posted
I personally do not believe that it should legally be called marriage for any couple. I think marriage is a religious union not a legal one. So why not have civil unions for everyone?
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But isn't it the "religious" portions of the definition of marriage that is leading people to proposed denying some type of union to same-sex couples?
RRR it seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways. (However I've been known to be slow, so feel free to show me the error of my ways.) Why must we call it marriage because many people believe that marriage describes more than a religious union? The opposite does make sense to me though. I can't see anyone proposing that "civil union" would have religious connotations.
What am I missing here?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because some people don't believe that marriage is solely a religious union.
This is exactly why I favor going to civil unions for everyone. Marriage means too many different things to too many different people to have a version of it embodied in law that will please everyone, or even a significant plurality.
As a society, we recognize that certain legal benefits, rights, and obligations should come into existence when two people decide to join into a union intended to be lifelong. This legal structure exsists because it is helps people form such unions.
Beyond those legal structures though, there's no real consensus on the topic. Everyone attaches their own significance to his or her marriage. I think we should just recognize that phenomenon.
If "civil union" refers to the legal consequences of a marriage, and "marriage" refers to the everything else that participants bring into it, then we already have gay marriage in this country. We just don't have civil unions.
Stripping the legal aspects of marriage of everything not directly related to them will create a legal institution that represents all views of marriage equally. We say, "not only does the civil institution of marriage not reflect any one or group of religious interpretations of marriage, it reflects nothing beyond what is needed to make it function legally. All extraneous meaning is added by the participants, whether that meaning derives from faith, sentiment, or anything else."
quote:As a society, we recognize that certain legal benefits, rights, and obligations should come into existence when two people decide to join into a union intended to be lifelong. This legal structure exists because it is helps people form such unions.
Dagonee,
Please don’t see this is as an attack. I'm truly curious.
Have you run across specific precedent or language that supports the fact that property law (or any other field for that matter) is specifically designed to favor the social institution of marriage? I definitely see that one of the consequences of laws that allows "couples" to be represented tend to support the institution, but I wasn't aware that any body of law was specifically designed for that purpose. Is there some historical reference behind your statement above? (I’m sorry if this is obvious…I’m not always as well informed as I’d like to be.)
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a lot of time to go into it - I'm getting ready for an interview. Historically, there were many laws designed to protect the integrity of the couple. Even when the laws heavily favored the husband's rights over the wife's, it provided for curtesy, which guaranteed the wife 1/3 of the estate for life upon the husband's death, in order that she might live without her previous means of support. This concepts exists only in the context of marriage. Some vestige still exists In many states, a surviving spouse is guaranteed a certain percentage of the estate.
Other instances include Tenancy in the Entirety, which is a type of title in land that prevents either spouse from assigning the land without permission of the other. While this sounds like a restriction, it's actual a very powerful tool, because it means the land cannot be attached to fulfill a debt owed by only one spouse.
These are two concrete examples. There are countless others, in property law and out.
Does this answer your question?
Dagonee Edit: These are meant to be examples of special laws aimed at providing specific protections for married persons. I'm obviously inferring the motive behind these laws as being to assist marriages.
Thanks for the reply. I certainly didn't mean to get in the way of honest work. My query is more of an "I always wondered" nature.
I'm not sure that you caught exactly what I was asking. It may also be that it doesn't matter one way or the other. I'll try to rephrase more clearly. Maybe you'll get a chance later to set me straight.
I understand your examples and the way that they protect the institution of marriage. I've seen Tenancy in the Entirety up close a personal.
The phrase the caught my attention above, however, was "This legal structure exists because it is helps people form such unions". This implies somewhat (but I don't believe it was your intention) that the law was written when the institution of marriage may have been seen as weak or eroding, with the specific intent to strengthen that institution.
My thought is that it is difficult to determine which institution was influencing the other. The body of law grew in an environment where the religious institutions existed and vice versa.
