Gay marriage redefining weddings

[trillionaire]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/dining/18wedd.html?pagewanted=1

interesting article

 

[WishfulThinking]

I don''t have any specific comments about the article-- I think it''s amazing, adorable, and it brings tears to my eyes whenever I read an article about a same sex couple now able to get married. For once, it seems, I am able to see people who look like me and my relationship able to take advantage of the same rights and responsibilities as other Americans. It feels good. And I''ve read far too many in the last two days, I''m sure.

I think the trends are partly due to demographics. The ages of these couples are a bit higher than the average age of couples usually marrying, from what I''ve been reading. Another huge influence is the rush that people have; there is no guarantee that people will be allowed to be married following the Nov. election, and thus same sex couples must get married within the next few months or be faced with indefinite postponement. Not much of that year-long+ wedding planning to be had here. Otherwise, a lot of the things that are being written about same sex couples honestly just remind me of most other couples getting married. There is a desire to stand out and be unique, adding little personal touches to more traditional settings, as is becoming more popular for weddings regardless of the sexual preference of those being married. Trendy is in or something.

I just hope that the voters of California make it possible for me to get legal recognition for the wedding that my fiancee and I are having next June. We can''t afford to fly right now, and know the time is not right quite yet, but will nonetheless be absolutely heartbroken if we''re unable to be legally married like everyone else is able to. I''ve spent a lot of time thinking about this and have been unbelievably emotional over the last month that these developments have been taking place: I am so lucky to have someone who loves me and wants to spend her life with me, and I am so happy for those in CA who are able to fulfill this dream right now, but I am so, so terrified for what will happen in November. I feel like all my happiness might just dry up.

Sorry that this is a long and sappy post. I''ve been meaning to say something in this forum about this for awhile now, but I know that some people here don''t believe I should be afforded this right, and it makes me supremely uncomfortable talking about it with that knowledge. These are my feelings. This is my love. This is my life. It''s not just some political battle to be parsed out by the public in theoretical terms. I am a real person that is being hurt by all of this. *sigh* Who are we hurting?

 

[swimmer]

Dear WishfulThinking,
Thank you for sharing your very personal perspective. I''m sure everyone who reads your post hopes that you and your intended are able to fulfill your dreams. You put a very personal connection to this situation. Living in Boston, it is easy to take it for granted that marriage is a civil right, thank you for sharing.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

I wanted to say good for you wishful.

I always liked the argument that gay marriage cheapend marriage. As though George Takai who married his partner of 21 years harms my personal attachment and that it somehow brings down the calibre of marriege less than the quickie chapels in Vegas. I think if two people who love each other but are different than you threaten your marriage, then you have a lot of problems in the mariage that need to get looked at.

 

[ladypirate]

First off, congratulations Wishful! If it helps, my entire family (sans myself, who will be an Oregon resident when the vote comes through) will be voting to keep marriage for everyone. I can''t wait to see your wedding pictures! *hugs*

Secondly, this part of the article made me giggle:

"Because food is such a central part of any wedding celebration, it can also be the great unifier. A grumpy uncle or conservative sibling might be uncomfortable with two grooms, but it’s hard to quibble with a great buffet."

 

[Fancy605]

Date: 6/21/2008 1:40:31 PM
Author: brazen_irish_hussy
I wanted to say good for you wishful.


I always liked the argument that gay marriage cheapend marriage. As though George Takai who married his partner of 21 years harms my personal attachment and that it somehow brings down the calibre of marriege less than the quickie chapels in Vegas. I think if two people who love each other but are different than you threaten your marriage, then you have a lot of problems in the mariage that need to get looked at.

Good point. I''ve always thought to myself that it would be MUCH more honorable to be a same-sex couple in a loving committed marriage than it is to be a heterosexual couple in a loveless, adulterous marriage. To me, it''s obvious which of these two hypothetical couples would do more to "cheapen" marriage. Of course, I''ve always been of the opinion that if what you''re doing isn''t hurting anyone else (and doesn''t really have the potential to), then you should go right ahead and do it. Good for California for exercising it''s rights to make decisions as a state.

 

[LitigatorChick]

Canada has had gay marriage since 2005, thanks to our Supreme Court followed by our Parliament. I''m all for it. It''s all about love anyway!!!!

 

[WishfulThinking]

Thanks for the nice replies everyone. You have no idea how appreciate I am for that. I''m having a rough time with this right now.

I, too, think the "cheapening marriage" or the "destroying the institution of marriage" thing to be borderline ridiculous. I mean, if heterosexual marriage as an institution is that unstable [not that I really think it is] that my getting married will disrupt it, isn''t that sort of problematic? It can''t possibly be *that* fragile. Oy.

I want to UPHOLD the importance of marriage as one marker for defining relationships. It''s such a culturally important signifier of couplehood that is so universally understood that it makes it difficult never to be able to obtain that sort of respect and understanding of what our relationship is. I mean... "civilly unioned" sounds a little clumsy compared to "married." And clinical, almost. And what should I say instead of "wife"? "Civilly united partner"? Really?

It''s kind of not the same thing, in the end.

LitigatorChick- That is one of my favourite things [among MANY] about Canada. Too bad immigration is so expensive... I''d move there in a heartbeat if I could!

 

[bobbin]

I find the ''cheapening marriage'' or ''destroying the institution of marriage'' arguments ridiculous as well.

As far as the ''destroying the institution of marriage'' arguments go, well, in Australia they said that about giving women the right to own property and making rape within marriage illegal (husbands used to have an immunity from being prosecuted for rape). The arguments are a ridiculous way for bigoted people to feel justified about their views.

Good luck with everything and I hope come November the people of California make the right choice...

 

[anchor31]

Date: 6/27/2008 10:04:32 AM
Author: LitigatorChick
Canada has had gay marriage since 2005, thanks to our Supreme Court followed by our Parliament. I''m all for it. It''s all about love anyway!!!!

Gotta love Canada!

