This makes no sense. How is including more people under the protection of marriage weakening marriage? Its like saying extending voting rights to Samoans undermines voting rights. Secular marriage in addition to religious marriage expands marriage.
And yes, we do indeed deny the validity of religious based marriages, if we don’t like them very much. There is a branch of the Mormon faith that still insists on multiple marriage. I presume you are not about to insist on the validity of such?
So, why do liberals shout about getting government out of our lives when it comes to the bedroom, but insist on government oversight of our lives when it comes to businesses?
Sorry- luci slipped in there. That post was in response to rjung.
Possibly because people will do more hideously immoral things to one another in order to get more money than they will to get more nookie. Child labor, for instance, didn’t have much to do with sex.
Because what adults do in their bedrooms has very little potential to affect lots of people. What CEOs decide in boardrooms has a lot of potential to affect lots of people.
Daniel
Now, Sam, about the dreadful horror of daycare. I sense a contradiction there. SocCon tend to be real big on the work ethic…unless you’re rich, of course, then it doesn’t apply…
But you do realize, do you not, that without affordable day care it is impossible for some people to hold jobs? What, do you imagine we cooked up daycare just so we could expose little minds to indoctrination from Comrade Big Bird?
To answer the question posed earlier: “Why do we liberals have to understand conservatives? Why don’t THEY make an effort to understand US?”
The answer is that if they don’t understand you, but you understand them, you can figure out ways to get what you want while leaving them unsure of what just happened. If THEY understand you, but you don’t understand THEM, then they are going to run over you. If you both understand each other, then you can perhaps both get what you want.
So from your perspective, understanding THEM should be top priority. Having them understand you would be nice, but should be considered secondary.
I don’t think they are talking about state-sponsored marriage. I think they are talking about religious marriage.
What they fear is getting rid of the validity of religious ceremonies - in essence, telling people that a religious ceremony is invalid. As I said, the notion that “that one didn’t count - it was in a church, and it mentioned God. Now you have to go to the courthouse and register your civil union. Because religious ceremonies are invalid. Only what the state says is valid.”
Regards,
Shodan
Makes no sense, Shodan. We already insist on marriage licenses, do we not? I think some places still demand pre-nuptial blood tests to screen for venereal diseases. Unless I’m mistaken, some states still accept “common-law” arrangements, without benefit of clergy or country clerk.
So in what way is the validity of church weddings threatened? Unless, of course, you are suggesting that that their objections make no sense at all, and I would be surprised to hear you say so.
(raises hand) As someone who got married in Canada, let me double-check something. Do people in the U.S. have to get a marriage license, or not?
I suspect that they do. When I entered this country with my wife, the BCIS didn’t ask for a note from our pastor to confirm that we were married. He asked for our marriage license from the province of Ontario. So I know that Americans have at least heard of the concept, but I’d like to confirm that they use them.
'Cause if they do, then why aren’t these people upset that they have to go to a government office for that?
And I repeat: the fear that religious ceremonies will be rendered invalid is only slightly less ill-founded than the fear that gay marriage will be made mandatory.
To add to what elucidator said (all of which was basically my first response, too 
), the idea that something is valid only when the government says it’s valid seems like a very unconservative notion.
If social conservatives were leading a movement against anyone needing to get a marriage license, that’d be one thing. But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re not even leading a movement against straight people needing to get a marriage license. They’re leading a movement against gay people being able to get a marriage license.
Now, there is a case to be made for strengthening the concept of common-law marriage; I’ve never heard a SC make it, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear it made. However, if the government favors one set of common-law marriages over another set for religious reasons, then we’re back to the same, unjust starting point.
I really think that the problem here is that you and Sam are loathe to admit how much homophobia there really is in the social conservative movement. Again, I’d invite any of you to go to a roadside bar in the South and bring up the issue there. Gay people are hated in large sections of the country–hated not as individuals, but as concepts, as symbols. That hatred really does seem to me to be the impetus behind the no-gay-civil-rights movement.
Daniel
This is, of course, an unreasonable fear. A civil union wouldn’t even require a ceremony. It would be little more than the signing that couples already have to do at the courthouse when they get their marriage licenses. As it is, any ceremony is at the option of the couple. So, basically, nothing would change.
Sam, there are quite a few issues I want to raise with your well-written OP, but mostly, I’m curious as to why you are a social liberal.
That is, you grew up in a very culturally conservative background and you seem to understand their point of view. Yet you disagree with that point of view (since you are a social liberal). Why do you disagree and what made you reconsider the conservative values you were brought up in?
I don’t get it either. In a news story today about the legalization of SSM in Saskatchewan, they had a pastor from a church in Saskatoon interviewed who said he was worried that he be forced to marry a gay couple in his church at some point. To which I say… huh? I mean, aside from the fact that that’s not part of the law, nor the point of non-discrimination, don’t churches already get to pick who gets married in their churches? A Roman Catholic Church can refuse you if you’re not “Roman Catholicy” enough and I’ve heard lots of stories about that. At some point, you have to call the fear irrational.
