What is so important about the word Marriage?

I’ve been thinking about this for years now. As a 50 yr .bi-racial, radical-lesbian-feminist I’ve marched for civil rights, the ERA, sat in, acted up, and war protested. Intellectually, I get that separate but equal is not equal. I’ve lived it.
In real world terms though, even today we all know that our schools still aren’t equal. We know that people of color do not get the same treatment as caucasians in this or any other country. We know that women still don’t get the same pay as men. When a women wants to have it all she must do it all. If a man wants to have it all he gets married and gets a good job. Women still have guilt about working v. child care.
Well we didn’t pass the ERA but today a woman is leading the polls for the nomination of the Democratic Party for President. Many people of color are making great strides, giving a hand up to their brethren, and continuing to demand their rightful place the table.
A bi-racial man is running for President, not as a black man but as an American.
Yes we have “come a long way baby”.
We have dragged our country, sometimes kicking and screaming, to a place where when our government threatens the civil rights of its citizens ALL Americans feel threatened. In the last 10 years it’s obvious to me that views have changed about the GLBT community. We have fought our way up to the point where we are not and can not be ignored. Our community and its advocates have come to the conclusion that civil unions are not enough. We must have marriage or we have lost. I’m not so sure anymore.
What is it that I really want?
I want my country to recognize my rights as a citizen. I want my country to value and recognize my family equal to any other family. I want my country to support my declaration of commitment in the same way it supports the commitment of heterosexuals. I want my partner to be able to add me to her insurance and I want to add her to the deed to our home. I want to know that if my partner goes into the hospital her asshole brother can’t stop me from seeing her and if she dies I won’t have to fight the prick over the ring on her finger. I want to know that when I die she gets our house. I know there are ways to do this with lawyers and yes we've got wills. We don't want to go to a lawyer; we want to go the justice of the peace!
Does it really matter what we call it? Not anymore. Call it civil union, domestic partners, a corporation. I don’t care if they call it Macaroni. I care about the RIGHTS. WE WANT OUR RIGHTS!
It’s all well and good that there are now states and countries that recognize same sex marriage or civil unions but we don’t live there. We have talked about going to Canada, Vermont or Massachusetts. But that is the ultimate in separate but unequal. Those that have been married there are prisoners of that state or country if they wish to continue to have their marriages recognized in America.
I think we may have made a mistake by insisting on the word “marriage”. The majority of citizens agree with civil unions including most of the Democratic candidates. Let’s take it. Let’s make sure the next President agrees to sign an Executive Order to federally recognize Foreign and Domestic Same Sex Marriage and include Civil Unions in any and all federal benefits connected to marriage.
My partner and I would jump at the chance for a Civil Union recognized by our government.
What say you?

I agree with you 100 percent. So many people have a problem with using the word marriage, so don't use it. We need federally recognized unions that gives gays and lesbians the rights they deserve, no matter what it's called.

My husband and I had a civil ceremony that granted us all the rights of a married couple. It was a civil union. Earlier and later we had religious marriage ceremonies, but no one signed any marriage license--there was no need. That had been taken care of by Judge Fernandez at the court house.


Personally, I would like ALL unions, same sex or heterosexual, to take place at a courthouse in front of a judge or registrar. If the couple would like a marriage ceremony in their place of worship, then that is fine as well--but the legalities are taken care of at the courthouse. I've had this opinion ever since I was ask to officiate at a wedding ceremony (I am an ordained minister). I did it as a favor (no payment of any kind), and the couple wrote their own vows, but when I affixed my name to their license, with the volume and page where my ordination paper is registered with the county, I felt that it just wasn't right. I had become a representative of the state rather than a representative of God. Church and state need to remain separate. I haven't married anyone since. I would, though, as long as I didn't have to sign that license. Marriage is a religious rite; civil unions are the right of every citizen.

That's what the law says.

Unless you're in Massachusetts, gays can't get married.

I think ALL couples should be able to go before a judge and get the legal benefits that go with marriage,whether you call it that or not. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear on this.

Actually, I think that no minister, rabbi, priest, etc, should be allowed to be a stand in for a government official when it comes to signing the marriage license. I am an ordained minister myself, and have officiated at one marriage ceremony. I haven't done one since because when it came time to sign the license, I felt very uncomfortable--I was doing the work of the State, when my work as a minister has to do with the spirit, not the state. It just felt wrong to me, though when I have helped officiate at union ceremonies where no paper was signed, I felt fine. I guess I really believe in the separation of church and state.

you can call it whatever you want to. People who refuse to call partners in civil unions married expose their own dumbfuckery, nothing about the partners.

They've found in Canada, especially, that a lot of straight couples are opting for civil unions in the hope of escaping all the sexist baggage surrounding marriage.

Civil rights and access to a body of law governing the appointment of a non relative to first degree relative status is what is important. Nomenclature can come later.

Ask any number of "unhappily" married folks. I think you are right on target. Let's look at the real meaning, imho, which is commitment. Not just commitment to each other but commitment to family, community, etc. It seems to me happily committed people are part of the makeup of a healthy nation.

When it should really be viewed more as a business partnership. The values placed on us by religion and society cause too many people to view it romantically, so it makes it difficult for them to give into to something that makes logical business sense. I think that if people could just look at marriage and subtract sex, view it as it should be, then they too would see how they could benefit in recognizing these rights.

I had the idea of marriage as romantic too, although it is a legal contract. I know when my father died, and my stepmother had all rights to his house and everything else, it was an extra burden in addition to his having died. I could no longer just visit his house.

Marriage is a legally recognized form, universally. Civil unions are being mapped out and defined as a "separate" institution. The simplest thing for anyone unopposed to equal rights to desire is that all would have access to the existing legal form, not to invent a new one to prevent that access.