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/27/2008 12:49:35 AM

Author: Fancy605

Good point. I''ve always thought to myself that it would be MUCH more honorable to be a same-sex couple in a loving committed marriage than it is to be a heterosexual couple in a loveless, adulterous marriage.

Why must it be either or? I absolutely support homosexual marriage, but why is it wrong to put the institution of marriage above an affair? In many cultures for many centuries people have maintained marriages for stability while "adulterous" affairs were not allowed to harm the family. Not every culture is Puritan based. Not every culture wants to break up its marriages because someone has had an affair.

Deborah

 

[Rank Amateur]

Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an "affair", eventually you need to draw the line somewhere.

Maybe we need to dissolve marriage as a legal entity and let people make their own rules for what a marriage is. That way the gov''t is not defining where the "line" is.

 

[aprilcait]

Date: 7/30/2008 11:52:56 AM
Author: Rank Amateur
Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an ''affair'', eventually you need to draw the line somewhere.

Maybe we need to dissolve marriage as a legal entity and let people make their own rules for what a marriage is. That way the gov''t is not defining where the ''line'' is.

IMO, what we really need is a true division of church and state, meaning that we do what other countries that have such a separation do: if a couple wants to be legally married, they have a courthouse marriage; if they want their union to be recognized in a religious sense, then the couple gets married in a religious ceremony as well. It seems a bit silly that in a country that prides itself on such a division of church and state allows religious officials to act as legal officials when it comes to marriages.

If this division of church and state is really created, then religious organizations may not feel such a pressure to allow gay marriage (even though I, personally, believe that they should allow it).

 

[AGBF]

Date: 7/30/2008 11:52:56 AM

Author: Rank Amateur

Maybe we need to dissolve marriage as a legal entity and let people make their own rules for what a marriage is. That way the gov't is not defining where the 'line' is.

I am not sure if it matters who defines what a marriage is, R/A. If one believes that the institution of marriage should be strengthened what matters is that there be a cultural acceptance of more discomfort, boredom, and unhappiness in marriage.
(In my opinion.)

I think that if one wants to see long marriages he had better make sure that people expect to encounter some very rough patches and, perhaps, expect to fall out of love as they know it as they marry. I am not sure that that is the American way, at least anymore. I am not sure that it should be. I know that that are are some pros to a society with stable marriages, however, and I know that tolerating affairs is one method for achieving those marriages.

I saw an "article" today on Matthew Broderick and Sarah Jessica Parker showing togetherness after he was accused of having an affair with a 25 year-old woman. Supposedly they have been "out of love" for years, in "an unconventional marriage", staying together for the sake of their son. That doesn't look or sound so bad to me!


Deborah

 

[WishfulThinking]

AGBF- I think you bring up some very valid points. There seems to me to be two major issues [probably more than that, but for the sake of this discussion] with the way contemporary America, and I am guessing other "Western" cultures as well, treats marriage.

The first is the "traditional" form of marriage that dictates that people should and/or have to stay together even if they are unhappy, and that divorce is shameful and unacceptable.
The second is the attitude that due to trouble in marriage, marital infidelity, or boredom in marriage, people should and/or have to get a divorce.

Both attitudes can be harmful to the people involved. I don''t think people should feel like they have to stay married if they do not want to. I think marriage is important and should be honored as a commitment, but I think trapping people in marriages is unnecessary and can be damaging to people. On the other hand, I think it''s ridiculous to assert that someone should get divorced because of circumstances in their marriage. If a couple wants to stay married despite unhappiness, or boredom, or any other factor, I think they should be free to do so without the judgment of others. Each group of people are, in their own way, defining what marriage means to them; for one group, it is defined as happiness and marital "bliss" that should be terminated if it does not persist, and for the other group it is to take literally marriage vows promising to stay together through good times and in bad. I don''t think there is necessarily something wrong with either position, and I certainly am loathe to pretend I can understand the complexities of other peoples'' relationships. It isn''t my business, and I have no wish to dictate the circumstances of their relationships any more than I desire them to dictate the circumstances of my own.

There needs to be a cultural shift in the way marriage is looked at now, and for a lot of reasons: it is exclusionary, makes broad generalizations about what marriage is and how people should behave within them, and leaves little room for understanding of peoples'' individual lives.

As for defining what marriage is, I think it is very important to keep some sort of civil marriage in existence. I don''t think it has to involve religion if the license is issued by the state, and I am confused as to how this setup makes sense given separation of church and state. While I, and my gay friends who are religious, belong to religious sects accepting of gay relationships, and have gotten married in church services, do wish there could be more acceptance of their relationships within religious marriages, I have no desire to dictate that the church should have to marry anyone. That would be legally inconsistent. Then again, I have never in my life heard anyone say they desired the state to force the church to marry a couple they didn''t want to, so that is largely a strawperson argument.
That said, the legal benefits granted by marriage or marriage-like legal contracts are important because the society we live in is legally and socially bound up in them already. People largely consider marriage to be the highest level of commitment between two people, and it is generally socially accepted as the "final step" in a relationship. Couples can share health insurance benefits, which, in the absence of many peoples'' access to health insurance through their employer, enables many Americans to be able to afford health insurance they otherwise couldn''t. My own parents are in this situation, and it is lucky that they are married because of it. Hospital visitation rights, the way "next of kin" are designated as important in many circumstances... those things necessitate the existence of marriage to legally bind two people who are not biologically related to each other into a recognized family unit.
Obviously the definition needs to be expanded so it is not exclusionary of certain people, but it isn''t overall a bad system. It just needs to be revamped a bit.

Sorry for the long-winded response. I am a community educator on marriage equality, and have done a lot of social and legal research on the subject, so I tend to have quite an opinion on it.

 

[AGBF]

I agree with everything you wrote, WishfulThinking. I even like the style in which you wrote it. However, I do think that there are some areas that have been left unaddressed: like what happens to children in a marriage when there is no policy recommended to the consenting adults on whether couples should divorce or whether they should stick it out. But not everything can be hashed out in one thread!