Taking the example of Tenancy in the Entirety:
If I were trying to state that the lawmaker designed the law to promote the institution of marriage I would have him say, "If I make this law, people will get married more often because it will strengthen their joint property rights".
If I were trying to state that the lawmaker was trying to make laws to conform to already existing institutions of marriage I would have him say, "Married people are getting a bum rap. If I make this law, people who are married won't be individually responsible for the financial irresponsibility of the other party".
So specifically I was asking: Have you seen evidence of lawmakers trying to build the institution of marriage or just supporting the institution, as it exists.
I know that this is primarily a semantic question. It probably doesn't have any bearing on the actual question at hand. In addition, I believe that you weren't trying to make the assertion that lawmakers are trying to design society in the beginning. However, I thought that you might have seen support for that assertion (social engineering?) as well, and I just wondered…
Good luck with your interview. See you on the flip side, maybe.
quote: This is exactly why I favor going to civil unions for everyone.
Dagonee, you've made you views clear of how you think things ought to be, but do you think there is any chance of abolishing marriage as a legal institution in America, and replacing it with civil unions?
To save time, I'm going to assume that the answer is no. If I'm wrong, feel free to give me 40 lashes with a wet noodle.
If it's never going to happen, why do you even bother to keep brining it up?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that some European countries already separate legal and religious marriage. People who want both get legally married at the registrar’s office and then go to church for the ceremony. I seem to recall Anna writing about that in her wedding thread. So it’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
Speaking as someone who officiates at weddings, I’ve always found it a little weird that I’m acting as a representative both of the state and of the church in that function. It’s the only time when clergy function as a representative of the state, and there’s just a little cognitive dissonance in it for me. The “separation of church and state” supporter in me is a tad bit squicked by it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a lot of things that could/do happen in Europe that just wouldn't fly here. We have a very different culture from Europe.
I personally cannot envision enough politicians in America ever being willing to face the backlash of "destroying marriage", which is what it would be called by opponents.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ANAL, but I don't see how judges could ever abloish marriage entirely just because they think it would be better if it were abolished.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm also totally in favor of separating the legal and personal/religious meanings of marriage, and see no reason why we shouldn't have the same "civil union" setup for both straight and gay couples. I don't know how likely it is that that'll happen, though, at least in my lifetime, Dagonee's right that opponents of it would scream about "destroying marriage."
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me clarify. Let's suppose that Dagonee is correct, and that things would be better if marriage were abolished and civil unions implemented.
Even if that is a better solution, how does that make marriages unconstitutional (wouldn't they have to be deemed unconstitutional for the courts to throw them down?)?
For example, how can marriage be declared unconstitional in Utah if the Utah Constitution specifically discusses marriage, and the rights of married women?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody wants to abolish marriage. That’s not what Dag is suggesting at all. He’s talking about separating out the legal aspects of marriage and calling that part of it a “civil union.”
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
m_p_h, to those that feel that way, my emotional response is similar to Andy Dufresne's response to the Warden in Shawshank Redemption, "How can you be so obtuse?"
Given the rationale that the religious aspects of marriage will be left untouched by state powers, how can people think that the change to legal civil unions will destroy marriage? I grant it will "destroy" one definition of it... But in the grand scheme of things, especially in the eyes of most objectors, it's the least important definition. Or am I off on this assumption?
posted
It doesn't matter if you are right, and it doesn't matter if people are being obtuse.
There are many, many people who feel that traditional values are very much under attack, and it will be far too easy to inflame their passions by trying to pass something that can be interpreted as an attempt to "abolish marriage" or "destroy marriage".
Calling people obtuse doesn't help the situation at all. These are real people with real feelings and real fears. Discounting their fears and feelings as invalid doesn't do anybody any good.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking at it from a mathematical perspective:
If "Marriage" = X rights and priveledges and "Civil Union" = X rights and priveledges then Marriage = X = Civil Union. So legally you wouldn't be able to treat them any differently, even if they apply to two different groups of people.