Ask someone in New Jersey or even Massachussetts whose partner is from another country if they think this patchwork of civil unions works for them. If two couples go to a City Hall in New Jersey and one couple gets a civil marriage and the other gets a civil union (based solely on which set of sexual equipment they profess to have)they do not all four have the same rights. It is limited, it is unequal, it is progress, but it is a consolation prize and it is not enough.

Additionally, if it's marriage for all, any "changes" would affect all. If we participate only in a separate institution, the vast majority of people will have no stake in any proposed "changes" to the new, separate thing. They won't be "married" to it so they won't care.

If we could get marriage, we could count on having all the rights. Without it, I think we have to win them one by one and they could go away again.

I wouldn't make anybody get married, but we should have access.

We were legally "married" by the village clerk, as all here must be, providing an equal playing field whether the couple is gay or straight. Churches here are not empowered to ratify legal contracts, which is what a marriage/civil union really is. Anyone who wants to get married in a church here must find a church willing to perform that ceremonial rite. I don't think that would be bad way to approach the issue in the US: get churches out of the business of approval legal contracts.

:hi: swimboy! :hug:

that marriage is not only a legal arrangement, but a religious sacrament in many faiths. It's a relic of previous centuries and is probably obsolete, but it still exists.

Americans are generally willing to grant equal rights. Changing someone's sacrament is another matter. Especially when it involves sanctioning something that is pretty much universally condemned throughout religious history. Whether that should be the case is immaterial.

IMO, civil unions could be accepted national practice by now if the word "marriage" had not been insisted on.

In Massachusetts, churches are free to go on blessing and condemning whomever they like, just as they've always been. Marriage equality would look the same in the other 49 states; nobody has proposed limiting the right of churches to restrict access to their ceremonies.

and the legal act, but in practice the division is pretty murky. Legislating gay marriage does change the joint civil/religious practice in a fundamental way. It creates infinitely more opposition, which so far has been successful in barring even civil unions in some places. People on DU seem to completely dismiss this or misinterpret it.

The original poster's question was whether using the term "marriage" is worth having fewer states (probably a lot fewer)that recognize gay unions. It is a good question.

I have heard it suggested that the state make ALL marriages civil unions, and churches would be free to add their own ceremonies. This is not a bad idea, not it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

And that churches would be forced to marry gay couples if gay marriage became legal is a myth fostered by the RRR to try to prevent gay marriage. It's pure bollocks. If gay marriage became legal tomorrow churches would still have exactly the same rights they do today to preach that gays are an abomination, to refuse to marry them, and to refuse to acknowledge the "sanctity" of their marriages if they so choose.

between the couple and the state, which is honored by the state that created it and - through an intricate legal framework - any other governmental entity.

The state grants recognition to some, but not all, religious marriages. It does not control them - it chooses which ones it is willing to recognize. My religious marriage is not recognized by the state (because we are not otherwise eligible to marry, since we are both women), the same as religious interracial and earlier marriages between African American couples were not previously recognized. There are also polygamous church sanctioned marriages which are not currently recognized.

The argument you are making is a substitute for the original wingnut argument - which was easily countered because it was based on based on religious control of state laws. When that didn't fly particularly well, it morphed in to state control of religious entities - which is a red herring for anyone who takes the time to do a little research to see if any state laws require any religion to marry a couple that religion deems unsuitable. A good example is the Catholic church, which believes marriage is forever and refuses to marry a couple when either member of the couple is divorced. Does the state, which permits such marriages, force the Catholic church to perform them? Then why would anyone seriously think that churches would be required to perform a marriage between a same gender couple just because the state finally decides we should be entitled to marry?

I firmly believe that if you can't have marriage for all, then make the religious part of it extraneous to the law. It is the state which grants the rights of marriage; the rite is not important to the actual benefit part of marriage. If you want the church rite, fine; it is merely irrelevant, since the actual benefits of marriage are defined by the state. A registry office ceremony will do all that's necessary.

All marriages should be performed by the state; the religious rites and ceremonies can be performed before or after or not at all; but if they are not performed, then the laws of inheritance and property are not valid.

Spain has been using this system for a long time, and it works. I see no reason that it could not work elsewhere.

Getting "married" in a church doesn't give any couple legal rights. They have to do the state thing to do be legally recognized. I too wish as you write. Thank you.

None of the fifty states requires a religious body to participate in any marriage. Marriage is a civil arrangement, and couples have the option to commemorate it with whatever religious ceremony they like.

In spain, as I understand it, the religious marriage is not recognized. It is here and in the US. Here (Canada) same-sex marriage has been mandated by the supreme court, and marriage, whether civil or religious, is open to same-sex couples.

Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa have same-sex marriage. Canada, Spain and South Africa are the only countries in the world where same-sex and heterosexual marriage are exactly equal in status, with the same requirements. The UK has civil unions, but they do not allow same-sex unions to be performed on grounds used for religious purposes.

As an aside, in Canada, same-sex marriages have been performed for military personnel and officers, an openly gay cabinet minister was married to his long-time partner this month, and a gay MP is about to get married. The announcements ...and not much else...have been in the papers.

Various kinds of legal arrangements from partnerships to civil marriage are available elsewhere; Civil unions, domestic partnerships or registered partnerships offer varying amounts of the benefits of marriage and are available in: Andorra, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa,Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. They are also available in parts of Argentina, Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul), Mexico, the U.S. states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire (effective January 1, 2008), New Jersey, Oregon (effective January 1, 2008), Vermont, Washington state, and the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.).

In all of this, however, there are few places where the rights of same-sex partners are exactly equal to heterosexual marriages, including the right to property, adoption, and support.

In my considered opinion, not permitting gays and lesbians to marry if they wish to do so is cruel and unusual punishment. It is not the act of a civilized people.

Make it gender neutral, make it legal, and get on with life.

the real issue is that governmental bodies started a long time ago recognizing religion-defined relationships. They never should have. They created civil unions - yes, that is what they are - but erred by using the religious word "marriage" to label them.

Now, of course, we have issues wherein a church sanctions same-sex marriage but (some) states and fed govt decline to rubber-stamp it, solely for fear of offending people who adhere to other religions. Way, way, bad!

