I'm gay and I don't want same-sex marriage

[nichomachus]

"Marriage" is just a word. What I really want are the 1,500+ tax breaks, perks, property rights, etc. that come to straight couples when they marry. What you call it, I really don't care. You can call it marriage, you can call it civil union, you can call it spaghetti for all I care, as long as all the rights and privileges (and hardships and drawbacks) are there equally.

Some people rag on political candidates because they use the term civil union instead of marriage. I disagree.

I have long believed -- I actually believed this before I came out nearly 40 years ago -- that the civil and religious aspects of what we call marriage should be separate. It should be a two-stage process for everyone, same-sex or opposite sex.

If you want to join your lives, then you first need to establish a civil union. This can be done at your local city hall, county office, wherever. At that point, you are in a civil union with all the rights and privileges attached to that. It doesn't matter whether you're opposite sex or same sex, as long as you meet the other legal requirements.

If you are a deeply spiritual person, then you can go to your local house of worship and have the leader there perform a religious ceremony, which I'll call "matrimony." (We can just retire the word "marriage," since it causes so much discord.) This ceremony gets you nothing -- other than whatever benefits your particular church supplies.

If you don't want to go through a religious ceremony, or your church refuses to perform it because they don't like who you want to marry, that's between you and your church -- but it has no bearing on taxes, property rights, child custody, inheritance, social security, insurance, etc.

Priests, ministers, televangelists, rabbis, imams, elders, bishops should not be the gatekeepers of public entitlements, only religious benefits.

So -- civil unions for everyone, gay or straight, and civil unions plus matrimony for those who need the approval of their religion.

By the way, religious "leaders" hate this idea because they know their marriage business would go right down the dumper. Most people who get married in church do so only because they feel they have to. They have to get married somewhere and Aunt Gertrude would be shocked if they didn't use the church. But, if they were already joined as a couple through a civil union, most would just ignore the church part.

[Midlodemocrat]

1. I'm straight, married and I DO want same sex marriage.

The word is too deeply entrenched in our venacular to disregard. I hear what you are saying, but to me, the greatest equalizer would be marriage for all.

Then the GLBT community can fuck their kids up with divorce just like the straight. :sarcasm:

[Parche]

5. I Am All For A Straight/Gay Bunco Night

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:rofl:

:hi:

:hug:

[davidinalameda]

48. what the hell is bunco?

I always thought it was an excuse for suburban housewives to get together and get drunk

[papapi]

59. Surprise! Marriage is already about same sex...

If you really want to know the truth about marriage, take a gander at this:

Rictor Norton, "Taking a 'Husband': A History of Gay Marriage", Queer Culture. 21 February 2004, amended 3 February 2006 <http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/marriage.htm>

I think the word marriage needs to be reserved for the spiritual union i.e. 'love' between two individuals. Their religious beliefs or lack thereof are immaterial and the two can choose to consecrate in any place they like.

The word marriage has no place in the laws of the state and should be replaced with civil union.

This is a basic separation of church and state and places the benefits and burdens in their proper place.

[lligrd]

2. I'm Straight And I Agree

I don't even understand the need for a marriage certificate. None of the governments freaking business who you sleep with. I'd prefer household rights or something.

On edit: That said, since that is unlikely to occur, I support Gay marriage.

[Ilsa]

3. That is a great post and a practical approach.

The public needs to get away from co-mingling unions and marriage of any kind, IMO.

[LeftHander]

60. That is the key word..."practical"....

Since when does any Right Wing fundy do anything practical? When does any Republican nutjob do any thing practical?

That is the problem. Practicality is a dirty word for people who think "ME FIRST".

[mkultra]

4. i now join this couple in holy spaghetti

[FatDave]

21. Wouldn't holey spaghetti be spaghetti-o's?

Or maybe mostaccioli?

[nichomachus]

24. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Or as we call them:

http://www.venganza.org/">PASTAFARIANS

[FatDave]

30. I used to drive aorund with an FSM emblem on my car

But I chickened out and removed it one night after having cops follow me all over town.

[nichomachus]

32. I had the same experience with my "Bush Thinks You're Stupid" sticker

[satireV]

29. I am touched by your noodly appendages! :)

heheheh

[Warpy]

6. I pointed out yesterday that separate but equal

while inherently unequal, generally precedes full rights. Consider racially segregated schools and sex segregated colleges. Both preceded full integration of both.

Marriage is, at its heart, the promotion of a non relative into first degree relative status. It's the only way long term partners can do things like visit one another in intensive care units of hospitals or claim bodies after death. It's the only way to overrule homophobic blood relatives on these things.

