This is my understanding of the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals feel that they should be entitled to have some form of civil union, because as American citizens the government has a responsibility to protect them in there relationship (for instance, so one partner can’t suddenly leave and take everything with no legal intervention). Within that group, are those who believe that gays should have marriage not just civil unions, because to give straight couples marriage, and gay couples civil unions is all very reminiscent of the whole plessy v. ferguson, separate but equal ideology . For them, so ban gay marriage other religion is violation of church and state, to ban other prejudice is just ignorant. On the other side of the debate are people saying that homosexuals should not be allowed marriage, because marriage is traditionally a religious institution, and a lot of religions are opposed to homosexuality. Also, should it come to be that there be a law saying gays have a right to marriage, some religious figures could end up getting sued for refusing to perform the marriage ceremony, and we would have a violation of the first amendment and the right to freedom of religion. It really is a complicated issue, but I have and idea that would solve all of the problems based on technicalities and word uses. But I warn you all, it’s a little radical.
No more government issued marriage. Everyone gets civil unions. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Because marriage IS traditionally a religious institution, really it should never have come under to control of the government at all. What I would propose is that any couple, straight or gay, be able to get a civil union, which would make them a legal couple and would cover shared accounts and decisions and all those other legal issues that I don’t entirely know (having never been married). Basically, it would have all the features and protections of a marriage, minus any kind of religious influence. Then, any couple, if they wish can choose to be recognized as a marriage under any religion that they wish, the religious institution acting separately from the government as a private institution. For instance a more liberal denomination of Christianity may choose to recognize a gay marriage. A Mormon congregation may choose to acknowledge multiple marriages, while under the government it would not be acknowledged. Basically, what I am suggesting is separation of the legal and protective aspect of marriage from the religious and traditional aspect. From my perspective it is the only way that doesn’t violate separation of church and state, the first amendment, or right to equality. Unfortunately, I don’t kid myself, I have a feeling that this debate will end with the rights of one of the two sides getting stepped on.
I've often felt this made sense, too. A marriage by the justice of the peace is exactly what you propose, a union legally approved by a civil servant, and so a civil union. The marriage certificate is a civil document.
One suggestion to you, though, (and please don't take offense): a little editing of the grammar would strengthen your argument. You make excellent points, but I had to read a few times to understand what you were saying in a couple of places.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I am a terrible proof-reader, so a lot of the time I don't even bother.
There cannot ever be a win-win solution, and there won't be a solution that everyone is happy about... And although your solution is radical, I believe it's the most interesting opinion I've heard. It is different, new. Also, it doesn't penalize either side for their beliefs. Nor does it create a Win-Lose or Lose-Win solution. Both side wins a little and both side loses a little. I like it. It's called compromise... And there isnt' nearly enough of it in our country today. Please. Grow up and be a politician?
...and I'm glad you liked my idea, but I'd make a terrible politician, I guarentee it.
There are a couple of problems with your suggestion. The first is that your argument is based on an incorrect premise, which you stated as "marriage IS traditionally a religious institution." The idea of "traditions" is somewhat nebulous, because different groups of people, even within the same society, often have very different traditions. Historically speaking, however, marriage did not originate as a religious (and certainly not as a christian) institution. Marriage as it is practiced today in this country orginated in the common law, which existed for for centuries before christianity was ever even introduced into British Isles. Even from a christian perspectiive, prior to the 10th century most western marriages took place completly outside the auspices of the church, and the church did not actually begin to preside over marriage as a sacrament until as late as the 13th century. Marriage has been around for a very long time, and there are numerous examples of cultures and societies throughout history that offered the protection of the sociologically common institution to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples.
But, even if we were to accept the idea that marriage is "traditionally" an institution afforded only to opposite-sex couples, that would not make for a very strong argument. As our Supreme Court has stated...
"[H]istory and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of the substantive due process inquiry." ~ County of Sacramento v. Lewis (1998)
...and...
"[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack." ~ Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Interracial marriages weren't "tradiotional" either, but our High Court wisely realized that this was a "tradition" that was inconsistent with the principle of Equal Protection that our Constitution guarantees to ALL of its citizens...not just to the "straight" ones.