A religion could decide to "marry" a chicken and a duck if it wanted to (and it could call it marriage, or macaroni :) )Or it could refuse to marry someone who has been divorced, or a black and a white, or whatever. States should not be picking and choosing amongst the various religions to determine what they will/will not sanction.

All they have to do is STOP using the word marriage and this discussion is OVER!

Marriage is a state institution, as are civil unions. Marriage is granted reciprocity by every state, the federal government, and every other country in the world. Civil unions are granted none.

If you're married in one state, and move to another, you don't have to get remarried in order to be married in the new state for tax purposes, inheritance purposes, or any of the other hundreds of rights that come with being married. Ditto for federal and international rights. That reciprocity has been developed through years of legal struggle and hundreds of legal cases which, as a patchwork, force reciprocity even when the states do not necessarily want to grant it. Virginia v. Loving (interracial marriage) was one such case in which the interracial marriage was legal in the state which created it, but not in the home state of the couple. There have been similar states involving relationship between the husband and wife, age of the parties, common law marriages recognized in one state but not another.

Developing rights beyond the state in which the rights were created for a new institution (civil unions) which is different from the existing one would need to be developed through years of legal struggle while the individuals involved are still denied rights outside of the state which authorized the civil union. (This is a principle of legal interpretation - if two things are different, they were intended to be different for a reason and the interpretation of the laws is presumed to seek and support the differences).

this isn't complicated.

Each state would need to adopt laws separately changing the name in their state, since marriage is a state institution. The Federal government would need to change its laws. The laws in other countries would need to change.

In addition to the laws on the books, even more of what we think of as laws are either created through the courts or interpreted through the courts. The case law either creating common law (laws that are created through the courts) or interpreting existing statutory law and common law would each need to be revisited in each state - at the cost to the individuals who challenge these individual laws in the local court, appeal to the intermediate court, then to the high court of the state - and perhaps even the Federal government if the question involved federal rights (reciprocity, for example, implicates the federal constitution).

These laws (particularly ones involving multiple states and/or countries) have been finely tuned over the years at a pretty high financial cost to the individuals involved. Changing the name (which legally involves more than just changing a name) would toss all of that out of the window and it would all need to be developed from scratch again.

For example, a man dies without a will. His wife claims her share under the inheritance statutes of the state in which he died. The state in which he died does not recognize common law marriages. Another woman comes forward claiming to be his wife under a common law marriage in Ohio. They started living together in 1990 and split up in 1996, but did not formally divorce. Ohio, until the early 1990s recognized common law marriages - and required a formal divorce to end them. Under case law, the answer is clear - figure out if the original couple met the standards for a common law marriage, if it did, the man is not legally married to the second wife and the first wife wins.

Now switch to the same scenario with civil unions after every state has adopted them. The first Civil Union was an early Vermont one, when the second state did not yet recognize such unions. Is the second state required to retroactively recognize the union - or was the man legally single when he entered into a civil union with the second wife(meaning the first wife wins) or not (meaning the second wife wins)? How did the civil union end? (Does Vermont have a formal divorce for civil unions? Is Vermont's divorce recognized by other states for purposes of entering into a second marriage?) These questions would likely be guided by the prior cases on marriages, but the courts would not be bound by them so each time a previously answered question arises it will require expensive litigation to resolve. This litigation would need to be carried out state by state, and the cost borne by the individuals impacted by these questions.

Feel free to pick up any casebook on family law or estates and you will see a sampling of how complex the question already is, without a wholesale rewriting of the law.

for all couples.

have a great weekend, it's beautiful here on eastern LI. :)

I don't think she disagrees with you. This is how she concludes:

"Let’s make sure the next President agrees to sign an Executive Order to federally recognize Foreign and Domestic Same Sex Marriage and include Civil Unions in any and all federal benefits connected to marriage."

Wouldn't that satisfy your concerns?

First, that is beyond the president's power. It would need to be federal legislation.

Second, it doesn't address mandatory recognition between states - that is either a federal constitutional issue (which would require civil rights litigation to resolve) or an issue to be determined by each state (and many states currently have constitutional barriers that would need to be overcome).

Third, it doesn't grant me access to benefits in other countries which are granted to marriages. Nothing we can do within this country to require any other country to grant the same recognition to a civil union that those countries already grant to a marriage.

The word marriage invokes a well defined set of rights and responsibilities in an intricate network of federal, state, and international laws. Creating a parallel institution requires creating that structure all over again. From a legal perspective, it is presumed that things are called by different names for a reason. The presumption is that if you call it something else, it is something else. The process of recreating this intricate network of rights would almost certainly draw guidance from how marriage was treated, but those decisions would not be binding and the costs would be borne by the couples who ran into each particular new circumstance in each of the 50 states (a decision about a state right in one state is not binding on the other state - so it would need to travel through the courts in each state).

From a legal perspective (and we're talking about legal rights here) it really is not just semantics.

...makes me wants to cheer the loudest! :D

:applause:

The word 'marriage' is perfectly fine when you're talking about peanut butter and jelly, or jam and cream cheese, or vanilla ice cream and chocolate fudge sauce...but when it comes to people, they've gotta look like those sibling-ish types on those e-Harmony ads to participate!!!! No exceptions!!!

They love to insist that the word has RELIGIOUS connotations, even if Elvis can perform the ceremony at three AM in Vegas while you sit in a car at a drive-up window.

It's all a game, you see. What's really going on is that the wingnuts don't like gay people (among others, certainly), or at least they don't like VISIBLE gay people.

If these gay people just stayed in the closet, like Liberace or Mark Foley, why, they'd be just fine--amusing, a source of the odd eye roll and nudge/wink. The fact that 'they' dare to live their lives like anyone else, free of skulking, is what pisses off the wingers--how DARE they live without guilt OR shame? And further, all the groups the wingers are able to look DOWN on are shrinking every day, thanks to these pesky equal and civil rights movements that simply won't take no for an answer...someone has to hold the line, surely???

