Marriage, as a legal distinction

[Old School Liberal]

I might be a back-bencher on this one, but what are everyone's thoughts concerning scrapping the term 'marriage' as a legal distinction? Complications in implementation aside, giving everyone, gay and straight alike, a neutral term such as 'civil union' would provide the legal benefits currently attached to marriage, without corrupting the sanctity--in some eyes--of marriage itself. Let marriage be relegated to the church, detached from legal acknowledgement, and the rights of actual consequence bestowed.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

1. Fuck that

Marriage is CIVIL in the United States.

Bigots don't want gays to have any rights, no matter what it's called.

[Old School Liberal]

3. The other side should be given a chance to save face

A change in terms may make the shift more palatable to the opposition, which would enable gays to achieve equality before the law quicker, and with less sore losers at the end of the day. Some will always be obsessively bigoted, but if gay marriage, or 'unions' are no longer seen as an attack on their institutions, a good amount of the opposition might be bypassed.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

4. The other side should be given a chance to stop being bigots

Not to save face.

Separate, but equal is not equal.

[Old School Liberal]

7. That's why I'm proposing we give everyone the same legal distinction

Straight couples lose the term marriage, and have in its stead the same legal term as gays. It can no longer be argued that the sanctity of marriage is at stake when marriage is viewed as a religious matter, not a legal one. Is there some pressing need for gays to be recognized as legally married, when we can just as easily, and possibly with less fuss, call them and every straight couple something else?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

8. Yeah, cause straights are really gonna go for that

:yawn:

[Old School Liberal]

10. I'm asking what you think of it

Is it solely pessimism on the part of the opposition that you are against this? Obviously, we don't know whether this idea will be well received, but as a church and state separation argument, a case can be made. If everyone were to have the same legal term, would the fact that this term is not 'marriage' bother you?

[Pacifist Patriot]

16. As an issue of the separation of church and state, the case can better be made...

that marriage rights, which have always been a matter of civil contract, should not be limited to heterosexuals. The church is irrelevant, always has been and always should be. Creating the distinction with the unnecessary term of civil union further blurs the line between church and state that is already fuzzy in too many minds with respect to marriage. Religious institutions cannot convey marital status. They just can't. So why should they be allowed to abridge people's civil rights when they technically have no dog in this hunt?

[Old School Liberal]

24. The church's relevancy is subjective

Old Henry's penchant for male heirs may have eliminated the legal sanction of the church. But in people's minds, the church has a varying degree of importance in these matters. We've inherited the English practice of presiding over the marriages, and should arguably extend the right to same sex couples; but the considerable opposition can be waited out and allowed to clog our already wretchedly inefficient legislatures' agendas, or we can ideally bypass these sentiments with this solution. I didn't mean to imply that the sole right to marry would be from religious institutions, but presumed that those against the extension of legal status accepted some degree of ecclesiastical authority. 'Marry' yourself, or don't, its removal wouldn't end the argument of course, but it'll simply be relegated to an issue of private opinion, rather than being a constant drain on an already limited government attention span.

[Pacifist Patriot]

26. Sorry, but as a matter of law the church is irrelevant.

I know you weren't saying we should convey the sole right to marry to religious institutions, but I disagree with transferring the power the term "marriage" connotes to religious bodies. It is giving them something they don't currently possess.

I understand that many people equate marriage with church wedding ceremony and blessing of the clergy, but that doesn't mean their idea of marriage should be imposed on everyone else.

If someone wants to be married in a secular service they should be considered married, not civil unioned.

[Old School Liberal]

31. Can we agree on giving that power to the people then?

If people willingly transfer their right to marry to the church, who are we to object? It is a subjective view that guides them, and naturally should not get in the way of other people 'marrying'. It doesn't give any more power to the church than that which individuals are willing to grant them. If someone wants to be married, let them be married, in whatever subjective framework they can cook up. But in terms of inheritance, taxation, and the like, let the state preside over a union, contract, partnership, whatever, by all means let the government in. The government is no more virtuous than the church when given power over terms--e.g. California--why grant them a power that they only have by technicality of being an ex-colony? Just let people decide for themselves and quibble over it, while the government can pull its nose out of peoples' bedrooms and back into their legislatures.

