. Both of them are words we ascribe to personal social events or statuses that are then recognized by the government as important and indicative of special relationships that include more rights than other relationships. “Parents” have more rights than “non-parents.” Yes, someone who is not the parent of a child can go to court and do various things to gain more rights in the relationship than they had before, but until they go through an adoption and become “parents,” they do not have all of the rights and do not share the social status.
So it is with “marriage.” Yes, someone can go to a lawyer and arrange to have more rights in the relationship than before, but until they become married they do not have all of the rights and do not share the social status.
When someone is a parent, we know what that means, even though there are lots of ways to be parents. We have a default for “parent” wired into us by our societies. We stick adjectives in front of the term when we need to or want to be more precise: single parent, bad parent, adoptive parent. We don’t say oh, if you’re a single parent, we’re going to call it something else. We don’t say oh, let’s call all of these relationships “legal guardianships” and leave “parent” for people who have had their children baptized. It doesn’t make any sense to do this because the word is bigger than that.
“Marriage” is bigger than a religious ceremony. It is deeply embedded into our social fabric, just as “parent” is.
I’d have no trouble if the gummint called them “legal guardianships.”
The part about leaving “parent” for people who have their children baptized seems to me like a weak argument, a misunderstanding that keeps popping up. I don’t think marriage should be for people who have a church; I think marriage should be for anyone who wants it, full stop. Civil unions, on the other hand, should only be for two otherwised unattached adults who consent to forming one with one another for any reason whatsoever.
An “officiant” is someone charged by the State with the role of officiating at weddings. Typically some selection from judges, justices of the peace, mayors, clerks, and single-purpose ‘marriage officers’ are avilable for normal secular weddings. I personally see no difficulty with priests, pastors, ministers, rabbis, and leaders of other religious groups (e.g., WhyNot in her Wiccan role) doing double duty as officers of the state performing the civil function and ‘ministers of rleigion’ handling their faith’s expectations, the English/American format, which makes more sense to me than religious Europeans making one’s vows before the prefet or Burgomeister and then making the same vows in a church service. The secular officials should be prepared to officiate at any marriage permitted by state law; the religious ones can operate according to their faith’s rules (just as now a Catholic priest will not perform a wedding of a divorced person with a living ex-spouse unless that marriage has been annulled by the church). But if there are good reasons (and “I don’t like it” is not a good reason) to eliminate that arrangement, I’m amenable to it
As for your last point, I was not saying it would be difficult to do from a physical standpoint. But you doing that would not be a legal change because you are not the legislature charged with passing, repealing, and amending laws, nor the agencies charged with promulgating regulations based on those laws. And that is where the proposal falls into disarray – can you see 50 state legislatures coming up with majorities to change every instance where a civil marriage, husband, wife, spouse, etc., are changed to ‘civil union’ and ‘partner in a civil union’? I’ve seen the heavy weather that the clowns in Albany and Raleigh make over much less controversial ideas, and I have no reason to think it’s any different in St. Paul, Lansing, Baton Rouge, or Sacramento, or the other 44 state legislatures.
The question is whether being a religious official is a necessary or sufficient condition for being a non-governmental officiant. If it’s necessary, it’s bogus. If it’s sufficient, it may be bogus.
In the last few years, I’ve been to weddings officiated by a punk seamstress and a local actor, and I have a good friend who officiates weddings by dint of his reputation as an amazing gamemaster and MC. All three of these officiants were excellent (I assume the last one was, and know the others were) and were able to officiate due to their Universal Life Church cards.
That’s bogus. Why on earth should they need a pretend fakey church card in order to fulfill this role?
The reason to modify–not eliminate–the arrangement is because it provides a government privilege to the religious: they have someone who’s recognized by the gummint to officiate, whereas the irreligious have extra hoops to jump through. If anyone, whether religious figure or dungeonmaster or punk seamstress or actor or whatever, has exactly the same hoops to jump through (say, they all have to go down to the courthouse, do the legal equivalent of promising not to be a schmuck about things, pass a criminal background check, and pay a $50 filing fee) before the can be an officiant, we’re good. Otherwise we’re not :).
Ah, I think I see what you’re saying. In that case I agree with you, and as I said earlier, this is the main reason why I think SSM is the preferable strategy over civil-unions for all: it’s not ideal, but it’s the one that’s gonna happen. And in any case it’s really, really close to ideal.
Colorado, at least, doesn’t require any officiant, and I’ve been to a wedding that had no officiant.
I have performed 4 marriages as a minister with the Universal Life Church. The ceremonies were beautiful, there were tears, and all four unions persist to this day. Pretend fakey church? I’m offended. Every church has their own requirements for being recognized as a minister in the organization. My church required me to click “yes”.