:sarcasm: for the irony impaired!

...all the "civil-unioned" UPS employees in New Jersey why it took the governor and the state attorney general stepping in to ensure they could get health insurance benefits for their partners (the problem was that the word "spouse" had been stricken from the legislation), and why no CU'd -- or DP'd or legally married -- same-sex couples can file joint tax returns with the IRS, even if they are required to file jointly with the state.

And those are just two examples of the reason "The M Word" is not just a matter of semantics.

You write: "The majority of citizens agree with civil unions including most of the Democratic candidates. Let’s take it."

Not good enough. FYI, a civil union would not have allowed me to sponsor my foreign-born (ex-)partner of seven years for immigration to the U.S. Any yahoo can mail-order a Russian bride sight unseen, marry her in a drunken stupor in the Elvis Chapel of Love, and keep her here permanently -- but same-sex binational couples have no option whatsoever to live together, legally, in the United States. Marriage equality would solve that, and an endless list of other issues, without tying up Congress with the reintroduction of bill after bill after bill designed to tackle each issue separately (in the case of same-sex immigration, the Uniting American Families Act, which has been languishing in the House for more than seven years).

Finally, I don't really give a hoot what "the majority of citizens" agree with. If Ayn Rand got just one thing right, it was this: "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with her: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." (Or, in our case, the other ten.)

Civil unions are separate but inequal. And if LBJ had waited for the majority to soften on Civil Rights, African-Americans still would not be guaranteed the vote.

DP's are generally equivalent to civil unions. Neither is marriage.

If you mean, let's abolish "marriage" altogether, and restrict heterosexuals to civil unions as well, then I'm all for it.

into a legal, binding domestic partnership should be able to.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with a civil contract.

SEX has nothing to do with it either, really.

If my cousin and I (two women) want to join households and take responsibility for one another, why shouldn't we be able to?

But many of us are not. Separate but equal, no matter how good the hopes or intentions, never is. Never.

If the RRRW isn't even willing to share the term marriage do you think they'll be willing to give it up?

But they're wrong. That doesn't mean we should bow down and let them have it.

I was legally married in a religious ceremony. I wasn't civil unioned. All of our legal paperwork asks if we are 'married', not civil unioned.

and before you were religiously married, you had to go to town hall and sign a legal contract. And since that is a civil contract it makes total sense to call it a civil union contract.

Even if the wedding took place in a judge's chambers, or on a beach like sniffa and bi-baby, it is still referred to as a wedding and as being married.

would you still disagree?

I think the poster is right, and that there would be much less popular opposition right now to granting "civil union" status across the country, and to change Federal law to accord "civil union" and "marriage" the same legal status.

Then, several years from now, once the public saw that civilization did not collapse under the weight of all the civil unions, and as more and more churches conducted gay marriages, and more and more gay couples held themselves out as married, opposition to using the word "marriage" for gay unions would disappear, except among the rabid right. Then it would probably be a much easier matter to change the law to call both types of unions the same thing -- either marriage for everybody or civil unions for everybody.

continue sitting in the back of the bus as a stepping stone to full rights? After all, it's better than walking, right? :popcorn:

If you had all the same rights, except for the name, then it isn't the same as being required to sit in a different place on the bus. It's more like having to buy a yellow ticket instead of a green one, but either one lets you sit anywhere you want on the bus.

Would you support the continuation of "separate but equal" facilities and schooling for black people? It's pretty much the same thing. :sarcasm:


Separate but equal is not the same. It wasn't for black people and it won't be for us.

If the Federal government recognized civil unions with the exact benefits as marriage, then it is not the same as requiring black people to use different facilities than white people.

giving one group a different thing than the other?

If not, then why not give gay people marriage and straight people civil unions, if they're so damn equal?

as long as the benefits are the same. If they want to say everyone has a civil union, that's fine with me.

If the Federal government recognized civil unions with the exact benefits as marriage, then it is not the same as requiring black people to use different facilities than white people.

If we recognize that all water fountains deliver the exact same benefits to the user, then why complain if the only difference is that one water fountain is labeled "whites" and the other is labeled "colored"?

Think of it another way. If everyone had EQUAL access to the SINGLE doorway leading to Social Security and other benefits, then what difference does it make whether the person uses a yellow ticket or a green ticket to get through the door?

...to the SINGLE doorway leading to Social Security and other benefits, then why would some people have to use a yellow ticket, and others a green ticket to get through the door?

It's either ALL yellow tickets, or ALL green tickets. Anything else is NOT the SAME ticket.

Never forget: You get whichever color ticket you want. I have to take what you give me. That's not fair.

How much simpler can it get?

for some reason, enough still people care. We don't have a majority that has gone that far on the evolutionary scale. The majority still want to keep the yellow tickets to themselves, even if just for sentimental reasons. But it shouldn't really matter, as long as the green tickets give equal access through the door.

I don't disagree with the ultimate goal; I just think that we'd get over this whole issue as a society faster if we pushed for what it would be easy to get right now -- the green ticket (civil unions).

Instead of saying, "Even though the green ticket will get me through the door, I think that yellow ticket must be better, because the bigots say so. So it's the yellow ticket for me or NOTHING."

To clarify -- I'm talking about civil unions being recognized by the Federal government, with all the same benefits as marriage, including being valid in all the states. I think that's the step that should be our immediate goal, and would be a big leap ahead of where we are now.

One is called "marriage" and the other is called "civil union". If they were not separate fountains they would both be called the same thing. Because the bigots think they are better than us they refuse to give us marriage, they think we are inferior and can only be given civil unions. We have to drink at the "colored only" fountain. Civil Unions are the "fags only" version of marriage.

Get it now?

Separate fountains means that there is different piping and potentially different water quality. One fountain may be trickling while the other has a steady stream.