Deborah

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 8/1/2008 5:24:17 AM
Author: AGBF





I agree with everything you wrote, WishfulThinking. I even like the style in which you wrote it. However, I do think that there are some areas that have been left unaddressed: like what happens to children in a marriage when there is no policy recommended to the consenting adults on whether couples should divorce or whether they should stick it out. But not everything can be hashed out in one thread!


Deborah

I think that is a very good point, AGBF. As a child who grew up with married parents who didn''t divorce "for the children" [later divorced when I was in my late teens] I have a personal experience with this. I think, again, it really depends on the specific situation. If people can live in harmony I think it is one thing, but many people, my parents included, could not, and it severely affected me growing up. Perhaps a topic for a different thread, but a good point nonetheless. I think the underlying problem in all of these situations is the idea that there is one right way to do things, when people and peoples'' relationships with one another and their families are all unique and complicated. I think that does no one any favors.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 7/30/2008 12:27:35 PM
Author: aprilcait

Date: 7/30/2008 11:52:56 AM

Author: Rank Amateur

Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an ''affair'', eventually you need to draw the line somewhere.


Maybe we need to dissolve marriage as a legal entity and let people make their own rules for what a marriage is. That way the gov''t is not defining where the ''line'' is.

IMO, what we really need is a true division of church and state, meaning that we do what other countries that have such a separation do: if a couple wants to be legally married, they have a courthouse marriage; if they want their union to be recognized in a religious sense, then the couple gets married in a religious ceremony as well. It seems a bit silly that in a country that prides itself on such a division of church and state allows religious officials to act as legal officials when it comes to marriages.


If this division of church and state is really created, then religious organizations may not feel such a pressure to allow gay marriage (even though I, personally, believe that they should allow it).

There is indeed a separation of church and state. I believe in most states a couple needs a legal marriage license which has nothing to do with a religious ceremony.

As far as religious institutions allowing gay marriages, they should have every right to say "no" to performing these ceremonies. In the US, we are also given the right to religious freedom and no congregation should be forced into performing such marriages. Separation of church and state works both ways.

By the way, the idea of "Separation of church and state" was introduced to protect the churches from government dictates, not the other way around. While I find most people who invoke the ''separation'' idea are fearful of the church intervening with the law and the ''state'', it is really the state intervening with with the ''church'' that most should fear if they value religious freedom in this great country.

To AGBF, the idea of fidelity in marriage is not a Puritan ''restriction'', it is a biblical concept joining one man and one woman, together before God. It is a way protect and preserve the family unit. I think if you ask most people who have been betrayed in marriage they would tell you it is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. I''m kind of amazed really that anyone would question why it''s wrong to "put marriage above an affair"! If commitment and fidelity and responsibility are "Puritanical", then call me a Puritan!

 

[ksinger]

"By the way, the idea of "Separation of church and state" was introduced to protect the churches from government dictates, not the other way around. While I find most people who invoke the ''separation'' idea are fearful of the church intervening with the law and the ''state'', it is really the state intervening with with the ''church'' that most should fear if they value religious freedom in this great country."

Ah...but it is helpful to remember that the governmental "dictates" our founders were trying to stop were religiously motivated - one religious sect gaining and using governmental power to persecute or discriminate against another, a time-honored historical tradition within Christianity. The concept of a secular government persecuting religions was not anything they ever seriously thought of. Their experiences of persecution were quite the other way around. They were trying to create what amounted to a secular government with the idea that IT would be MORE tolerant than those governments in bed with religion. And for the most part, it has. That concept of a tolerant secularly driven government is in danger these days though, I fear.

I really don''t think that those of us fearful of the church intervening by becoming conflated with state power, are exactly paranoid, since that very thing happened at Justice, (probably the tip of the wink-wink-nudge-nudge iceberg I''d wager), with Monica Goodling doing the hiring decisions based on perceived orthodoxy regarding "God, gays, and guns", a phrase written in her actual hiring notes, a concept which should especially chill the devout, and yet doesn''t seem to at all. Those who claim that there can be no "official" state religion are ignoring the reality that we really do have what amounts to a de facto state religion - at the moment some nebulous form of evangelical protestantism. If we did not, there would not be this endless thrash about the religious views of the candidates.

 

[aprilcait]

Date: 8/3/2008 12:15:09 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 7/30/2008 12:27:35 PM
Author: aprilcait

Date: 7/30/2008 11:52:56 AM

Author: Rank Amateur

Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an ''affair'', eventually you need to draw the line somewhere.


Maybe we need to dissolve marriage as a legal entity and let people make their own rules for what a marriage is. That way the gov''t is not defining where the ''line'' is.

IMO, what we really need is a true division of church and state, meaning that we do what other countries that have such a separation do: if a couple wants to be legally married, they have a courthouse marriage; if they want their union to be recognized in a religious sense, then the couple gets married in a religious ceremony as well. It seems a bit silly that in a country that prides itself on such a division of church and state allows religious officials to act as legal officials when it comes to marriages.


If this division of church and state is really created, then religious organizations may not feel such a pressure to allow gay marriage (even though I, personally, believe that they should allow it).

There is indeed a separation of church and state. I believe in most states a couple needs a legal marriage license which has nothing to do with a religious ceremony.

As far as religious institutions allowing gay marriages, they should have every right to say ''no'' to performing these ceremonies. In the US, we are also given the right to religious freedom and no congregation should be forced into performing such marriages. Separation of church and state works both ways.

By the way, the idea of ''Separation of church and state'' was introduced to protect the churches from government dictates, not the other way around. While I find most people who invoke the ''separation'' idea are fearful of the church intervening with the law and the ''state'', it is really the state intervening with with the ''church'' that most should fear if they value religious freedom in this great country.

To AGBF, the idea of fidelity in marriage is not a Puritan ''restriction'', it is a biblical concept joining one man and one woman, together before God. It is a way protect and preserve the family unit. I think if you ask most people who have been betrayed in marriage they would tell you it is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. I''m kind of amazed really that anyone would question why it''s wrong to ''put marriage above an affair''! If commitment and fidelity and responsibility are ''Puritanical'', then call me a Puritan!