That a practice might be considered "traditional" doesn't mean that it is constitutional. The simple fact is that religious people don't "own" the institution or even the term "marriage," and even if the argument would still fail, since in fact there are perfectly legitimate religious groups in this country who DO bless same-sex unions. To allow the government to choose one set of religious beliefs and enact them into the law while dismissing the beliefs of those religious which feel differently is just about as plain an example of a religious establishment as one could imagine. Any way you slice it, if you try to use religion as the motivation for making a change in our laws, you have tread into very dangerous constitutional territory.
The other major flaw in your plan is that it really isn't even remotely realistic. Do you really think that the millions of American citizens that ARE married are going to simply relinquish all of the benefits that they receive from being party to a marriage contract? Personally, I doubt it.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
First of all, I aknowledged that the majority of people woundn't go for it. Secondly you are discarding my arguement based on one thing I said - that marriage is a traditionally religious institution - that almost cut from the blog entirely, because I figured that it was contreversial and not overall that important to my arguement, which is that basically the gay marriage issue comes down to the idea of a word. A word that religion feels possesive of, and homosexuals feel a sense of entitlement to. Ultimatly my suggestion is removing the word would be a big step towards removing the problem. Obviosly my idea is simplistic and it is probably obvious that I am no incredibly knowledgable in political matter, however, this is just my humble attemp to offer a solution to a massive cultural debate in a way that neither stomps on religion nor promotes ignorance or intolerance towards gays. Do I at least get points for trying?
"certaintly is now up to about 7%"
Yes. The Libertarian in me actually likes the idea on a certain level.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
It makes perfect sense!
Which is why I think the government wont acknowledge it, it would make it to easy on everyone and they simply MUST have things done complicated.
Can it be as simple as this, the government would recognize and sanction the union of two adults, with legal and mental capacity to consent to join in a monogamous union obligating to each other legal rights and responsibilities and thus availing themselves to federal and state protection, accommodation and regulation, i.e., a civil union.
Therefore, all government recognized unions be they between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, would be civil unions. The licenses granted to such couples would be civil union licenses. To deny any of the above couples this license would have to be based on a compelling state interest (That is, if the right to form a civil union [secular] is construed as equal to the right to marry [ecclesiastical/coitus]. In reality one has little to do with the other). Out side of religious and optimum child rearing environment arguments, a court would be hard pressed to find one.
Going forward, the concept of ?marriage? would no longer be legally operative and could thus safely retain its physiological and biological and/or traditional ecclesiastical
and/or spiritual meanings including the union of man and woman during coitus and/or in holy matrimony. Marriage would be a non-legal status and event defined by the couple and/or their religious and/or spiritual affiliation. This will comply with the concepts of freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and public policy considerations.
An analogy could be drawn to Judaism which recognizes adulthood at thirteen but the state recognizes adulthood at eighteen or twenty-one. Why not a similar understanding applicable to marriage?
By its very definition, marriage (a union of a man and a woman), is an under inclusive
legal term for use in a society that strives to ensure due process and equal protection
to all similarly situated persons under the law. The term civil union most accurately
describes the socio/political construct of a state sanctioned union. It is all inclusive
in that it can pertain to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Let's not let this issue divide us. Can we be one nation, indivisible, with civil unions
for all? Can it be as simple as that?
I think the answer to that is "no."
To begin with, the simple reality in our society is that "civil unions" are not the legal equivalent of marriage as it currently exists in our laws and culture. But more significantly, your suggestion would require that citizens relinquish something that our Supreme Court has consistently recognized as a basic civil right. I see no reason why any citizen should be asked to give away a basic right simply in order to asuage the bigotry of those who don't feel comfortable with the idea that gay citizens are just as much a part of our country as straight citizens. The fact is that our Constitution does not permit the legal establishment of some citizen's religious ideals at the expense of the rights of other citizens, and frankly there is no other sustainable reason for justifying the unequal system of marriage that is predominant in this country. It is also legally and historically inaccurate to claim that the term marriage only applies to a "union of a man and a woman" in the context of "traditional ecclesiastical and/or spiritual meanings including the union of man and woman during coitus and/or in holy matrimony." In reality, there are ample examples of societies (both historical and modern) that have afforded marital statuses to same-sex couples to render such attributions spurious, as well as the derivative "physiological and biological" assumptions that likewise do not play out accurately when the full range of human relationships is examined.
