I think I love this - a new approach to the question of gay marriage

[scandi]

I certainly didn't mean to offend you Newtv and you know what I was talking about had nothing to do with you except when I said I had friends here who I knew here who were gay. I'm not prejudiced against you for that and have known it for years.

In fact the statements I made mentioned nothing about lesbians as I somehow seperate them as a group from gay men. It is not right I know. And I never ever talk about this. So reading this thread it was like a therapy session for me to sort out what I really feel.

So I have discovered it is my reaction to my brother that I need to change.. I am quite sure my grandaughter is gay. She has always been overly defensive of gay rights and has one special girlfriend. I've spent a lot of time with both and can see how they feel, even though they are very young, and am actually happy that Ariel has found someone that completes her. She excels at everything she touches now and is so happy in her life, wonderful grades, big dreams. This friend of hers has had a most positive influence on Ariel, and it doesn't bother me in the least that they might be married someday. It is only the male side of it I have had a problem with.

I'm not one to even use to judge how people think about the issue of gay marriage. Twice in my life I have had romantic interludes with men who turned out to be gay. They both used me and didn't tell me the truth, which I discovered on my own!

I think Nova's idea of seperating the legal issues of marriage from the religious issues is a very good one, as they should be seperate.

Scandi

 

[southcitymom]

I disagree with what she said - but how that makes it offensive, I don't know. She didn't say there was anything wrong with gay people - she just said she didn't think gay marriage was the same as traditional marriage - which is an opinion many hold. To me, offensive means saying something ugly, insulting.

Just wanted to add my two cents that I did not find Scandi's original post offensive. She was being honest without being mean-spirited in the least, and I appreciate that.

 

[deanws]

IMO Gay people deserve to be just as miserable as the rest of us...let them marry

LOL

 

[Boyz_Mum]

IMO Gay people deserve to be just as miserable as the rest of us...let them marry

That made me laugh, I am sorry! I was going to actually type that maybe they should ban marriage alltogether (straight or gay)... I figure they couldn't do that though, too many politicians have legal backgrounds and banning marriage would have an ill effect on the divorce cash that lawyers can make?

I am not making light of the thread, I think that gay marriage should be allowed in all states. I don't feel it poses a threat to me or my children. If people wish to use their religion to say gay marriage is bad, I would like to say that my religion tells me not to judge. Our government did separate "church and state" so I guess I feel that the separation of the two entities should erase the religion aspect. I am not saying that religion should have no bearing on our lives, but it is a choice. If two persons of the same sex want to get married, it should be their choice to make legally.

I am not trying to be offensive to anyone, so if I sound that way, I apologize in advance.

 

[Masterj]

It really surprises me that any gay person would not be offended or find offensive what scandi said..it reminds me of the way we eat our own..
I am a gay woman too-and what scandi said violates me - I am from Canada so thank god it doesnt apply..but it would be the same as saying any group of people deserve to marry but they dont deserve the rights that the christians do for example..
Its great that scandi has done an about face, but for gay w/sl. to then say nothing offensive was said bewilders me.
The very idea that any group of citizens deserves less than another from the same citizenship is offenseive.
The world is in a lot of trouble because people allow such statements and then say they are not offensive..
I have all my rights-I still stand up for those who do not.

Scandi presented her thoughts just as everyone else has. As a matter of fact, she acknowledged that other posts made her reconsider her perspective. That, IMO, shows a great deal of respect and humility, something many of us could stand to learn from. At least she is honest.

 

[PaperDoll]

Did anyone see the movie "Man of the Year".. too funny.. Robin Williams made a joke saying "Same sex marriage? When you are married it's always the same sex".. hehe anyways, thought I share a laugh.. :crazy: Ok, maybe some of you aren't laughing but I am and really, that is all that matters... hehe

 

[windovervocalcords]

It really surprises me that any gay person would not be offended or find offensive what scandi said..it reminds me of the way we eat our own..
I am a gay woman too-and what scandi said violates me - I am from Canada so thank god it doesnt apply..but it would be the same as saying any group of people deserve to marry but they dont deserve the rights that the christians do for example..
Its great that scandi has done an about face, but for gay w/sl. to then say nothing offensive was said bewilders me.
The very idea that any group of citizens deserves less than another from the same citizenship is offenseive.
The world is in a lot of trouble because people allow such statements and then say they are not offensive..
I have all my rights-I still stand up for those who do not.

I found Scandi's post hurtful too. I used to think that gay women should not want to be married to each other because marraige is patriarchal.

Then I went to a meeting about "Why should you care about gay marraige?" and quickly changed my view.