Working backwards:
Polerius said:
I had a strange childhood. My father left when I was two, so I spent a lot of time being raised by my religious grandparents, and growing up in that community. But I also spent a lot of time growing up in a poor welfare neighborhood in a small city. And occasionally I got shipped off to my wild family on my father’s side, watching drunken parties and seeing my cousins get the living tar beat out of them by their parents.
So, I was exposed to pretty much the gamut of lifestyles. I drew some conclusions from that. One of them was that being religious was no guarantee of being a good person, and being an athiest liberal was no guarantee of being a bad one. Rather, I discovered that people are people. I have relatives who claim to be very devout, elders in their church, pillars of the community, etc., and yet who are just totally rotten people. And yet, I have friends who are bike gang members, profane, hard-livin’, hard-drinkin’ people who have hearts of gold. I learned to judge people for who they are, and not what group they fall into.
I think that’s essentially what caused me to be a libertarian - the notion that there is no side that has a monopoly on the truth, and there is no one government policy that is correct for everyone. Therefore, the best government is the government that governs least. People must be left to find their own way in life, for good and bad.
On the religious front - when I was very young, I was a Christian. I believed in my heart. I remember feeling sorry for people who didn’t know Christ, because his presence warmed my soul and sheltered me from all the craziness around me. It was never a conscious choice to believe - I just did. But then, around the time I was twelve or thirteen, my rational brain started asking questions I couldn’t answer. I spent a long time questioning my belief, trying to make sense of it. And one day, I realized I didn’t believe any more. That too was not a conscious choice. I had no more control over my loss of faith than I did over gaining it in the first place. Some people who don’t believe think it’s because they are too smart, or too logical, or too skeptical. That’s a conceit. There are many great scientists and philosophers who are deeply religious. That’s also why I can’t look down on ‘born again Christians’. I know what that is, and it would be obnoxious for me to denigrate anyone else who has those feelings.
So when I see a religious bigot talking about godless liberals, or I see a liberal marching with a sign that says, “Instead of being born again, why not try growing up?” I see exactly the same thing. Intolerance. I don’t want EITHER side dictating the nature of society. I want society left to its own devices, so that people are free to choose the path they want to follow.
That’s what makes me a social liberal.
I think many of them would LIKE that. Because that would mean that someone (usually the mom - almost certainly the mom, actually) would have to stay home and take care of the kids, like Gawd intended.
Rashak Mani said:
There’s a saying in law that extreme cases make for bad law. I think the same is true here. Extreme cases make for bad social policy. I recognize that it’s very difficult for a girl who has been raped by her father and is now pregnant. I just don’t agree that the correct solution is a sweeping nationwide policy that allows ALL young girls to get abortions without telling their parents. Children need constraints on their behaviour. Making it easy to avoid the consequences of bad decisions means you’ll get more bad decisions.
What I would advocate is another solution to the problem of extreme cases. How about rather than saying that children don’t need parental notificaction, saying that they DO, but coming up with a system to handle the really tough cases. Something like a public defender - someone who a young girl can go to to gain an exception. We can argue the details of such a system, but allowing all young girls to get abortions without telling their parents because of the rare case of incest-induced pregnancy will do far more harm than good to the social fabric, in my opinion.
Hey, he’s explaining how they feel. That the object of the fear is not real does not mean that the fear itself is not real.
But just to address the first issue: to many social conservatives, the civil licensing/registry/prenuptial screening of marriages is the way state accommodates itself to the preexisting and overriding reality of something called “marriage”, rather than a recognition that the source of the status of “marriage” is civil law and we just deputize clergy to perform it. Even if we demonstrate to them that civil-marriage-as-joint-property-management-and-inheritance-contract in Western Civilization predates Judaeo-Christian domination of that civilization’s social morals, they’d just claim that even then it was a social affirmation of an already prevalent M/F pairing-for-life, so that obviously came down from the Prime Source.
Interestingly, there are countries operating under the Civil Code Law tradition where you DO indeed have to go through the civil marriage procedure separately from whatever religious matrimony rite or else you’re not “legal”. This includes many otherwise strongly religious societies ( my anecdotal evidence being Guatemala, where a friend of the family got married back in 2000) and it’s not like dogs and cats are living together…
At what point did you get the impression that social conservatives were Libertarians? Who said they dislike government intervention? They don’t like THEIR culture and society messed with. Libertarians make up about 1-5% of our society. Everyone else wants government control of some things. The problem is that there are two different cultural groups, and they differ in just what they think the government should meddle in. I’m just trying to explain the motivations of one side.
btw, Sam, I’d like to thank you for starting this thread. Regardless of the conclusions people draw from it, I think it’s doing a fair bit to improve the tone in GD, which can only be a good thing.