Comments on: Warning: Marriage Politics Ahead

By: srah

srah — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:56:15 +0000

I think the important thing is that – rather than marriage-for-straights and partnerships-for-gays – there is ONE institution for everyone, whatever we call it. I would be OVERJOYED to get a civil union, if it meant that my gay friends could do the same.

(It also would mean that I would have found someone to get civil-united TO, which would be nice. )

By: Twistie

Twistie — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:30:17 +0000

I think his idea is that this partnership agreement would cover all the legal aspects of marriage (hospital visitations rights, financial rights in case of dissolution of the agreement, inheritance, etc.), but he’s convinced that if we don’t call it marriage, then the religious groups suddenly have no leg to stand on…despite the fact that really they already don’t except in terms of their choice to participate or not, which, as has already been noted, would be completely optional under the Constitution.

By: Never teh Bride

Never teh Bride — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:51:26 +0000

Eventually, people wake up and realize that just because marriage between people of different races or different religions or the same sex is legal doesn’t mean they have to participate, and the dust settles.

I hope beyond hope that it will play out this way in this case, as historical precedent suggests it will. As terrible as it sounds, I don’t know that we can leave this issue up to a vote. When it came to desegregation, it was judges who stepped up to the plate, oftentimes going against popular opinion. Looking back, few people would say that those judges weren’t doing the right thing by going against the will of majorities. You should not, after all, be able to vote away what are wholly reasonable rights.

…limited partnership agreement? How limited?

By: Twistie

Twistie — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:38:51 +0000

Of course, the same thing was said within my lifetime, mind you, about interracial marriage and to this day any church in this country can refuse to marry any two people for any reason they choose. They can refuse to marry a couple because they are from different races, because one isn’t a follower of that particular religion (or even that particular version of that particular religion), because they aren’t members of that particular congregation, because they didn’t take or didn’t do well in that denomination’s pre-marital counselling course, or even because they simply decide they don’t wanna. Most churches will marry most couples, but they always have the option to refuse.

It’s the same argument that’s brought up every single time there’s a change in how people view who is eligible to marry, and the fact that it hasn’t been true once in all these years doesn’t change the fact that it’s the go-to argument that terrifies the most people.

That said, my brother the Wombat is starting a campaign to try to change things so ‘marriage’ is an entirely spiritual thing while those without religion would go to the state for a limited partnership agreement.

No, I don’t think I’ll support that. If nothing else, who the hell would read a blog called ‘Manolo for Those Entering Into Legal Limited Partnerships?’ I wouldn’t.

By: Never teh Bride

Never teh Bride — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:44:23 +0000

I have to add that I agree with everyone that a marriage should be a marriage should be a marriage. But I am always quick to propose splitting it into civil marriages (legal) and religious marriages (not legal, spiritual) because of the bizarre separation of church and state issues we have here in the U.S.

For some inane reason, a huge number of people assume that making homosexual marriages legal would mean religious institutions would be forced to marry gay couples or forced to recognize marriages between homosexuals as spiritually valid. This is totally false, obviously, and while I have no idea how anyone could make that leap, the people who believe it are not letting go of the idea. I think that the belief in this ridiculous notion has contributed to a great deal of opposition to gay marriage in general.

Seriously — I was just reading arguments put forth by someone convinced that allowing legal gay marriage would mean that churches could not refuse to marry gay couples without being subject to some kind of legal penalty!

I’m not sure how to resolve that disconnect without creating a clear divide between civil marriage and religious marriage.

By: La Petite Acadienne

La Petite Acadienne — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:29:54 +0000

You don’t need to look as far away as France! I live in Ontario (Canada) and I think our system is great: I like that anyone can get married (gay or straight, religious or not) and it doesn’t matter if you do so in a house of worship, at city hall, in a courtroom, or in your backyard – they are all of equal weight as long as the paperwork is filed.

Exactly. I like our way much better, instead of this civil unions vs. civil marriage vs. marriage hoo-ha.

Up here, if you fill out the paperwork, get the license and have the ceremony, you’re married. Full stop. Marriage is marriage is marriage, and it doesn’t matter where you have your ceremony, or who performs it, as long as they are legally authorized to perform marriage ceremonies, and as long as you have your marriage license.

It doesn’t HAVE to be so complicated, and proposing different kinds of marriages is just needlessly complicating the situation. If you GET married, then you ARE married. ‘Nuff said.

By: Sue

Sue — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:11:22 +0000

In response to what SL wrote about marriage being legal in Canada – I too am proud that we are part of a small handful of countries that have completely legalized marriage (well, not that it was ever really illegal, it was just kind of unclear in the law and the Supreme Court finally ruled that it would be discriminatory to bar homosexuals from marrying). I wholeheartedly share the whole “come get married here!” sentiment, but i’ve been taking an international private law class this semester, and while there may be sentimental value in doing so, a marriage that would not be recognized in the State where the couple resides in would offer them no legal rights or benefits. Doesn’t that suck?

By: MET

MET — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 03:46:22 +0000

I wrote my last comment this morning when I was already late for work, so I didn’t quite get all that I meant on there. I guess my point was that the church/religion was never what defined a marriage for me. I must say that now that I read your post again, I think I misread it anyway.
As for suggesting people get civil marriages/unions/whatever; I don’t think people will go for it. I heard about Californians that were mad the marriage application said party 1 and party 2 instead of bride and groom. Now, that’s the application, not even the official certificate that you keep. Can you imagine the fit they would pitch if it said civil marriage?

By: SL

SL — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:04:06 +0000

You don’t need to look as far away as France! I live in Ontario (Canada) and I think our system is great: I like that anyone can get married (gay or straight, religious or not) and it doesn’t matter if you do so in a house of worship, at city hall, in a courtroom, or in your backyard – they are all of equal weight as long as the paperwork is filed. I am an atheist, but I understand that some people would like to have their ‘real’ marriage in a church or conducted by a religious leader, and not need to have a church wedding AND a civil wedding to make it legal.

After the shocking news broke here (how can a simple majority vote be enough to alter a state constitution?!) the consensus in my province seems to be: If you want to get married, please come visit us! No residency required!

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:16:07 +0000

I grew up in San Francisco. I am very sad that intolerance and lies won out. No matter what one believes, I believe it is always wrong to vote to take away rights.

I was hoping 8 would be shot down and shown that California was still the leader in tolerance and forward thinking.