When it comes to basic civil rights, there really is no room for compromise. Citizens are either treated equally, or they are not. Basically, your suggestion responds to the demand that citizens be treated equally by advocating that it is better to dismantle the institution of marriage rather than see it fairly applied. That is not an argument that I find neither constitutionally nor ethically consistent.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
As society progresses definitions of things change. Terms are either under inclusive, over inclusive, or all inclusive. Lest we forget, at one time in United States history, the term "men" as in "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" ONLY pertained to rich, landed, males of European descent. Native Americans, African-Americans, and women of all ethnicities were excluded. It took Constitutional Amendments and US Supreme Court decisions to extend these so called "inalienable rights" to everyone. Instead of changing the word/term "men", which is under inclusive, "we" (as in WE the people) had to use specific terms to expand these "inalienable rights" to all. NOW, in present day America, the term "men" can be construed to apply to all huMANkind. Such is the arch of progress.
Marriage by its very definition, as socially construed by the culture of the United States, ONLY pertains to the union of a man and woman during coitus (which homosexuals cannot engage in as it ONLY involves the penetration of a penis into a vagina) and/or in the ways I described in my previous post. Other cultures/societies/times may have and DO afford marital status to same-sex couples...but we live in AMERIKKKA, baby! If you've forgotten, please take the time to listen to Erykah Badu's latest for a reminder that all is not cool in the "land of the free and the home of the brave". As she has said previously, many of us have had to be "cleva" to get what SHOULD be ours by virtue of being human beings.
In AMERIKKKA , when it comes to basic civil/human rights...IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT COMPROMISE. Don't believe me? Ask my ancestors who were enslaved & held in bondage as CHATTEL, or hung from tress in the sweet magnolia scented southern summer breeze, or who walked the "trail of tears", or my great-grandmothers who COULD NOT vote because they were women. Or better yet, ask any black or brown child stuck in a segregated under performing inner city school...50 some-odd years after Brown vs. Board of Education. They can tell you all about "civil rights" & compromise. But you don't hear me, though.
I believe that it will take a Constitutional Amendment or US Supreme Court decision to guarantee all persons who have the legal capacity to join in a monogamous union all the rights and responsibilities of federal and state protection, accommodation and regulation.
I am not suggesting that "marriage be dismantled". It will stay as it has always been for time immemorial. I simply suggest that "we" (as in WE the people...like we have done successfully in times past) be "cleva" & use specific terms (Civil Union) to extend this inalienable right (to hook up with your boo) to all.
STAY WOKE! Hold on. Love is on the way.
Thanks for the history lesson...but lest we also forget, our Constitution and the rule of law that derives from it has proved itself capable of, if not always sucessful in, recognizing and redressing the social ills of our collective pasts. Part of the beauty of the American system of governement is that its principles were more profound that even many of our founders and early citizens recognized. It took many years to see the legal equality of women and those of other races recognized by the law, but the core principles of our Republic required it...even though many of our people have been slow to accept that equality. Yes, it took a Constitutional Amendment to ensure that our government would be required to recognize the equality of all people, but now that we finally have that protection in place, it seems odd to me to not to require its enforcement.
In response to the "definitional arguement," I will defer to the decision of Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (2003)...
"A comment is in order with respect to the insistence of some that marriage is, as a matter of definition, the legal union of a man and a woman. To define the institution of marriage by the characteristics of those to whom it always has been accessible, in order to justify the exclusion of those to whom it never has been accessible, is conclusory and bypasses the core question we are asked to decide. This case calls for a higher level of legal analysis. Precisely, the case requires that we confront ingrained assumptions with respect to historically accepted roles of men and women within the institution of marriage and requires that we reexamine these assumptions...[A]s matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families."
There was a point in our nation's hisotry that you could have made that argument (although I suggest that even then, your argument would prove difficult to maintain), but any question of that interpretation ended with the Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which clearly established the right of couples to be secure in the privacy of the personal decisions of their relationship, including (very specifically) the right to decide NOT to have children.