Yes, couples need to get an offical state marriage license but the religious official who marries the couple signs the form, meaning that the religious official has the right to legally marry the couple (not just marry the couple within that specific religion). This means that there is not a full separation of church and state.

Religions can preach what they want to about gay marriage, but one person''s religious practice/belief should not interfere with another''s rights.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 8/3/2008 12:15:09 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 7/30/2008 12:27:35 PM

Author: aprilcait

Date: 7/30/2008 11:52:56 AM


Author: Rank Amateur


Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an ''affair'', eventually you need to draw the line somewhere.



Maybe we need to dissolve marriage as a legal entity and let people make their own rules for what a marriage is. That way the gov''t is not defining where the ''line'' is.

IMO, what we really need is a true division of church and state, meaning that we do what other countries that have such a separation do: if a couple wants to be legally married, they have a courthouse marriage; if they want their union to be recognized in a religious sense, then the couple gets married in a religious ceremony as well. It seems a bit silly that in a country that prides itself on such a division of church and state allows religious officials to act as legal officials when it comes to marriages.



If this division of church and state is really created, then religious organizations may not feel such a pressure to allow gay marriage (even though I, personally, believe that they should allow it).

There is indeed a separation of church and state. I believe in most states a couple needs a legal marriage license which has nothing to do with a religious ceremony.


As far as religious institutions allowing gay marriages, they should have every right to say ''no'' to performing these ceremonies. In the US, we are also given the right to religious freedom and no congregation should be forced into performing such marriages. Separation of church and state works both ways.


By the way, the idea of ''Separation of church and state'' was introduced to protect the churches from government dictates, not the other way around. While I find most people who invoke the ''separation'' idea are fearful of the church intervening with the law and the ''state'', it is really the state intervening with with the ''church'' that most should fear if they value religious freedom in this great country.


To AGBF, the idea of fidelity in marriage is not a Puritan ''restriction'', it is a biblical concept joining one man and one woman, together before God. It is a way protect and preserve the family unit. I think if you ask most people who have been betrayed in marriage they would tell you it is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. I''m kind of amazed really that anyone would question why it''s wrong to ''put marriage above an affair''! If commitment and fidelity and responsibility are ''Puritanical'', then call me a Puritan!

I don''t know how to highlight, so I am addressing the section above that I have bolded.

I think it''s disingenuous to bring up the argument that religious institutions should not "have" to marry gay couples. First of all, that isn''t what aprilcait said to begin with. She said it should happen; as in, she thinks they *should* change their views [presumably of their own volition], not that she thinks they should be forced to do so by the state. The only people I have ever heard discuss the issue of forcing churches to marry same sex couples are those who claim they will have to if same sex marriages are legalized. It''s a strawperson argument meant to scare people who are religious into fearing that same sex marriages will interfere with their religious freedoms. I''ve been doing work in marriage equality for about 9 years now, and I have never heard anyone in favor of marriage equality claim that churches should be forced to marry same sex couples. It would be a direct violation of separation of church and state, and quite obviously unconstitutional Although, notably, I do recall more than one minister I know expressing sadness and disgust that the same sex marriages they freely and voluntarily perform in their church are not able to be recognized by the law.

As for the second part of what you said, ksinger did a good job explaining the more in-depth context of the separation of church and state.

ksinger''s comments about de facto state religion are also completely valid. The only reason I have ever heard put forth about why people do not want same sex marriages legalized are religious reasons. If there is no official religion, why is it that the religious beliefs of the majority are allowed to be imposed on the minority? If there is no state religion, why is it that I am unable to get married because my marriage supposedly violates the tenants of a religion that I do not believe in? The answer is pretty simple: because, unofficially, religion dictates the laws of this country, and it does so to the detriment of those of us who are blatantly discriminated against as a result.

Also, to say that "it is really the state intervening with with the ''church'' that most should fear if they value religious freedom in this great country" is rather unfair. I value religious freedom, but I also value MY OWN freedom, which ought to include equal protection under the law. It also includes freedom FROM religion; I should not be required to obey the rules of a religion that I choose not to practice. I legitimately fear that the interference of religion in my government will deny me those constitutional rights which I ought to be granted as a citizen of the United States. In fact, more accurately, I *experience* rather than fear the effects or interference that has and continues to occur. I experience every single day of my life the imposition of the religion of other people on my own beliefs and life choices. It impacts my ability to function in an every day capacity.

I am, however, confused as to how people in the church currently need to fear the state''s intervention. There has been, to my knowledge, no legislation or court decisions passed in recent decades that would constitute such interference by the state. I follow these things very closely, as a student of law and politics. Is there something I have missed, perhaps? I am curious as to where you are coming from with those claims.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 8/4/2008 5:23:26 PM
Author: WishfulThinking

Date: 8/3/2008 12:15:09 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 7/30/2008 12:27:35 PM

Author: aprilcait

Date: 7/30/2008 11:52:56 AM


Author: Rank Amateur


Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an ''affair'', eventually you need to draw the line somewhere.



Maybe we need to dissolve marriage as a legal entity and let people make their own rules for what a marriage is. That way the gov''t is not defining where the ''line'' is.

IMO, what we really need is a true division of church and state, meaning that we do what other countries that have such a separation do: if a couple wants to be legally married, they have a courthouse marriage; if they want their union to be recognized in a religious sense, then the couple gets married in a religious ceremony as well. It seems a bit silly that in a country that prides itself on such a division of church and state allows religious officials to act as legal officials when it comes to marriages.



If this division of church and state is really created, then religious organizations may not feel such a pressure to allow gay marriage (even though I, personally, believe that they should allow it).

There is indeed a separation of church and state. I believe in most states a couple needs a legal marriage license which has nothing to do with a religious ceremony.


As far as religious institutions allowing gay marriages, they should have every right to say ''no'' to performing these ceremonies. In the US, we are also given the right to religious freedom and no congregation should be forced into performing such marriages. Separation of church and state works both ways.


By the way, the idea of ''Separation of church and state'' was introduced to protect the churches from government dictates, not the other way around. While I find most people who invoke the ''separation'' idea are fearful of the church intervening with the law and the ''state'', it is really the state intervening with with the ''church'' that most should fear if they value religious freedom in this great country.


