I have a simple solution to this whole "gay marriage" debacle. States need to do away with state sponsored "marriage". Any union, be it gay, straight, or poly, that wants state benefits that are applicable for such a union should apply for a civil union. States would not be allowed to discriminate in any way based on moral/religious grounds. Any union that wants the sanction of their particular Deity should apply to a church for a marriage. And the churches would have the ability to discriminate based upon their particular beliefs.
I've heard this argument made many times before, and it's personally insulting every time.
I am in a civil, non-religious, heterosexual marriage. About 1/3 of the marriages in the US are non-religious. Why do we not count as "married"? Why do I not get the full legal convenience and protection of marriage, because I was married by a Mayor instead of a priest/rabbi/minister/shaman?
Marriage, as a human behavior, is both older and more widespread than any religion, and than religion in general. Marriage is a *social* contract, and one of the core functions of law & government is to regulate contracts. Religious organizations are *not* in the business of regulating contracts, and IMHO should not be.
Religions can sacralize all they want, but they don't get to say I'm not married.
Not to mention that giving religions in general the right to call people "married" won't remove the equal-marriage threat, because there are plenty of religious groups that are champing at the bit to marry such couples.
I am in a civil, non-religious, heterosexual marriage.
*All* marriages in the US are "civil unions." On top of that, you may have a separate, religious marriage compact with entirely different terms and conditions. Your religion may forbid divorce, for instance, and if you break your civil marriage bonds legally, your religion may still consider you married and forbid you to marry again.
Which is to say, I agree with you, and it's what makes the whole argument so completely ridiculous. Nobody actually has the kind of marriage, legally, conservatives keep screaming about.
You're right, I don't and I never said that you couldn't be.
If you want to say that you are married more power to you. Alternately, if you wanted to say that you were handfasted, go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Hell, I'm not legally "married" to my SO, but I still call myself married.
What I am trying to get across (and re-reading my comment it was badly put for which I apologize) is that the actual legal union granted by the state should be a "civil union" with no "marriage" connotation.. Whatever you want to call your partnership after that is between you, your partner(s), and whatever Deity you may or may not worship.
should be a "civil union" with no "marriage" connotation
Why? Marriage is not intrinsically religious. There are certain rights & responsibilities that are legally called "marriage" -- why should they all be re-named? Why should I not get the full legal connotatin of "marriage"?
I don't understand what the problem is with calling the legal union between people a "civil union" and not marriage. Calling a rose a beautiful red flower does not change what it is.
You would not lose any legal rights or responsibilities. And it would grant hundreds of thousands of couples in this country legal protection for their chosen partnerships. Because, believe me, as long as it remains "marriage" the fundamentalists of this country will never allow same-sex marriages to become commonplace. They are already trying to chip away at that right here in MA.
*shrugs* I guess I just don't have a whole lot of investment in a simple word like marriage. Changing it to "civil union" affects me not at all in any personal way.
what the problem is with calling the legal union between people a "civil union" and not marriage
Because the laws are based around the word "marriage". And as we've found in NJ, people who only have "civil unions" do not get treated as married (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6314). Separate is *not* equal. The only way to get the same legal respect for same-sex civil unions that there is for *my* civil union is to call them both "marriage". And aren't there laws going up in several states to explicitly deny the droits of marriage to anything not called "marriage"?
But if you have no investment in the word "marriage," why not let any two or more people who want to be married be so, and have the word? By your logic, it's none of the state's business. And there are people who care about the symbolism and/or terminology, but who are not religious, or whose religions don't have marriage as a sacrament.
If you go back and read my comments, I have never said that we should get rid of marriage altogether. If somebody wants to call their partnership a marriage then they have every right to. I am not "legally" married and yet I call myself married for convenience when talking to people. My SO is more than just a boyfriend or lover (hell he'd better be after ten years *grin*) so husband is the closest word to describe what he is to me.
What I am trying to say is that the word marriage has too much emotion invested in it and people on all sides are never going to give an inch in this battle. And it is causing a lot of heartache for hundreds of thousands of United States citizens because they are not allowed the same rights and protections as straight people.