You speak of the way that marriage is "socially construed" by our culture, but it seems to me that our culture has long since abandoned the assumption that marriage marriage is just about procreative sex. Couples in this country regularly for a variety of purposes...love, security, companionship, convenience, and yes even to have kids. But not one of these possible motivations (or any of the others one might think up) is required in our current system as a consistent component of the martial institution.
While music can certainly be not only enjoyable but encompassing of provocative political and social messages, it is too subjective a medium upon which to base an evaluation the legal and social realities of familes living under the rule of law. I also have to take issue with your use of the term, "AMERIKKKA." Its a clever phrase if your goal is to inflame, but I would suggest that historically speaking our country acutally has a pretty good track record when it comes to confronting the discrimination (if not the bigotry) that is a part of virtually all human cultures. It is sometimes hard to see this--especially when one has recently been stung by the intolerant barbs of small-minded people--but the fact remains that our Constitution gives us the means to seek redress when put upon by invidious acts in the public square. For all our flaws (and believe me, there are many), our history gives me hope that we can as a country come to recognize and respect the legal rights of gay people as human beings, just as we have the legal rights of women and all races.
Actually, no...I don't. Politics may be the art of compromise, but basic civil rights of citizens (which according to our Supreme Court include the freedom to marry) are not subject to compromise except when there is a "compelling interest" of the State for the infringement, and which must be free of all invidious classifications. There is still a lingering bigotry in our culture that is directed against women and various ethnicities, but our Laws do not permit our government to disadvantage citizens based on those qualities. The arguments (both for and against) same-sex marriage are remarkably similar to those that led to the decision of Loving v. Virginia (1967).
I would suggest that if you compared way that gay people have been treated througout the history of post-Roman Western Civilization, you would find that your appeal to such attrocities place you in no better position to understand these issues than I. And, unlike the plights of the people you mention, the discriminations in our society today remain a legal reality for gay and lesbian people. That doesn't mean that there aren't still anti-woman and racially motivated bigotry in our country (there most certainly is), but at least there are legal structures in place that attempt to protect you. Gay people in our society have no such protection aside from the limited attempts of a few States who have finally begun to react to the hatred and violence that is directed daily at our community. If you discover a school that is truly segregated on the basis of race, there is an established legal process to challenge it. And while you are worried about whether or not a "black or brown child" is being segregated in the classroom, a gay or lesbian kid in the same school has to worry about being murdered because of the way people react to their sexuality.
Matthew Shepherd
Gwen Araujo
Lawrence King
And many more...
I think that a decision in the Supreme Court is the inevitable end to the question of whether or not gay citizens are to be afforded the same rights as other citizens, much as it was the end of laws the prohibited miscegenation. I don't think that a Constitutional Amendment is necessary, however, since the Fourteenth Amendment already gives us all the Contitutional leverage to win that argument in the High Court (IMHO). In fact, the ongoing attempts by ultra-conservatives to amend the Constitution to specifically forbid our marriages speaks to the observation that even our opponents know that their discriminatory point-of-view is not consistent with the principles of our Constiution.
The idea that marriage has "always been" reserved for one man and one woman during coitus "for time immemorial," is quite simply a convenient fantasy propogated by those who have never actually studied the history of marital arrangements throughout history, or who have but would rather lie about that history than admit that their bigotry cannot truly be supported by it.
I am certainly anxious to see some sort of protection afforded to my family, and it wouldn't surprise me if the arrangement you suggest occurs as a step along the way to full marriage equality, but I think that your solution is ultimately short-sighted and doesn't really address this inequity. Even if "civil unions" were the legal equivalent of "marriage" (which they are not), to deprive citizens of a basic right simply to assuage their religious dicomfort (and let's be honest...that's all it really is) with the idea that two people of the same-sex can form a families that not only desever but have a right to the equal protection of our laws is not a point on which I am willing to compromise. And, I think tht ultimately the Law is on my side in this, and I am confident that it is only a matter of time before the laws which forbid same-sex marriages throughout so much of our country are struck down.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Ahhhh...a perfect world. Nice thought. As John Lennon once wrote...IMAGINE...well, we don't live in a perfect world. From my perspective, ideally, I agree that inalienable rights are not subject to compromise. However, this has not been my experience living in this society.