 

[TheRealJen]

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to read such positive responses to this issue. For the past few years, I have worked with people who, for reasons of their own, are vehmently opposed to same sex marriage. I get so tired of people dragging religion and their own homophobia into reasons why gay people should be denied the same rights that straight people have. I want to tell them how ignorant they sound when they talk about it, but it's a waste of time.

 

[beakiebean]

I found Scandi's post hurtful too.

I imagine Scandi's post could feel hurtful and frustrating. When people confront and talk about their prejudices if often hurts and angers on both sides of the fence. The wonderful thing about Scandi and her posts on this thread have been her willingness to bring those feelings out in the open and really examine them and why she believes or now doesn't believe them.

I think an open honest dialouge is the only way we can solve a lot of the issues in society-whether it be gay marriage, race issues, class issues, ect. Not many people can listen and really hear the other side of an issue-they're too busy formulating their next plan of attack. Scandi took time to say what she felt and then really listen to the responses and challenge her own belief system to make a more informed decision about what she believes. (if only I could reach that level of maturity more often. )

 

[Ang50]

Here in WI, we are voting in a few days on a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and doesn't recognize any "civil unions" etc even from other states. It's wrong, and I hope people vote no.

I was so proud of my fellow Websleuthers - all of our following of the justice system is paying off. Loving vs. Virginia was the US Supreme Court case which struck down laws against interracial marriage. The arguments are almost exactly the same - "detriment" to children, violation of "traditional" marriage, threat to "traditional" marriage, everyone will want to do it and it will be the destruction of society, and so forth. Now we look back on that case (2007 is the 40th anniversary of the decision) and we can't believe that people ever thought this was unacceptable and would outlaw it. I believe that the current "Defense of Marriage Act" and other similar laws will be viewed as outrageously discriminatory by everyone in the future.

Also, this equal protection argument is incredibly strong. The NJ court basically said - marriage has all these legal benefits, and just because the spouses are the same sex, doesn't mean that they can be denied those legal benefits. This creates a "second-class" citizen, and our US constitution does not allow that. Loving is precedent for that decision, and I would predict that it is likely when this case goes up to the Supreme Court, it will be clear that marriage should be allowed for everyone. (We'll see, though, based on the current composition of the court, if it goes that way. That's Bush's legacy, and one that will continue to sting for decades...)

 

[crypto6]

In her original post, Details speaks to the fact that the word "marriage" seems to be a problem for many, many people.

Maybe the solution is for the government to grant "civil commitments" to everyone, gay or straight, and nothing more. Then let the churches "marry" whom they choose.

Now this really cuts to the heart of the matter; marriage as it is now has a dual personality in that the gov't recognizes a declaration from a religious source and has made special accomodations for those thus married, and vice versa. One can be married by the representative of a church or by an appropriate civil servant and each institition recognizes and accepts the others marriages. Gov't and church have tolerated this arrangement, but now the wedge is driven that some religious groups do not recognize certain types of civil marriages, gay for example. No one wants to unglue the gov't-church agreement on what constitutes a marriage, and we have one damned thorny problem.
Thoughts??

 

[Maral]

Now this really cuts to the heart of the matter; marriage as it is now has a dual personality in that the gov't recognizes a declaration from a religious source and has made special accomodations for those thus married, and vice versa. One can be married by the representative of a church or by an appropriate civil servant and each institition recognizes and accepts the others marriages. Gov't and church have tolerated this arrangement, but now the wedge is driven that some religious groups do not recognize certain types of civil marriages, gay for example. No one wants to unglue the gov't-church agreement on what constitutes a marriage, and we have one damned thorny problem.
Thoughts??

I don't see that there is government/church agreement on what constitues a marriage because they are basically two different institutions. A civil marriage grants the couple certain rights, benefits, and protections. A religious marriage is considered to be a union of two people under God (or any other Higher Power). The only agreement is that the state will recognize most religious marriages because the state authorizes a priest, minister, etc. to act as an agent for the state.
And not all civil marriages are recognized as religious marriages. For example, the Catholic Church does not recognize the civil marriage of a divorced Catholic.

 

[crypto6]

I don't see that there is government/church agreement on what constitues a marriage because they are basically two different institutions. A civil marriage grants the couple certain rights, benefits, and protections. A religious marriage is considered to be a union of two people under God (or any other Higher Power). The only agreement is that the state will recognize most religious marriages because the state authorizes a priest, minister, etc. to act as an agent for the state.
And not all civil marriages are recognized as religious marriages. For example, the Catholic Church does not recognize the civil marriage of a divorced Catholic.