It will likely first come with a different label on it. Full change for any group outside the favored white heterosexual Protestant male has been a multi generational process.

Were it possible for me to throw some sort of switch and guarantee full equality under the law for all of us, I'd do so. No one has given me that sort of power, though, and I recognize that all of us outside the favored group will continue to have to struggle, with gains followed by infuriating setbacks.

Just know that the rest of us who are struggling are with you in this one.

[mkultra]

7. im straight and i disagree and agree

I think that gay men and women should have the same rights AND responsibilities regarding marriage and relationship coupling that traditional straight couples have. That means that if you should think long and hard before you get tangled up with someone because getting de-tangled is tough. Everyone deserves the chance to kick their own ass.


As far as the separation of religion, your way off the mark. Involving spirituality in the coupling ceremony is not the insistence of approval from your spiritual peer but rather a symbolic gesture that you make to God/Jesus/Buddha/Universe/Void. This Has a major impact on the meaning of marriage for me and if you think im going to go through a two part process just to make you happy your mistaken. If you don't have a religious aspect, feel free to go down to the court house and get the same legal net effect without the spiritual guantlet. Each to his own, don't tell me how to do mine though just becuase your to stupid to know the difference.

[nichomachus]

8. It's not about making me happy

It's about keeping things in their place. I don't care why you go through a religious ceremony, but your ministers or priest should not be in the business of handing out tax breaks, property rights, whatever.

Right now, I'm being denied my civil and human rights because of religious bigots. I'm smart enough to see that.

And I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you already have a two-stage process. Even if you're married in church, you still have to go to city hall or wherever to get a license. My plan is just a slight twist on that. So, it's really adding nothing to the burden that people have.

[mkultra]

16. wrong again

In the state of Oklahoma, no license is required. I went through a single ceremony of MY choosing(that would be a religious one), And my spiritual leader mailed in the papers. "Keeping things in their place" is always the clarion call of the fascists. If you open your eyes you'll see that they are trying to "keep you in your place." Stay out of my business and ill stay out of yours. Welcome to America.

The religious bigots have a right to the same tax breaks that you and i do. Stop trying to become them,

[nichomachus]

17. Sorry to inform you

but marriage licenses are required in OK prior to getting married. In fact you need to show up at the government office, show an ID and pay them $50. You may want to check to see if you're really married.

[mkultra]

43. This may suprise you

but i didn't do any of this an neither did my wife. Cant say if the laws have changed or not but my "clergy" took care of the whole thing. We did have to go in for a blood test but that was to a medical facility.

None of this changes the fact that clergy based and civic based marriages can coexist peacefully if you let them.

[GodlessBiker]

9. Why is matrimony necessarily linked to religion? Make the religious folk change the name of their..

ceremony to "pious ritual of union."

So, to sum up:

Marriage for everyone, gay or straight, and "pious ritual of union" for those who need the approval of their religion.

[nichomachus]

10. As I said, it's just words -- I don't care -- it's the concepts behind them that matter

[GodlessBiker]

11. I understand your position, but I care. It's not just words.

[mkultra]

50. our how about you stop screwing with everyone else

and it be called marriage for everyone. If you believe in the void, you can go down and pledge your love to the court clerk. Matrimony is linked to religion because people WANT it to be. Because your have obvious disdain for anyone who believes in God is no reason to subjugate them. i swear some people just cant get a grip on the concept of equality.

[mkultra]

55. probably because it started in religion and superceded

whatever limited tribal laws existed, if any.

[Maven]

12. Civil marriage is a civil instititution.

Period. End of story.

I am so sick of seeing this bullshit "what if" argument paraded around and I'm saddened to see it coming from a gay person.

What you don't get, is that if straight people had "civil unions," the same people trying to stop us from getting married now wouldn't want us to have "civil unions" either. It's not the WORD. It's the EQUALITY.

Stop all the bullshit semantics and see the big picture. Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion and the word IS important only insofar as gays and straights are treated EQUALLY.

[nichomachus]

13. I'm pretty sure that's what I said

[mkultra]

51. exactly, equality is the goal, not reversal.

[kenny blankenship]

14. .

[nichomachus]

15. This isn't such a radical proposal

Here's how civilized countries do it.


Spain:

Spain allows for a civil or religious marriage process. The rules are the same except the religions add more paperwork and various permissions.

Belgium:

The competent Belgian authority performing marriages is called "Ambtenaar van de Burgerlijke Stand/Officier de l' Etat Civil". Only marriages celebrated by this official in due and legal form are valid. A religious ceremony may, however, be performed subsequently at the option of the contracting parties.


France:

A religious ceremony cannot be performed until AFTER the civil marriage.