I think Edmund Burke said it best when he stated, " All government - indeed, every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act - is founded on compromise and barter. "
Also I look to James Madison, who stated, "In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other, in the multiplicity of sects."
And as we approach April 4th...I quote MLKjr:
"In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children."
Sadly, WE, as in all AMERICANS, are STILL waiting for this check to be made good. This country is a work in progress and the struggle for justice continues.
Lastly, I believe, as did Theodore Parker and MKLjr that, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
Just some things to keep in mind.
Compromise only occurs if you accept the half-way measured offered to you.
"All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take." ~ Mohandas Gandhi
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I do not believe that an individual could sue a church (which is obviously a religious organization) for not providing marriage services because the would mean that the government was endorsing one religious view over another...
and thus violating the separation of church and state.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
FYI:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/02/18/MN9JUV2MO...
I just posted a blog on this same premise...and failed to notice the existence of this one made months ago. I agree 100%.
I love the idea and it truly makes more sense than what is going around now because its true that there is most deffinitely supposed to be a SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE but it took how long to end segregation? that may take awhile too....
Trying to retrain the toddlers in government is like trying to ween a baby off the breast... not an easy task when its something they really want...
Supporters of an initiative that would outlaw same-sex marriage in California say they have enough signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot. A coalition of religious groups called Protect Marriage collected more than 1.1 million signatures in support of the proposed constitutional amendment.
For the full story click below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246493
"In the present case, it is readily apparent that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples clearly is more consistent with the probable legislative intent than withholding that designation from both opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples in favor of some other, uniform designation. In view of the lengthy history of the use of the term “marriage” to describe the family relationship here at issue, and the importance that both the supporters of the 1977 amendment to the marriage statutes and the electors who voted in favor of Proposition 22 unquestionably attached to the designation of marriage, there can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state’s general legislative policy and preference.
Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand." - In re Marriage Cases, S147999
For the full opinion, please click below:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
For the SFGate news story, click below:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BAGAVNC5K.DT...
For the PROTECT MARRIAGE comment, click below:
http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=307
It's going to be a HOT November! US Supreme Court, here WE come! Having Plan Bs are important & necessary. I predict Civil Unions for all will be the fall back measure due to the conservative slant/majority of the present US Supreme Court . Depending on who dies or retires on the USSC, and who gets in office, a Federal Civil Union bill will be proposed and depending on the makeup of Congress and depending on who is President (I have HOPE), a Federal Civil Union bill will be signed into law sometime in 2010. Who knows? I could be totally wrong. Regardless, this issue is a HOT one and it will be resolved, one way or another, in the near future.
"Also, should it come to be that there be a law saying gays have a right to marriage, some religious figures could end up getting sued for refusing to perform the marriage ceremony, and we would have a violation of the first amendment and the right to freedom of religion."
You hit on a key point there, and one that is THE central reason so many people are opposed to gay marriage. Already, there are gays that are suing churches for not allowing their property to be used for gay "wedding" ceremonies, or for refusing to perform those ceremonies. Already, there are gay rights groups that are pushing for "hate crimes" laws that would in effect criminalize those that oppose them for religious reasons. This would be a clear violation of the Constitution, since it would prohibit the free exercise of religion. That is the real goal of those pushing for gay marriage.
What they want is not equality (since they already have that), but for any that disagree with them to be silenced. This is proven time and time again. Take the nonsense term "homophobe". Does anyone really think that people who oppose homosexuality are afraid of gays? I don't know anyone that would fit that mold, and I know a lot of people that think homosexual behavior is wrong. Yet the term has become commonplace, and anyone and everyone that posts anything online against homosexuality has more than likely been labeled with it. Then you have the attacks on churches that won't violate their faith by condoning sin. Gays have vandalized churches, and even invaded them. I know of a couple of cases that were local to where I lived at one time of such vandalism. Then there are the aforementioned lawsuits. Add to that the vile "artwork" that is produced (and paid for with tax dollars thanks to the NEA) which deliberately perverts Christian ideas and symbols. The real goal is clear; one has only to look.
"No more government issued marriage. Everyone gets civil unions. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Because marriage IS traditionally a religious institution, really it should never have come under to control of the government at all."