[Pacifist Patriot]

34. Convoluted solution to something that isn't a problem.

It's religious pandering and has no place in a legal matter.

Someone said it very well below. Did we need a new word when interracial marriage discrimination was abolished?

[Old School Liberal]

36. Pandering would be to allow anti-gay legislation in, getting out of this sticky mess is not

The gays and the anti-gays can bicker till kingdom come for all I care. Making marriage 'acceptable' is not within the purview of the government--getting gays the rights they should have is. The process can be expedited by tossing out a loaded term to let the savages go pick their fights elsewhere, and not disrupt the cogs of government. Interracial marriage was abolished in the first place for the fact that it had precedent and that the term marriage makes no racial distinctions--it was simply an illegal marriage. Homosexual unions, conversely, don't have precedent in the past, hence this whole mess. Can't we take this fight out of the halls of government so we can guarantee everyone's rights quickly and solve some more pressing problems?

[Pacifist Patriot]

37. I'm going to throw this back to the court decision.

Even the justices on the CA Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of the word marriage.

Take the fight out of the halls of government? Where exactly are you supposed to fight for equal rights?

[Old School Liberal]

39. This is about equal rights

Grant the rights: quickly, efficiently. Let's not spend undue amounts of time fretting over whether the granting of the term makes it acceptable as a social value--we can't legislate people liking something (and enough people apparently don't like gay marriage) let's just toss it out the door and give people the only thing the government is obliged to give: equal treatment, meaning equal rights and identical terms. How these conditions are met should not be relevant.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

46. "homosexual unions"

Oops, you let your slip show.

[noamnety]

49. heh, ya think?

"Can't we take this fight out of the halls of government so we can guarantee everyone's rights quickly and solve some more pressing problems?"

There are probably better ways to enter the GLBT forum than by announcing that you're mainly interested in solving their pesky equal rights problems because they are a distraction to the more pressing issues you have to address.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

50. Yeah seriously

:eyes:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

47. You know what the really funny part of your little "episode" in here is...

you're arguing with a minister over this.

[Pacifist Patriot]

53. A lot of people find it odd that I am a so-called...

"Separation of Church and State nut" but seriously, most clergy are. It really is a minority of clergy who want to tear down that wall.

[Pacifist Patriot]

13. Equal rights are equal rights. Why should people who advocate legislating...

discrimination be granted the right to "save face?"

Rather than appeasement, a healthy dose of education is required. Way too many people assume that religious bodies have far more power with respect to marriage than they actually do. I see no advantage in playing in to this ignorance.

Religious institutions are optional when it comes to being married. The state is not.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

48. Especially Now....

I believe we should insist upon marriage equality. When my spouse and I married, we received full rights under Canadian law. Why should those who wish to legalise their love and commitment settle for some second-rate civil union? Wy should we have to back down in the face of oppression and discrimination?

[SacredCow]

56. Correct Answer. You win a prize....

Getting to the party late, but this is the answer to your question in its most pure form.

The fundies have usurped "marriage" as a religious thing, but the facts don't support this.

Consider circumcision (which IS a religious tradition): I happen to be circumcised, while my roommate is not. What rights am I granted that he is denied because of this? Answer: Not a goddamned thing! Nor have I heard any great uproar from either camp saying that the other should be discriminated against because of the presence or lack of a friggin' foreskin! Not so with marriage- just plain and simply not so.

I used to be in the civil union camp. Having been (straight) married before I came out, I have (and probably always will) have a sour taste in my mouth about marriage, and will never exercise the right should it ever become available to me. Haruka's assertion that bigots don't want gays to have any rights no matter what they are called is, sadly, dead-on accurate.

[MADem]

2. I like the idea--for EVERYONE. Not to distinguish one group from another.

I like the idea of everyone having to be "civilly unioned" BEFORE they can, if they choose, get married. And if they don't choose to get married, well, they still get the state bennies of a sanctioned, partnered living situation.