Mexico

Only a civil marriage is recognized as legal in Mexico. You don't need to have a religious ceremony but if you omit the civil ceremony, the marriage will not be legal. Most Mexicans have two marriages: the civil (legal) marriage and the church (religious) one.

[kenny blankenship]

39. Actually your examples point to RADICAL history

Spain has a Socialist govt. For Americans that's pretty radical already and it speaks to a willingness to reorder social practice according to deliberate planning. Naturally this new govt. made gay marriage legal, and the skies didn't fall and earthquakes didn't swallow up Madrid. But it took a very long time to get to this point. And when I say time what I really mean is blood. In the 1930s Spain underwent a Civil War in which the Church was an active participant on the side of Franco's fascist aligned National Movement. The Church, fearing the inevitable loss of its status and properties under a modern secular political order and land reforms, aided and blessed the rebelling armies of Franco whose motto was "Long Live Death." The Leftist govt in Madrid established laws creating civil marriage and divorce by mutual consent. Catalunya legalized abortion. Lands owned by the Church all over Spain were now subject to distribution to landless starving peasants. Even without the war this was an upheaval. Eventually the forces of the Church and the landowning gentry prevailed after great slaughter and Spain slept under a 40 year military dictatorship. There is no love lost between the Church and Secular- Socialist- constituencies.

France: again Civil War, this time 2 centuries in the past. The French Revolution was as radical a revolution as has ever been seen--eventually the Revolutionaries would get around to renaming months of the calendar to erase the remnants of the old God and King centered social order from the national memory. Church lands were confiscated. Priests were killed. You bet they changed marriage. It was radical.

Mexico, again the secularization of marriage appears as the product of political Revolution--not like a Reagan Revolution but the shooting kind like the 2 mentioned above. It may not have been as famous as the French Revolution but a dictatorship was deposed, democratic institutions were created to replace arbitrary power and the Church had its status as an integral but superior authority within society abolished. The Revolution of Ayutla which deposed General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna inaugurated a period of reform (La Reforma) so contentious that it is also known as "The War of Reform". Dating of this period varies from 1855 to 1861, to even as late as 1867. The reaction of warlords and the Church to threats against their property and privileges codified in the Constitution of 1857 embroiled the country in war and eventually tempted the intervention of France, itself suffering a relapse into monarchy and militarism under Napoleon III. It was in this period of La Reforma that the Mexican state made marriage a civil institution and even nationalized cemetaries, thus taking possession over marriage, birth and death away from the Church, even as it stripped the Church of many lands.

[mkultra]

52. i already mentioned, your plan is fine except where you create more trouble for religous ceremonies

civil or religious should be a choice people make with both having the same results.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. I did it the way you suggested

My husband and I actually had three ceremonies--the first was a Lakota ceremony where he pledged his fidelity with his chanupe (sacred pipe), the second was the civil ceremony at the court house (which is really the only one that should count when it comes to legal rights as a couple), and, a year later, our spiritual wedding in Universal Worship Service.

To my mind, everyone should have a civil service. The spiritual service should be optional.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

19. Marriage is big business for some

ministers. I think there are some folks who become ordained just so that they can perform wedding services and get paid big bucks. I have never charged for my services as an ordained minister--just got high from the joy of the weddings. But then my Order doesn't build huge church buildings and all, either.

[RandomKoolzip]

20. I'm a heterosexual white male and I want equal rights for all humans.

[grantcart]

58. I agree with you completely - it is not a gay issue it is a civil rights issue

[femrap]

22. I agree with you....

You know when the minister/preacher/whoever says, 'With the power vested in me, I now pronounce you husband and wife???' That POWER is given by the STATE, not God/Goddess.

Most people don't know that. Marriage is a governmental institution.

It's pretty sad when people are getting 'married' just to get some health benefits...but it's a sound reason given our current mess of a nation.

edit: spell

[Jokerman]

23. I'm in a "straight" civil union and I agree completely!

We were "married" by a judge in a completely religion-free ceremony.

It's the legal stuff that counts, not the label.

[mkultra]

53. so you think anyone who wants a religous ceremony should need to do it twice?

once for the civil and then again later for spiritual?

[smiley_glad_hands]

25. My gay relative would argue the opposite.

If we can't share the same language then its not equality. Practically though it would be the same.

[Cronus Protagonist]

26. Why do you hate marriage?

Firt thought in the minds of the bigots... Why do you hate marriage? Quickly followed by, "See, they want to destroy marriage".

[smoogatz]

27. In the words of the great Mae West: Marriage is a fine institution.

But who wants to live in an institution? And yes, your point is well taken: it's really an equal protection issue. It's not about the cake.