To AGBF, the idea of fidelity in marriage is not a Puritan ''restriction'', it is a biblical concept joining one man and one woman, together before God. It is a way protect and preserve the family unit. I think if you ask most people who have been betrayed in marriage they would tell you it is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. I''m kind of amazed really that anyone would question why it''s wrong to ''put marriage above an affair''! If commitment and fidelity and responsibility are ''Puritanical'', then call me a Puritan!

I don''t know how to highlight, so I am addressing the section above that I have bolded.

I think it''s disingenuous to bring up the argument that religious institutions should not ''have'' to marry gay couples. First of all, that isn''t what aprilcait said to begin with. She said it should happen; as in, she thinks they *should* change their views [presumably of their own volition], not that she thinks they should be forced to do so by the state. The only people I have ever heard discuss the issue of forcing churches to marry same sex couples are those who claim they will have to if same sex marriages are legalized. It''s a strawperson argument meant to scare people who are religious into fearing that same sex marriages will interfere with their religious freedoms. I''ve been doing work in marriage equality for about 9 years now, and I have never heard anyone in favor of marriage equality claim that churches should be forced to marry same sex couples. It would be a direct violation of separation of church and state, and quite obviously unconstitutional Although, notably, I do recall more than one minister I know expressing sadness and disgust that the same sex marriages they freely and voluntarily perform in their church are not able to be recognized by the law.

As for the second part of what you said, ksinger did a good job explaining the more in-depth context of the separation of church and state.

ksinger''s comments about de facto state religion are also completely valid. The only reason I have ever heard put forth about why people do not want same sex marriages legalized are religious reasons. If there is no official religion, why is it that the religious beliefs of the majority are allowed to be imposed on the minority? If there is no state religion, why is it that I am unable to get married because my marriage supposedly violates the tenants of a religion that I do not believe in? The answer is pretty simple: because, unofficially, religion dictates the laws of this country, and it does so to the detriment of those of us who are blatantly discriminated against as a result.

Also, to say that ''it is really the state intervening with with the ''church'' that most should fear if they value religious freedom in this great country'' is rather unfair. I value religious freedom, but I also value MY OWN freedom, which ought to include equal protection under the law. It also includes freedom FROM religion; I should not be required to obey the rules of a religion that I choose not to practice. I legitimately fear that the interference of religion in my government will deny me those constitutional rights which I ought to be granted as a citizen of the United States. In fact, more accurately, I *experience* rather than fear the effects or interference that has and continues to occur. I experience every single day of my life the imposition of the religion of other people on my own beliefs and life choices. It impacts my ability to function in an every day capacity.

I am, however, confused as to how people in the church currently need to fear the state''s intervention. There has been, to my knowledge, no legislation or court decisions passed in recent decades that would constitute such interference by the state. I follow these things very closely, as a student of law and politics. Is there something I have missed, perhaps? I am curious as to where you are coming from with those claims.

clear and concise.....

movie zombie

 

[aprilcait]

Date: 8/4/2008 5:23:26 PM
Author: WishfulThinking

Date: 8/3/2008 12:15:09 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 7/30/2008 12:27:35 PM

Author: aprilcait

Date: 7/30/2008 11:52:56 AM


Author: Rank Amateur


Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an ''affair'', eventually you need to draw the line somewhere.



Maybe we need to dissolve marriage as a legal entity and let people make their own rules for what a marriage is. That way the gov''t is not defining where the ''line'' is.

IMO, what we really need is a true division of church and state, meaning that we do what other countries that have such a separation do: if a couple wants to be legally married, they have a courthouse marriage; if they want their union to be recognized in a religious sense, then the couple gets married in a religious ceremony as well. It seems a bit silly that in a country that prides itself on such a division of church and state allows religious officials to act as legal officials when it comes to marriages.



If this division of church and state is really created, then religious organizations may not feel such a pressure to allow gay marriage (even though I, personally, believe that they should allow it).

There is indeed a separation of church and state. I believe in most states a couple needs a legal marriage license which has nothing to do with a religious ceremony.


As far as religious institutions allowing gay marriages, they should have every right to say ''no'' to performing these ceremonies. In the US, we are also given the right to religious freedom and no congregation should be forced into performing such marriages. Separation of church and state works both ways.


By the way, the idea of ''Separation of church and state'' was introduced to protect the churches from government dictates, not the other way around. While I find most people who invoke the ''separation'' idea are fearful of the church intervening with the law and the ''state'', it is really the state intervening with with the ''church'' that most should fear if they value religious freedom in this great country.


To AGBF, the idea of fidelity in marriage is not a Puritan ''restriction'', it is a biblical concept joining one man and one woman, together before God. It is a way protect and preserve the family unit. I think if you ask most people who have been betrayed in marriage they would tell you it is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. I''m kind of amazed really that anyone would question why it''s wrong to ''put marriage above an affair''! If commitment and fidelity and responsibility are ''Puritanical'', then call me a Puritan!

I don''t know how to highlight, so I am addressing the section above that I have bolded.

I think it''s disingenuous to bring up the argument that religious institutions should not ''have'' to marry gay couples. First of all, that isn''t what aprilcait said to begin with. She said it should happen; as in, she thinks they *should* change their views [presumably of their own volition], not that she thinks they should be forced to do so by the state. The only people I have ever heard discuss the issue of forcing churches to marry same sex couples are those who claim they will have to if same sex marriages are legalized. It''s a strawperson argument meant to scare people who are religious into fearing that same sex marriages will interfere with their religious freedoms. I''ve been doing work in marriage equality for about 9 years now, and I have never heard anyone in favor of marriage equality claim that churches should be forced to marry same sex couples. It would be a direct violation of separation of church and state, and quite obviously unconstitutional Although, notably, I do recall more than one minister I know expressing sadness and disgust that the same sex marriages they freely and voluntarily perform in their church are not able to be recognized by the law.