It's how they do it in Italy and elsewhere. You satisfy the state, and then, if you choose, you satisfy your god or gods or what-have-yous.

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and all that....

Get the state outta the "marriage" business altogether. Leave that to the churches and clubs!

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. In terms of language though, couples who reside in countries that do...

require a civil ceremony prior to a church wedding who opt not to have a church wedding are still considered "married." Not "civil unioned."

I understand what you are saying, but please read my post below where I explain in more detail why this position isn't the great solution it first appears to be.

[MADem]

51. Call it what you want. Actually, to parse a fine point, they're "civilly" married,

and in places like Italy, Grandma, who has worn black for the dead in the family since she was 28 because it's a custom and tradition that originated within her church, "will" make note of the difference. To her, you see, it's not the same and never will be the same--no matter what you call it, and it's a way for that divorced Lothario or Hussy to have his/her way with Grannie's innocent grandchild. But at the end of the day, that difference-noting is for the religious who give a damn about silly things.

So, you could call one "civil marriage" and the other "religious marriage." The "union" business is simply a linguistic trick, anyway. Oddly enough, they use that "union" word all the time, sprinkled throughout the many marriage ceremonies in churches that I've seen over the years.

[rateyes]

14. That's what I say. nt

[KitchenWitch]

5. Separate but equal is never equal.

[Old School Liberal]

9. I don't follow

I just proposed that straight AND gay people be given the exact same legal term, which is not to be marriage, but let's say, civil unions. If everyone has the same term, I don't see the separation.

[imdjh]

6. We should refuse to use the terms husband and wife- for anyone

IN our daily lives, we should make this small protest, even with friends and family.

Always refer to the spouse as boyfriend, girlfriend, or partner. Do not use husband or wife.

[Pacifist Patriot]

11. Because that would actually up end centuries of precedent.

Marriage is a civil contract. In the United States, it has always been a civil contract legislated by state statute. It has never been governed by the canon law of any denomination or faith. For example, if Roman Catholic Americans want to dissolve their marriage, it takes more than an ecclesiastical annulment. They must get either a legal divorce or a legal annulment which is granted by our civil courts.

Language is important so you raise a good question. But in my opinion, changing the contract to one of civil union and granting marriage to religious institutions actually gives something to religious bodies they never had in the first place.

Right now religious institutions have the right to decide which couples may have access to their clergy and house of worship for the purpose of a wedding ceremony. Marriage equality does not change this one bit.

As I tell every couple for whom I officiate a wedding ceremony, I am not marrying them. They are marrying each other. I am merely a master of ceremonies designated by the state as a legally authorized witness. When I sign the certificate of marriage at the bottom of the marriage license I am simply attesting to having witnessed them express their desire to be married. They chose me because they want a member of the clergy to perform that function. They could select a notary public, judge, mayor, clerk of courts if that's what they want. I am but one option among many.

[rateyes]

15. There you go making sense. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

17. I can be annoying that way...

except when I'm trying to figure out what is wrong with the pool pump. Then I'm a blithering idiot. Just ask my spouse.

[rateyes]

19. OK, on the pool pump,

you do remember to backwash, don't you? And, NEVER, NEVER leave the pump on backwash for an extended period of time. If you've done everything correctly, and it still doesn't work...call a repair professional or install a new pump.

See, no need to blither. :evilgrin:

[Pacifist Patriot]

21. Well first you have to figure out its your pool pump.

The pool equipment might as well be modern art for all I can tell. However, in speaking to a lovely woman at the pool store as opposed to my high-strung spouse who is currently overseas and no help whatsoever, we do believe the motor shorted out with the unusual and prodigious quantity of rain we've had lately. Bleedin' wonderful.

