Gay Marriage

[Rapscallion]

True equality, and the churches get to keep their precious marriage.

The religious groups would never go for it. It means they lose control over people not in their congregations. Otherwise, fine idea.

Rapscallion

[ThePhoneGoddess]

Yes, DexX, I've been saying exactly that for years. problem is both sides are very stick-in-the-mud about it.

I've known liberals who would refuse that solution, because it would 'give' the fundies what they wanted: control of marriage. Many far left liberals refuse to believe that marriage is a religious institution and refuse to grant it that status.

Also, many fundies would then refuse to get the legal civil document, because it's 'no different than what the gay people get'. They would see it as encouraging gay unions. Yet without the legal aspect of it, they cannot get all the legal benefits it grants you, such as better tax rates, right to make medical decisions for your spouse, etc. For this reason, fundies would consider this as depriving them of their rights, and would never go for it.

[Seshat]

The religious groups would never go for it. It means they lose control over people not in their congregations. Otherwise, fine idea.

Rapscallion

Replace 'The religious groups' with 'some religious groups'. Some religious groups are in favour of making a clear distinction between the religious and the secular aspects of marriage; and some are 'meh - whatever' about it.

But yes, those religious groups who are firmly against it, are (or seem to be) against it for the reasons both Raps and PhoneGoddess have just mentioned.

[AFPheonix]

It also kind of reinforces that whole "separate but equal" thing that we already know is not the right answer.

No, have 1 marriage institution, allow gays into it. Those who wish to partake may, others who don't, won't.
I think it's going to have to be one of those things where we have to elect in a president and congress with balls, much like we had in Lyndon Johnson and the congress in '62.

[Seshat]

My preference is to have one legal 'marriage' thing, with any suitable name, which is applied to everyone. And let the churches and other religions do any 'marriage' religious ceremonies and rituals they wish, with the State staying out of it.

Anyone who wishes to be religiously married without being legally married doesn't get the State benefits. Anyone who wants to be legally married without a church wedding doesn't get the religious benefits.

My own wedding was both a legal and religious ceremony - the priest who married us was also legally empowered to do so. His training to become a priest included the celebrant training & authorisation.

Yes, some churches will doubtless be angry about it - but their priests already need, and get, civil authorisation as a celebrant, and wedding rituals already include a short recess while the newlyweds sign the civil papers. At least in Australia. So nothing's changing for them - they've got nothing to be upset about.

[Sylvia727]

I have a question here: suppose, by some twist of fate, that Congress was about pass a bill that would make gay unions completely equal to straight marriages. Literally, every single right and priviledge outlined as identical. However, you can only get this bill passed if you appease the right wing fundies by stipulating that gay unions are called 'unions' not 'marriages'. Would that matter to you? Would you hold out for the name?

Personally, I agree with Seshat (except for polyamorous marriages; I only recently was exposed to this concept and have not yet worked out my opinions on the matter). The government has already decided that 'separate yet equal' is not equal. It's just dragging its feet over the gay issue, and as long as fanatics express themselves by graffiting a dorm room door (or beating someone to death), then they will continue to delay.

[AFPheonix]

My only concern with making a distinction on the nomenclature is that could potentially open the door for groups to lawyer their way into chipping away at gay marriage.

No, it's going to be one of those things where the federal government is going to have to take a giant shit on the people who are homophobic, much like they had to at the beginning of the Civil Rights movement.

[Seshat]

I wouldn't hold out for the name: but I think I'd request that ALL civil marriages, by whatever name, be called by the same name. Thus, the civil side of marriages (heterosexual, homosexual, whatever) would be 'unions', and the religious side can keep the name 'marriage'.

Also, I'd expect that anyone who entered a civil marriage/union/whatever would be required to be an adult giving informed consent. No children, no intellectually undeveloped adults (unless an independent psychiatric assessment showed them capable of understanding), no corpses, no animals.

I don't permit a slippery slope, I just also don't see how gay (or poly) marriages are a bystander's business.

