« Just roll me over when you're done | Main | And while the future's there for anyone to change, still you know it seems it would be easier to change the past »
This bitching about gay marriage is so gay.
by blank at 10:48 PM on February 20, 2004
More than 3,000 same sex couples were married this week in San Francisco. The newly elected mayor, Gavin Newsom, decided that California law was wrong and took it upon himself to disobey it. While I agree with the outcome, I have to disagree with the procedure. Since when can mayors just pick what laws to follow and what not to? The sad thing is that all those marriages are probably going to be revoked in the future because of the way they were granted. In the end, this stunt will just add momentum to Bush’s push to amend the Constitution prohibiting same sex marriage.
I find the answer to this whole, stupid mess to be really simple, just logistically difficult. The argument between same sex proponents and opponents is purely semantic. Over time, the word “marriage” has attained a dual meaning. There is married in the religious sense and married in the legal sense. These are two very different things with the same name, yet they are discussed as one entity.
The religious side wants to protect the sanctity of marriage and keep the integrity of the tradition intact. It is a union of one man and one woman under God. This is very important to them. Marriage came from religion and changing the meaning of the word is just like trying to change their beliefs. You better be ready for a fight.
Getting married at the courthouse is different. It is a union under the law which gives certain rights and privileges to the couple by the government. Religion is not involved, but the act is still called “marriage”. This troubles me because in order for people to marry under the law, they have to follow the rules of religious marriage. Essentially, the government is endorsing a religious act.
How do we solve this problem? Civil unions for same sex couples are the answer for Vermont. This, to me, is an inadequate compromise. It’s an attitude of “separate but equal”, and if we learned anything in 1954 it was that “separate but equal” is utter horseshit. What the government needs to do is take the idea of civil union even further and use it to replace the word “marriage” in the legal sense with “civil union”. The act of “marriage” in the religious sense can remain in religion, where it came from.
The system would work like this: a gay or straight couple wishing to unite is granted a “civil union” by the government. This entitles them to the same legal rights and privileges “marriage” did. If they choose, or their religious group allows, the couple can become married in the religious sense.
This change would work because it grants everyone the same rights under the law and allows the sanctity of marriage to remain intact, leaving the religious side with no basis for their argument. The only problem I can foresee with this system is the daunting task of changing every reference of “marriage” to “civil union” in the law books. Even so, the benefits of such a change would be worth the effort.
comments (36)
Touche. Couldn't agreee more.
I've noticed how some of the most thought-provoking posts wind up in the weekend's comment graveyard. Go figure.
The other question this raises in my mind is this: On balance, is the existence of religion as a viable entity a good thing? Sure, it's the opiate of the masses and all that rot but @ what cost? People are dying every day over trivial differences in theology. I was troubled to learn that Sunni Muslims hate Shi-ites even more than they hate we infidels.
by anna at February 21, 2004 10:00 AM
So then, couples who became united in the eyes of the law would be said to be unionized?
by Jen at February 21, 2004 12:59 PM
I feel exactly the same way about this. The problem isn't the committed homosexual couples shouldn't get every protection that committed heterosexual couples do, its that marriage is traditionally interrelated with religion, and most religions are pretty anti-gay.
Maybe its because I'm not gay, but I think this issue, at this time, is completly distracting. Is this really the issue that should be occupying so much of the public discourse? There is a war, a phenomenal deficeit, and an ecomomy that (I believe) is headed south, despite all the economic signs. And gay marriage is the issue people are rallying around?
Jen - A chemistry joke? What a nerd.
by mg at February 21, 2004 2:50 PM
ahh blank. i was just thinking about this semantic argument the other day. about how perhaps one of the greatest forces preventing a word swap, is the physical logistics of ammending every law in every book.
i also agree that newsom's stance might have been a hasty one, but at least well-intentioned. while the marriages may well be anulled, i think a purpose has been served in broadening the marriage discourse, just purely geologically, from massachussetts to san francisco. next thing, the mayor of chicago began talking about his wont to legalize such unions, but he wanted to go about through available legal channels. now it can't just be written off as a localized, liberal northeastern phenomenon. gay marriages become more of a reality each time the issue scratches the surface of the public consciousness. you can start to see this movement mirroring the civil right struggles. it's kind of a powerful time to watch the world change. i also tend to think in twenty years gay marriage, whatever the name, will be legal, and commonplace, and really just old hat.