[huskerlaw]

28. I'm straight, and I both agree and disagree with you.

I agree that the underlying rights are far more important than the word "marriage," BUT that word isn't just a word. Not when it's being used to separate a group of people.

Gay people should have every option that straight people have. That includes the option of only a civil ceremony if the religious marriage ceremony isn't wanted. But until gay people have the OPTION of a marriage, all the rights in the world won't make them truly equal.

[nichomachus]

31. Then, you need to define "marriage"

I'm serious. Why is the word so important. The problem now is that it so commingles civil and religious that discussions about it turn into a shouting match.

Marriage, in my mind, is about two people joining their lives and obtaining benefits that are accorded them by law. There is nothing religious about it.

However, in the minds of religious people, it all has to do with "God's law" and "The Bible" and whatever.

I don't want to force the Southern Baptists or the Mormons to "marry" same-sex couples. On the other hand, I don't want them to prevent the state from conferring the benefits on me that are now reserved for "married" couples.

Let the churches be as restrictive as they want. I just want the freaking benefits and the right to join my life with my partner. I really and truly don't care what they call it.

In fact, many other countries, as I pointed out in my other post above -- do just that. It's not really a big deal. However, insisting on the word "marriage" makes it a big deal and may long delay equality.

[Creideiki]

34. Nicho, Nicho, Nicho...

The reason the word is important is because if you set up two separate institutions, you have to do more than twice the work to make sure that all the rights and benefits are provided. Then you have the portability issues--my little brother got married in Illinois and moved to Texas and he's still married. If I get civil union'd in Vermont and move to California, am I automatically domestically partnered? All this on top of businesses that deny benefits to civil union couples because they state they'll provide them for married couples. See how sloppy that gets quickly?

Marriage in the US already does not require anyone other than a justice of the peace. No religious ceremony at all. I agree with you that it could continue that way. I also don't want to force Southern Baptists, Mormons, or Catholics to marry anyone that they choose not to, but guess what, they already don't have to. My older brother had to convert from Lutheranism to Catholicism so that he could have his wedding ceremony performed by my sister-in-law's priest in her church. I also have friends that will happily provide the religious ceremony once I meet the guy that I want to spend the rest of my life with.

I agree that the benefits are the goal. The model that will probably work best is "civil marriage" granted by the state and "religious marriage" granted by the church. That eliminates the portability issues, doesn't impose on religious institutions, and should leave things transparent at the Federal level as well. My guess is that most of the couples in California that get married will get a civil marriage from a Judge or other civilian authority (as opposed to a religious authority). But some will be married by the religious authority that chooses to bless their union and it will in one fell swoop also count as the civil marriage. Much easier, isn't it?

[nichomachus]

37. It's not two separate institutions

It's just a multi-layered institution. Many other countries do it. It's not that hard. Your civil union, which can be achieved by signing a document at city hall -- or going through a ceremony for friends and family is simple. Or, you can sign the document at city hall and then go off to your church or synagogue for the formal religious ceremony. No big deal. People all over the world do this. We are one of the few countries that leaves it to priests and ministers to decide which citizens get legal rights and which ones don't.

[Creideiki]

38. Again, atheists are allowed to get married--if they're straight

Don't need to go to a church or synagogue or mosque or temple or, or, or...

The problems will be portability with a different title and ensuring that Congress doesn't, say, start giving bonus tax breaks to "married" people that aren't offered to "civil unioned" people.

[mkultra]

56. since when do clergy decide?

anyone can be married by the state now. The state decides who can marry and this decision is driven by voters.

[huskerlaw]

35. I don't think it needs to be defined...

It may not be a big deal to you, but it is to some people.

There are some religions that WANT to be able to MARRY gay couples, and some do...it's just not legally recognizable. There needs to be a law which allows such ceremonies to have legal significance, just like for straight people. Yes, we (the straight folks) have to get a license, and so too would the gay couples, but if a gay couple wants a legally recognized religious ceremony just like I could get, why in the world shouldn't they be able to have one?

Of course not all churches would agree to marry gay people. No law could force them too, just like they can decide not to marry people who aren't members of their church.

It sounds to me like you personally don't think the religious ceremony is a big deal. And that's fine...for YOU. But it is not fine for some people. Regardless of how many gay couples would actually take the religious ceremony option, equality requires that they have the option.

[nichomachus]

36. I think you're missing the point

If you are civilly united first -- as is done in many countries -- then, your church can choose to marry you or not. You could change churches if you wanted to go through a religious ceremony. Have 10 religious ceremonies if you want. But whether you do or not doesn't have an influence on your civil benefits.

