The Word "Marriage" Should Remain Heterosexual

I expect to draw the ire of many of my dear gay and lesbian friends, but as a homosexual who has been in a relationship for nearly 30 years, I feel that I am somewhat qualified to speak to this issue. The word "marriage" has historical and cultural significance in human society. It has never had any other meaning whatsoever other than being heterosexual.

There have been some publications and even a book that have tried to show that there were brief times when even the church itself performed ceremonies for homosexual couples and I am familiar with these studies. My point here is not about creating the an equitable zone for legal civil unions for homosexuals which is clearly covered under the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. I feel that The State of Vermont handled the "equal justice" aspect of this argument very admirably recently.

But...

The word "Marriage" conjurs up a very special union that has historically been specific to the union of a man and a woman. There is no valid argument that can be made otherwise. I don't always agree with Camille Paglia on much, but she has pretty much said the same thing.

Marriage itself implies husband and wife. Indeed the word "husband" is the reciprocal of the word "wife". Neither my companion of thirty years or myself have ever referred to each other in such terms. It's plain silly to do so. No man can be my wife. No man can be my husband.

The term "civil union" is just fine with the two of us in our home. I like the way it sounds because it sounds like the way it is...unless, of course, we are being uncivil (which we never are or will admit).

So, here is my call to a small percentage of my fellow homosexuals to abandon this lousy assault on a word that has a cherished meaning for our heterosexual brothers and sisters. Have some sense of grace. Let it go.

It is nice for kid to have married parents.

They have two daddies or two mommies.

I know that many kids can't say that anyway, but I think it is a shame.

They can say "My parents are unionized".

In my opinion this is a stupid argument. Civil Union? Sounds like a damn military term to me.

with "Look for the Union Label"???

makes 'em sound like a construction crew or something.

And David, I find your post to be quite interesting - I haven't encountered many homosexuals who have adopted your position.

that is better to have a mom and dad? instead two mom or two dad?

gays and lesbians should not be allowed to adopt? Not sure, but that's what your post implies.

kinds of marriage.

Gay was one of them.

And gay sex was a normal part of the Roman army.

Nobody owns a word.

tell me about the celt marriages. marriage may have come to mean heterosexual but it is not exclusively.

Homosexual unions were no forbidden, but less considered in the law because they don't produce kids. Here's a fairly good explanation of Celtic marriage: http://www.kajama.com/archives/000228/000228f2.htm

And the 10 types were as follows:

1) union of equal rank. This was the ideal, and encouraged.

2) union of different rank, woman supported on man's property.

3) union of different rank, man supported on woman's property. The man, however, was not a "kept man", he needed to do the farming, etc., on the woman's property.

4) the concubine (ben charrthach, or loved woman). Rights were available to her.

5) man and woman who keep company with each other, but do not live together, nor do they wholey support each other.

6) the abducted woman. She has rights, as do any offspring that come of the adbuction.

7) the wandering soldier and his woman.

8) union of deception. The man bore specific obligations to a woman so taken advantage of (presumably via her being asleep, or passed out.)

9) forced union. The violence had to be repaired under brehon laws, and any restitution made for honor to the victim and her family. However, any offspring of this were recognized.

10) union of levity. Which is considered to be the union between lunatics, and those incapable of reason.

Homosexual couples could be "wed" rather than "married" - is that splitting semantic hairs enough?

Screw the "Historical meaning" of words, dear. No offense to you, but I am going to school studying with plans for Divinity School...first thing I am going to do is perform a Gay Wedding.

I am an Episcopalian.

I also just got married this morning to the most wonderful man in the world, so I am somewhat "qualified" to have a valid opinion to.

What other people do, say, or think should have no bearing on your character, or the validity of your marriage. Get over it. Language, and societal norms change. Thank God.

In all due respect, I am very serious here. Do you also want to use those words in description of your "marriage".

By the way, Congratulations for your new union. I hope you make more than our wonderful thirty years. :toast:

Here is my answer to your question, in all seriousness. I am very happy to call Michael "my husband," and would be just as thrilled to hear you refer to your partner as such.

It's way past time for society to recognize homosexuals as people without stupid labels.

I am sorry that you feel differently, but my uncle was "married" to a man for 2 decades before he died of a brain tumor. In our family, he was recognized as a spouse...and should have been in the eyes of the church, and the law.

Does it matter?

who gives a shit what the call it . The rights please, nothing but the rights please. Besides Marriage could be the kiss of death- look at the straight institution!

Here's the voice from a REAL union: "The rights please, nothing but the rights please."

Please see my post #77 which is along the same lines.

Congratulations to you and your partner, Mitchtv. :hi:

Works just fine.

The use of the words "civil union" rather than "marriage" when all other legal benfits are the same can not be compared to the horrendous discrimination suffered by African Americans under the creed of "separate, but equal".

The 14th Amendment clarifies the difference perfectly.

Your analogy would be closer to saying that whites were insisting on being called "black" or that blacks were insisting on being called "whites".