As for the second part of what you said, ksinger did a good job explaining the more in-depth context of the separation of church and state.

ksinger''s comments about de facto state religion are also completely valid. The only reason I have ever heard put forth about why people do not want same sex marriages legalized are religious reasons. If there is no official religion, why is it that the religious beliefs of the majority are allowed to be imposed on the minority? If there is no state religion, why is it that I am unable to get married because my marriage supposedly violates the tenants of a religion that I do not believe in? The answer is pretty simple: because, unofficially, religion dictates the laws of this country, and it does so to the detriment of those of us who are blatantly discriminated against as a result.

Also, to say that ''it is really the state intervening with with the ''church'' that most should fear if they value religious freedom in this great country'' is rather unfair. I value religious freedom, but I also value MY OWN freedom, which ought to include equal protection under the law. It also includes freedom FROM religion; I should not be required to obey the rules of a religion that I choose not to practice. I legitimately fear that the interference of religion in my government will deny me those constitutional rights which I ought to be granted as a citizen of the United States. In fact, more accurately, I *experience* rather than fear the effects or interference that has and continues to occur. I experience every single day of my life the imposition of the religion of other people on my own beliefs and life choices. It impacts my ability to function in an every day capacity.

I am, however, confused as to how people in the church currently need to fear the state''s intervention. There has been, to my knowledge, no legislation or court decisions passed in recent decades that would constitute such interference by the state. I follow these things very closely, as a student of law and politics. Is there something I have missed, perhaps? I am curious as to where you are coming from with those claims.

You''re exactly right, Wishful. That''s exactly what I meant... you just said it better.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Should the government recognize marriages of more than two people? What if three or four want to bond into a family unit?

I don''t see how one can say no to polygamy and yes to SSM. I would think that the "tradition" argument is at least as strong for polygamy as for unigenderamy.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Thanks movie zombie!
aprilcait- glad I could help. I am so used to explaining all of this stuff that it just rolls right off my fingertips at this point.

Date: 8/5/2008 5:45:28 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
Should the government recognize marriages of more than two people? What if three or four want to bond into a family unit?


I don''t see how one can say no to polygamy and yes to SSM. I would think that the ''tradition'' argument is at least as strong for polygamy as for unigenderamy.

It depends on where the line is drawn, obviously. Like everything else in law, there is a line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. I am confused by the latter part of your comment, though. The tradition argument is in reference to NOT legalizing same sex marriage. It is used to justify the exclusion of same sex couples from the institution of marriage, not to argue for the legalization of same sex marriage. It logically follows that the "tradition argument" would be used to try to justify the legalization of polygamy by activists who argue in favor of it, due to the obvious historical circumstances of polygamy and marriage. Therefore, if one says no to polygamy, they might very well say yes to same sex marriage; after all, if the same sex marriage advocates are arguing that tradition is an irrelevant reason to deny peoples'' legal rights, why would they think that tradition was a compelling reason to legalize polygamy? However, if you''re talking about the governments'' saying no polygamy while waxing philosophic about preserving the historical sanctity of traditional marriage, there is a huge contradiction. That government is not saying yes to same sex marriage, though, so your statement doesn''t logically follow.

Regardless, polygamy is a non sequitur in the same sex marriage debate. No prominent figure in the LGBT community is advocating for legalized polygamy. We are advocating for the right of two people to marry. The two are not the same thing and cannot be legally equated.

To make it simpler, let me explain what advocates of marriage equality are trying to accomplish, and the legal basis for arguments in favor of same sex marriage. We are trying to accomplish equal rights for all Americans under current law. The basis for marriage equality arguments stems from equal protection. The bottom line is that it is not legally acceptable for the government to give some couples rights and deny the same rights to other couples. We should all have the same rights. That is supposed to be one of the most fundamental aspects of US government and society, and there is a long tradition of jurisprudence upholding and affirming that.

Current laws regarding marriage define marriage as between one man and one woman. Mathematically, that means a union between two people joined under the law, enjoying over 1,000 legal rights and benefits as a result. Advocates of marriage equality want to stop the sex-based discrimination that occurs through current marriage laws. The fact that whether or not two people can get married is based on their genitalia is the issue at hand, and those arguing for marriage equality are pointing out that these laws constitute sex discrimination, and are in violation of the constitution. This is the legal basis for the same sex marriage argument. This is perhaps the strongest argument for legalizing same sex marriage. **

At this point in the explanation it should be relatively clear why polygamy is a different issue. It is a different legal question that will need to be addressed in a different way if advocates of polygamy wish to change laws regarding that. As I am not an advocacy of polygamy or involved in legal work addressing this particular issue, so I can''t tell you much about how such cases would be argued. However, because it is not an issue of sex discrimination and can''t be effectively argued by the same legal reasoning.

Additionally, there is a logistical aspect to the changing definition of marriage. Legalizing same sex marriage would have the same effect that legalizing interracial marriage had in 1967 [the court case legalizing interracial marriages in every state is called Loving v. Virginia]. That effect is... well, nothing. It meant that people who arrived at the courthouse to be married could be married regardless of their skin color. Heterosexual people, that is.

To trace the evolution of marriage over the last 50 years or so:
before 1967: marriage was the legal union of two consenting, heterosexual adults of the same race.
from 1967-present: marriage is the legal union of two, consenting heterosexual adults.
In MA and CA, the definition is currently: marriage is the legal union of two consenting adults.

The logistics of this are pretty simple: the transition from a ban on interracial marriage to allowing those marriages was just cutting one single word out of existing marriage statutes, and ending race-based discrimination. Similarly, the transition from a ban on same sex marriages to allowing those marriages is just cutting one single word out of existing marriage statutes, and ending sex-based discrimination. Oh right, and changing the wording on those pesky marriage licenses.

Obviously this is a very different scenario than changing marriage statutes to include more than two people, and obviously the legal rights that are granted to married couples cannot be adequately transferred to more than two people. It would require a lot of legislation and possibly some changes in the rights and benefits granted by marriages to work properly. That is not to say it shouldn''t or should happen [I don''t make value judgments about this, namely because I personally could care less about it], but that it is a different situation.