This is why I can't comprehend the people that are making the "semantic" argument about "well I'm ok with civil unions". I wish I could understand it, but I can't force my logic proces to go there.
To say you are ok with civil unions means, that you are imposing a semantic difference on a group of people, but otherwise they are exactly equal legally. But if they are exactly equal legally then there isn't any *real* difference.
And if there is no *real* difference then it doesn't matter what it is called so you might as well call it all one thing or all the other for the sake of what is on the law books now.
quote:I personally cannot envision enough politicians in America ever being willing to face the backlash of "destroying marriage", which is what it would be called by opponents.
So far, not a single politician that I know of has been held responsible for destroying any other marriages but their own. Marriages are frequently destroyed in this country to an alarming level considering all the hand wringing about the destruction of marriage by homosexuals.
But that is an aside, of course. To bring it back to the amendment proposed. I have heard that Ohio's is stricter than most because it adds the bit about not allowing situations that "approximate the design" of marriage, either.
The thought on this and why Ohio Republicans are even opposing it is because it will effect those businesses in the state that give domestic partner benefits to live-in couples (gay or straight, by the way). In short, it won't be just effecting a man and a man or woman and woman living together but any relationship that isn't considered "marriage." There are couples with children that aren't married (in the poorer neighborhoods I work in, this is largely the case) and one wonders how interpreting this amendment will effect those situations as well.
It seems that in trying to go for the big fat kill, the extreme right has shot themselves in the foot with an amendment that will probably not stand the test of voters (one can hope) because it goes TOO far in attacking homosexuals. It is one thing to say that "marriage" in a legal sense only belongs to one man and one woman, but to then go the extra distance and try to make it impossible for some of the rights and benefits to be replicated in some way...well, too far by any account.
I am wondering if Ohio voters will look that far. As MPH pointed out, people are obtuse because their passions get in the way of critical thinking. For some reason, it is easier to put the burden of a successful marriage on the shoulders of as-yet married gay men vs. looking into their own house. People can't even begin to explain how two women getting married and benefits of that marriage will effect them...but by golly, it will. Hmmm...now that I think about it, Ohio may be in a world of hurt, too.
posted
Banna...your math is missing some bits in the equation. Marriage = Rights + Privileges+ Responsibility + Endorsement by (insert religious Icon Here) + Ceremony + Showers + Cake + (ad nauseum).
Civil Union = Rights and priviledges.
That's it. Dag said it best...marriage means so many different things to so many different people so they are not the same. To the LAW they are the same, because the law doesn't care if your marrying person is a priest, a rabbi, a high priestess or (insert appropriately recognized religious leader title). The law doesn't care how many invites went out. It doesn't care if God was even mentioned. It does make a distinction as to WHO can be married, though, and in a country of equal rights and pursuit of happiness and all that, that dog just don't hunt.
Good question. I put it in quotes in the thread title because it is a loaded word...like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" and "pro-war."
Like those descriptions, it depends. What one thinks of oneself and what one thinks of another person are two entirely different ideas. I am pro-family because I think this, this and this. Because you think this, this and THAT...well, you clearly aren't pro-family.
Meaning, I doubt anyone on here thinks of themselves as anything but pro-family but would clearly think that some of the other posters clearly aren't.
posted
fil I was looking at it from the legal standpoint only. The rights and priveledges are the legal definition. I (as a heterosexual) could go to the courthouse with my bf, and fill out a marriage license and have a judge or justice of the peace sign it, and we would be just as married as if all of the ad nauseum stuff had been tossed in. The legal rights and priveledges *are* the minimum definition of marriage. All of the cultural/religious stuff could (and do) happen with or without the signing of that peice of paper.
posted
"These are real people with real feelings and real fears."