on a lighter note, i was at a political pot luck last night, where all involved brought food, drink and research on politcal debate and democratic candidates, just to talk about and maybe stir up some issues. and as you maybe know, i live in san francisco right now. well, two of the people there were a recently married lesbian couple, who had so much love in their eyes and hearts for each other, it was just a pleasure to think that even for a moment, they get to enjoy a freedom which they probably never thought was possible, and which most of us take completely for granted. can you imagine how that must feel? the way they're living on borrowed time like that?
plus it must make the sex really hot right now too.
by lajoie at February 21, 2004 6:21 PM
Someone on the radio discribed this whole thing about gay marriages by bringing up people's feelings on interacial marriage 50 years ago, or women's suffrage 100 years ago - we look back now and think "How could people be so stupid back then?" I totally agree, and will incorprate that philosophy into all political/social positions I take. 50 years from now, the world will look back on this struggle against gay marriages and ask "What were those people thinking?" However, to put gay marriages on the same level as suffrage or civil rights, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Because while I think gay people should be allowed to do whatever they want, I can see the religious side of the arguement. Forcing soceity to change may be within the scope of the law, rbut forcing eligions to change is not, and allowing gay "marriage" (as proposed by everyone but you, Mr.B.) does exactly that.
As for a political potluck, that sounds like a great idea.
by mg at February 21, 2004 6:45 PM
I wonder if all of these recently married couples in California are recognized by the federal government. If not then it’s a rather hollow victory. I understand that what I think should happen probably never will. I can accept the option of just eventually allowing same sex marriage licenses to be issued and religions simply not recognizing them.
This is sort of related: Psychobible: Behavior, Religion & the Holy Book
We got an advance copy of this book in the office because the author is a professor on campus and being featured in the magazine. It’s out now, so stop by Barns and Noble and read the chapter on homosexuality. It’s great.
by MrBlank at February 21, 2004 8:38 PM
I like your idea very much. It's a nice separation between what government does and what religion does. On the other hand, if something like a defense of marriage act is passed - perhaps it should be rammed home. Marriage may have come from religion - but where did divorce come from? Wouldn't the best defense of marriage be to outlaw divorce?
by chris at February 22, 2004 1:20 AM
That's a chemistry joke? I just meant it in reference to unions, the ones that mean people get big paycheques but pay big dues.
It's weird in my head this week.
by Jen at February 22, 2004 9:55 AM
There's a guy @ my office who hates all this social change. He's griping about same sex marriage, saying the next thing will be legalized pedophilia. People who say things like that make me very uncomfortable.
by anna at February 22, 2004 12:09 PM
mg... One, my email is still not working (sez my mailbox page can't be displayed). Two, people claimed religious reasons for opposing women's suffrage & interracial marriage too! This issue is perfectly comparable to those. People can twist religion to sanction all sorts of backwards, hateful beliefs.
Anna, that reminds me of being on a ski lift with a guy that said that Smalltown, PA used to be really nice "til all the coloreds moved in." How do you respond to bigots that are so bigoted that they don't even know they should keep their ignorant opinions to themselves?
Lajoie, are there potlucks like that here in Atlanta?
I have realized why I am not more into politics. Last week, when I read that they gay marriage ban actually passed in the GA senate & is moving to the House, I cried. When I read about what the No Child Left Behind law is doing to already underfunded and underprivileged areas, I cried. I just can't handle this. I am sorry, but I can't fathom how anyone at this point can believe that our gov't makes any sense.
Lastly, I didn't understand all this hoopla about gay marriage happening now til I talked to my lesbian, activist coworker. This issue will bring out all the right wing voters for elections who wouldn't normally vote but feel very passionate about their intolerant "religious" beliefs. It is so telling that when an adultery ban amendment was added to the Senate bill, it didn't get nearly as much support. The religious right doesn't mind infidelity nearly as much as homosexuality.
by Linz at February 23, 2004 11:07 AM
p.s. I meant "Georgia Senate" when I said "Senate," in case any were confused.
by Linz at February 23, 2004 11:10 AM
Issues like this are one of the things that worries me about George W. He's going to waste the time and effort to amend the Constitution of the United States over something that should be legal anyway. Has he failed to notice that we have a floundering economy, astronomical deficit, and a "war on terror" going on among other things? You would think he'd have better things to do than harass people who happen to be in love. He's so in bed with the Christian Right Wing and the Moral Majority that it makes me sick. What ever happened to the seperation of church and state?
