My reluctent 'Gay Marriage' post

[Stinky The Clown]

I've posted these very words twice now ... but deep within other, already way overheated, threads. I'm now posting it by itself because it hasn't been answered. I didn't post it before because, frankly, I can claim no sensitivity beyond that of a preson who cares. I am a 58 year old married hetero man. These are my thoughts on this issue and are posted here to ask for comments. I'm hoping to get thoughtful replies to the concept and **really** hope this doesn't degenerate into a flame war.

With that ... my previous post (ever so slightly edited) ......

This is a sensitive topic and emotion runs high on all sides of it. I've had this notion of a way forward for quite a while. I admit I am not gay and not affected by this one directly. But believe me when I say ... I am on your side. Unequivocally so. But when we say the very words "gay marriage' we evoke all sorts of emotion on all sides of the issue. What we need is a way forward on this. I see a solution that is, in part, semantical and in part legal.

Again, I am not gay and not affected by this. I offer this in a constructive spirit and would like to hear comments.

It seems to me the way to go after this is to change the civil (legal?) aspects of it. Essentially, take away the specific word 'marriage' from the civil side. There's virtually no chance we'll ever get churches to agree to give the word up. And to be honest, it isn't worth the effort to even try. No matter where the word came from, no matter its current meaning, no matter the perceptions it has, let them have the word. We can't, as a practical matter, change that.

We *can* however, change the civil side of it. We the people *are* the civil side.

My suggestion is to make it such that every human pairing is called, by the state, a civil union, or some other word, if that term has a bad taste to it (the specific word is unimportant). It can be anything at all ... except 'marriage'. For this discussion, I'll continue to use 'civil union'.

Now, we give everyone a civil union. Gay and het, it matters not. Bob and Dorothy have a civil union. Steve and Adam have a civil union. Carol and Mary have a civil union.

If you're still with me, what we've done is take the word 'marriage' *away* from hets. We've added a new phrase to the legal lexicon - 'civil union'. And we've given that phrase to everyone. Along with all the civil rights, civil privileges and civil responsibilities that were formerly given to marriages. Total, unambiguous equality. For everyone. Period. Unequivocal.

In practice, this could be accomplished with the simple signing of documents by the parties involved and then having a civil agency attest to that signing. No ceremony is needed. (A ceremony *could* happen if the couple so chooses, but it isn't necessary. More on that later.)

Now .... marriage. This becomes the province of churches. Without a doubt, some denominations will forbid gay marriages. But we all know there are many who will welcome it. If a couple (gay or het) chooses to be 'married' they need only find an institution to perform the ceremony. Marriage would confer absolutely no civil right, privilege, or obligation. It is legally neutral.

Now let's go back to the practices. Right now, every marriage performed outside the auspices of clergy is done by a person 'vested' by the state to perform the ceremony and affirm the legal bond. This could be a Justice of the Peace, a judge, a court officer, a court clerk, a ship's captain ... whatever. The point is, they were vested by the state to perform a ceremony and affirm a legal bond *by the state*. So, too are clergy. The state chooses to vest them with the same authority they vest into civil agents. In return, the vested clergy agrees to do the job in line with the legal requirements set out by the state.

None of this needs to change. Clergy could (and probably should) continue to be vested by the state to join couples together. But now, no one gives up anything. Gays, I have no doubt, will have fairly easy access to a religious marriage if that's their desire. A strict, bigoted, narrow minded religiously extreme couple would also be able to do what they do now ... marry in a way that affirms their view of the 'sanctity of marriage' by excluding specifically gays; the difference is, the state does not make the exclusion.

From a legal perspective, the only part of the ceremony that has weight is the signing of the legal document making the civil union. This is probably best done immediately before or after the religious ceremony, in private, but in reality, it doesn't matter. It is the ten seconds it takes to sign the paper that makes the 'marriage' legal. All else is religious trapping that matters to whoever chooses to allow it to matter.

Please .... I am fully in favor of complete and unequivocal equality for gays to marry (and do any other thing their heart desires!). But we have to move this forward in a way that's palatable to everyone. To try to change the definition and common use of the word 'marriage' has so much intractability on all sides that it is simply a non starter. I honestly believe this country is a generation away from easy acceptance of 'gay marriage'. Not that many are not ready for it now ... but for the entire country .... I, sadly, have serious doubts.

I'd much rather see us make a way forward where no one gives anything up and everyone gets what they want. So rather than screw around debating endlessly the word 'marriage' ... just take it out of the legal and civil side. No one gets it unless they choose to use it. Take all legal aspects of it away.

To me, this seems reasonable.

Doesn't it? :shrug:

I'm not affected by this and admit that I may well be missing something. But to me, this seems a good way forward. I'd love to hear others' views.

