I think we should ban ALL legal marriage!

[jmowreader]

For thousands of years before Christianity was invented, the institution of Marriage was more about property than about invisible men. Witness the marriage scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," where the king told his effeminate son that he was to be married because her father owned so much usable land--"and we need all the land we can get."

These days, things have changed as we're well aware. Marriages are performed largely in churches, and the religious right (well, the religious WRONG actually) thinks they have the privilege of deciding who can get married.

Here's my proposal: Get rid of all marriage. Legally convert all existing marriages to civil unions, define a civil union as a legal contract between two consenting adults, and require all new civil unions to be performed by a government official. People who wanted their civil unions to be sanctified before God could go before a religious authority, but "marriage" in a church, or an open field, would have no legal standing. Civil union would carry the same rights and obligations as the now-current marriage.

This would end the "marriage is only for heterosexual Christians" bullshit we are getting from the religious wrong. It would NOT, however, reduce the market for wedding dresses since lots of people would still go for the big church wedding.

[glowing]

1. I agree.. Then people wouldn't get so hung up about marriage and be tricked

into thinking their pastor has to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Once you talk to people and ask if they think a same sex couple shouldn't enjoy civil rights, they agree to that.. its that crazy definition of marriage in Marriage Cert. that the state gives rights to and that ceremony Marriage performed by whomever.

[graywarrior]

2. People have to apply for a marriage license at their city hall giving permission for them

and their churces or state to allow them to marry. So in a sense, this is already in play.

[Double T]

3. Marriage is the leading cause of divorce; no marriage, no divorce..........

no problems.

[alphafemale]

4. yep The government doesn't recognize Baptisms does it?

It has no business mucking about in Marriage either.

[Coyote_Bandit]

5. France

has laws that are very similar to this. It is a criminal offense there for a clergyperson to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple who does not have a pre-existing civil legal union. And the religious service/marriage is completely optional.

IMHO something similar would be a good approach to address our needs. Everybody would be treated the same and both heterosexual and homosexual couples would be afforded the same legal rights with a civil union. The distinction between a civil union and a marriage would have the added benefit of distinguishing between the legal commitment and the religious blessing as well as clarifying our semantics regarding the issue.

[Gwendolyn]

8. Nope that's not at all how it works in France.

France requires a civil MARRIAGE not a civil union for heterosexual people. If they then wish to have a ritual religious service they may do so. The civil requirement MARRIES them, it doesn't union them. Just like us.

French gay people are entitled to partner in a civil union arrangement which gives them limited rights.

I have no idea why people keep thinking the civil union idea is a golden panacea for the issue. It's pretty clear it doesn't solve a single thing. You only have to look at other countries to figure that out.

[Luminous Animal]

12. Yep. France has civil marriage...

just like the U.S. The difference is that the U.S. gives most clergy the legal right to solemnize the marriage.

This stupid argument keeps coming up over and over again. As if semantics were the only obstacle to affording gays and lesbians the right to marry.

[Coyote_Bandit]

15. You have reminded me

why I seldom read or post and often completely ignore DU posts on this issue (and resolve to do so in the future). It's not that I'm opposed to equal civil rights for homosexual couples. It is because I find great frustration in the fact that those who post often fail to distinguish between legal rights (a civil governmental function) and the religious blessing of the church. Call them what you wish.

I was involved in planning a French high church cathedral wedding. Granted that was a number of years ago. Still, one of the major obstacles to planning was first providing acceptable documentation that there was a pre-existing legal commitment between the couple. We were not permitted to make any arrangements until we satisfied that requirement. Why? Because clergy were fearful of being criminally prosecuted for performing a religious ceremony blessing and acknowledging the couple in absence of a pre-existing legal commitment between the couple.

I do not know what first hand knowledge you have of French marriage laws. In any event, you seem to acknowledge that in France the legal rights of a committed relationship are the result of a civil legal contract.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about semantics. Legal rights - be they for heterosexual or homosexual couples - should be conferred by a legal arrangement - and both heterosexual and homosexual couples should be granted the same rights - and those rights should bear the same title irrespective of the couple's sexual preference.

I do not favor civil unions for gay couples while heterosexual couples are permitted to be married. I think both should be required to have the same legal binding commitment - same rights referred to and known by the same title. Call it whatever you wish. If the issue is one of legal rights then it should not matter what the rights are called as long as both heterosexual and homosexual couples enjoy the same rights and those rights are designated by the same language and title. I fail to understand why that position is offensive (though I'm sure someone here will take it upon themselves to enlighten me).