Hopefully that answers your question.


** It is worth noting that both the MA and CA legalizations of marriage were based on the state constitutions of those states, and amending marriage laws to be consistent with the constitutions of those states. In MA, the Supreme Judicial Court decided it was discrimination not to allow equal rights, and called those rights marriage. In CA, the Supreme Court ruled that calling same sex unions domestic partnerships, although they had the full rights and benefits of marriage, violated equal protection of the laws by using exclusionary language. The laws as they stood, with same sex unions having a different name, was found to be an instance of "separate but equal" legal reasoning, and thus blatantly discriminatory. You will probably recall that "separate but equal" was decided on the federal level to be discriminatory in Brown v. Board of Education by the US Supreme Court. State constitutions have adopted the same approach. I am clarifying this just because the outline I gave above for the legalization of same sex marriage is largely based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and addresses first and foremost the legalization of same sex marriage by the Supreme Court or congress, rather than the state issues. However, since states have similar constitutions, it can also be used within that realm. I just didn''t want to confuse or mislead anyone, so I thought I would point that out.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 8/3/2008 12:15:09 PM

Author: beebrisk


To AGBF, the idea of fidelity in marriage is not a Puritan ''restriction'', it is a biblical concept joining one man and one woman, together before God. It is a way protect and preserve the family unit. I think if you ask most people who have been betrayed in marriage they would tell you it is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. I''m kind of amazed really that anyone would question why it''s wrong to ''put marriage above an affair''! If commitment and fidelity and responsibility are ''Puritanical'', then call me a Puritan!

beebrisk, I want to address the part of your posting that you wrote to me, that is the part that I quoted above. I do not think you understood what I was saying, which was not entirely your fault. In fact, my writing was so poor that it is amazing that anyone understood what I was trying to say! However, R/A did. As you know, since you also quoted him, he wrote to me:

"Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an ''affair''...."

The point I had wanted to make was that some societies place the institution of marriage in a "high", that is a valued, position in the sense that an affair is not usually allowed to interfere with the marital institution. The cliché in western society today is that French women do not get divorced just because their husband have affairs. The English upper classes have been quoted as saying that Americans are strange because they think they have to get divorced every time they fall in love. I have written all of these things here before.

I am saying that there may be an intrinsic tension between a societal intolerance of affairs and long marriages...not because I want that to be so, but because that is so.

Deborah

 

[ksinger]

Why must it be either or? I absolutely support homosexual marriage, but why is it wrong to put the institution of marriage above an affair? In many cultures for many centuries people have maintained marriages for stability while "adulterous" affairs were not allowed to harm the family. Not every culture is Puritan based. Not every culture wants to break up its marriages because someone has had an affair.

Date: 8/5/2008 7:27:48 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 8/3/2008 12:15:09 PM

Author: beebrisk


To AGBF, the idea of fidelity in marriage is not a Puritan ''restriction'', it is a biblical concept joining one man and one woman, together before God. It is a way protect and preserve the family unit. I think if you ask most people who have been betrayed in marriage they would tell you it is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. I''m kind of amazed really that anyone would question why it''s wrong to ''put marriage above an affair''! If commitment and fidelity and responsibility are ''Puritanical'', then call me a Puritan!

beebrisk, I want to address the part of your posting that you wrote to me, that is the part that I quoted above. I do not think you understood what I was saying, which was not entirely your fault. In fact, my writing was so poor that it is amazing that anyone understood what I was trying to say! However, R/A did. As you know, since you also quoted him, he wrote to me:

''Deb I understand and agree with your viewpoint about the sanctity of the family unit and how we should not throw it all away because of an ''affair''....''

The point I had wanted to make was that some societies place the institution of marriage in a ''high'', that is a valued, position in the sense that an affair is not usually allowed to interfere with the marital institution. The cliché in western society today is that French women do not get divorced just because their husband have affairs. The English upper classes have been quoted as saying that Americans are strange because they think they have to get divorced every time they fall in love. I have written all of these things here before.

I am saying that there may be an intrinsic tension between a societal intolerance of affairs and long marriages...not because I want that to be so, but because that is so.

Deborah

This really only became an issue when divorce became an option. Society was (and still to a large degree, even here) patriarchal. Of course men are not going to want to lose the primary mare in their stable. Duh. And the patriarchal societal rules made it so a woman just had to put up with it basically. It was hardly this high-minded concern for the sanctity of marriage. People couldn''t get divorced, women couldn''t support themselves even if they could have gotten away, and so they "tolerated" affairs by their men. Nowadays, we have a choice. And choosing to stay is just that - a choice, not a necessity. It certainly makes it more meaningful, when you CAN leave yet do not.

Since I don''t think I''m going to garner any brownie points in some afterlife for living a life of either misery or loneliness or abuse to uphold an "institution", I would get that divorce. And did in fact. And have had a happy life as a single, and now happier even, married to the man I was always supposed to be with. (Just took him 27 years. )

 

[Rank Amateur]

I don''t agree with the equal protection agrument. Equal protection is afforded all who choose to legally marry.

Now, you may not like one or more aspects of how marriage is defined, but that does not mean you are deprived of "equal protection". You want to change the rules as you see fit and still want "equal protection". Our society has decided that marriage is TWO people of OPPOSITE sex over a certain AGE and NOT RELATED or ALREADY MARRIED. You meet these criteria, you get equal protection. If you want to throw these out, maybe you want to marry someone too young, or someone too closely related to you, or you want a marriage of three or more people, or of the same gender, you don''t get equal protection unless you can get the people to change the laws. The people so far are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the rules as they are.

Maybe it''s not fair. I don''t know. Our society has decided to give some advantages to certain people, and those not in that group consider it unfair. If you own a home you get a mortgage interest deduction - not fair if you can''t or don''t want to own a home. Kids get a big tax credit. Not fair if you can''t have or don''t want kids. My personal favorite, if you work for the gov''t, or a teachers or railroad union you don''t pay FICA tax. NOT FAIR!