Anna, It's doomsayers like that who will vote for George W. just on the merits of his marriage stance and not pay close attention to his environmental issues, world policies, economic plans and cowboy politics. That scares me more than George W. ever could.
by Ezy at February 23, 2004 11:15 AM
Why Bush wont actually push a constitutional ban on gay marriage - though the most recent polls I've seen have 2/3 of the country against gay marriage (not just religious nuts), the core of people realyl opposed to this will never be the type to vote democratic, while there are swing voters who supposer gay marriages and might vote republican unless Bush actually does push this silly agenda.
by mg at February 23, 2004 11:24 AM
In that case, I hope he pushes the hell out of it so he can go down with his radical religious backers.
by Ezy at February 23, 2004 12:34 PM
And then what? I, of course, am apolitical. But from what I've seen of Kerry, he's kind of scary too. To me he looks like he's trying too hard and that's never good.
by anna at February 23, 2004 6:27 PM
From what I've read, Kerry is also against gay marriage. Though, you aren't going to here him come out and say that, and thus offend his democratic base that makes up large chunk of the 1/3 of the U.S. population that is in favor of gay marriages.
Speaking of politices, what a dumbass is this Ralph Nader?
by mg at February 23, 2004 8:16 PM
Nader's a disease. He's one of the best things that's happened to Bush (W.). He might as well just ask the Republicans to reimburse him for his campaign expenses.
by jean at February 24, 2004 3:36 AM
wHY THE HELL DID U WYRD ASS aMERICANS VOTE FOR THAT FANNY HOLE BUSH IN THE FIRST PLACE?
by THOMAS at February 24, 2004 9:15 AM
Not all of us did Thomas.
by Ezy at February 24, 2004 10:42 AM
Oh right, I'm going to political advice from someone who doesn't understand the concept of the "Caps Lock" key.
by mg at February 24, 2004 12:20 PM
MG, why are we so WYRD? I don't understand it.
by Ezy at February 24, 2004 12:44 PM
Thomas also, in another comment, suggested a brilliant method to deter rape by useing some kind of vaginal glue, so that a rapist would be stuck inside their victim until the police arrive. So I'm really going to take his opinion seriously.
by mg at February 24, 2004 12:52 PM
Wait! What are you talking about MG? That's brilliant. Now all we need to find is some women who don't mind stuffing super glue in themselves and a way to keep it from hardening and we'd be millionaires. Millionaires I tell ya!
by Ezy at February 24, 2004 2:03 PM
jUST GIVE tHOMAS A BREAK! hIS IDEA WILL DEFINITELY WORK, WYRDOS.
by Linz at February 24, 2004 3:18 PM
Hey super glue can be fun. When food would suck at the cafeteria we'd use it to permanently stick our dishes to the tray and the tray to the table. It was a blast to watch them try to pry it off. But I wouldn't want it in my ass.
by anna at February 24, 2004 6:40 PM
What about all of the churches that support/perform gay marriages? Gay people are actually allowed to go to church, be pastors, priests, ministers, etc. and actually have had marriage ceremonies in churches. Do they have to revoke their married status?