[rateyes]

27. OK, the big round thing with the sand in it is the filter. The pump

is usually in front of the filter. The pump has a little bucket in it to periodically allow you to remove junk that is pumped from the pool. It usually has a clear cover over the little basket where you can see the water. If the pump is working correctly in pump mode, you should see water in the top of the pump. If the motor has a short in it, it should have tripped the circuit breaker. Have you checked to see if the circuit breaker has been tripped? If so, have you reset the breaker, and does the pump work when you do? If it works for just a little while, and then trips again, your problem might be a short, or, then again, might not be a short in the pump, but a bad breaker or a breaker that is overloaded. Do you have the lights to the pool pump or some other electrical appliance hooked to the same breaker as the pool pump?

[Pacifist Patriot]

28. Yes, the circuit breaker was tripped. I reset the breaker and nada.

Good point about the pool light which is on the same breaker. I just turned it on and it's working fine. Which brings us back to a short in the pump. *sigh*

[rateyes]

32. Yep. Sorry about that. nt

[Old School Liberal]

18. Yes, unfortunately the actual application might make this far too complicated to be a pragmatic

solution. But as you said, in your role as a clergymen you simply act as a witness to people who are 'marrying each other'--I don't see why there is a need for the state to preside over that function. If all prior references to marriage are to be interpreted as civil unions, and the change in stationary is made, what difference does it make in returning to the church, or in some instances, to those directly concerned a label that was taken from them so very long ago, considering its subsequent non-legal status? A legal recognition by the state should not be seen as sanctifying the marriage or union, it should simply be an acknowledgment of their changed tax status, rights to property and visitation, etc. If marriage were a personal issue, the government could extricate itself out of this mess and get back to work. I think the symbolism should be left to the people to decide, be it by church or their volition, but that the tangible legal rights should be given out as soon as possible. Also, thanks for your rather more informative perspective.

[Pacifist Patriot]

25. The state does not "sanctify" marriage presently.

Right now, the state registers a marriage has having been certified or not. Sanctification has naught to do with it. The state never has been, nor is, in the business of sanctifying a marriage or a union. The state merely recognizes that the couple's legal status has changed from single to married.

Therefore there is absolutely no need for a change in terms.

Some people may call this a semantic quibble, but it goes beyond that. The words we choose are important because linguistically we support a particular set of existing cultural values. Why do we need to change vocabulary to achieve a very simple goal, one of equal protection under the law?

Marriage is a legal contract that some states grant to all couples, but most restrict to heterosexual couples. What religious bodies will and won't bless is irrelevant to the issue. Homosexual couples who want to be married want a marriage. There is no constitutional reason why they should not have the same civil rights as heterosexual couples.

We should not change language to appease people who do not understand marriage law and assume religion has anything to do with it. Religion is irrelevant to marital status. By drawing the distinction between civil unions and marriage you blur that line.

[Old School Liberal]

30. This is a proposal based on pragmatism, not principle

The fact that there exists such opposition shows that these cultural values are not the norm, which is not the government's place to preside over, anyway. A quick and easy solution to achieve equality before the law would be a semantic shift. The principled opinion unwilling to compromise can come out with less--though we are convinced in the rightness of our side, the opposition is as equally convinced, and they can make a good case on certain foundations that cannot be refuted, only rejected in favor of different principles. Attempting to overpower the opposition may or may not work; but what I personally feel (it goes no farther than that--no indignation on the idiocy or wrongness of the opposition) is that equality before the law in this instant should be achieved. The constitution neither denies nor promotes our viewpoint--it is simply seen by many as a form of moral progress. Compromise may not be exactly what we want, but it's preferable than letting wing-nuts on either end of the spectrum run wild when given the opportunity--not enough people support our end to stand firm on this matter--in a few years maybe, but in the meantime, securing the rights of gays would be an important step prior to full cultural acceptance.

[noamnety]

41. It's not based on pragmatism or on principle.

"Hey, I have an idea, how about we deny the right to marry to atheists, too! Then atheists and gays can BOTH be second class citizens!"

[rateyes]

20. BTW, it sounds like you are in agreement with the OP.

[Pacifist Patriot]

22. Lord I hope not. I didn't express myself very well then.

[AntiFascist]

23. California may be forced to do this...

In upholding Prop 8, the California justices may have inadvertently given the axe to the state being involved in the marriage business. Even Kenneth Starr agreed that this would solve the problem! Is this really what the sponsors of Prop 8 wanted to happen?