[huskerlaw]

40. Yes, but in this country

civil unions for gay people do not rise to the same standard as marriage...it's still one notch below.

I know that in Belgium, that's not true. Regardless of what they call it, gay couples can achieve the exact same legal and religious standing as their straight counterparts. I can't speak for the other countries, but I have gay, married friends who live in Belgium, so I do know how it works there.

Given how the discourse is in this country, if we deny the word marriage, we are denying rights and legal standing. Not to mention granting the Repubs the ability to say "you're not married!"

Clearly, the rights are more important than the word, but it's still a separate and not equal issue.

[nichomachus]

41. But that's what I'm saying --

make civil unions for all people equal.

Then, let the religious people do what they want -- but keep the hands of priests, ministers, rabbis etc. off of my civil benefits.

That's all

Everyone should have to be in a civil union first -- all people should have the same rights and privileges -- and those civil unions should be recognized everywhere.

Then, if someone wants to make it a religious affair, be my guest -- but only after the civil legalities are taken care of.

[Zuiderelle]

49. Should should should. The issue is that marriage already has a framework in place.

Changing it to being civil unions for everyone would cost more than we need to spend, and it would never fly with straights anyway. Do you REALLY think that straight married couples would buy HAVING to be married civilly, and then again religiously. Do you REALLY think they want to spend the extra money doing that? Do you really think they want our government to spend the money it would take to completely overhaul the marriage system that's already in place, just for a WORD?

You keep going on with your civil unions for everyone thing as if it's a possibility. It's not.

[mkultra]

57. you have that right currenlty

you can be married civilly and go through a religious ceremony if you want. OR you can just go through a civil or religious ceremony. Sounds like you just want to eliminate the flexibility.

[mkultra]

54. you know, you really shoudl consider the feelings of those who have belief

your right that the shouldn't have the right to deny others the right to marry in a civil way, just the same that you don't have the right to deny them the right to a religious union. You deserve the same benefits and protections as any couple.

i do think that both shoudl be called marriage otherwise, it allows the religious to be sheltered in their bigotry.

Marriage, in my mind, is about pledging to God that i will be internally honest and devoted to wife. To me, this is a higher authority than the state thus this pledge carries more weight for me(the one making the pledge.)

It has nothing to do with the Bible or "Gods law". Seems to me that you want to demean anyone of spirituality because you are being demeaned by crazy Christians. Maybe you should focus your scope a bit.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[Beam Me Up]

42. I am gay and I agree totally. n/t

[Zuiderelle]

44. The "civil unions for everyone" pie in the sky is impossible.

Sure, that's ideal, let's do it. You won't get any arguments from most gay people if we all get the same rights and the same terms and are not separate but equal by having to define ourselves differently than straights. But you won't get most straight people who care about this argument from the anti-gay equality standpoint to agree to give up their precious word "marriage." So that makes the whole argument moot. It can't be civil unions for everyone, because marriage is already institutionalized. We just want and deserve to be part of the same institution.

[LostinVA]

45. Exactly

[Tyo]

46. The whole framework is already in place

You go down to the courthouse, do the paperwork, pay the fee, have it signed off on by a judge and you are... Married! No church, no priest, no blessing or sanctification.

Only problem is that now only opposite sex couples are allowed to do this. Discriminatory. Not fair. Solution? Allow same sex couples the same access to this legal institution. What is so hard about this? Why should we have to reinvent the wheel state by state all across the country? Why are so many straights so afraid of it? Why do so many churches condemn it? They are even f*cking involved!

[Firespirit]

47. I'm actually farther from the norm than you... I oppose any tax benefits for marriage

Inheritance, custody, insurance... certainly, nobody should be discriminated against because of sexual orientation. And I'm fine with tax writeoffs for dependent children. But I'd like to see all the tax benefits of marriage, at all levels, abolished. Single people are reamed by our tax code, no matter what income level. We should either give benefits on an individual basis rather than a couple basis, or we should remove the various tax advantages to married people and let EVERYONE deal with getting reamed.

I'd also like to see a rise in wages, so that you don't have to have a two-income household to get ahead, but this is more complicated to bring about. I have known people who got married recently specifically because they could not afford to be single anymore.

What we have are institutionalized financial benefits for f*cking. It's sick. Let marriage be a contract people enter into because it's romantic to them, not because this "couples' culture" offers monetary rewards for it.

[David Zephyr]

61. "Marriage" is a religiously loaded term.

I agree. But you are in a minority here.

It's just a word.

The government should provide equal rights under the law for same-sex unions as it is constitutionally required.

Nothing in the Constitution or even in logic suggests that the general public has to call it "marriage". That's idiotic and childish.