[LeighAnn]

1. Make Leviticus the Law of the Land

Here's my solution to this problem, fundies want to live by Leviticus? Then I think we should hold them to their own standards and fix all the laws so that they meet with Old Testament requirements.

No more pork, no more shellfish, no more Shoneys after church, etc.

Believe me, if you try to take a pork chop away from a fundie, he'll sing a different tune about the book of Leviticus!

I'm an Old Testament fundamentalist who lives under the law of the United States Constitution which says church and state must be seperate, and that all are created equal. I agree wholeheartedly with your solution.

[Gildor Inglorion]

2. Thank you for putting so much thought and effort into it...

as a gay man round about your own age, I appreciate your earnest and careful consideration. I totally agree with you. I've always thought that the state should no more regulate "marriage" than it does "baptism" or "ordination" or any other rite of the church. A civil union is just that: a license to cohabit and receive certain civil benefits. I have never had any interest in marrying or "uniting civilly" with anyone, so, like you, I'm personally unaffected by this whole brouhaha, but I totally support the rights of my fellow gays to the same consideration any other citizen gets.
Alas, I don't really expect to live to see such a reasonable state of affairs come to pass. Our "Christian" brethren are seething with anger and hatred. I wouldn't be surprised to start hearing calls from the pulpit for a "final solution" to the homosexual problem any day now. :thumbsup:

[hecate77]

3. In California we have Domestic Partnership

I am fine with it having a different name, and I like Civil Union as long as everyone has that term applied to them and all rights and privs are accrued to that state, including all Federal Rights. As it stands now, if my spouse dies, or I die, the other one will lose our house because we do not have the protections of marriage vis-a-vis the Federal Government. The surviver would have to sell the house to pay the taxes. In California itself, we have pretty much equal rights across the board except for certain taxation issues related to the Federal Tax thing. I think they may even be changing that so we at least get the 'married' option on the California state tax..

All that being said, I would be totally fine with having a completely equal 'Civil Union' as long as all government recogninzed unions were also 'Civil Unions'. Let religious organizations have the word 'Marriage', and we gay folks can also use the word with as much right as the others, assuming we have a religion that permits it (and who says we can't just create our own to do that....).

I think your approach is the best solution for the current situation, and I am one who is deeply affected by this. We were married in San Francisco and then had it taken away. We have had a Domestic Partnership since they became available. The new Domestic Partnership laws here require divorce proceedings for separation and also mandate community property, so we have almost everything that marriage has (except recognition in other states and most tax laws). Because of that non-recognition, we will not even visit states like Virginia that have harsh laws against even having legal documents between consenting adults, and pretty much will not visit any state that has anti-gay marriage laws on the books. Our US is shrinking by the day....

[Stinky The Clown]

4. "assuming we have a religion that permits it"

I am certain there are recognized mainstream religions that welcome gays and will perform gay marriage.

Not very long ago, my wife worked for a Unitarian church (interestingly, in Virginia) where gays were actively courted and welcomed. We left that area before the whole gay marriage issue came to the fore, but I have no doubt whatever they would marry gay couples. No doubt at all.

[booley]

5. They can call it 'fluffy bunnies go to Tokyo" if they want

The legal civil marriage is all that's important anyway. it's not the church that sends social security checks or determines if I and my spouse consitiute a family or the thousands ofd other litle laws, responsibilities and perks of marriage.

Unfortunatly, i think here's why i think a lot of people get hung up on the word 'mamriage"
Straight people unconsciensly link marriage with religion. Right there they can't help but assuem that when gays say they want marriage, that means they want a Church wedding..in all churches. But even the most homophobic admit that the laws of marriage are from the state, not the church. Straight libs, trytign to be fair, say lets have domestic partnership or a civil union
But the problem on the other side is..when gays hear Civil unions or domestic partnerships and many of them hear separate but equal. well, it hardly takes a history professor to knwo that historicly, separate but equal has really meant seperate and UNequal. To get more gay activists behind this, we need some kind of guarantee that this isn't going to be just a case of jim crow applied ot gays this time.

But I agree with you whole heartidly that we need to get rid of the idea that gay marriage involves churches.
As any Divorvced and then remarried Catholic can tell you, your church does not have to sanction your marriage for you to be married.

[Finder]

6. Agree

Although the terminology is included in so many documents I am sure most agencies dread it.

[katinmn]

7. very well thought out

makes sense.

[ClassWarrior]

8. It's not about "gay marriage" - it's about Marriage Rights for all.

NGU.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. "it's about Marriage Rights for all"

Equal rights for all is exactly what I'm proposing. The word 'marriage' would carry no rights whatever. The only rights would be attached to civil unions.

If anythig, this would take something away from straight people. Gays would gain everything and lose nothing. If these changes are made, there will be full, unequivocal equal rights for everyone. Truly equal.