Yes, but these are stupid people with stupid feelings and stupid fears. It seems counterproductive to hold the whole country hostage to their stupidity, doesn't it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is one thing to say that "marriage" in a legal sense only belongs to one man and one woman, but to then go the extra distance and try to make it impossible for some of the rights and benefits to be replicated in some way...well, too far by any account.
Yup. That's about where I stand.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes, but these are stupid people with stupid feelings and stupid fears. It seems counterproductive to hold the whole country hostage to their stupidity, doesn't it?
I am absolutely not able to express my feelings for this vile, mean-spirited post.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For that matter, if my bf and I signed a marriage license we would be legally married, whether or not we actually called ourselves married or told friends and family that we had done so. (and you are talking to someone who has seriously contemplated not telling my family should I ever actually sign the document) Currently we are joking that we'd sign the document about the time Steve retired so that I'd qualify for his government health benefits for the rest of my life.
quote:The legal rights and priveledges *are* the minimum definition of marriage.
Banna,
I wonder if any of our more religiously minded members would differ with your "minimum definition". When I attended premarital counselling I was brought up short by the Pastor who upbraided me for this type of definition. As far as he was concerned I was missing the point. His opinion was that the legal definition was unimportant--the important issue was God's blessing on the union.
I think that is the reason people are trying to find a way to separate the legal rights from the religious rites as they discuss couples' legal standing in society.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
m_p_h, the "obtuse" comment is my emotional response, my feelings, as it were; I'm sure many anti-SSM folks have emotional responses as well. I just wanted to be up front and honest.
Similarly, there are real people with real fears and real feelings on this side of the debate. So why do we bend to the anti-SSMers as opposed to the pro-SSMers?
It just seems that we're just supposed to keep on understanding pro-traditional values types, to the point of paralysis... IOW, understand them until they get exactly what they want.
quote: Those last few are pats of a wedding, not a marriage.
Really? Some people don't think you are married until you have a wedding, so I think it is very pertinent. I don't mean in a legal sense, but in a spiritual/social/cultural sense. What this amendment is doing is making one possible social/cultural/religious definition of marriage the only legal one.
I had a friend who was "married" three times in a year. Once on paper so that his Mexican fiance could legally leave the US and return after they had a "real" ceremony in Mexico City (if they didn't get legally hitched here, she would have had to stay out of the country for 6 to 12 months). Then they had a third one for all of us who couldn't make the second one. The first one was for the law only.
What the amendment is saying is that only this first marriage was the legal one and the one prohibited to gay citizens. They can already get married in the ways that matter to most people...in church, with religious leaders, with families, with cake, with dancing, with anniversaries and pledges and such. They just can't have the benefit of them in the eyes of the law...a law that should be somewhat blind to things like this, I would think.
posted
See I don't think the minimum practical definitions are any different. Believe me I understand the spiritual significance that is attached to religious weddings especially when invoking God as a third person present in the marriage to help strengthen it.
However, regardless of the spiritual ramifications I think the minimum working definitions from a practical standpoint are actually the same. That is unless your Pastor would presume to tell someone who got married by Elvis in Vegas that they "aren't really married". Would he go that far?
AJ
Or to stretch the question further, would he tell a gay couple that got married by their spiritual authority (and some denominations do allow their clergy to perform such marriages) that they "weren't married"? Because if the spiritual is more important, and they had a "spiritual" marriage according to their beliefs, then by your pastor's definition they would be married!
posted
"I am absolutely not able to express my feelings for this vile, mean-spirited post."
It's not mean-spirited. These people are clearly ignorant, and do not understand the distinction between legal recognition of marriage and the existence of marriage. Such people are representatives of the lowest common denominator, and I don't see why we need to give their concerns extra weight.
If you're proposing a medicare bill, you don't stop to worry about whether or not there are people out there who think that medicine is a huge fraud being perpetuated by an alien race bent on our destruction; if there ARE such people, you simply dismiss their opinion as being lunatic and unreasonable and move on. I suggest that, in this case, we do the same.
posted
Ah. So what you were working your way up to saying, without having the courage to say it, is that YOU are one of those people who believe that the removal of marriage from government and its replacement with "civil unions" would amount to the abolition of marriage?
