mar·riage

[MisterMike]

n. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Does anyone believe that the definition somehow needs to be changed, or extended to include the union of two same-sex people?

It kind of reminds me of the one girl who would always try out for the boys football team. I can kind of go along with the cause because there was no girls football team as an alternative.

But it seems there is an alternative for the gay community. (Granted I may not like any of those either) So why change what was already in place for a man and woman???

 

[Cruentus]

I know we have touched on this topic before, and managed to get the thread locked, but I am glad you brought the issue up! I just have been thinking about it lately.

My first problem with government recognizing "marriage" (and giving all kinds of tax breaks and advantages for it) is that "marriage" has a religious connotation. Now, I know that the secular definition does not mention anything of a church or religious institution, but the origin of marriage, as I understand it, is religious.

What happends is we start to tread on the line of mixing church and state because of the origins of marriage. Why else would marriage be a civil union between only one man and one woman? Because this is what was instituted by religious institutions. The recognition of "marriage" by the government now becomes a bridge between "church" and "state." One church may not condone same sex marriages, so they now fight to keep it so the government won't recognize them. Another church might condone them, so they are fighting to get the government to do the same. The arguement then boils down to a "religious" one, and comes down to a matter of "belief." And meanwhile, while the government wastes time argueing over "beliefs" they should stay out of anyways, the monogomus gay couples get screwed over. So in a nutshell, I think that Government should stay out of our belief systems.

Solution: I think the solution would be to eliminate "marriage" as something that is recognized by the government, and leave that to the religious institutions to recognize. Government should recognize "civil unions" instead.

A Civil Union is basically a legal union of two people, and is more secular by nature. By eliminating "marriage" from the governments vocabulary and replacing it with "Civil Union," this takes away the church/state bridge, and allows the government to look at the issue on a secular level. Basically two people contract by law the same way that "married" couples do now a days, with no stipulation on who those 2 people are. The only exception is kids can't marry adults, and the same stipulations on concentual age to marry would apply. But there would be no stipulation in regards to sex.

So, it would work like this; I marry my fiancee' and that is recognized by my church as marriage, and my state as a civil union. If a gay couple wants be recognized by the state, they get a civil union status also. If they want to be recognized by my church (Catholic) they won't be married; but perhaps another denomination would marry them if they wanted the religious part of it. Either way, the couple would have the same advantages as a hetrosexual couple.

My general feeling is that the government should stay out of religion, but should still encourage things that are for the our social benefit. Monogamy, whether straight or gay relationship, actually has social benifits, so I have no problem with incentives for it (tax and insurance benefits and such). I just think that Government needs to be fair with it, and stay out of the religious portion of it.

PAUL

 

[Makalakumu]

Paul - you beat me to the punch.

I think the government has no business throwing two definitions out for two different groups of people. The MA Supreme Court decision said it best, "This is just a reflection of segregation and separate is not equal." Throw the term marriage away and call them all civil unions under the law. If you want to be married go to a church, or a synagogue, or a mosque, or a temple, or the damn woods and run around naked. That is your business, not the governments.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Um...I recommend a little trip back through history. In the first place, it appears that the Catholic Church celebrated unions between men that while not exactly marriage, were at the least acknowledgements of something.

Moreover--read through stuff like Foucault's "History of Sexuality," and the Philipper Aries collections, "A History of Private Life," it would appear that up until fairly recently, most of the human race had rather different definitions of "normal sexuality," than the ones we are pleased to take for granted...

And here's a syllogism for y'all.
1. The only grounds on which homosexual union can be opposed are religious and moral.
2. The government has no business deciding religious and moral questions for individuals.
3. Therefore...the government has no business meddling in homosexual unions.

Of course, they do this with tax policy all the time. That is also probaably unconstitutional.

Again, I find two contradictions fascinating:

a) libertarians who think that "liberty," extends only to behavior of which they personally approve;

b) "strict constructionists," who want to reinterpret and if necessary rewrite the Constitution as much as necessary to stop behavior of which they personally do not approve.

The Mass court made the right decision. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Gary Crawford]

Please let me shed some light on this suject for those of you who do not know any homosexual people.My best freind came out of the closet on me after we had been freinds for fifteen years(What a shock!).I found that I could accept it better than I ever thought and I have learned alot since then.All of you know more homosexuals than you think(not me,just in case yout thinking that).The reason you don't know they are is because most homosexuals belong to what I call the "Silent Majority".These people act just like straight people and want their private lives kept secret to the rest of us.They don't make public speeches about it,march in "gay rights " parades or want any special rights(including gay marrage).They want to be liked and respected in their communities.They don't want to jeopardize their carreers or relationships with their families or straight freinds.It's the flaming minority that has started this and every other contraversy on the subject.

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by MisterMike
Mar*riage n. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Here is the Merriam - Webster definition, which I think is a bit more accurate.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

 

[MisterMike]

Definitions change over time, but they shouldn't be changed by the courts. The religious institution of marriage will never change. Of course there is always the possibility of the rise in popularity of gay churches.