All good points which make me sharpen my thinking. Let's start with the fact that the state recognizes priests, etc, and not goatherds or pharmacists, as such agents allowed to perform government-recognized unions. There is mutual tie-in between charch and state. As to your well-directed counter-examples, I think we are gradually prying the church and state apart, such as the use of the word "God" in government fuctions, and you have described the evolution (devolution to some) of this process into the realm of marriage. So we come to face what many have been saying here: Civil unions and marriages describe potentially different states of being and to say one was "married" by a justice of the peace is inaccurate; a civil union was created. Many of the arguments against gay marriage blur the line between the religious "marriage" and civil union, as we often do in our daily lives (again, who says "My spouse and I were civil unionized at the courthouse"?) This blurring needs some sorting out before we make laws for or against non-hetero marriages.

 

[southcitymom]

All good points which make me sharpen my thinking. Let's start with the fact that the state recognizes priests, etc, and not goatherds or pharmacists, as such agents allowed to perform government-recognized unions. There is mutual tie-in between charch and state. As to your well-directed counter-examples, I think we are gradually prying the church and state apart, such as the use of the word "God" in government fuctions, and you have described the evolution (devolution to some) of this process into the realm of marriage. So we come to face what many have been saying here: Civil unions and marriages describe potentially different states of being and to say one was "married" by a justice of the peace is inaccurate; a civil union was created. Many of the arguments against gay marriage blur the line between the religious "marriage" and civil union, as we often do in our daily lives (again, who says "My spouse and I were civil unionized at the courthouse"?) This blurring needs some sorting out before we make laws for or against non-hetero marriages.

As long as the states continue to recognize church-performed marriages as civil unions, I don't see how there is a problem. Maybe I am missing the finer points of what you are saying.

If two men get "married" (civil unionized) at the Courthouse or two men get married by a priest, minister, etc... in a church, then either way they are covered by the rights, benefits, protections that all other married couples enjoy. What needs to get sorted out?

 

[southcitymom]

...... all of our following of the justice system is paying off. Loving vs. Virginia was the US Supreme Court case which struck down laws against interracial marriage. The arguments are almost exactly the same - "detriment" to children, violation of "traditional" marriage, threat to "traditional" marriage, everyone will want to do it and it will be the destruction of society, and so forth. Now we look back on that case (2007 is the 40th anniversary of the decision) and we can't believe that people ever thought this was unacceptable and would outlaw it. I believe that the current "Defense of Marriage Act" and other similar laws will be viewed as outrageously discriminatory by everyone in the future.

Great post - I couldn't agree more. Future high school classes will be wincing in the years to come as they study this particular struggle for equal treatment under the law. That said - I'm convinced it will happen. Change just takes time.

 

[crypto6]

As long as the states continue to recognize church-performed marriages as civil unions, I don't see how there is a problem. Maybe I am missing the finer points of what you are saying.

If two men get "married" (civil unionized) at the Courthouse or two men get married by a priest, minister, etc... in a church, then either way they are covered by the rights, benefits, protections that all other married couples enjoy. What needs to get sorted out?

Maybe me. :doh:

Nothing to sort out if marriage is a signing of papers in a JOP's office, and a specification of legal rights and obligations much like an employment contract and is only that. This is a pretty parsed way to look at one of life's greatest decisions and in reality most people don't, although some say they do. If one can pull all the religious underpinning from the concept of marriage, one has a civil union. My problem is trying to pack the meaning of marriage into other types of unions than hetero; I think others need a definitive name to uphold the difference.

then either way they are covered by the rights, benefits, protections that all other married couples enjoy

This is where I have the problem: Does someone get the same benefits if religion is removed from the notion of marriage?? I tend to think that a "contract marriage" (civil union) doesn't require the commitment to each implicit in marriage in its religious sense; certainly spouses can be bonded in this way, but the institution of civil union does not require it as does marriage in the way I'm using it . Legal benefits yes, but others??

I am not in love with any of my ideas, just throwing them out for discussion.

Thanks for your interest.
Crypto6

 

[Ang50]

As long as the states continue to recognize church-performed marriages as civil unions, I don't see how there is a problem. Maybe I am missing the finer points of what you are saying.

If two men get "married" (civil unionized) at the Courthouse or two men get married by a priest, minister, etc... in a church, then either way they are covered by the rights, benefits, protections that all other married couples enjoy. What needs to get sorted out?

I think what the PPoster is trying to say is that when the word "marriage" is used, there is also a religious connotation, and that is backed by the state b/c it allows ministers, etc. to perform what is essentially a state function. (IMHO - this is a mistake b/c of the blend of church and state, and only serves to streamline the process) Due to this, it causes the gay marriage debate to get wrapped up in a religious argument that (again, IMHO) has no value in the government debate over benefits.

Civil marriages performed outside of the church and with a judge (or in WI - two people can marry themselves) are on the rise. I believe that it is about 1/2 and 1/2 currently. My husband and I were married with a judge b/c we wanted to remove the religious aspect from our ceremony. We would have removed the state aspect too, but for the BENEFITS that legal, state recognition confers.