As long as the word marriage is used, the fundamentalists will continue to block legal same-sex unions. I wish it weren't so. I wish that everybody could get married to the person or people of their choice, but that is not likely to happen anytime soon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ellen_datlow) wrote2008-07-29 08:35 pm
no subject
I have said it before and I will say it again -
I have a simple solution to this whole "gay marriage" debacle. States need to do away with state sponsored "marriage". Any union, be it gay, straight, or poly, that wants state benefits that are applicable for such a union should apply for a civil union. States would not be allowed to discriminate in any way based on moral/religious grounds. Any union that wants the sanction of their particular Deity should apply to a church for a marriage. And the churches would have the ability to discriminate based upon their particular beliefs.
You don't get to say I'm not married
I am in a civil, non-religious, heterosexual marriage. About 1/3 of the marriages in the US are non-religious. Why do we not count as "married"? Why do I not get the full legal convenience and protection of marriage, because I was married by a Mayor instead of a priest/rabbi/minister/shaman?
Marriage, as a human behavior, is both older and more widespread than any religion, and than religion in general. Marriage is a *social* contract, and one of the core functions of law & government is to regulate contracts. Religious organizations are *not* in the business of regulating contracts, and IMHO should not be.
Religions can sacralize all they want, but they don't get to say I'm not married.
Not to mention that giving religions in general the right to call people "married" won't remove the equal-marriage threat, because there are plenty of religious groups that are champing at the bit to marry such couples.
Re: You don't get to say I'm not married
I am in a civil, non-religious, heterosexual marriage.
*All* marriages in the US are "civil unions." On top of that, you may have a separate, religious marriage compact with entirely different terms and conditions. Your religion may forbid divorce, for instance, and if you break your civil marriage bonds legally, your religion may still consider you married and forbid you to marry again.
Which is to say, I agree with you, and it's what makes the whole argument so completely ridiculous. Nobody actually has the kind of marriage, legally, conservatives keep screaming about.
Re: You don't get to say I'm not married
If you want to say that you are married more power to you. Alternately, if you wanted to say that you were handfasted, go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Hell, I'm not legally "married" to my SO, but I still call myself married.
What I am trying to get across (and re-reading my comment it was badly put for which I apologize) is that the actual legal union granted by the state should be a "civil union" with no "marriage" connotation.. Whatever you want to call your partnership after that is between you, your partner(s), and whatever Deity you may or may not worship.
Re: You don't get to say I'm not married
Why? Marriage is not intrinsically religious. There are certain rights & responsibilities that are legally called "marriage" -- why should they all be re-named? Why should I not get the full legal connotatin of "marriage"?
Re: You don't get to say I'm not married
You would not lose any legal rights or responsibilities. And it would grant hundreds of thousands of couples in this country legal protection for their chosen partnerships. Because, believe me, as long as it remains "marriage" the fundamentalists of this country will never allow same-sex marriages to become commonplace. They are already trying to chip away at that right here in MA.
*shrugs* I guess I just don't have a whole lot of investment in a simple word like marriage. Changing it to "civil union" affects me not at all in any personal way.
Re: You don't get to say I'm not married
Because the laws are based around the word "marriage". And as we've found in NJ, people who only have "civil unions" do not get treated as married (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6314). Separate is *not* equal. The only way to get the same legal respect for same-sex civil unions that there is for *my* civil union is to call them both "marriage". And aren't there laws going up in several states to explicitly deny the droits of marriage to anything not called "marriage"?
Re: You don't get to say I'm not married
Re: You don't get to say I'm not married
What I am trying to say is that the word marriage has too much emotion invested in it and people on all sides are never going to give an inch in this battle. And it is causing a lot of heartache for hundreds of thousands of United States citizens because they are not allowed the same rights and protections as straight people.
As long as the word marriage is used, the fundamentalists will continue to block legal same-sex unions. I wish it weren't so. I wish that everybody could get married to the person or people of their choice, but that is not likely to happen anytime soon.