In their ruling upholding Prop 8, the state supreme court stresses that gays and lesbians will not lose their marriage rights, as spelled out in the previous CA marriage ruling, the new ruling is simply restricting the definition of the term "marriage". So, it would seem, this opens up a whole can of worms regarding marriage licenses and the requirement for marriages to be solemnized. Domestic partnerships in California are, currently, not granted a license nor are they allowed to be solemnized by the state. This is, on its face, is unequal and discriminatory.

[Toasterlad]

29. Funny How No One Suggested a Different Word When Black and White People Wanted to Get Married.

[Pacifist Patriot]

35. Indeed.

[noamnety]

33. No.

The message in that is that being gay is so dreadfully wrong that it would be better to do away with civil marriage altogether than let it be sullied by the gay folk. No thanks.

[Old School Liberal]

38. That's one way of looking at it

The way I see it, the message is that considering there are enough kooks inside the legislature as is, let's just take this problem, throw it outside, and let them squabble over it there while we can secure the equal rights that actually matter--rather than worrying if society as a whole has granted its 'approval' of being gay. We can't legislate people liking something, we can legislate unequal treatment.

[noamnety]

40. No.

You are now presenting this like it's the "practical get it done" solution, when I believe you know as while as I do that this has even less real chance of happening then just passing marriage equality like we ought to be doing.

With that reality staring me in the face here, I can't figure out what your motivation would be, except enjoying the luxury of being able to dance around nice academic hypotheticals while real people's lives are being affected.

[Old School Liberal]

42. I guess not

It's not reality that's staring you in the face--it's the belief that I know as well as you. I wanted to know what people thought, and evidently it's not very well thought of from a typical liberal perspective, and armed with that knowledge I can only imagine what the conservatives might think. The proposition is eminently reasonable, it grants everyone the same rights, and gives them the same term. The separate but unequal argument no longer holds, the unfairness of treating gays differently ends--if everyone were reasonable and applied their original positions to this framework, it should be implemented immediately. Evidently reason is not the primary motivator, nor are the original sentiments--seems marriage is as loaded a term as I thought, and that you--and quite possibly many more--will not be satisfied until that particular word is adopted, no matter the real cost in rights in the interim.

[noamnety]

43. All you are doing is trading one type of discrimination for another.

Denying the right to marry to people who don't get married in a church does not magically incur "equal" status on gay couples. You are mistaken if you think creating separate classes of unions that some people can enter into, and others can't, will end the "unfairness of treating gays differently."

Denying marriage rights to additional classes of people is not the type of "equality" I was hoping for.

[Old School Liberal]

44. It's not the rights

The rights are naturally included, however the term in a legal sense is abandoned. Anyone can subsequently get 'married' in whatever subjective way they wish: if they want a church to marry them, by all means--if not, their choice. They can get married at home for all I care with the kitchen sink as a witness. If anything marriage is liberally extended to whatever some wants, it simply won't afford tax benefits, visitation rights, etc. That's what a civil union will be for--for everyone. Am I missing a major point here?

[noamnety]

45. Yes, you are.

Two Americas said this far better than I have, in this identical thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x110423

Your post has not gone over well here, and you are still expressing surprise about that.

There are some fundamental flaws in your argument, in my opinion. I am going to be somewhat confrontational here, but my bark is worse than my bite and I hope you will give my arguments consideration.

"How about this compromise, folks?" arguments are always inherently reactionary in practical political effect, for reasons I will go into and which are not specific to this issue. I think it is important to ask ourselves - especially as straights - why we feel so compelled to come up with these arguments. I ask this as a person who was doing that before the Warren controversy. I know that I wanted to skip over that question, and was resistant to considering it. "Question MY motives will you? Why, I am 'good' on this issue - really I am - and how dare you say otherwise?"