As a Mormon, you have even less reason to feel this way -- since, after all, you have a whole special category of super-marriage (tm) unique to your religion that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the government. I would think that this would make it even easier for you to understand this concept.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am absolutely not able to express my feelings for this vile, mean-spirited post.
How it was stated aside, it is true. The fact is, people can be all sorts of mean-spirited and vile if they use language like the words in such amendments. They can heap all sorts of flowery words to say the same things about people who are for same sex marriage without worrying that THEIR mean-spirited and vile expressions will cost some people possible future happiness and security...all for their "real feelings."
posted
Tom, keep in mind that an important part of Mormon beliefs about marriage deals with things being legal. There is a very strong sense of following the laws of the land.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, though, it didn't occur to me that Porter was talking about himself when he used the phrase "some people." If I'd known that he was describing his own opinion, I would have been slightly -- slightly, mind you -- more diplomatic in my reply.
-------
"There is a very strong sense of following the laws of the land."
Well, great. So you get a civil union before or after your sealing, just like everybody else will do. You won't be breaking the law by having a separate marriage ceremony.
And since Mormons already have a separate marriage ceremony that isn't reflected in law, I believe far less would change for you than you'd think.
posted
Personally, I'd be just as happy with the total abolition of "civil marriage" completely. I think it would be fairer than what exists now.
Of course the non-religious people, like Tom who do enjoy the civil benefits of marriage and feel that society benefits as a whole from having stable couples, would probably squawk.
posted
I wasn't talking about myself, and I don't agree with everything I said some people think. I was just so offended by the idea that anybody with intelligence has to agree with Tom that I got carried away.
I haven't decided if I agree with those things or not. I don't agree nor disagree with them yet.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
m_p_h, I agree, TomD is being rather uncharitable with the above comments.
The way I see it though, if SSM happens, either by all marriages == civil unions, or same sex partners getting an actual legal marriage certificate, won't stop people with strong traditional and/or religious values, like yourself, m_p_h, from practicing your own fully defined, unique, spiritually important marriage rites, as is deemed necessary by your beliefs. It simply means that some same sex couple can go to city hall and get the same legal protections for their intended exclusively monogamous earthly (and sexual) relationship as you can get for yourself and beverly. You can even, witihn your own faith or cultural groups believe and bar these non-approved-of relationships... You just can't ask the government of a pluralistic nation like the USA to take an exclusionary side, without concrete, and earthly (since that is what a government should limit its concerns to, and which I think the Founding Fathers made clear as to their intent for our nation's government) evidence.
Are there some side effects? Yes, as a fair amount of Hatrackers have explained it before. I realize that the law allowing such a change will be seen by many as tacit (or even explicit) approval of said relationship, in some moral way. I can see how homosexuality could be seen as more acceptable, making it harder to raise their children with the beliefs that one has. I don't know how to make it easier, except maybe readjusting one's beliefs that a government, on domestic issues anyway, has any inherent moral weight.
posted
"I was just so offended by the idea that anybody with intelligence has to agree with Tom that I got carried away."
Nope. It's not that they disagree with me; it's that they're factually and provably wrong. People who think that removing marriage from civil jurisdiction amounts to the destruction of marriage do not understand the meaning of basic english words. Rather than letting their misunderstanding of the language influence public policy, why not suggest that they pick up a dictionary?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I don't know how much things would change. I just don't know enough and can't guess. Maybe this is a point of nitpicking, but there is a bit of wording about being "legally and lawfully married". If you can't be legally and lawfully married because there is no such thing as legal marriage, that becomes a bit of a problem. It may not be a huge problem--it is hard for me to judge.