But as far as traditional marriage, the "flaming minority" want to defile it. What they cannot get done through voting, they do selectively through the courts. That's all this is about. They want their gay pride out in everyone's faces. Parades, TV, school. They want not only forced acceptance, but full immersion.

Taxes and other money and inheritence issues are about the only government "rights" I can see them having an issue with. These can be re-worked, but not the definition of marriage.

 

[OULobo]

The only real issue that the gov. should be concerned with is the issue of spousal rights; inheritance, benefits, compensations, divorce/allamony(sp). The government has to get involved if companies refuse to recognize the union as legal. I think the issue of calling it marriage or civil union or what ever is a joke. It's for people who are more concerned with the civil part than the union part.

Interesting side note: I've been living with my finace for two years and according to the law, I'm already married! Even without a religious ceremony or a marriage licence, she is still considered my common law wife. So how would this effect if we apply the same sex marriage idea? If I live with my male roommate for two years, does that make him my common law civil union wife/husband/partner? What if I live with multiple people, am I a common law polygamist?

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by OULobo
...am I a common law polygamist?

Good Point.

Has anyone ever thought about what suppression of homosexual urges does to a society? This is pretty much what the gay marriage debate is all about. It is also the reason for enforced celibacy in preists and untold numbers of sexual rules in religion...

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...Mike...the problem with your argument is that, "the religious institution of marriage," has changed extraordinarily over the last thousand years or so. It is also more than a little varied across the world at present...like it or lump it, we do not get to describe the perfectly-valid definitions of one part of Christianity as the ones everybody else has to accept or be abnormal.

I'd also argue that "the courts," have not so much overthrown as extended definitions of words for some extremely good reasons--words like, "man," and "citizen," and, "voter," essentially got changed so that black people, and the poor, and women could be treated equally in terms of the law and its protections.

It is also my point that the government has no business making these decisions for people. And, I'd add that we don't get to encourage the government to force certain limited moral ideals down everybody's throat, simply because the government happens at the moment to support our particular point of view.

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

It is also my point that the government has no business making these decisions for people. And, I'd add that we don't get to encourage the government to force certain limited moral ideals down everybody's throat, simply because the government happens at the moment to support our particular point of view.

If the government is finding decisions to enforce laws involving the interaction of the term marriage and job benefits, then it need to make certain decisions. It defends the rights of couples and spouses in the "marriage". That is the heart of this issue. The government has to decide who is "married" so that the "married" couples can obtain rightful job benefits. The terminology issue to me is pointless. If you want to be called married, fine, so be it, but what happens if your employer doesn't consider it so and won't without a legal marriage license. Then the terminology becomes an issue of law.

 

[Nightingale]

There is no alternative that gives equal rights and equal protections. That is what the massachusetts decision was all about. We've already proven that "separate but equal" is seldom equal.

 

[someguy]

I think its a move based purely on religious stuff(yeah I'm using words like stuff in this kind of debate shame on me). The problem with this area for me is that I'm not sure that the government has a right to do it as I can't see an area that it will "harm" that the gov. should regulate.
Any way you look at it who am I to judge another person on an aspect of life such as this. I think this is a case of prejudice in action.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Nightingale
There is no alternative that gives equal rights and equal protections. That is what the massachusetts decision was all about. We've already proven that "separate but equal" is seldom equal.

Bingo.

That's why I propose eliminating the word "marriage" from our law books, which has both a religious origin as well as the word limits the couple to "man and woman," and replacing it with the more general term "Civil Union," and (of course) giving the same rights in privliges to all involved in a civil union regardless of gender or sexual preference.

you can't change the meaning of the word "marriage," but it can be removed from our legal/government system and replaced with a more general term that doesn't segregate.

PAUL

 

[Nightingale]

Paul, I agree with you.

Civil Union: You are a couple in the eyes of the government with all legal rights and priveledges thereof. Open to any two people, regardless of gender.

Marriage: You are a couple in the eyes of your church, with all ecclesiastical rights and priveledges thereof. Church sets the rules as to who gets it and why.

That way, the government is not permitted to discriminate, while churches can continue marrying whomever they see fit.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Nightingale
Paul, I agree with you.

Civil Union: You are a couple in the eyes of the government with all legal rights and priveledges thereof. Open to any two people, regardless of gender.

Marriage: You are a couple in the eyes of your church, with all ecclesiastical rights and priveledges thereof. Church sets the rules as to who gets it and why.

That way, the government is not permitted to discriminate, while churches can continue marrying whomever they see fit.

Sigh, if only reason could prevail over bigotry...

This debate is part of a huge sociatal problem that we are going to face in the coming years. I think it may rise to the level of a civil rights movment. Why do you think the bible (some versions) have passages that discriminate against homosexuals? Where is the benifit to discriminating homosexuals? How did this start?