First, these arguments are based on some sort of "king for a day" assumption, as thought the challenge was to come up with the perfect theoretical solution as though any one of us had the power to decree something into law. That sabotages political activism. The debate here is about what we should be advocating, not what we would enact into law. People with academic backgrounds are especially susceptible to thinking this way, and approach it as though it were an amusing exercise in exploring hypothetical and theoretical "solutions." In politics in the real world, there are no grades or degrees awarded for coming up with the perfect academic solution. That is a place to hide. We place reality over there, in a neat little box, we think, by merely saying "here is my position on the issue, now let's look for a solution" as though we were neutral observers rather than participants in the political struggle.

This discussion is about what we should be advocating, not what we should be coming up with as a clever, impersonal, detached, lifeless academic "solution." We advocate for what is right, for what is true, we should never see what is right and what is true as mere variables to manipulate in order to develop some hypothetical micro-managed plan. The very fact that your argument is clever, impersonal, detached, lifeless and academic is cause for rejecting it. The "I am on your side" protestations don't change that. We stand up and we speak out. Let the politicians do the horse trading and compromising. That is not our job.

"Here is my brilliant solution" line of reasoning is condescending and paternalistic. It establishes a hierarchy covertly at the outset of the discussion that places you, as the technician and analyst, as the wise and presumably cool and dispassionate observer, in a superior position to those who are directly impacted and who are suffering. It makes this "their" problem, that you are going to solve for them, since they obviously do not know what they are doing.

...

Please read the entire thread, and Two America's entire post. See if you can find the problems in Dead Parrot's reasoning.

[Old School Liberal]

57. That explains that

Still, advocating something that will be more easily stomached by the opposition makes sterile academic hypothesizing useful to give direction, rather than getting into a shouting match over our widely differing principles. Two America's post does rightfully point out the implicit paternalism overshadowing these sorts of arguments, but is there anything objectionable about that, in itself? If indicted with a crime, I would certainly like a paternal, dispassionate and reasonable judge to oversee the case, as opposed to someone who can empathize with my problems. Detachment sterilizes arguments of the more irrational points on which reason can't level an expressible argument. These little academic exercises might seem tedious to the man or woman on the street who see's 'reality' and wants an impassioned response, but they allow us to more accurately understand the situation through carefully dissecting the reasons which are governing the actions of those involved--only through isolated, detached hypothetical scenarios can we see how important one little issue may have been and may make all the difference in the real world, and which may have been otherwise lost in all the complexities that govern human decision-making. People's feelings change in response to their reasoning, and arguing principle bypasses a capacity that I believe exists far more than many would think among so-called zealots and wingnuts. Negotiation can help make inroads, spouting off about the inherent intellectual and moral inferiority of those you disagree with (including accusations of condescension) does not. There aren't any 'problems' in Dead Parrot's reasoning, simply too much presumption on his part of the cool detachment of those he deigns to uplift from wretchedness.

[noamnety]

58. I have faith

that in time with some self-reflection, we will see post like this from you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x110423#111087

[Creideiki]

52. Look at what's going on now in Washington State

They have "DPs" with all the rights of marriage.

So the fundies are trying to ensure that there can be no recognition of a relationship of any name that approaches the sacredness of "marriage" for same-sex couples. This has already been done elsewhere--VA, MI and CO.

In fact, it's so bad that in Colorado where we have the laugh-riot that is the "Designated Beneficiary" to allow for transfer of property on one same-sex de facto spouse's death. And we have people here foaming at the mouth that they're going to make sure they take away this because it too closely approaches "marriage".

The rightwing wants us dead, the moderates want us gone, the "liberals" just want us to shut up.

[plantwomyn]

54. NO.

Do the opposite. All legal marriages are secular. If couples want their marriages recognized by their church they should have to have a second ceremony. All marriages must be officiated by a government official of a licensed officiant. NO officiant may be affiliated with any religion. Marriage is a legal contract licensed by the state. "Holy unions" may be conducted by religious leaders but they cannot sign or codify licenses. Married is a neutral term and is a legal term used in every sate constitution. They can have "Holy Union" or "Sanctified", I don't want or need that kind of marriage. I want and need LEGAL marriage.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

55. Um...err...

:wtf: