Heterosexuals who marry outside any church are still called "married".

[More Than A Feeling]

(Yes, I know it sounds like a blinding flash of the obvious, but apparently it isn't obvious to at least one potential presidential candidate.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlSeZhKMbXA&eurl=

I was watching this interview with General Clark, and when the subject turned to gay marriage, he noted that he was in favor of equal rights for gays, but that calling it "marriage" was another issue. I used to agree with that. I would say that marriage is a religious ceremony, and that civil unions should be for everyone, and then anyone who wants to get the religious ceremony performed on top of that could do so, though it would have no legal meaning.

I no longer believe that. We don't make that distinction for any other group, even groups that christianist churches hate as much as gays. We don't do that for feminists, we don't do that for atheists, nobody. People who would curse at a pastor if they saw one are still called married. The truth is that it is the christianists who are trying to redefine marriage! Their redefinition involves making it seem as though they have the right to determine who can and cannot be called married, by tying it to their homophobia. They have no such right.

The only reason this is being done to gays and lesbians is because they are the most visible target. That isn't a good reason.

Marriage is for all consenting adults who want it, regardless of which gender they are marrying, and regardless of whether they obey extremist religious doctrine or not. Not "civil unions". Marriage.

[Warpy]

1. Accesss to the body of civil law covering marriage

which, at its core, is the promotion of a non relative to first degree relative, is the point. Nomenclature can come later.

There are tolerant churches which will perform ceremonies. There are areas of this country where that will have to be handled by the couple. This isn't about hearts and flowers, though, this is about basic civil rights.

It all sounds frightfully unromantic, but as someone who has had to deal with couples who lack the very basic rights conferred by marriage, I see it as the real point.

Civil partners can call themselves whatever they want to. The way others treat the union will tell them all they need to know. Anyone who sniffs and says they're not really married, you know, will be someone to avoid. The rest of us will throw Rice Krispies and drink to their health and happiness and call them married.

[havocmom]

7. Warpy, gotta say, that is BEAUTIFUL!

Your posts are always wonderful, but that one should be on a plaque and on walls all over the nation!

:applause:

It is sad how those playing legal angles can be so hateful to others, especially at times of extreme need, such as when one partner to the marriage (not recognized by state) needs medical treatment or burial. It is simply hateful to deny rights to partners and claim they aren't married!

Must be corrected. Dedicated partners need to have the same legal rights as those who happen to qualify for state recognized unions.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. I think the state should get out of it altogether -

except to the extent that we should all have the right to claim one person as our significant other to receive health care and other benefits currently given to spouses: visitation, inheritance, medical decisions, etc.

But otherwise, the state should have no business in saying who my significant other can be, nor how many I can have, nor how many significant others my significant others may have. Though I will allow for the government, just so that one guy doesn't fuck over his company by claiming 72 dependant spouses, to say that we can only claim legal rights for one of those significant others.

If we had universal health care, that would solve some of he problem, but we'd still have issues of inheritance, visitation, medical decisions, etc.

And then, if a church or synagogue or mosque or whatever doesn't want to do a wedding/marriage/whatever ceremony, so be it. The couple can still be legally protected by the government. And for those that want the religious overtones, they still can do whatever they want: except deny the rights to others.

Why should the government fucking care who we are married to, anyway? They shouldn't. They have no right to know, they have no right to interfere.


The whole idea of "marriage" needs a serious enema and cleansing, anyway. It's an outdated, outmoded, crappy thing (not being married itself, mind you - just all the social and legal and other baggage that comes with it in current day earth, since we aren't marrying for property exchange any more, but are marrying for love (mostly) (cf. Brittney spears and other emotionally stunted trash)).

[Warpy]

12. Sure! Let patriarchal religions decide things like

child custody, visitation, and distribution of assets! That's the ticket! We'll be back to the nineteenth century with no rights for women in record time!

Why do you think there's a body of law governing civil marriage?

[Rabrrrrrr]

14. Jesus! Did you even read what I wrote?

:eyes:

:shrug:

No, you clearly didn't.

[Warpy]

18. Of course I did.

You did a nice job of contradicting yourself.

Unfortunately, the state needs to be in civil marriage, which is the point I made. Getting the state out of its referee position is a disaster.

The people trying to redefine and restrict marriage are always the rabid right.

The rest of us think it's a civil right, period, and recognize the same rhetoric from mixed faith marriages, then mixed race marriages, and now same sex marriages.

The state is the only instrument we have to enforce our civil rights.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. I've got to agree with Rabrrrrrr - you don't seem to have read his post

Because he clearly said that all the rights should go to whoever a person designates as their partner, with no exclusions. All the religions get to do is hold a ceremony, if they want. It would have no legal standing at all.

[Rabrrrrrr]

21. No, you haven't read it.

Try reading it for comprehension.

I posited PRECISELY that the state is there for referee (though I didn't use that term - but I should have. I like that term).

Back off and get off your emotional high horse and read the post for what it says, not for what you want it to say so you can have a holy attack on someone.

[Katherine Brengle]

16. Okay, you are simultaneously arguing for gov't non-involvement AND protection --

you can't have it both ways.