 

[Nightingale]

been doing a little more thinking...

I really do think paul's solution is best.

the reason the religious organizations are so up in arms is that what they see is the government bestowing a religious state on two people who, according to certain religions, should not be joined in a religious manner. this is okay. religions have the right to bestow their sacraments on whomever they see fit. that's part of "freedom of religion."

the problem here lies in the blurring of the lines between the religious state of marriage and the secular state of marriage. One is a religious status. the other is a legal status. The government has somehow blended the two together, and therein lies the problem.

The government needs to separate what never should have been "married" together in the first place. Separate the religious issue from the legal one, and nobody would have the right to complain. The religions can offer their sacrament to whomever they choose, while the government would recognize partnerships irregardless of gender.


To the person who brought up the common law issue:

In fourteen states and the District of Columbia (see below), though, common law marriages are recognized. If two people live together and "intend to be married" by acting like they are married, telling people they are married, and doing the things married people do (using words like "husband" and "wife," filing joint tax returns, etc.), they become common law spouses. This gives them the same rights and responsibilities as people who got married the old-fashioned way, with a trip to City Hall and a wedding.

so, unless you're running around filing joint tax returns and telling people you're married to your same-sex roommate, there's really no worry.

 

[psi_radar]

I suspect the very, very large and powerful insurance industry has some influence over why the government suddenly cares so much about this issue. Think about all the benefits these companies would have to start doling out if same-sex partners were suddenly eligible.

As my wife said, "It's interesting how for years women unsuccessfully tried to get their own amendment to the constitution to ensure their equality, yet it seems likely this much more trivial amendment will be successful. There's got to be special interests behind that decision."

As for the issue in general, two consenting adults who make all the emotional and financial efforts to support each other over the years deserve all the legal and societal dignities that marriage offers. I certainly don't think anything relating to what happens in the bedroom remotely belongs in the constitution. Think of all those states (like Mass., I believe) that still have sodomy laws on the books--they're completely absurd. Just to be sure you know, in most places, oral sex is considered sodomy.

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by MisterMike
Definitions change over time, but they shouldn't be changed by the courts. The religious institution of marriage will never change. Of course there is always the possibility of the rise in popularity of gay churches.

But as far as traditional marriage, the "flaming minority" want to defile it. What they cannot get done through voting, they do selectively through the courts. That's all this is about. They want can be re-worked, but not the definition of marriage.

Like many, I think you may be mis-understanding the Mass SJC's ruling. As I understand it, I am open to clarification and correction, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said, that the Massachusetts Constitution, and case law, as it stands today, offers no legal reason for preventing a same sex couple from receiving a marriage license.

This is not an example of an activist court. This is exactly what the courts are supposed to do; interpret the laws as written. The Massachusetts legislatures, over 200 years of history, have never defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. So, when a gay couple was not granted a license from the town hall, they sought understanding and clarification from the courts. The Massachusetts SJC said, essentially, "Gee, your right, there is no reason in the Massachusetts law that you should be prevented from receiving a Marriage License".

Now whether you argree with this (as I do), or not ... that sequence of events does not make for an activist court.

All that aside ... it is not about Gay Pride. It is about Gay Love. I used to think it was about legal rights ... and to a certain extent it is ... Brittney Spears, on her two day excursion into marriage, was afforded 1400 more rights than my friend Steven, and his partner have, although they have been together, monogomously, for 27 years.

But what it is really about is this ... you know all those emotions, and feelings, and mushy stuff you get to acknowledge to friends and family by talking about your spouse .. and showing your wedding album. Steven and Steve (his partner), for 27 years, have shared together all that mushy stuff; and without the term 'marriage'; the society you live in tells them it is not real.

I hope my wife and I are as happy and faithful as my friends are 21 years from now (she & I have been together for 6 years).

Seperate but equal is never equal. - Mike

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Nightingale
the reason the religious organizations are so up in arms is that what they see is the government bestowing a religious state on two people who, according to certain religions, should not be joined in a religious manner. this is okay. religions have the right to bestow their sacraments on whomever they see fit. that's part of "freedom of religion."

Perhaps the government should redefine the definition of marriage. It would be a stout message from a huge group of people to organized religion that dogmatic bigotry is no longer acceptable in this day and age. I'm not saying that the government should start forcing baptists to marry their homosexual brothers and sisters...well wait a minute, why the hell not? Yes, yes, the whole separation of church and state thing, but shouldn't it be illegal for ANY group within the United States to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? Didn't something similiar happen with slavery? How about all male schools? Male only golf clubs? And on the other end of the spectrum, didn't the government order native children to attend religious schools? There is precedence for this type of interference. It all comes down to this, if discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong in one place, it is wrong everywhere. Maybe, by declaring that marriage is the same as civil unions, the government is stepping in and correcting a gross injustice that has gone on for far too long.