Noway, no how. That would penalize the majority of the nation to appease a small group that wants to pervert marriage. That's what they WANT, in the end; an end to marriage. The lawsuits, the "hate crime" laws, and all the rest show this to be true. "Hate crime" laws, of course, are no such thing. What they do is to say that a crime against one person is worse than the same crime against another person. That's a crock. Murder is murder, and it doesn't matter what color the victim is, or what color the attacker is, or what habits they have. To make it a worse crime to kill someone who is gay is to say that they are more valuable than other people. These proposed laws are also there to restrict freedom of religion, and that is, as stated, un-Constitutional.
"Basically, what I am suggesting is separation of the legal and protective aspect of marriage from the religious and traditional aspect."
Those legal and protective aspects are there for a reason. They protect the religious and traditional aspects from being tromped on. They insure that the religious aspects can be expressed, without interference, as is guaranteed in the Constitution.
What we have here is a very small group of people that are practicing behavior most people find quite offensive, and demanding special protections and privileges under the law. It is worth noting that the same groups that support gay issues are also the ones that are in opposition to virtually every other issue that people of faith are concerned with.
No, we want to criminalize anyone who BEATS us for religious reasons. You can oppose me all you want, but when you put your fist in my face while calling me a faggot, I think that should be considered a heinous crime.
And also, explain to me this "equality" we have. I would love to know your enlightened perspective on how equal the rights of gays and lesbians are.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
that is THE central reason so many people are opposed to gay marriage.
This is an irrational fear. There is nothing in our Laws that would suggest that any church could be forced to perform a ceremony of which they did not condone.
Already, there are gays that are suing churches for not allowing their property to be used for gay "wedding" ceremonies, or for refusing to perform those ceremonies.
I am aware of no lawsuits (and certainly not one that has a snowball's change of surviving in Court) where a church in the United States is being sued for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage on religious grounds. I AM aware of a couple of cases where churches that rent out their facilities to the public are being confronted for violating local anti-discrimination laws.
This is a case of "you can't have your cake and eat it, too." Any church that wishes may decide to keep their property private, and exclude whomever they wish from setting foot on it. But when they decide to make that facility public, and to engage in commercial relationships with the public through those venues, then they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Already, there are gay rights groups that are pushing for "hate crimes" laws that would in effect criminalize those that oppose them for religious reasons.
It might surprise you to know that the original hate crime laws in this country were passed to protect people from racial and religious discrimination. Anti-gay hate crime legislation is of relatively recent vintage, but the practice is well-established in American Law.
This would be a clear violation of the Constitution, since it would prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Factually incorrect. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled (in one of their rare unanimous decisions) that hate crime laws do not violate the Constitution of the United States, nor specifically the First Amendment. (see Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993))
That is the real goal of those pushing for gay marriage.
Considering the rather large number of major religious denominations in this country (and around the world) that are supportive of the practice, that argument seems untenable.
but for any that disagree with them to be silenced.
Wanting you to "shut up" is not the same as wanting the government to shut you up.
Take the nonsense term "homophobe". Does anyone really think that people who oppose homosexuality are afraid of gays?
Do you even know the definition of the term? A homophope is "a person characterized by homophobia". And homophobia refers to an, "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." Perhaps if you had ever bothered to look up these words, their usage would not seem so nonsensical to you.
I don't know anyone that would fit that mold,
Have you looked in the mirror, lately?
Gays have vandalized churches, and even invaded them.
Do you really want to sit down and compare whether or not it is more common for a gay person to attack a religious person or their property, or vice versa? It is a statistical fact that gay people in this country suffer from higher rates of identity motivated violence and harassment when compared to any other identity-based group (including christians). If a gay person vandalized your church's property, then they should be caught and punished in accordance with the law. But, every fruit basket has a few nuts in it, and the church has certainly produced its fair share of nutty folks. You say that a couple of local churches near you were vandalized? Well, a gay business in my home city was subject to a nail bomb attack from a religious zealot from the christian identity movement (Eric Rudolph).
Add to that the vile "artwork" that is produced (and paid for with tax dollars thanks to the NEA) which deliberately perverts Christian ideas and symbols. The real goal is clear; one has only to look.
Assuming you mean Seranno's Piss Christ...