If we had the kind of civil unions I am talking about (that we don't have now) -- fully recognized by the Federal government as entitling the partners to the same rights as marriage, and fully recognized by the 50 states), then we would be allowing equal access to benefits -- everyone would be allowed through the same door.

And that would be a huge step ahead of what we have now.

Except one is marked "whites" and the other "colored". It's the same thing as giving straight people "marriage" and gay people "civil unions".

If people are going to be getting the same rights, give them the same thing. If you have to pussyfoot around and call it something different then you're insinuating there's something inherently wrong or different about one group or the other.

Hence the "colored only" drinking fountains.

There's no need for "straights only" and "fags only" divisions in benefits just to satisfy the bigots, just as there should never have been "whites only" and "colored only" divisions in anything to satisfy the bigots. Separate but equal is not and never has been equal. For full equality to exist groups must be given the same benefits, not "something similar".

as a stepping stone to marriage -- a stepping stone that allows gays to benefit much more quickly from equal access to the law?

...removing the word marriage all together from straight relationships and having just civil unions? If you won't accept that, then don't expect the queer community to be the sell out to make straight people comfortable.

Maybe that's why I don't understand.

I grew up in a family with mixed orientation parents (gay and straight) who shouldn't have been married (to each other). The word isn't important to me; the relationship is. And, of course, the legal aspects.

NJ tells us so. VT tells us so.

"Separate but equal" never has been and never will be.

You insist that separate drinking fountains won't deliver the same water, but insist different unions will deliver the same benefits. Why?

"Separate but equal" never has been and never will be.

Never.

If they are 'the same rights, except for the name', then they're really not the same.

is part of the Presidents JOB. An Executive Order would CHANGE all existing legislation. If the shit that has been happening a the Justice Dept. lately hasn't convinced you that the President controls how laws are litigated I don't know what will. We talk about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". All three are equal. So if everywhere where the word marriage exists in any federal legislation were AMENDED to read "and Civil Unions" those words would also BE EQUAL. Yes there will be litigation but :wtf: so what. Once signed it would be the Justice Department PROSECUTING, and violators defending themselves, not the other way around like it is now.
The right has done their job well. This isn't the only time that they have us arguing over semantics instead of substance. They have convinced us that unless we get what they don't want us to have, we loose. I think we loose if we let them set the premise that a Civil Union is not equal to a Marriage. I don't hear them or us saying that a common law marriage, where legal isn't equal.

where it is allegedly equal to marriage, yet one out of eight civil unioned partners are being DENIED rights, because it is not a marriage.

That's not semantics. That's a FACT.

An Executive Order would CHANGE all existing legislation.

Let him/her change it so that gay couples can also be married. It would make for less confusion and less hassle than this marriage/civil union mess. Why pussy foot around?



The right has done their job well. This isn't the only time that they have us arguing over semantics instead of substance. They have convinced us that unless we get what they don't want us to have, we loose.


No, what they've done is create the impression that they/religion own the term "marriage" when in fact they don't. They've also tried to make it seem like allowing gay people to marry would hold religions and churches hostage, forcing them to marry gays and "accept" gay marriage against their will. They're playing the religious persecution card very well, and even our own Democratic politicians are pandering to them sadly enough. It's all a bunch of bullsh*t.

by executive order.

Go do a little legal study and see how long, and how many court battles, it has taken to create the intricate set of laws (statutory, case law interpretation, and common law) which grant universal recognition to marriages regardless of where they are created. It is not just semantics.

FWIW, a common law marriage IS equal, when it is created in a state that recognizes common law marriages. The only difference is the means by which the marriage is created. If I were living with a man in Ohio before Oct 10, 1991, we were legally eligible to marry, agreed to be married, lived together and consummated the marriage, told others we were married, and others believed we were married, then we were married - just as much as any couple who went to a priest or justice of the peace. If we split and I wanted to marry someone else, I would be required to get a divorce first (in court - there is no common law equivalent of divorce). (Ohio abolished the status of common law marriage on that date - but any couple married before then is still married - and entitled to full recognition under the federal law, the law of other states, and other countries. Civil unions are not.)

;)

:rofl:

or pepper spray?

of options that hetero couples enjoy?

some ways. However, calling it a marriage sort of buys into the whole religious thing.

My husband and I have been married twice to each other (I know, that's weird.) The first time was a church ceremony...I found the whole thing extremely uncomfortable. The second time was a civil ceremony where the guests wore jeans and two dogs attended the outdoor ceremony. I much preferred the second time.

If the gay and lesbian community is good with civil ceremonies I support that. IF they feel that is "separate but equal" and thus unfair I support their right to marriage. It isn't really what I want that counts, it's whatever gives those involved the greatest rights and sense of being equal.

And in NJ, where there are same-sex civil unions, people are being denied their rights, because companies are saying, "You're not married, you only have a civil union, so your spouse doesn't have benefits."

That being said, next month, I'm legally getting a civil union in NJ, but the ceremony will be performed by a minister, DU's own PacifistPatriot.

that I had to have a civil union while my heterosexual sisters were able to get married just because it's not equal as far as I'm concerned.

Congratulations on your civil union....I wish you much happiness and hope for you that you get "found". I, too, am somewhat lost in Virginia but I was born and raised here so it's home. After living away from here for a long time I found that I am really out of step with my very red community and it's pretty weird to realize how different I think from most of those around me.

We were married in Canada. If we ever split up, since our marriage is not recogized in most of the US, one of us will have to move to Canada (or somewhere that recognizes our marriage) for the requisite waiting period before filing for divorce. (It makes it kinda tough to walk into a court to ask the court to dissolve something they think is imaginery...) So, in an odd twist - the very fundies who don't want to recognize our marriage have made it into a lot closer to the covenant marriages they are promoting for their own.

I believe there is some triangulation going on. There is a block of voters who believe that marriage is meant for a man and woman. If a dem candidate comes out for gay marriage, it's a possibility that a significant portion of that voter base that believes marriage is only for heteros will not vote for them, but the same block might if the candidate is for civil unions for gays.