I suppose my views seem "unfair" to many, and they are based on my faith (though because of my faith, I believe these things have very real ramifications on our society), I freely admit that. I would prefer to keep marriage something that is legally recognized as such--as now. I also think it should be defined as being only between a man and a woman. But I think many of the more obvious benefits (in other words, the ones I am aware of) of married couples should be extended to same-sex couples who have entered into a legal union. I think it only makes sense for there to be a legal set-up for that and it seems petty to withhold such a thing.
I don't, however, think it is petty to define marriage as between a man and a woman, though. I do believe that in the vast majority of cultures throughout time, marriage has only ever existed between a male and a female--whatever their age or status. There are exceptions, but they are in the minority. The fact remains, in *our* society marriage has always been between male and female and never between male and male or female and female. That is what marriage *is*. And because of my religious views, I don't want to see that change.
I believe that having marriage defined and reserved in this way encourages people to enter into male/female unions. And while some people are incapable of being attracted to the opposite sex, those who are "swing voters" so-to-speak, are effected by society's constructs. I desire to live in a society that encourages the male/female model, rewarding such behavior (rather than one that punishes the other--since so many people cannot be attracted to the opposite sex.)
Because I am a parent, I view the world through that lens quite often. So the example that comes to mind is rewarding and punishing my children. Can I reward one child for good behavior without the other seeing not being rewarded as being a punishment? They may think of it that way, but I have not punished them. I have failed to reward them. There is a difference whether they see it or not.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If you can't be legally and lawfully married because there is no such thing as legal marriage, that becomes a bit of a problem."
There are a handful of countries that already require "civil unions" instead of "marriage." Does anyone know how the Mormons in those countries feel about their sealings?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bokonon, you and many others have made the point that people shouldn't let their faith dictate the way that they vote. I don't see how that is possible. The moral code of a religious person is quite often defined by that religion. Many of them are a members of that religion because they agree with it's moral code and the reasons for it. (There are exceptions too.) These people believe that this moral code is correct and has a very real effect on reality and they have a moral obligation to uphold it.
Of course everyone has their own moral code, religious or not. And these codes differ from person to person. Let's set up a hypothetical.
Imagine that you live in some future version of our society where there is no taboo whatsoever against adult-child sexual relations. You, however, strongly believe that such relations are harmful and wrong. The evidence of such does not show up in scientific studies, but you believe in your heart of hearts that it is there. Let's just change this situation slightly to say that you also belong to a religion that believes this. Your moral code happens to be in alignment with your faith on this matter. You decide to vote, protest, whatever, against adult-child sex being legal.
Are you voting according to your faith? Shame on you! You shouldn't be doing that! Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are a handful of countries that already require "civil unions" instead of "marriage." Does anyone know how the Mormons in those countries feel about their sealings?
That is an interesting question, and a pertinent one. I don't know the answer. But my thoughts on the matter are, if that is the case, life goes on. Mormons still continue practicing as they would normally (or not, I don't know). If their beliefs are restricted in some way, they deal with it as best they can. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be better in their eyes if marriage was a legal construct in their country.
Mormons are also told to have a year's supply of food stored. There are many countries that prohibit this by law. The Mormons in those countries are told to obey the law and do what they are able to legally do. But of course, food storage and eternal marriage are *way* different in importance. Would these Mormons prefer to have food storage be legal in their country? I'm sure they would. I know I would. But we believe in following the law of the land. We take that very seriously. IMO, the conflict would have to be a strong one in order for the Latter-day Saints to be commanded by their prophets to go against it (otherwise they are left to decide for themselves). It is a "lesser of two evils" issue.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think that the Jewish faith actually shows a great example. Do they force everyone else to eat kosher? No. They even have allowances that Non-Jews don't have to obey the same laws. But do they still take time out of their lives to make sure they are following their dietary laws, yes. Are they following the dictates of their conscience and G-d? Yes.
They would only ever vote against something that made their kosher way of eating illegal.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