There was ostensibly the ideal of separate but equal institutions--one school for blacks, another for whites. Your proposal is for two separate but equal institutions--civil unions for gays, marriage for heterosexuals. After seeing how fatally flawed this concept is in practice when division is by race, I wonder that any should suggest it again when the division is sexuality.

I don't think it's that simple. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that a "domestic union" (or whatever) gives a couple exactly the same rights as being married. The whole controversy is about a word.

One change which has not occured as a result of the Civil Rights movement is some disappearance of race as a means of self-identification. Go back to the great days of the 1960s and many (might as well be honest) white liberals, I think, had this sense that the whole concept of race would disappear into some great melting pot of humanity.

Hasn't happened. Not only that but it's not likely to happen. For reasons complex and deep if there was no discrimination in society people would still notice race, take pride in the sense of belonging which goes along with this, this would affect who they dated, and so on. Maybe this will go away in a thousand years but it's also possible that this sort of thing will just become benign.

Race, I think we'll agree, is rather superficial (that this overlaps with culture, history, and might even still have some ability to appeal to people's tribal instincts, is just a phenomenon of our times).

Gender, however, I'll suggest, is much more deeply rooted in people. No serious person thinks that distinctions between men and women are going away (or that society has any likelihood of transforming into something like this). A lot of discrimination against gays and lesbians, historically and today, is just based on the fact that their behavior, at least in areas connected to sex, romance, family, etc., does run against the grain of the larger society.

Not saying this to suggest that there's anything necessary or inevitable about discrimination. But this quality of "going against the grain", or, minimum, it being the exception to the rule, I think, will always be there.

To imagine this disappearing one has to postulate either the disappearance of gender as a force in human society or some change in human nature encourages people to base some very personal definitions on some abstract idea of humanity.

Hmm, I'll be more specific. If the same percentages hold, and why should they change, it makes no sense to me that a 14 year old straight girl, 50 years from now, or 500, won't think of the word "marriage" in terms of, "I'm going to marry some boy", but instead will think in terms of some definition which is genderless. This is a dumb idea.

All of this challenges, I think, you're "separate but equal" argument on two grounds. First, one big problem with the old "separate but equal" doctrine was that it was never equal. If the whole controversy is about a word then this problem doesn't come up (the rights are equal, the words are different).

Second, is the distinction based on something real? My prediction, most straight people will always think of marriage as being between "one man and one woman" because for them, essentially, it is, gender is all important to what this word connotes, even if you leave religion out entirely.

And how reasonable is it for courts or legislatures to impose some different word? This would be like banning not just legal distinctions based upon race but mention of it (you could do this but you can't really expect that people to go along, and on some level they'd be right not to, what you'd be constraining is people's ability to describe).

My hunch, gay marriage will probably always have this footnote quality to it (even if there are no legal distinctions whatsoever, even in a society where there is no discrimination, because what causes people to draw the distinction is substantial).

And if that's the case then how important is the word? Or is this a situation where you can split the difference somehow (eg. to gays, lesbians, and those who are sympathetic, a marriage is a marriage, but that won't necessarily intrude on the associations most people make between this word and, frankly, one man and one woman).

I also see it as more of a religous term.

Interestingly the Metropolitan Community Church, which is a gay -oriented church--uses the term "holy union" rather than marriage for their committement ceremonies.

I think David Zephyr has a good point here, and I agree with him.

Glad to see another homosexual who feels this way. Thanks for pointing out the policy of the MCC.

"Civil union" is fine with me, too. I'm much more concerned with the "equal justice" aspect.

BTW, my partner and I have been together for thirty plus years.

Here's a celebratory toast :toast: to you and your partner of over thirty years. Fondest wishes to you both.

he does have a point.

But when two people join like that they are 'married.' Straight people aren't the only ones who can get 'married.' And as far as husband being the reciprocal of wife, as far as I'm concerned, a husband is a man you are married to to.

But the original post does actually have a point. Not that I agree with it all.

:hi:

.....Why for example, you might be surprised to learn the word 'gay' once had an entirely different meaning! ;)

It's not the word used that's important, it's the strength of the vow exchanged! :evilgrin:

I have always been rather militant for Gay and lesbian rights. However you may have a point. If the word marriage is left out of the mix, all the rights will be easier to obtain.

What I think is that there is not legal difference between marriage and Union except what we call it. Once these ceremonies are performed in churches (assuming someone would want a religious ceremony) that are willing, no one will remmeber why it matters what they are called.

And, following your argument, "gentlemen" have always been heterosexual and "ladies" has always been used referring to heterosexual women. In fact, most lesbians would hit one over the head with their power tools if one used the reference "lady".

So we also need seperate but equal restrooms. One for "Gentlemen", one for "Ladies" one for "Gaymen" and another for "Wimmin" - there, now where else can we apply this logic?

Of course, I'm being a little facetious, but only a little. If, as you claim, "marriage" and "husband" and "wife" refer only to heterosexual couples, by tradition and by religion, and I don't disagree with that on the face of it, then these words, these names, these institutions have no place in secular government that is by the people for the people and that purports to apply to all people.

So, taking your argument a little further, the obvious and absolutely egalitarian solution is to remove the bigoted idea of "marriage" from public government and hand it back to religious institutions for their own internal use.

Civil unions or whatever nomenclature we would like to use, would then replace all "marriage" laws, rights and responsibilities pertaining thereto in the course of legal and governmental expression of power regarding the perfectly equal citizens so governed.

A couple of opposing gender may then be "married" in their place of worship by their religious leaders and promptly file their papers to make their civil union legal in the eyes of the law.

Other couples, of the same gender or not, would not have to get "married" if they chose not to, but could file papers to register their civil union and gain all the rights and responsibilities under the law.

And some of those in churches that have less ensconced bigotry may also become same-gender married couples in the eyes of their church.

This method eliminates the serious implications of the "seperate but equal" marriage = civil unions proposal which has already been proven to be unconstitutional and will surely be struck down, and introduces something in its place that is truly equal - for all people, civil unions.

And the churches get to keep control over "marriage", "husband", "wife" and all that pertains to that.

In short, this is an opportunity to remove the last vestiges of religion from our purportedly secular government.


Click Here For Hard Hitting Buttons — Visit The Cronus Connection

which has validity and which draws distinction between civil law and religious formalities. Herein lies a great gulf of difference.

Thanks for your input. :hi:

I am a gay man I have lived with my partner in an exclusive relationship going on 15 years. My opinion on the matter is at present evolving.

But to play the devil's advocate I could pose a similar argument. It goes like this:

Traditionally homosexuals were considered morally, mentally, and even physically defective. Worse much of society viewed them as evil. Derision, scorn ridicule and even physical violence were encouraged by both religous and secular teaching. Thankfully things change, and a more enlightened view of homosexuality devloped (although still not universal), looked at in an historical perspective is a radical change. It may be that the definition of marriage should change as well.


I guess what really is changing mind gets down to this;
you don't need to get married, I don't need to get married, but there may be another gay couple who do - and who the hell am I to tell them that they can't?

:toast:

As long as the legal meaning is clear. My wife and I are married. Her sister and her partner/lover/whatever are not, because they can't be legally. They've been together for over 30 years and yet don't have the same legal rights as we do because they are not "married".

The point is that whatever it's called, a union/marriage/whatever should have the same legal weight whether those involved are of the same or opposite gender. Hell, call it a Foozle, Wibbley, or Tromdilp, for all I care.

She and your wife are both fortunate to have someone like you who sees injustice and speaks to it. Thanks. :hi:

"The point is that whatever it's called, a union/marriage/whatever should have the same legal weight whether those involved are of the same or opposite gender." That's how I feel.

To me, it seems it is just a question of legitimacy for all who want to commit themselves to the institution. The roles of heterosexual marriage partners--husband and wife, have shifted from traditional roles as well, but the validity of the marriage is not questioned due to the changes in cultural expectations.

Whatever you are comfortable with--many straight couples don't care about a church wedding either, but they know they wouldn't be denied it. Don't sell yourself short.

In some ways it could be argued that through much of western civilization marriage was a pact by which a man took ownershipof a woman! Only very recently have most people chosen not to include a promise that a wife would obey a husband.

Tradition is simply not enough. In fact, I think the political bent of most of us here requires that we question tradition and institute change.

I finished reading this thread.

I've thought for a while that the word didn't matter, so long as the rights were applied equally. But I think the "separate but equal" argument is quite valid. In essence, you have the same institution, but it's called "marriage" for straights and "civil union" for gays. Personally, I'd like to see the word marriage removed completely, and have them all called civil unions. But they should be called the same thing, whatever you call them, and if straights won't give up the word marriage, then they should share it.

You're correct that marriage has historically meant the union of one man and one woman. But language is not a static thing, it lives and evolves as much as societies do. The other night I heard a commercial that used the word "text" as a verb in reference to text messaging. It was something to the effect of, "You'll really enjoy texting with our cell phone." At first I was appalled, but then I realized that it was simply a natural evolution of the language, happening in tandem with the evolution of our culture. Maple said it best: nobody owns a word.

In my opinion, the government at least should have no reason to differentiate between the union of a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple.

There is the solution! Religous institutions, individuals in straight or gay relationsips are free to define marriage and its meaning as they see fit.

Of course, this ain't gonna happen. There would be a huge outcry when people are told they don't get a marriage license but instead get a domestic partnership agreement. Abolishing secular marriage? Politically impossible, an uphill battle I don't see anyone having the energy to tackle.

Up to there I followed argument, though I disagree with you--Words change, life is flux.

But when you imply that "letting it go" is akin to having grace I feel insulted. It is very similar to the technique conservative pundits use in arguments. It is like a genteel insult that can best be described as sanctimonious.

Please do not think I am calling you a conservative--I am trying to point out why I find those 6 words of your condescending.

but I do very much appreciate your point and the other counterpoints that many have made to my comments in the origen of this thread. This has been very enlightening and most every comment made here has some validity.

I certainly don't expect to change the tidal dynamics of this debate with my own puny, personal thoughts, but for what it is worth, I really feel that as long as ALL legal rights and priviledges are equal between heterosexual and homosexual partners, then the battle for equal rights in this particular arena is won.

Most of all, I think that it is important that it be honestly stated that a great percentage of very proud gay and lesbian couples have no desire whatsoever to encroach upon a word that has historically and culturally had great meaning for heterosexuals. If we never had the word, then why the clamor for the word? I just personally feel that it is silly, but respect those who feel otherwise.

Marriage, schmarriage - not interested in the religious trappings anyway.

"I really feel that as long as ALL legal rights and privileges are equal between heterosexual and homosexual partners, then the battle for equal rights in this particular arena is won."

:hi:

I put up a real long post about this whole thing a couple days ago whcih you can still see on the livejournal:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/plaidder

I never thought that the word "wife" would be anything but a joke for us, but after we did the ring exchange it really took on a totally different meaning for us. We don't refer to each other that way in public, but we do use it in private, and it does mean something different to us than "partner." This may have to do with our being women; I don't know. Your mileage may vary.

For almost 15 years we've done without same-sex marriage and we've been all right. But it is a serious problem that our relationship has no legal weight, and that will only get worse. Where I differ with you about this is that I don't think Bush can push through an amendment or federal law "codifying marriage" without also legally confirming our second-class status. It just seems very unlikely to me that we would end up with two different institutions, one for heterosexual couples and one for homosexual couples, that are legally equivalent but denoted by different terms. We will end up either with only heterosexual unions recognized, or a two-tier system with us on the bottom. Separate but equal has already been tried, and failed.

Marriage is a complex institution and American attitudes about it are wildly incoherent. The rash of "reality" shows in which contestants get legally hitched for the good of the ratings is proof of that much. Our country is based on the idea of separation of church and state (at least it used to be) but in reality marriage has, for most people, always combined the two. The churches insist that marriage is a spiritual institution over whcih they should have jurisdiction; but all the same, no established church would be happy with a proposal that tried to solve this issue by separating religious marriage from legal marriage.

Because that really would be the fair and easy way to do it: give marriage to the churches, and let them decide who can get married, while embodying the legal rights that are normally invested in marriage in civil union, which would be available to any couple willing and able to meet the legal requirements. Under that system, married couples would be spiritually united but have no more *legal* rights than unmarried ones, while anyone in a civil union would be on the same legal footing whether they had been married or not.

That will never happen, however; and it will never happen because it would significantly weaken the power of organized religion in this country. That's what this issue is really about. The religious right will never be satisfied with a monopoly on the moral high ground if it means the legal ground is being cut from under their feet. What they're fighting is not just homosexuality; it's the attempt to weaken their control over this very potent legal institution.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

What a thoughtful post.

You wrote the following: "But it is a serious problem that our relationship has no legal weight".

It is the legal protection under the law that our unions need, not a "right" to call it "marriage".

I prefer my right in California to visit my companion, should it be necessary, in the ICU at a hospital to a "right" to call our relationship a "marriage" (which we don't and won't).

The American public really "gets it" as demonstrated by extensive polling over the years that it is wrong for a homosexual couple to be deprived of leaving their properties to their companion, to be deprived of attending their funeral. Only the most heartless can not understand this.

Mitchtv, in his 28th year of union, wrote in Post #35 wrote: "The rights please, nothing but the rights please."

But the folks that are arguing that the two terms will create "seperate but equal" have a good point. I can hear it now. "Your arent really equal with me. We are MARRIED and you only have a CIVIL UNION." And then will follow the bastardization of the term "civil union.

to go disscus this issue???
I mean, this is only matters for the homosexual couple. You don't need a constitution for love, if a man loves another man and they want to be together is their choice, why religion and constitution have to do anything??? the same for lesbians. Everybody has the right to live their lifes the way they want.

and it comes from someone in a position to care.

Well put and right on the money.

I think it is not worth waiting years for us to get the rights over the word marriage. But I would not be happy with a permanent trade off either. At some point I would want the real thing.

I also saw Barney Frank make an interesting argument on the tradition factor. In the Old Testement marriage was between one man and many women.

That he could care less what you call it as long as the they received the full rights, benefits, and protections afforded heterosexual couples. In fact, he joked that you should have fun and get creative with what you call it.

If it makes straights more comfortable and feel like they didn't totally cave, then who gives a rat's ass. It's a word. It's the other stuff that's important.

Equal protection and opportunity under the law is something I have given my life fighting for and will continue to fight for.

Like Congressman Frank, I have no inclination whatsoever to engage in an abstract fight over the subjective use of a word which has over a thousand years of usage and that is steeped in cultural significance and lodged deep within the societal psyche and that has no immediate bearing one way or the other on the rights of homosexuals.

In fact, the religious right and reactionaries are astutely masking their true intentions---which is the legal disenfranchisement of homosexuals from the benefits of equal protection of their unions under the law through codified discrimation---within the inflammatory guise of "defending marriage" or "saving marriage".

Are some within the homosexual community willing to risk depriving gay and lesbian couples from equal protections under the law with regard to real "life and death" and "bread and butter" issues like the right to vist your partner in an Intensive Care Unit, the right to inheritance, the right to adopt just in order to have the superfluous "right" to use the word "marriage" to describe their mating? That's a question that needs contemplation.

Having watched dear gay friends of mine actually (not hypothetically) be pushed out of emergency rooms by greedy families lurking near the death of a gay relative and seeing the great injustices that followed including even the exclusion of the companion from his/her loved one's funeral, I could care less about a fight over a word that I wouldn't use to describe my union anyway, especially if such a fight threatened to undermine real legal victories won over decades of struggle. I urge my gay and lesbian friends to think long and hard about that and to consider why so many of us are opposed to coopting a word that rightly belongs to heterosexual unions.








using the word "marriage" as the centerpiece of their true intenet to

n/t

Sorry, David, but social evolution is rarely, if ever, graceful. In a living society, all things evolve or die.

There is no reason that a same-sex couple that has an interest in being married shouldn't be married. The "marriage/civil union" thing is just semantics.

I agree with you, but social evolution can be glacial. In the meantime, the immediate and tangible rights and protections which can be afforded under the law---while waiting for that social evolution to come---is a most welcomed and helpful thing, especially to aging gay and lesbian couples.

Never punish the good in desiring the perfect.

ya da di da di di...

In the meantime, the immediate and tangible rights and protections which can be afforded under the law---while waiting for that social evolution to come---is a most welcomed and helpful thing, especially to aging gay and lesbian couples.

I completely understand and agree. I'm not arguing that you disdain legal protections while waiting for the whole enchilada by any means. I just don't want to see the gay community fall on its sword in a fit of graciousness.

Fiddler, after all, is all about changing traditions. ;-)

If I were a rich man... :hi:

no shit...:D

In the middle ages.

The whole uproar about homosexuality in Western culture is very, very, very recent historically. It really only got off the ground in the 1940's.

And until this thread I felt completely indifferent to the term used as long as all legal rights were covered... guess I accepted, without much thought, the premise of A Rose by Any Other Name- AKA Separate but Equal- and thanks to several members whose views I've long respected for pointing out the flaw in my thinking and potential dangers I wasn't taking into consideration.

However, at no time did I accept your premise that the word Marriage "belongs" to our straight friends. Again, folks far more insightful and articulate than I have already made that clear upthread.

If you don't want to use the word, that's certainly your prerogative. Although we were joined in a Commitment Ceremony by an ordained minister, my partner and I (can't claim 30 yrs yet but it sure seems like it some days) don't use it either. But (again as already mentioned) the choice should be ours to make.

And thanks for starting what has turned out to be an interesting, cordial and thought provoking thread.

Pax- cs

Good to see you on the boards! :hi:

(how 'bout that- one of the smart folks to whom i was referring earlier)

Good to BE seen! I turn my back for a little while, come back and Will's a published author out on speaking tours, Steph and JM are hitched... looks like I've missed all kinds of interesting times around here. Have really missed y'all lately- may just have to reprioritize my time a little better from now on.

marriage is between a man and woman...and the civil union sounds correct for couples like yourselves...to have everything married couples receive in all the benefits....
only now we need more civil in some marriages...;-)

Wasn't Al Gore great to see today! :-)

Good seeing you friend..:hi:

:hi:

You can point to "history" and "tradition" and "definition" and "religion" all you want, but NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say "equal protection of the law.. except for marriage law."

Your feelings on the topic, no matter how strong, don't make it kosher to ignore the guarantees of the Constitution. You can wish and feel to the contrary all you want and point to the history books, but they weigh ZERO in a court of law.

If you want the constitution to say this, AMEND IT. Don't depend on a panel of judges to amend the Constitution from the bench - go through the formal process of amending it. Get the votes in the House and Senate, and get 38 states.

as it has happened in some isolated Protestan and Reconstructionist Jewish congregations?

Why should the sectarian homophobia of the majority be imposed on a religious minority?

Shouldn't a congregation choose whether or not to perform same sex marriage, and shouldn't the other churches mind their own business?

Shouldn't the state stay out of telling religious congregation who to marry?

Shouldn't the federal government stay out of telling the states how to issue marriage licenses?

As I said on my post, why shouldn't congregations be allowed to perform same sex marriage ceremonies if that is what they want. Why should their theology be dictated by another, more conservative denomination?

Episcopalians recognize gay unions

Bishops reject liturgy but say churches free to ‘explore’ issue

MINNEAPOLIS, Aug. 7 — Even as anguished conservatives protested the confirmation of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, church delegates voted Thursday to recognize same-sex unions, another milestone for the divided denomination.

THE RESOLUTION passed by the House of Deputies of the U.S. branch of the church, made up of clergy and lay people, acknowledged that some clergy were already performing ceremonies to honor same-sex unions with the consent of their bishops. The convention’s House of Bishops passed the resolution Wednesday.

The measure, which passed with 120 delegations in favor and 72 opposed, was a watered-down version of a proposal to include a formal liturgy on same-sex unions in an official prayer book. In the end, the church rejected a formal liturgy but agreed on a statement saying, “We recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/947847.asp?0na=x2102BX6

... making sense again...

:hi:

less than equal. And since everyone is equal gays should have the same rights of heterosexuals, and as such should have the right to marriage. Plain and simple is it unequal for heteros to get married, and homo's to get the less permanent civil Union.

It seems to me that Civil Unions were not made for Gays, but in spite of them. It is something less than a marriage, and for that reason it is unequal. It seems that civil unions is just another way to deny gays the right to marry.

There is the wedding in church or temple, "boda religiosa," and then there is the civil ceremony, "boda civil."

In some countries, after the exchange of wedding vows, the couple retire to an small table were the official papers are filled with a public official, together with the signatures of the witnesses.

In other countries, mostly in socialists countries, there are two distinct ceremonies. One takes place at the government ministry that issues marriage licenses, while the other takes place in a religious setting.

The state only recognizes the civil ceremony for it is the one that is legally recognize in terms of property, wills, children, etc!

Americans made a mistake when they decided to have religious officials (priests, reverends, imans, rabbis, etc.) perform what was to be an official secular ceremony, i.e., public notary.

Thanks!

"Americans made a mistake when they decided to have religious officials (priests, reverends, imans, rabbis, etc.) perform what was to be an official secular ceremony, i.e., public notary."

Hopefully, someday, we'll have 30+ together-but not married/unioned...

15 years ago Michael mentioned that he had no interest in ever marrying again (damn, women can screw things up) but he loved me. Having never been loved before, I paused. Since I look awful in silk and lace, I eventually had no problem. My will now dictates where my estate goes; papers giving him medical rights are signed; He's not my "husband" but he is my partner and I really have no interest in anything else.

Even though I would not marry my partner, even if it were legal, I still believe that legal marital rights should be available to everone. Its called equality.

Thank you for one of the best threads I've ever read on DU. I've been extremely impressed by the responses.

:toast:

Another solution is just to call it a gay marriage. If the Supreme Court legalized this in all fifty states I don't think that most people's sense of what a marriage is would change. In people's minds this distinction would still exist. The vast majority of marriages would still be between men and women. Most gays and lesbians, I think, would refer to it as this because the distinction is so obvious (it's descriptive, I'll offer as an analogy the term "interracial couple", this has no legal meaning and yet it's a term people and it isn't necessarily pejorative).

If I could design a solution I'd have the Supreme Court declare that states were obligated to create some legal equivilent for same sex marriages in all 50 states, states would have the freedom to call it whatever they want, but such couples would also be free to participate in whatever religious ceremonies they wanted, and on whatever certificate there should be a place where this could be recorded. That wouldn't satisfy everyone on all points it's another way to address the problem you're referring to.

I do have a problem with this idea that a court can just force a definition for a term as significant as "marriage" on a reluctant society. Because however much someone might support gay marriage it's just a fact that the traditional definition of this word does refer to one man and one woman. Changing this to mean "two people" (with nothing else) does remove a lot of the specificity and conjures up this image of two genderless mannikins in front of an alter (which, in my opinion, is just stupid, because all marriages, even gay marriages, are totally about gender).

It was 9-0 against. This is no different.

Show me in the Constitution where "tradition" or "history" or "religion" or "popular opinion" makes it alright to ignore the clear promise for Equal Protection. I challenge you to show me where. I've brought this legal challenge many times in here, and no one's been able to show me where. The deafening silence speaks for itself.

But never mind.. we both know it isn't in there. And any judge willing to go by what the Constitution actually says will admit.. there's no exception for CIVIL marriage laws when it says "equal protection of the law." No exception.

As a homosexual, I would be absolutely elated if the "civil unions" concept was implemented on the national level, even if it was as a compromise with those who are reluctant to change the traditional definition of marriage.

But just as a devil's advocate: let's say civil unions are nationalized for couples of the same sex - - what happens when a gay or lesbian couple that has obtained a civil union gets denied rights in the public sector because conservative "pro-family" groups argue, "oh, a civil union isn't the same as a marriage, so a couple of the same-sex can't have such-and-such rights that married heterosexuals are naturally entitled to"?

is an inevitability. It will absolutley occur.

I think that David has put forth what will probably be the ultimate compromise solution to this question. And I probably will accept it as the only political viable solution. But I am not completely convinced that it is OK.

I would also be elated with you.

If federal law or a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court along the lines of the Vermont Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unions have all of the "rights" and "benefits" of "marriage" then that would over-ride the scenario in your second paragraph.

Thanks for your helpful input.

But with the current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, I think it would probably be a toss-up.

Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas would definitely rule against equating "civil union" rights with marital rights nationally.

And I imagine that Breyer, Ginzburg, and Souter would rule in favor of it.

So that would leave O'Connor, Kennedy, and Stevens as the swing votes, determining whether or not the USSC is going to give homosexuals equal rights. I'd love to see a 6-3 ruling here, but I'll settle for a 5-4 as long as we can get our equality.

If Rehnquist retires before then, what's the worst that can happen? Bush gets Janice Rogers Brown confirmed, and she votes the way Rehnquist would have.

However, if O'Connor retires, we could be in trouble.

Us gays could only play at it, sounds like?

Hmmm.

My relationship with my partner of nearly 30 years has hardly been "playing". Our dear heterosexual and homosexual friends, our neighbors, our local community leaders, all recognize our relationship as more than something that we are "playing". We have never be discreet about who we are or our relationship.

Our lives together have seen us struggle to put food on our table, suffer discrimination in employment, care for each other when we have been sick, console each other when life itself seems to overwhelm us. We have built our lives around each other. We have have buried parents together. We have tried to always live exemplary lives and to be there the one for the other.

I have watched too many couples lose everything they had built together as one slipped from this life while greedy and fickle "family" members quickly used the laws to callously step in and do their worst.

I don't think the loved one who lost the companion of their lifetime really cared at that point if they were considered "married" or not, but rather would have cherished the rights that "Civil Unions" protect.

...I can support it.

I am one of the belief that if we have to settle for the term civil unions in order to have everything then I am all for it. But under the same token, I am also of the belief that the hets don't have the title deed to the terms marriage or married.

I think that we mostly agree. :hi:

means everything.

admit it or not, but the marriage is a religious and a state word.
hetero couples can be both married in a church or have a civil union but in either situation they're called married by the state.

perhaps because i am not a lesbian i have no say...

i feel it is an important issue that needs to be fought for.
marriage between two people should be just called what it is.
there's something about the hold over this word and the denial of it to others that should make us all take pause.

progress ends and begins with the throwing off of the 'old'.

And while I do disagree on the use of the term "marriage", I really do hold that this is a term that rightly belongs to heterosexuals and see no great deprivation in not the broadening of the word, I do thank you for weighing in here.

It's great to have so much opinions and thoughts shared here in such a dignified way.

You know I am a big fan of yours now for over 2 years! :hi:

Marriage in general is long overdue for an overhaul.
They are still too sexist.
Even the ceremony is too much - to spend that kind of money for one day is crazy. Many families go into debt to pay for those parties.

As far as marriage being a religious term, I'm 'married' but I'm also an athiest. Would my relationship be changed to a civil union under your guidelines?

On Edit - Maybe we should drop the word marriage altogether and for legal purposes call all "marriages" civil unions. Since half of the marriages end up in the dumper anyway, meaning they don't really meet the defination of marriage anyway.

Hello Goddess40. I agree that traditions sometimes must change. But religious and cermonial and cultural evolutions can take eons to happen and what concerns me is the simple and yet, important, concept of equal protection under the law.

IndianaGreen had some very good and helpful observations along the line of what you have written. She's one of the DU's best minds.

exclusively for the union of a man and a woman, you're going to have to go after a lot of other entities. A very quick web search turned up some interesting "abominations":
-marriage between the heart of the country’s finest contemporary blues band and the soul of a rising bluesman
-marriage between probability theory and graph theory
-Marriage between nation's largest health care group and most advanced technology to revolutionize health care
-Marriage Between Technology and Business
-marriage between an Irish Red and English Pale (Ale)
-marriage between Arm's low power high performance processors and Intel's StrongArm XScale technology and the RISC OS operating system with the best that the ageing PC design has to offer, Southbridge chips, PCI expansion cards and low cost peripherals (polygamy?)
-marriage between text and picture
-Marriage Between Agribusiness and Spy Technology

I know you're referring to the terminology of legal unions, but ultimately it's about attempting to control language. How do you deny someone the use of a word?

We can't and never should "control" how anyone uses a word. I am not suggesting such. I am simply saying, in my own opinon (nothing more), that having received the same equal legal rights and benefits under the law, that homosexual couples might be gracious and not encroach on a word that has had a special significance to straight couples.

I really agree with how the Supreme Court in Vermont handled this entire question.

I don't know that I can agree with you entirely. I don't want the word marriage forced on you and your partner any more than I want the term denied to your relationship if you so choose.