Therefore, some another label is being applied in the hopes that the marriage is for hetero crowd won't be offended by the term and will still vote for Dems.

I'm not certain that I believe that two separate terms for something that is essentially the same is either clarity or honesty. It simply seems to be a calculation for political gain.

But if civil unions is all that can be gained, and it is essentially the same as marriage, then there also is little difference, except that it makes the text of our laws that much more needlessly complex.

from the other thread:

i say you're wrong

and, the "womyn" name, and saying you're a biraciaL, radicaL feminist is a nice touch at trying to fit in with the stereotypicaL Lefties. you can't go much more over the top at pLaying it up, but i wouLd have tried. why not cLaim to be handicapped too?

If the shoe fits wear it. Actually broke my leg in January and still limping so I quess I can "cLaim to be handicapped too".

Def. false or worthless. These are my feelings and therefore neither false nor worthless to ME. It is unfortunate that I have not posted enough to put you on my ignore list.

As a straight male, I used to wonder why the advocates of equal marital rights for gays and lesbians were "hung up" on the word marriage if civil unions were to grant identical economic and legal rights. In fact, much of the legal conflict in Massachussets was based on the word rather than the substance.

But then I began thinking, what if, when the Supreme Court struck down state prohibitions on inter-racial marriages, it had said that states could grant inter-racial couples civil unions, but could withhold marriage.

If gays and lesbians don't have the right to "marriage," doesn't that mean there will still be a stigma against their unions?

But isn't there still a stigma against inter-racial marriage?

That would be the difference. It would be state sponsored disrespect of gay and lesbian unions, wouldn't it?

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that
I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to
have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the
"wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no
matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to
marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over
others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

"I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court
case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so
many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the
freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/06/mildred-lovings-statement.html

Together with her husband, Richard Loving, Mildred Loving was a plaintiff in the historic Supreme Court Loving v. Virginia, decided 40 years ago June 12, striking down race restrictions on the freedom to marry and advancing racial justice and marriage equality in America.

My GLBT friends deserve the same thing. My company provides benefits (astonishingly good ones in fact) to me and my family. They also provide the same benefits to same sex couples. Those couples should be able to be married.

As a lesbian, you should be fighting for this right, not asking others to sit down and shut up, which in fact, is what you are doing by proclaiming that the word marriage doesn't matter.

It matters a lot.

I have been fighting for marriage. My mom and family would love for my partner and I to marry. They worry about our "status" too. But after fighting for 36 yrs. I am to the point where I am willing to compromise. In the day I protested, petitioned, voted, and walked the walk . I've had my ass kicked more than once and nursed friends after beatings and worse gone to too many funerals. My family has supported me and my significant other throughout all these years. I'm getting old, I'm getting tired. I'm not saying that marriage isn't the perfect solution but I have never been a citizen of a perfect world.

And we can't stop fighting until everyone can say they are 'married'. Not civil-unioned.

Let the states provide legal "civil unions" to both straight and gay couples. Let individual places of worship provide spiritual "marriages."

That way, the government is not telling any church what to do or not do. The government is providing its constitutionally outlined responsibility to confer the rights of unions on couples.

The state does not tell any religion who it must marry.

Have you ever heard of a Catholic church being forced to marry a couple in which one individual is divorced? No, because it doesn't happen.

The state sets guidelines as to who it deems eligible for marriage (including divorced individuals). Churches are free to set their own guidelines (like the Catholic church which will not marry a divorced individual), or the Friends meeting which married us (two women). If the couple married in the church also meet state guidelines, they can fill out the appropriate state paperwork and have their marriage recorded with the state.

Have you checked my profile here?

How is insisting that all states recognize legal unions between all people - gay or straight - fundie spin?

Which has, unfortunately, been adopted by many liberals is that if the state allows gays to marry then religious entities will be required to marry gays in violation of their beliefs (telling any church what to do, in your words).

That particular spin has been a lot more insidious than any other one they have tried, since it tugs at our liberal heartstrings to think of the state interfering in religious sacraments - for example many of us are concerned when the church intrudes in traditional native ceremonies that use peyote, for example, and denies them the right to use what is (for some of them) a sacrament.

Your profile doesn't make any difference to me - I had this discussion with some of my farthest left friends who raised the concern to me as something they had heard and were concerned about (that state recognition of same gender marriages would require churches to marry gays). At the time (2003/2004) I tracked it down to right wing propaganda (which, unfortunately as the contact person for our church I see all too much of).

I don't have a problem with you - and I'm not challenging your dedication to equality for all people. I am challenging - and will challenge wherever I see it, the falsehood adopted by many well intended folks that state recognition of gay marriages is equivalent to telling any church what to do. When marriage is finally recognized, if a church decides not to marry gays (or not to marry two people with the same last name, or two people with the same color eyes) the state won't care, just as they don't now when churches decline to marry couples for a variety of reasons. The state sets the standards for who is permitted to marry and, providing it jumps through the right hoops, a church can (but is not forced to) marry anyone who satisfies the criteria.

I have NEVER said, posted, or thought that requiring the state to marry gay people would require churches to marry gay people. That's nonsense.

Reread my post without your biased lenses and you will see that I am not saying that at all.

>>That way, the government is not telling any church what to do or not do.<<

The government does not tell churches what to do now with respect to mixed gender couples (i.e. which ones they are required to marry). All the state does is allow religious entities to register marriages they have performed so long as the couple is legally eligible to marry. Extending marriages to couples of the same gender will not change that. That fear/objection to extending marriage to same gender couples because it would tell churches who they had to marry was started by fundies, and has unwittingly been picked up by liberals beginning (to my direct knowledge) around 2003/2004.

Someone else in this thread or another made the more explicit assertion that extending the legal definition of marriage to couples of the same gender would be government interference with religious sacraments, to which I made a similar response.