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. Yes, protection of the legal benefits of "marriage", non-involvement

in saying who we can be "married" to.

[Rosemary2205]

3. My marriage is a civil, not a church marriage.

We were married by a judge at the courthouse. Why gay couples aren't allowed the same right is pure stupidity IMHO. No one is bothering the churches at all.

[seabeyond]

4. we were married by jp. ergo, if i need to claim we are civil unionized and not

married,.... so ok with me. i can so easily step out of the word married. if all the people that support gay "marriage" are willing ot do that, then the right will get what they claim, the distruction of marriage. i am all for it.

[More Than A Feeling]

5. but why should gay marriage supporters have to put themselves out like that?

This is what I am talking about. The Christianists are the ones that should have to suck it up and get used to it, not us.

[seabeyond]

6. why not if it works. why not if it gets the ball rolling and strong majority

stand behind the gays. you position is to get the rw christians (i am christian so not included in your label of christian, just a group of christians) to lose, be defeated. win does not have to be a head to head battle. often times a win is much more effective to go around the head to head battle. that is what is so clever about the left. outside the box

the word marriage has absolutely nOTHING to do with commitment.

[More Than A Feeling]

8. You may have a point.

Do gays who get civil unions right now call themselves, and get everyone they know to call them married? If everyone just ignores the distinction, then they get the title anyway.

[seabeyond]

10. yes. because i get the title and was married by jp, ... not by religion

but even if culture changed and called it something else, i would then change and call my union something else,.... boldly

[TlalocW]

9. I've often asked my conservative friends

Why they hate gay people so much - to which they reply that they don't (want to help them leave the lifestyle, etc). I tell them that they're not working against other groups like they are gays - they're not out trying to stop Muslim marriage or Atheist Marriage, etc. In their worldview, these acts should be just as against God as gay people marrying. Why don't they go down to the local mosque and demand that Muslims stop getting "special rights" to get married when that very act goes against the very Judeo-Christian principles our nation was (not) founded on? They look at me like I'm crazy, and then I tell them, "I guess God knows who's really on His side, and it's not you wimps, not wanting to stand up for Him."

My conservative friends have stopped talking politics with me lately. :)

TlalocW

[Rosemary2205]

11. Oh that's good

I'm going to steal that. :)

[xchrom]

13. kick

[Katherine Brengle]

15. I am "married" and never stepped foot in a church to become so.

The distinction is indeed ridiculous.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. I like the way it's done in many European and Asian countries

The civil ceremony is what counts. You may have a religious ceremony in addition, if you wish, but a religious ceremony without a civil ceremony is not legally binding, unlike the current situation here in the U.S.

That way, straight couples and gay couples can both have civil ceremonies, and if a specific religion doesn't want to give gay couples a religious ceremony, they don't have to, but since it is the civil ceremony that confers the rights and privileges, big deal.

[SemperEadem]

22. the state needs to stop investing authority in clergy to perform marriage

that's one of the last things the clergy says when marrying a couple--"By the power invested in me by the state of ____, I now pronounce you husband and wife. You may now kiss the bride... "

IMO, if the state no longer gave that power over to the churches, but instead retained that power to declare people married, then marriage would be as it should be: a sacrament in a religion. Just like baptism, extreme unction, ordination, confirmation are not legally recongnized statuses by the state, marriage should also be placed back in that category where it belongs. All joining together of two consenting adults into a legally recognized union by the state should be called "civil unions" and only that should be recognized by the state, not marriage.

[dddem]

23. I just did my taxes

I chose 'married, filing jointly' to determine what I owe the government for the services I have received in the last year. They didn't ask if it was a church wedding, or a civil ceremony. The government acknowledges that I am married. Period.
Why can't two men or two women who have made an emotional commitment, and done all the legal work, and invested funds together and joined assets have the same rights and benefits as a man and a woman in the same circumstances. My elderly mother was going to marry her long-time beau, and I can guarantee you they would not be procreating, but the church said it was okay (?), so that argument doesn't hold water.
Whether we like it or not, and whether we are willing to admit it or not, being married carries a certain social status, asside from the obvious financial benefits. Keeping gays from marrying is like (in my opinion) denying 'colored folk' (and please, I'm trying to make a point - I mean no disrespect whatsoever) the right to drink from the same fountain. It gives those of us who are "not like them" a sense of superiority over others and that's ALL it does. It doesn't hurt us one way or the other, and it takes nothing away from one group by extending rights to all.
We need to see this for what it is. Bigotry. Grown from ignorance. It's up to those of us who see how wrong this is to speak up to those who are opposing civl rights for all Americans. I read once that 65% of Americans don't care one way or the other about Gay Marriage (Civil rights for all), but the 35% who are opposed are the ones speaking up and making such a fuss. Now it's time for the rest of us to start making noise. I for one am sick of seeing so many people denied what I see as a basic right as an American. And frankly, I think we should be celebrating the fact that so many people in this time and place where there is so much anger and hatred just want to love and be loved, and be able to step into the light. God Bless them.
Peace.