(Note: polygamy has a bad name in some places, but my understanding is that in many of those cases, children or young adults are married either without being consulted, or after a great deal of social and familial pressure to marry as they're told to. I do not approve of that sort of polygamy - only polygamy where adults truly, freely desire the bond.)

[AFPheonix]

That's really the true definition of marriage: a bond between 2 (or possibly more) consenting adults.
I would be really ok with that.

And that's why I don't buy the whole slippery slope argument about letting gays marry, thinking it will lead to bestiality or whatever nasty things these supposedly conservative people think about. Animals and children cannot legally consent.

[Sylvia727]

I've had the 'slippery slope' argument explained to me as "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman; they're changing it to just say 'two adults'; what if they change it further?" The people who use this argument really do believe that this would be a world-ending change from the current norm.

Personally, I think that if you honestly don't see the difference between having sex with another man and having sex with a goat or having sex with your sister than I'm gonna need to see your STD results before we hop in the sack

[AFPheonix]

Oh, I've heard it too. Hell, my mom tried to get me to sign up to some such petition when the gay marriage law was going around our state. Hells no.

We did just start a domestic partnership thing today though. There are quite a few people's panties in bunches because they tried to petition to get it on the ballot (I'm assuming to knock it down) and failed. Ha and ha.

[Seshat]

I've had the 'slippery slope' argument explained to me as "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman; they're changing it to just say 'two adults'; what if they change it further?"

I would say 'common sense and decency', but I guess that's their argument too.

[Sylvia727]

Common sense isn't.

And my university now has a domestic partnership benefits program, thanks in large part to petitions and picketing by our Gay-Straight Alliance. I think a lot of companies and organizations are moving towards that because it falls under 'take care of your employees'. However, my college's city itself does not refer to sexual orientation as a protected status along with race, gender, and disability. So if your landlord or your boss finds out and screws you over, well, sucks to be you!

[DexX]

I'm a bisexual polyamorist, myself, and while I would love to be just as legally married to my boyfriend as I am to my wife of twelve years, I know it isn't a fight that will be won any time soon. Most poly people I know, including myself, have made the conscious decision to simply not pursue the idea of legal multiple marriages (three-plus people). The same-sex marriage movement has done a lot of good work against very tough odds, and adding another fundie-terrifying issue will just make their job even harder.

So, let the gay guys, lesbians, and monogamous bisexuals have their same-sex marriage for now, and we poly people can launch a fight for our marriage rights as a whole separate issue somewhere down the road (maybe when we reach a convenient slippery slope... *evil grin*).

[Seshat]

In my ideal world, the law wouldn't care who you had sex with*, only who you deemed your closest family to be.

(* as long as they were an informed, consenting adult)

Thus, an adult son caring for his aging mother could declare (with her approval, of course) that the two of them were a 'closest family' or a 'household' or whatever term got used. They could then be automatically medical next of kin, their default wills (if they didn't write one) would pass their property to the other, they'd have visiting rights in intensive care in hospital, his medical insurance would cover her - all the stuff we presume nowadays for legal spouses, but without the sex.

(Do I need to mention that family creation should be between informed, consenting adults, with parents/guardians deciding for children, with increasing consultation as the child grows?)

There are only three reasons the community should care who anyone has sex with. Children's rights, medical contagion, and religion.

Children's rights are important, and if we do the radical overhaul of civil family-creation that I would love to see, we'd have to do a lot of thinking about children's rights. My vote is for the children's genetic parents to be the default parents, but for contractual variation to be permitted (for adoption, gamete donation, intentionally 'being stud' for a different family unit, intentionally carrying a child for a different family unit, and so on).

But since my radical overhaul isn't likely to happen, I haven't gone deeply into the children's rights thing.

Medical contagion is a medical issue, I believe the law should largely stay out of it, limited only by medical necessity. Which is a tough ethical thing, but there's a whole body of medico-legal ethic research available at your nearest comprehensive library.

Religion? Well, that's none of the State's business. The State makes legal family unit creation possible, and leaves the form of the family unit to society and religion to decide.


Well, in my ideal world.