Again, my purpose in responding to your post and to at least one other similar one I have seen in the last two days, is to make people aware of the argument (and its source).

These folks are masters at crafting messages and having them adopted to some extent by the supporters of the very groups they intend to oppress. Most of the time we're not even aware we have adopted their message. I will continue to point it out when I see it (and I expect others to do the same if I have unwittingly done so myself).

Bottom line? Everyone deserves equal rights. What's important about the word marriage? I don't know. I'm not gay, and I certainly respect the desire of some of my gay and lesbian friends to have all the benefits of marriage even if it's not called "marriage". But I also think full equality is the gold standard to which everyone should work. Calling it something else to make the haters happy is only a partial solution.

I will work for the day when you and yours can get MARRIED by the state, just as my wife and I are. Full equality. No apologies.

Peace.

being married.

Think about it. Why do some women want so much to be married -- to anyone, as long as they're married? The elevation of status granted from being married. Someone's your husband and you're his wife. And haven't you noticed that married people seem so . . . stable and responsible as compared to us "bachelor girls"?

Believe me, I am not being misogynist. I'm talking about unmarried women being treated unfairly in a two-tier system, not necessarily punished for not being married, but ignored and not recognized nonetheless. Even though things are A LOT better than they were 30 years ago, it's still out there.

Now imagine, you've met someone to whom you're attracted, with whom you've fallen in love and you're the object of their affection as well, and you want to spend the rest of your lives together. You want to get married. But you can't because . . . well, you're gay or lesbian. Civil unions are nice, but it's NOT MARRIAGE. You won't be treated like your married heterosexual brother/sister and his/her spouse. You're different and therefore worthy of not being treated with the respect due you as someone who has made a lifelong commitment.

That's why "marriage" counts.

is because they can't stand the idea of two people of the same gender being in love and sharing a life. So they want to downplay their relationships through semantics. It is a big deal - it's about rights and also about recognizing that the GLBT community feels love just like we heteros do, they feel the exact same things - they just feel them for someone else.

Personally, I think the government should only be in the business of granting civil unions, which it should give to ANY two (or even three) people who want them -- a man and his dependent niece, a threesome, or whatever: anyone who wants to be treated as a legal unit for tax purposes. Anything else is discrimination.

Leave "marriage" for the churches.

I'm a straight woman, and I'd get married to my husband no matter what the govt called it.

As a (right now non-practicing) Catholic, how well I know! My husband and I never intended to have children...however, for 2.5+ years before we married, I bled excessively. My gyn was mystified, my uterus was only slightly enlarged, and I was just somewhat anemic. Yet I would bleed 21+ days per month, passing huge, cramping blood clots (sorry guys). She tried all kinds of hormonal therapy with me (BC pills).

About the same time my husband and I decided on a wedding date (a year and a month later to coincide with a late best friend's b'day), my gyn suggested a hysterectomy. She counseled me, and I told her I was okay with it. We had already determined we didn't want children, so the decision was easy, for me particularly, as I was starting to feel like a (bloody!) freak. I had my hysterectomy in March, and we were married in Sept 1996.

The day after my surgery, my gyn came in to tell me that my uterus was most unusual...yes, I had fibroid tumors...but they were so tiny, my uterus had not been enlarged...but there were so many...it was like I had the worst case of acne covering my uterine walls. I probably would have never carried a pregnancy past a few weeks.

We married knowing this...our priest also knew it. However, many Catholics, would say our "marriage" isn't recognized by the "Church". According to them, we married, knowing fully, that we could not produce children. According to "them", which includes many priests, bishops and possibly the current pope, sex for us is totally recreational...just simply a physical act of prurient enjoyment that has no intent of creating life.

In my opinion, marriage is a subjective word to describe a relationship. Rather than relying on the state's definition, I would look to the couple...

Let's all be civilly unioned...and then leave "marriage" up to individual interpretation.

"Marriage" v. "civil union" creates legal loopholes. For example, I exist in the real property industry. In my state, if two men or two women with a "civil union" buy a parcel, that's meaningless. Example...let's say Jane Doe and Lisa Smith are legally recognized in a civil union (not gonna happen in my state, but for the sake of the example let's run with it). Quite frankly, the civil union can go fuck itself. Title is still held as Jane Doe, a single woman and Lisa Smith, a single woman, Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship. These women lose a whole lot of protections. They'll get supremely fucked when they try to sell or refi, thanks to FS 55.10 that ONLY protects Tenancy By the Entirety (marriage). But that's okay, because they're gay. Fuck 'em.

While I'd like "civil union" as a temporary doorstop I won't rest until it's marriage. Know why?

--We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--

I fail to see where our founders set out that same-sex couples became second class citizens. No, the Bible...a fucking book did. Wrongly so.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

:)

:hi:

:loveya:

:applause:

:headbang:

:applause: :toast: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :toast: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :toast: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :toast: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :toast: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :toast: :yourock: :woohoo:

Excellent post. Thanks.

I would support a federal law making civil unions mandatory for all, gay or straight, who want a legally recognized marital contract guaranteeing them all of the rights (and responsibilities) that heterosexual couples have enjoyed for ages. Anyone who wants the blessing of a church would have to find church willing to perform the largely ceremonial marriage rites.

Make Marriage a purely religious ceremony w/ no legal binding and have civil unions for all, gay and straight. The word "Marriage" means absolutely zip for me and Mrs E.; the union itself between us to live a life together means everything.

Like you, I've given this my full consideration.

Many countries completely separate the functions of church and state in the matter of marriage, and we should do the same.

Any two consenting adults ought to be able to pledge their unity with one another in a legally binding civil contract uniformly outlining their rights, privileges, and responsibilities toward each other and any children they may produce or adopt. This civil contract should be entered into at the City Hall and witnessed by the Justice of the Peace or equivalent official.

This is already done today in the US by many hetero couples who want to bypass a religious ceremony. It's a requirement for all couples in many other countries, who then may choose to have a religious ceremony as well -- or not.