...I actually found the piece to be quite powerful. Of course, I don't think that you need to "deliberately perverts Christian ideas and symbols" in order to make that religion appear "vile," but that's just my opinion.
Noway, no how. That would penalize the majority of the nation to appease a small group that wants to pervert marriage.
The only thing that I see being perverted here, is way that out current marriage statutes pervert the Constitution's guarantee to all citizens that they will be afforded the same rights and privileges, as well as the equal protection of our Laws. The "perversion" to which you refer can I think rationally be assumed to be a religious assessment, and to give that argument any weight would also violate one of our primary Constitutional prohibitions (i.e. no religious establishments).
That's what they WANT, in the end; an end to marriage.
Now, that's just silly, and I think that the thousands of same-sex couples that have been wed in Massachusetts in California indicate something entirely different. This is just more of the same chicken-little crap that we so often hear from hysterical pew-sitters who really haven't expended the time or effort to actually see what happens when a society permits same-sex marriages. In fact, the most comprehensive study to date found that in the 15 years following the first legal recognition of same-sex relationships in Scandinavia, heterosexual marriage rates actually increased, and divorce rates decreased (Eskridge, Spedale, Ytterberg, 2004). Even in our own county, it is interesting to note that according to our own National Center For Health Statistics, Massachusetts continues to have rates of heterosexual marriage that are higher and rates of divorce that are significantly lower than the national average. It is interesting as well to note that those the States who have most stidently opposed any legal recognition of same-sex couples, marriage is not faring so well. Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah and Texas are all above the national average when it comes to divorce rates, and are currently experiencing an ongoing upswing in those rates. I would suggest that taking a more relaxed attitude, and perhaps focusing on one's own marriage as opposed to everyone else's, could possible help these States develop a more healthy institution of marriage.
Those legal and protective aspects are there for a reason. They protect the religious and traditional aspects from being tromped on. They insure that the religious aspects can be expressed, without interference, as is guaranteed in the Constitution.
Obviously they didn't cover this in your primary-school social studies class, but freedom of religious goes both ways, my friend. The law do not offer any respect to your religious beliefs...it only promises to stay out of them. But marriage, since it IS a legal institution, has to be made available to ALL citizens, without regard to their religious beliefs. Whatever religious ceremony you might wish to paint over YOUR marriage is up to YOU. But you do not have a right, and the Law does not permit you to force other people to abide by YOUR religious hang ups.
What we have here is a very small group of people that are practicing behavior most people find quite offensive,
It wouldn't matter if there were only ONE. The same Constitution would still protect that ONE citizen's right to the equal protection of the Law. In fact, that was one of the main reasons our founding fathers chose our form of government to be a Constitutional Republic instead of a Direct Democracy. The whole point of having a Constitution is that it protects the rights of individuals from being infringed upon by the majority.
and demanding special protections and privileges under the law.
Can you name a "special protection or privilege" that is being demanded? Marriage certainly doesn't qualify, since our Supreme Court has ruled many times that "the freedom to marry" is a basic right of citizens. Can you name just ONE right or privilege being demanded in relation to gay rights that is not regularly enjoyed by other citizens?
It is worth noting that the same groups that support gay issues are also the ones that are in opposition to virtually every other issue that people of faith are concerned with.
I would suggest that the support for same-sex marriage coming from religious sects such the Unitarian Universalist Association, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and the Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism movements, suggest that your opinion is not well-founded.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I actually think this is a good idea....it makes sense.
I agree with this idea. Someone suggested it on a facebook group I'm in before, and I started applauding them. It's so important that we realize that religions should not be forced to marry someone that they can not based off of their rules, but that legally marriages should be for everyone. If you want the pretty word "marriage," you go to a church that will marry you, and--to all those couples that want to call it marriage--there ARE churches that will do same sex marriages as well as heterosexual ones. You can pick a church that you like for the marriage.
But everyone should have the rights that a legal heterosexual marriage will give a couple, whether they be gay or straight. There should not be legal discrimination against a couple based off of the fact that they are gay.
Love is love, but we shouldn't allow a certain religious view to interfere with the government's view on whether a couple can have the same benefits as another based off of its sexual orientation.