I am doing a mock election in my 9th grade class. We had primaries, campaign managers, budgets, PAC money, contributions, debates, and commercials. One of the biggest issues that they want to debate is gay marriage.
by Shannon at February 25, 2004 12:39 PM
per mg's earlier comment about kerry and gay marriage, lookie here. he's against gay marriage, says as much, but supports universal civil unions with all the trimmings. not too unlike what blank suggests. perhaps mr. blank IS john kerry. that is for you all to decide.
click on the link of blank...er, kerry and the issues are all there to behold.
thinking more about what ezy wrote, i think kerry comes off as trying too hard in his media edited soundbites. but this interview, which seems reasonably unscripted, at least shows him to be pretty intelligent, or the opposite of our current cokehead.
for all who don't follow the comic, get you war on. i refer you to the last one on this page. happy politicking....
by lajo at February 25, 2004 3:55 PM
right on! i live in the freaking bible belt, and nine out of ten people i go to school with hate gays, saying that their anti-christian, which really pisses me off. i think that the 'civil union' idea is great. i'm tired of everyone bitching about homosexuals having the right to marry. i drives me insane because no one is really seeing that the line dividing church and state is now blurring, and people are being penalized because of it. i don't understand why the people who make sense don't run our country.
by intrinsic at February 25, 2004 6:27 PM
I am NOT Kerry!! Civil unions with all the trimmings cannot exist when set next to marriage. There is no such thing as “separate but equal”. What about marriage benefits granted at the federal level? My suggestion is that Marriage be run by whatever church you subscribe to. The government would have nothing to do with marriage and grant civil unions to couples who want the legal benefits.
Shannon, I think churches that embrace, not just tolerate, homosexuality are far and few between. For the majority of religions, being gay is not accepted – for some it’s condemned. Right now, to be married legally you have to get a marriage license from the state, and in order to do that you have to follow the government’s rules. If you’re going to debate this issue, my only advice is to do your research and understand both sides of the argument, especially with this topic. Both sides have legitimate reasons for being for or against same sex marriage. You do that and you’ll be miles ahead of the average Joe.
by MrBlank at February 25, 2004 7:19 PM
Mr. Blank-who were you saying needs to do their research? Was that directed at me?
If it was, maybe it will help if I clarify what I meant-my last comment didn't fully explain my opinion-which I have thoroughly researched... (Unlike some people, I only have my 30 minute lunch break to eat, pump breast milk and post comments on BS, so my comments can be a little disjointed)
I think that it is ridiculous to say that gay people can't be "married" in a Christian religious sense and that the Christian religion has a monopoly on the word marriage. I know gay "married" couples that were married in their Christian church. There marriage is not recognized in a legal sense, but it is in a religious sense. So to say that this is a black and white religious issue is wrong. Of course there are not many churches out there that perform this type of ceremony, but living in Atlanta there are more than there might be in Cincinnati. Under your proposed civil union scenario, would a church sanctioned gay marriage be permitted?
As for being an important issue, I really think it is. A large minority group is not being treated equally. Is there any justification for unequal treatment? Yes, if someone is a minor, if someone has committed a crime, if someone is not a legal citizen of the U.S. Does being gay constitute a good enough reason to be treated unequally? I don't think so. As for separate but equal-it has never worked in the past. I have heard the other side of the issue, but it really doesn't make sense to me. In my classroom I have to remain unbiased (as much as possible), but here I can say that I believe the people that are against gay marriage are scared and prejudiced. I hate to name call, but I find it mind boggling that so many people out there find it ok to limit someone's rights because they are different.
by Shannon at February 27, 2004 12:33 PM
Like it needs to be said, I disagree with you Shan. Gay marriages (in the relgious sense, not the civil union sense) are like wanting to belong to a club that not onyl doesn't want you as a member, but the rules of the club specifically state you aren't allowed to be a member. As has already been established on numerous occasions, it is absolutely LEGAL for private institutions (in this case individual churches) to not allow in members for any reason. The Boy Scouts don't have to allow atheists. The WNBA doesn't have to allow male players. Churches can disallow homosexuals from undertaking a religous marriage. Churches are also allowed, if they so desire, to allow gay marriages, but they CONSTITUTIONALLY, can't be forced to. The state, on the other hand, cannot make decisions about what laws apply to who, and or should allow homosexual partners to receive all the advantages striaght parteners gain through civil marriage, but can't (and shouldn't) make that protection require a religious marriage.
Now, I'm not religious at all. I am very supportive of the many gay friends I have. Does my belief, founded on Constitutional principles, that we shouldn't force ALL churches to accept gay marriage, but that homoxesuals should be protected by the same rights as straight civil unions, make me scared and/or prejudiced?