A friend of mine met and married a local woman when he was stationed in Japan. He said they got "married" three separate times before it was all over: at the registry in her home Prefecture, in a traditional religious ceremony with her family, and finally with the military chaplain to make it right with the Marines and Uncle Sam. In Belgium after WW II my mother in law "got married Jewish" (i.e. in the synagogue with a rabbi) to my father in law while he awaited official word of what he already knew: that his previous wife had perished in Auschwitz. When the government was finally satisfied that he was free to remarry, they went to City Hall -- with relatives in tow laughing at her by-then very pregnant state. Here in the US a college friend from Nepal married another student from Pakistan: any Muslim man in good standing was religiously authorized to perform the wedding, but not licensed by the State of Hawaii. Therefore they got married in front of a judge, and then got married in a religious ceremony conducted by a friend.

If the US required all couples to not only pick up their license but finalize their unions at City Hall, then religious institutions in this country would be taken out of the business of doing the government's work for it, and would then be able to do their own job, which is to freely decide whose union they want to bless and whose union they won't.

Religions already decide who they will and will not allow to wed under their aegis. Orthodox Jewish rabbis will not sanction the marriage of Jews and Christians, and the US government may not interfere. The Unitarian-Universalists, however, have no problem with intermarriage -- and they already perform commitment ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples.

This is America -- there's a lot of options out there once the government gets out of the way. I think the people of this country are ready for it. Blessings!

Hekate

and welcome to DU!

And in the words of a comedian whose name escapes me right now- "why shouldn't gays be as miserable as the rest of us? Let them get married!"

Really, it is about protection. I don't see why a civil union can't be allowed. Does that mean that the love that a couple has doesn't count if they're not straight?

In CO, where I live, we had Amendment I on the ballot last election to try to get legal civil unions. I thought that my neighbors were more open minded, but unfortunately, it was defeated.

that 'seperate but equal' is a load of crap. Equal rights are equal rights, plain and simple.

The fact is that there is a certain social status to being married. That's why we spend so much time and money on weddings. It's the ultimate stepping stone into adult society, and we joyfully embrace it. Why shouldn't any person who is willing to make a serious financial, legal and emotional commitment to another person be afforded the same acceptance? I've been married for 20 years, and I was single for 27. I can tell you, I started being taken a lot more seriously the moment I stopped being single, and made it known to the world that I had a stake in the success of my family and my community. I know I sound overly dramatic, but think about it. Married people (right or wrong) are assumed to be more responsible, more committed and more serious, and are treated as such. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying, that's the way it is and has always been. Why should only the heterosexuals be afforded that comfort when we all know that: a)straight married people don't always stay married, and b)GLBT people have the same desires to be loved and committed to another person as anyone.
It seems very simple to me. We need (especially in this world) to celebrate commitment wherever we find it, and (I say this as a mom of 2 girls) we need to encourage commitment over casual relationships, because it's good for us to be loved, and it's wonderful when we can shout it to the world.
Peace.

"When a women wants to have it all she must do it all. If a man wants to have it all he gets married and gets a good job."

What is that supposed to mean? That men don't have to work hard to "get it all"? That all men are satisfied by nothing more than marriage and a "good job"?

I'll reserve judgment until I hear your response...

that even today, when women work outside of the home they invariably worry and are asked about dividing their time between work and family. Men historically have not and the title of MR. MOM sort of proves that out. When a man takes care of the kids he's "babysitting", women never babysit their own children. Society cannot stomach the idea of a mother "abandoning" her child. There is little social stigma when a man walks away.

Social justice tied up in gay rights


<snip>

Marriage has always been a critical focus of the work of civil rights. In the 19th and 20th centuries, we dramatically transformed our marriage laws, from stripping a married woman of her ability to sign contracts or own property to treating her as a legal equal to her husband. This evolution in marriage was an essential part of a broader social movement toward fairness for women.

In the later 20th century, we again changed our marriage laws in momentous ways by eliminating race-based restrictions in marriage. Advocates for racial equality worked hard to eliminate the ban on interracial marriage — not because interracial couples were lining up in droves to marry and not primarily in order to ensure that such couples got health insurance or other benefits — but because they understood the power of our marriage laws to perpetuate and reinforce racial division.

The defining civil rights struggle of this generation involves gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans who live in cities and towns throughout the country, engage in all walks of life, worship in a range of churches, and form families, both with and without children, that are central to our identity and purpose. Once again, questions about the assumptions and regulations surrounding our marriage laws are back on the table. It makes sense. Marriage is a central institution in our society; we know from history that you can't ignore the government's regulation of marriage if you're serious about advancing legal fairness and social justice.

<snip>

Some people have asked why this conversation is necessary. Isn't the civil union law enough? For those of us who support full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens, the civil union law was never an end point. It represented a wrenching compromise between justice on the one hand, and no legal security at all on the other. It provided a means of delivering some protections to same-sex couples, while stopping short of affording genuine equality under the law. It offered us an opportunity to demonstrate to ambivalent Vermonters that their fears about recognizing and supporting our families weren't well founded, while still leaving our families far more vulnerable to life's tragedies and challenges than our heterosexual counterparts.

<snip>


Full Article

Seriously?

You and your partner would jump at the chance to get unionized, good, I wish you and your partner all the luck in the world to have tht happen. But what about the countless rights that even under a civil union still wouldn't happen for same sex couples? I say unless it is full equality then why sell ourselves short for a few selfish cop outs who only think for themselves and not the greater good.

Sigh....

Just know, my dear friend, that I will not stop until all of my GLBT friends have the same rights that my husband and I do. I promise you that. MA is the first step, but as the Carpenters would say, we've only just begun...

:D

:hug:

as long as the civil unions include all of the rights given to married couples. That sounds like what most of the Democratic candidates are supporting. It's not as good as it should be, but I think it will lead to marriage equality down the road.

call it whatever but just make it a reality.