My ideal world proposal is that from here on out, there are ONLY civil unions performed by the state. You are required to go to the courthouse, and take a vow there. After that - you can go to a church, backyard, whatever, but the legal part is already done.

 

[crypto6]

I think what the PPoster is trying to say is that when the word "marriage" is used, there is also a religious connotation, and that is backed by the state b/c it allows ministers, etc. to perform what is essentially a state function. (IMHO - this is a mistake b/c of the blend of church and state, and only serves to streamline the process) Due to this, it causes the gay marriage debate to get wrapped up in a religious argument that (again, IMHO) has no value in the government debate over benefits.

Civil marriages performed outside of the church and with a judge (or in WI - two people can marry themselves) are on the rise. I believe that it is about 1/2 and 1/2 currently. My husband and I were married with a judge b/c we wanted to remove the religious aspect from our ceremony. We would have removed the state aspect too, but for the BENEFITS that legal, state recognition confers.

My ideal world proposal is that from here on out, there are ONLY civil unions performed by the state. You are required to go to the courthouse, and take a vow there. After that - you can go to a church, backyard, whatever, but the legal part is already done.

Pretty much says it.

We would have removed the state aspect too, but for the BENEFITS that legal, state recognition confers.

Wholeheartedly agree. The state should have nothing to do with bonds between individuals.
The idea of having a state license to get married?? It's almost obscene.


Thanks.

 

[Details]

My ideal world proposal is that from here on out, there are ONLY civil unions performed by the state. You are required to go to the courthouse, and take a vow there. After that - you can go to a church, backyard, whatever, but the legal part is already done.

I thought that was kinda the way they work now. I don't know if this is only here, or other places as well - but you have to get a marriage license from the state first or second or whatever (usually first), and that is really the civil union bit. For the witness that you guys both agreed to it, it may be a justice of the peace, captain of a ship, or religious minister or someone who became a 'minister' a few minutes ago online. I don't think that really makes the state portion of marriage religious - they recognize a bunch of types of officiants.

IMHO a marriage license is the state recognizing the commitment of marriage with a bunch of appropriate benefits where you are each considered the closest family to each other, provided you fit in the state rules that are believed appropriate, such as saying that you cannot be married if you already are to another person; you cannot marry an underage person, etc. Right now, that includes you can't be married if you are the same sex, but hopefully that will go away, especially if the idea that the marriage license has anything to do with religion can be made clearly incorrect. The easiest way is to change the name. But then a bunch of people will probably feel odd about the fact that we are no longer married, we are civil union'd.

There can't be a different name, or a different anything for a gay union, otherwise prejudiced people will use it to say it's not marriage, so the benefits don't need to apply to that type of commitment. But how to resolve the issue with so many attached to the word married - I'm not sure.

I don't know - we may end up just having to win the fight, to include gay marriage - a name change just seemed like a good shortcut to help people feeling like this threatens their religion to realize it's not a religious matter - but it's such a trick to make it work.

 

[southcitymom]

I thought that was kinda the way they work now. I don't know if this is only here, or other places as well - but you have to get a marriage license from the state first or second or whatever (usually first), and that is really the civil union bit. For the witness that you guys both agreed to it, it may be a justice of the peace, captain of a ship, or religious minister or someone who became a 'minister' a few minutes ago online. I don't think that really makes the state portion of marriage religious - they recognize a bunch of types of officiants.

IMHO a marriage license is the state recognizing the commitment of marriage with a bunch of appropriate benefits where you are each considered the closest family to each other, provided you fit in the state rules that are believed appropriate, such as saying that you cannot be married if you already are to another person; you cannot marry an underage person, etc. Right now, that includes you can't be married if you are the same sex, but hopefully that will go away, especially if the idea that the marriage license has anything to do with religion can be made clearly incorrect. The easiest way is to change the name. But then a bunch of people will probably feel odd about the fact that we are no longer married, we are civil union'd.

There can't be a different name, or a different anything for a gay union, otherwise prejudiced people will use it to say it's not marriage, so the benefits don't need to apply to that type of commitment. But how to resolve the issue with so many attached to the word married - I'm not sure.

I don't know - we may end up just having to win the fight, to include gay marriage - a name change just seemed like a good shortcut to help people feeling like this threatens their religion to realize it's not a religious matter - but it's such a trick to make it work.

Okay, I finally get what Krypto6 is saying...sorry, slow brain today...and it's a good point. But I also agree ith Details' post - it seems like the marriage certificate that is required is that state's way of recognizing all marriages and granting them the benefits therof.

Very interesting discussion. I'm not quick enough to add anything good to it right now!