Like I said, it is equal protection for like situations. You can''t choose to not conform to a portion or the requirements and then expect equal protection.

 

[aprilcait]

Date: 8/6/2008 12:44:19 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
I don't agree with the equal protection agrument. Equal protection is afforded all who choose to legally marry.

Now, you may not like one or more aspects of how marriage is defined, but that does not mean you are deprived of 'equal protection'. You want to change the rules as you see fit and still want 'equal protection'. Our society has decided that marriage is TWO people of OPPOSITE sex over a certain AGE and NOT RELATED or ALREADY MARRIED. You meet these criteria, you get equal protection. If you want to throw these out, maybe you want to marry someone too young, or someone too closely related to you, or you want a marriage of three or more people, or of the same gender, you don't get equal protection unless you can get the people to change the laws. The people so far are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the rules as they are.

Maybe it's not fair. I don't know. Our society has decided to give some advantages to certain people, and those not in that group consider it unfair. If you own a home you get a mortgage interest deduction - not fair if you can't or don't want to own a home. Kids get a big tax credit. Not fair if you can't have or don't want kids. My personal favorite, if you work for the gov't, or a teachers or railroad union you don't pay FICA tax. NOT FAIR!

Like I said, it is equal protection for like situations. You can't choose to not conform to a portion or the requirements and then expect equal protection.

Rank Amateur, this could have also been said in favor of maintaining the ban on inter-racial marriage. However society grew beyond that limited view of marriage and human beings and worked to correct its discriminatory policies regarding marriage. Perhaps (and hopefully) our society has now grown to have at least a slightly broader range of acceptance over the past almost 20 years and we can amend our view of marriage so that it is not so close-minded. Truly, no offense intended.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 8/6/2008 1:44:50 PM
Author: aprilcait

Date: 8/6/2008 12:44:19 PM

Author: Rank Amateur

I don't agree with the equal protection agrument. Equal protection is afforded all who choose to legally marry.


Now, you may not like one or more aspects of how marriage is defined, but that does not mean you are deprived of 'equal protection'. You want to change the rules as you see fit and still want 'equal protection'. Our society has decided that marriage is TWO people of OPPOSITE sex over a certain AGE and NOT RELATED or ALREADY MARRIED. You meet these criteria, you get equal protection. If you want to throw these out, maybe you want to marry someone too young, or someone too closely related to you, or you want a marriage of three or more people, or of the same gender, you don't get equal protection unless you can get the people to change the laws. The people so far are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the rules as they are.


Maybe it's not fair. I don't know. Our society has decided to give some advantages to certain people, and those not in that group consider it unfair. If you own a home you get a mortgage interest deduction - not fair if you can't or don't want to own a home. Kids get a big tax credit. Not fair if you can't have or don't want kids. My personal favorite, if you work for the gov't, or a teachers or railroad union you don't pay FICA tax. NOT FAIR!


Like I said, it is equal protection for like situations. You can't choose to not conform to a portion or the requirements and then expect equal protection.

Rank Amateur, this could have also been said in favor of maintaining the ban on inter-racial marriage. However society grew beyond that limited view of marriage and human beings and worked to correct its discriminatory policies regarding marriage. Perhaps (and hopefully) our society has now grown to have at least a slightly broader range of acceptance over the past almost 20 years and we can amend our view of marriage so that it is not so close-minded. Truly, no offense intended.

AprilCait nailed it.

Here the parallel comes in:
In Loving v. Virginia, the case that legalized interracial marriages across the country, the state of Virginia argued that it did not have to allow Mr. Loving to marry his wife [they were married in another state and thus were already spouses in my mind.] You apparently agree with them. By your reasoning, RA, Mr. Loving HAD the right to marry... I mean, he could have married a white woman, right? But that's not how it works with law, which is unfortunate for people who try to argue that point.

Marrying the consenting adult of your choice is not the same as incest or marrying children. Actually, I think it's sort of offensive for you to imply that those things can be correlated. I am an adult, my future WIFE is an adult, and we can and should be able to make the decision to marry based on our love for one another and the protections and rights as well as the responsibilities of marriage. You never bothered to address any of the issues I raised in my above post that show that you are wrong. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't make it any less correct.

If it wasn't an equal protection argument we would have been thrown out of court long ago. And yet, here we are, with rights because judges agree that it is unconstitutional not to grant them.

You also cannot adequately compare my love to physical belongings, mortgages, or tax credits. Are you actually serious? It's not even reasonable. Why? Because of the way the law works. I explained this above. I am sort of confused as to why you didn't bother to address any of my points. I strongly suspect it is because you have no adequate way to rebut them.

Same sex marriage IS exactly equal protection for an equal situation. I do not CHOOSE to not conform to a portion of the requirements any more than Mrs. Loving CHOSE not to conform to the requirements for marriage in her day. Should she have dyed her skin lighter to appear as white? I certainly hope you would not advocate for that. Should I pretend that I am interested in men to get full legal rights? Advocating that is just as offensive.

I honestly don't really care what "the people" are overwhelmingly in favor of. The people were overwhelmingly in favor of upholding slavery. The people were overwhelmingly in favor of upholding segregation. The people were overwhelmingly in favor of denying those on the sex offender registry in California the ability to live within a ridiculously large radius around both schools and churches. All of these things were reversed by the court. Similarly, the people overwhelmingly support many things that the courts do not consider to be constitutional at this point.

If the people were meant to put every single measure up to popular vote, we wouldn't live in a republic. The concept behind the government is that people choose representatives and jurists who know more than they do about the specifics of the constitution and law-making. They are experts. They know what they are doing in a way that most Americans do not understand.

I do not expect the majority of Americans to understand the compelling arguments in favor of [my] marriage equality that I argued above. In fact, it appears that you are not able to understand it either. That's fine, and I don't hold it against you, but I think it might do you well to revisit some of the case law pertaining to this issue before you make offensive statements. We are people. You say "too bad." You say "you have no right to change the rules because *I* disagree with you." You claim that because the majority wants to oppress the minority, they should be allowed to. Your arguments are pretty weak.