Should I make the decision to ever again post on DU regarding this matter perhaps I will refer to these legal rights as "^" - the symbolic union of two into one conferring equal legal rights irrespective of sexual preference. Perhaps I will refer to the church's religious acknowledgment and blessing as "*".

Peace.

[Gwendolyn]

16. This has been explained a thousand times, and I'll no longer respond either, as it's futile.

But this one last time... here's why this civil union for all business is a non-workable proposal.

1. Married people LIKE their marriages. Heterosexual people, whether religious or not, LIKE the institution and don't want to get rid of it. Proposing they do so for something else to include gay people is like telling your one daughter she can't have ice cream because the other is allergic. It's unfair and won't garner support.

In other words, I have problems with my eyes and can't see properly. I know, let me cut off my nose. That'll help!! :crazy:

2. It's been explained over and over by those in the legal profession what a costly, muddy procedure it would be to can the existing institution to exchange it for another, just for semantic's sake. Not to mention, since the rest of the world runs on the marriage model, once again we'd be isolated and "different."

3. MOST IMPORTANTLY: Bigots don't give a CRAP what you call it, if it makes gay people equal in standing, they DON'T WANT IT!! Do gay people in France have equal standing even though everyone gets civil marriages? NO! Why is that so hard for people to grasp?

4. It's insulting to the gay community.

[verges]

23. In response:

1) NOTHING changes other than the name. (and if they had the benefit of a religious ceremony {or secular non-civil ceremony} they would still be "married")

2) I've heard that too. But, I've never had it explained why. It's simply the changing of a word. And you really only have to change that at the top of the current Marraige License form. Anything else, you could provide blanket legistation defining the term "marraige" in previously dated law to mean Civil Union. And don't tell me that you can't legally change the definition of "marraige".

3) By taking the word 'Marraige" out of the argument you weaken their stance. I agree that you can't change them. But you can take away their legal cover.

4) How is applying equality across the board insulting?

[Gwendolyn]

30. Here we go again...

1. Millions and hundreds of millions of people LIKE the name, even the way the syllables roll off the tongue. They like EVERYTHING about the institution and DON'T want or see a need for it to change. Why should a huge majority of people change for a tiny minority. Those who don't like it can see their lawyers and fashion their own individual contracts.

2. And changing words on a form is somehow a panacea for the underlying issues of bigotry? Please see Gollygee's excellent post for the skinny of what the issues are if you haven't understood what I or Luminous Animal have tried to convey over this silly semantics argument.

Also please find Ms. Toad's thorough and well-articulated posts regarding the manure pile of legal quagmire, both domestic and international.

3. You don't weaken a damn thing. You make it far worse. Again, see Gollygee's post. Google procedures in other countries and you'll find that even though they've banned the clergy from performing unions, gay people STILL don't have the same legal rights.

4. It's insulting for two reasons. One, you infantilise people. "Little Oliver doesn't have a purple crayon. Aww, class, please give up your purple crayon so little Oliver doesn't feel bad.' Second, who are you to presume what the gay community wants? They're fighting for marriage because they want ALL that it entails, including the vows, commitment, and the way the syllables roll off the tongue. For further explanation see Gollygee's post.

PS. Thank you Gollygee! :)

[verges]

33. In response redux:

1) It's not just the hard-core fundies that have a problem with the word. Besides, I thought the issue was really about rights. And Marraige would still be available. It would just be separate from the Civil authority. The only difference is that a minister couldn't solemnize a LEGAL classification.

2) Are you saying that by granting Gay Marraige, bigotry will go away? And it won't by calling the same thing a Civil Union or Partership (or make up a new term that rolls off the tongue)?

3) If your entire argument is based on someone else's posts, please provide links. But as I understand the core of the argument, Marraige is one man, one woman because God says so. By actually separating religion and civil functions it defuses this argument. By virtue of the First Amendment, no church now or ever will have to marry anybody they don't want to. For ANY reason. By attaching ALL the rights to the legal status rather than the religious status, they can't stop anyone gay or straight from obtaining the rights. And that is what's really more impportant, right? Yes, they will still be able to deny a wedding to anyone they don't like in their churches. But many other churches will be happy to
provide the service.


4) I still fail to see how equality demeans anyone. a) I don't see it as infantilizing anyone. b) the commitment and vows are still there. And if you don't like the term Civil Union (I admit it is a bit cold sounding) come up with something else. Or, after the Civil ceremony, find a friendly church (gay or straight as needed) and have the religious ceremony performed. Or if your not religious, devise a secular, more formal (but non-legally binding) ceremony, and call IT a marraige.