If anything, the idea set forth by Mr.B., and fully supported by me, is the only one legally and politically viable, and if homosexual rights groups keep pushing for illegal marriages, they will not only not get that, but not get civil unions as well. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and pushing too hard on this issue will result, not in gay marriage, but Bush's wacky constitutional ammendment specifally prohibiting even civil unions.
by mg at February 27, 2004 1:00 PM
blank, you've inititated a pretty contentious debate. i can see all your points, i think. i guess at this point i really only have one question left:
what, exactly, does human breast milk taste like?
by lajo at February 27, 2004 6:18 PM
Of course most churches out there would not perform gay marriages. But lets say Blank's scenario occurs: civil unions are legal for gay or strait people that don't want to be married in a church. What about gay couples that have been married by a church? Is their marriage invalid because other churches don't sanction it? What makes a church that performs gay marriages less valid than a church that doesn't? Marriage isn't a private organization like the Boy Scouts, it is an idea, and I don't believe that religion should be exclusively in charge of it. I wasn't saying that all churches should be forced to perform gay marriages, but if there are churches out there that do, using your argument, you can't force them to stop. There are plenty of other types of marriage ceremonies out there that may not be accepted by one church or another, but that has never invalidated them in the past. In fact, my marriage to Joseph is not accepted by his family's Lutheran church because it was not performed by a pastor.
Up until now, no one challenged my marriage because I wasn't married in a church. Now, because gay people want to be treated equally, the rules have to be changed so they can't be. Am I any less married to Joseph because it wasn't done by a religious officiant? Why does my status as married have to change because gay people now want to share my rights? And I disagree with your predictions of the future MG, people used the same religious reasoning to justify outlawing biracial marriages. With the rate homosexuality has become an accepted part of our culture in the past 10 years, I bet by the next generation it will be a non-issue.
by Shannon at February 28, 2004 5:31 PM
Breast milk is very watery.
by Shannon at February 28, 2004 5:36 PM
“civil unions are legal for gay or strait people that don't want to be married in a church.”
No. You’re missing the point. I’m saying civil unions are for couples to get united under the law. Churches have nothing to do with civil unions. If they want a ceremony at a religious institution, they can. They can also go to Vegas or do nothing. It’s a choice a couple makes, but no matter what choice they make their union will be recognized under the law.
“Is their marriage invalid because other churches don't sanction it? What makes a church that performs gay marriages less valid than a church that doesn't?”
That’s not part of my argument and I never said that. I don’t care what one church thinks about what another one does. Neither should the law. Didn’t you answer your own question? “In fact, my marriage to Joseph is not accepted by his family's Lutheran church because it was not performed by a pastor.” Is your marriage invalid because the Lutheran church doesn’t accept it?
“Marriage isn't a private organization like the Boy Scouts, it is an idea, and I don't believe that religion should be exclusively in charge of it.”
It’s an idea that is different for each religion. Everyone’s idea is different. To take this idea and write it into the law books you have to put this idea into words. To do that you have to focus on what marriage is in the legal sense. The word marriage means a lot of different things to different people. To be clear in the law books, you need a specific term to describe marriage in the legal sense. I think the term “civil union” works for that. (Also, I like the term “civil marriage” mg used before too. It might be better.)
“Am I any less married to Joseph because it wasn't done by a religious officiant?”
Under a religious institution, yes. Under the law, no. Which one matters to you?
“Why does my status as married have to change because gay people now want to share my rights?”
Um, it’s a word change, not a status change. What do you care anyway? Like you said, the church doesn’t accept your marriage. Does that change your status under the law? If the church had its way your marriage would be just as invalid as all those same sex couples, because it wasn’t done by their rules.
“I bet by the next generation it will be a non-issue.”
Don’t be so sure. If the Constitution is actually amended, it’ll be a huge deal to get it changed back. Remember the prohibition era?
by MrBlank at February 28, 2004 6:58 PM
Why do we have to change the name at all? Why does the word marriage belong to conservative christians? I highly doubt a Constitutional Amendment is going to happen-2/3 of Congress is needed to pass it. Conservative Bible Belt Georgia just tried to pass an amendment to our state Constitution and couldn't, so I doubt our national government can.
by Shannon at February 29, 2004 6:04 PM