FORGET REGRET, OR LIFE IS YOURS TO MISS.... --Rent
"I think I'll try defying gravity"--Wicked
"And who can say what we are?"--Spring Awakening
There are 1000+ rights that are granted by marriage that are NOT granted by civil unions. That's the issue with the "pretty word." We want the pretty rights that are associated with it.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Yes...as I knew it would. As WE strive for a more perfect union, as we strive for a more equitable society; let us be creative, imaginative, empathetic, and compassionate. We are the ones we've been waiting for and can construct a new foundation based on mutual respect and fundamental ideas of fairness. Federal Civil Union legislation can be drafted to ensure that all couples, gay or straight, be afforded all the same rights, responsibilities, obligations, and accommodations. Marriage can no longer have legal weight. As I've said before, marriage, by it's very definition, is a legally under inclusive term for use in a society that strives to ensure due process and equal protection to all similarly situated persons under the law. The term civil union most accurately describes the socio/political construct of a state sanctioned union. It is all inclusive in that it can pertain to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. I predict that the coming USSC decision will concur. CHANGE has come and more CHANGES are on the way. We can create a more perfect union! We can create a more equitable society. YES WE CAN!!!! Have hope. Have faith. Have MERCY!
Ali Shams, a senior at the University of California at San Diego and Kaelan Housewright, a senior at the California Institute of the Arts have introduced the Domestic Partnership Initiative. In essence, the initiative attempts to quell the furor that arose after the passage of California's Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008.
The initiative aims to replace the term "marriage" with the term "domestic partnership" throughout California law, while preserving the rights provided in marriage. It will apply equally to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation and will repeal the provision in California’s Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
For more information, please feel free to visit their website and FaceBook page at:
http://www.dompar.org
and
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42833687407&ref=nf
The bros can be contacted at:
domesticpartnership@gmail.com
Ali Shams
Phone: (818) 472 0982
Kaelan Housewright
Phone: (818) 943 5847
11684 Ventura Blvd., Suite 897 Studio City, CA, 91604
Peace and blessings!
This seems like a pointless proposition to me. Why? Well...
1) The people who are opposed to same-sex couples getting "married" aren't REALLY concerned about the name of the institution. That's just a red herring that attempts to distract the issue away from the REAL objection, which is in almost every case religious in origin. I would suggest that almost with exception, the same people griping about same-sex marriage will also oppose same-sex civil unions.
2) The idea that marriage is somehow a uniquely religious is not based in the facts. Historically, marriage originated as a private arrangement that was between two parties. Later, the State got into the marriage business as legal systems developed and the arrangement began to be viewed as a contract between individuals that needed to be enforced. Later still, western churches began to at first bless marriages after the fact, and only a few hundred years ago began to actually perform marriages themselves.
3) Changing the name of the institution from "marriage" to "civil unions" for the purpose of assuaging the religious concerns of SOME religous sects is a plain violation of the Establishment Clause. For one, marriage in this country is a State-sponsored, secular institution that does require ANY intervention by ANY church. That's why you can go to a Justice of the Peace and get married without ever stepping in front of a priest. And, it is important to remember that not even all religious sects oppose same-sex marriages, and in fact a growing number of even relatively mainstream christian denominations are already blessing these unions. Our Constitution does not permit the government to establish a preference in the law for the religious beliefs of one group of citizens over those of other citizens. Even just changing the name of the institution would represent an illegal establisment of the religous beliefs of the pusuant sects over the religious beliefs (or even lack thereof) of other citizens.
Religious people don't own the term "marriage," and its high time we disabused them of that notion. This is a bad idea, and it should be opposed by anyone who actually wants to see gay people treated EQUALLY in this country.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/pshah50
* <3 Wheeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <3 *
Calling all marriages civil unions sounds like a great idea! I have a conversation about this with someone before. He didn't believe in marriages since he thinks it's for religious purposes. I believe that if you want to have the same legal services that "marriages" provide, then the government should really just change the name. I think this way everyone will be happy. The religious people won't get mad that their marriage word isn't being used against homosexuals who are in love with each other and the government won't be able to ban marriages since marriage would be considered religious. The government can issue civil unions between heterosexuals and homosexuals. It seems like a win win situation to me.