This is another situation where the individuals involved should be able to decide how they want to live their lives and in what terms they want to describe it. It is none of my business, nor the government's, nor the right wing supposed Christians' business to decide for you. I respect your decision concerning your life, but I also believe that another couple should have the right to call their relationship a marriage IF they so choose. I guess my libertarian streak rears its ugly head yet again. :-)

I am not arguing that gay couples shouldn't be able to exercise free speech or to call their relationships whatever they choose, but I am making the point that there is a large part of the gay community that does not want to pivot the entire issue of equal protection under the law for gay couples on an abstract requirement that such protections call their unions "marriage". :hi:

LastLiberalinTexas, have you met the LastLiberalinPalmSprings who posts here? :hi:

rights like those of married couples. I can't think of any "marriage rights" my husband and I have that I would want to deny to you.

It's up to individual churches to decide if they want to bless same-sex unions, but I don't think those that do should call it "marriage." As you said, the words "marriage," "husband," and "wife" all have specific meanings that should be left as they are. It's ludicrous to attempt to change the language so that women can be "husbands" and men can be "wives."

Though they may be very loving relationships, the relationship between two men is clearly different from a relationship between two women and both are clearly different from a relationship between a man and a woman. The reason they are different is that men are fundamentally different from women. Anyone who doesn't realize this basic truth should perhaps watch "Sesame Street" for the lessons on "same" and "different" they missed when younger.

I also fear that insistence on legal same-sex "marriage" will provoke a backlash against gays and lesbians and result in more, rather than less, discrimination.

How are men fundamentally different than women?

But then again, I've met several pre-op transsexuals who were more "woman" than many 'women'.

/me gets mixed in semantics hell

Hi TrogL. :hi:

for a very thoughtful post.

"I can't think of any 'marriage rights' my husband and I have that I would want to deny to you."

How long have you and your "partner" been together? :hi:

... I don't want to settle for a mere "civil union" if the civil union is any less legal or provides any fewer benefits or protections for us---as a couple, a family, or individuals---than a traditional legal marriage would provide for heterosexuals.

I don't care what you call it. It just needs to be the same, legally.

-- Allen

You ought to see all the personal contracts, written agreements, and powers of attorney, medical POA's, etc etc etc that we have written up. All the things that are simply ASSUMED and GRANTED by default when heterosexuals are married must be EXPRESSLY WRITTEN UP AS A NOTARIZED CONTRACT between us.

We have the same contracts, agreements, POA's. Love can't take things for granted. :hi:

Maybe Marriage has an attraction to other nouns. Is that really so bad? The important thing is that two words love and respect each other, regardless of grammar.

You slay me. :D

But when two words unite, as does happen from time to time, should they remain side by side with a single space between them, enjoy the bridging that only hyphenation can bring them, or be united into one single word, once and for all, for all the world to see and until they are rightfully acknowledged by the dictionaries of the world?

:hi:

If this is some mystical-religious term, then let the state call it "civil unions" or "civil partnership" for both opposite and same-sex couples.

The problem is "separate but equal." That's not right, and isn't a long-term solution. Now, as for churches, I'm not especially religious, but I wouldn't belog to a church that didn't bless my partnership, on equal terms as that of an opposite-sex couple. The Unitarians do, for instance. Perhaps that's a reason why I like them...

Which is why it won't happen here! :P

Seriously, in some other countries folks have a civil ceremony for the legal stuff and a church wedding for the religious blessing if they want that. Seperate the church and state functions, the personal from the legal.

I'm a romantic--anyone fool enough to want to pair-bond for life deserves to be able to! (she said after the first 27 years of marriage)

The late anthropologist Marvin Harris reported a south-Sudanese culture, the Azande, in which young men --members of the army-- would marry an adolescent boy, paying a token bride price and everything. The adolescent would address the man as 'my husband' and do all wifely tasks. This arrangement would persist til the warrior had accumulated enough wealth to pay bride-price for a female wife, by which point the adolescent would typically be of military age and elegible to pick a boy wife of his own.

The whole marriage is a religious concept between a man and a woman. Even if you say there exists secular marriages the "marriage" is still a religious institution however you twist and turn it.

Im all for a civil union for homosexuals with ALL the rights a marriage gives, but the original marriage shouldnt get changed

languages, especially English, which changes more rapidly than most in the U.S.

There may have to be, out of sheer practical necessity, a period of time during which we reserve to straights the privilege of using the word "marriage," so that they can continue to feel "very special" and superior in the quality of their personal relationships.

But I would endorse that period only as a stepping stone to true equality, when all civil unions between partners will be honored as "marriages."

It seems telling to me that in your post you refer to the "very special" nature of the man-and-woman institution...don't you feel that your relationship is "very special?"

I am a gay man who passed (or thought I passed) as straight for 37 years, was married for ten, had three kids, until I began to lose my mind, drink a lot and die a slow death from the lie that was my life. So I know whereof I speak.

Divorce can be a blessed institution too, as much for the straight partner who is set free to be honored in a fullfilling relationship, as for the gay partner who is set free to actualize his/her self.