[Gwendolyn]

39. Sigh... I can stop anytime I want to, I swear.

Apparently not. :)

You don't seem to understand that marriage is already a civil affair. All benefits are conferred by the state not the church. You seem to think that getting the clergy out of the marriage business altogether will somehow guarantee or facilitate the right for gays to civil unionize or marry or whatever you want to call your model. It won't. One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other. Look at European countries.

You think that somehow proposing a change in name only will *trick* or *force* people into accepting the same rights for the gay community. That is so beyond naive, it's hard to respond. You'll still have the same bigots, (who won't be fooled for a second) only now you'll add millions of disgruntled mainstream hetero "marriage" advocates who'll withdraw their support for the gay community into the dirt pile. Did you not read Gollygee's post? This is a useful approach...how, again?

Anyway look... if you want to be a beacon of light for social change, please go for it. I think this idea would only make fundies get out their pitchforks, millions of heteros will laugh, and as usual, the gay community will be blamed. But if that's what your conscience tells you is right, why not fight for it?

btw... I would have posted Ms. Toad's links but am not so great at navigating this site. If you're interested, maybe you'll have better luck.

[Coyote_Bandit]

27. Legislation and the acquisition of legal rights

can no more eliminate bigotry than it can insure and standardize a sense of personal morality among the citizenship.

Who is talking about civil unions? You are. I'm talking about ^.

Three of your four points condemning civil unions addressed issues having nothing to do with rights. Instead they pertained to social and cultural institutions, bigotry and personal insult. Your fourth observation pertained to the legal system itself. As an attorney maintaining an active license in multiple states I see no reason why the recognition of ^ need be costly or uncertain. It's called a grandfather clause and its terms can be defined to eliminate uncertainty.

That said, securing rights is something very different from securing personal, cultural or societal acceptance and respect. There will always be bigots among us. There will always be people who judge and condemn. There will always be folks who have other interests and priorities. Bigots do not care whether the committed relationship between a homosexual couple is designated as a civil union or a marriage or ^. It is the nature of the relationship itself (as opposed to the manner in which it is designated) that offends the bigots.

Bigotry is absolutely unequivocally always wrong. And guess what? Nobody is going to make it go away by changing a law - or conferring equal civil rights to homosexual couples. You don't have to be gay to be the victim of bigotry. Many people of color will tell you that laws do not make bigotry magically go away. I suspect there are some disabled folks and 40+ job hunters who would verify that observation. Is it right? No!

I was very careful in my last post to state that I believe that both heterosexual and homosexual couples should be afforded the same legal rights and that those rights should be designated in the same manner regardless of the sexual preference of the couple. I sincerely hope that comes to pass.

Nothing personal, but I hope I have the discipline for this to be my last post ever on DU regarding this issue.

[Gwendolyn]

31. Lol, no personal slight taken. I too have been a moth to the flame,

for these types of threads, and it's repetitive.

The only thing to do is for those in favor of civil unions or the /^* partnership model, to begin lobbying for it.

[jmowreader]

38. But if there's no such thing as a civil marriage?

That's my intent--to destigmatize the idea of gay people getting married by making EVERYONE get a civil union instead of a marriage.

[Gwendolyn]

41. I'd say that the number of people who would support that idea...

could probably fit into my bathtub. :)

[mondo joe]

6. You get right on that, and tell us how it works out, okay?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

10. I think it'll go swimmingly

:rofl:

[rrneck]

7. Damn fine idea. The power

to tell people who they can marry, and by extension with whom they can have sex, dehumanizes them. It's a lot easier to brutalize a person if you don't consider them a person at all.

Barnyard animals, domestic pets, and draft animals have their sex lives strictly regulated. The church fathers would have people treated the same way, whether they know it or not.

It's all about power.

[Froward69]

21. no kidding look

at marine life... Dolphins Rape, Sharks Orgy, Salmon and Crabs have no idea who mom or dad is.
(I watch too much Discovery.)
even in nature no other animal Marries... none... where as a few do have Homosexual relationships...


throw that at the right...

[no_hypocrisy]

9. Emma Goldman described marriage as "legalized prostitution".

It may have its societal and social benefits, but it's really about money. Though women work and some can support themselves, it's really about government having legislation to avoid having to subsidize abandoned women and children through taxes. I mean welfare like you've never seen it. Not to mention marriage reinforces biblical mandate to which no all of us subscribe.

[femrap]

24. Thank you for mentioning this...

I see marriage as a way to control women. I doubt if many know that W has offered women $2000 to stay married....a one-time payout. Gov't doesn't want to pay for training or the children. I think W would be happy if the husband just killed his family. After all, prisons make $$$$ for his buddies.

[independentpiney]

11. I agree other than converting existing marriages to civil unions

or requiring any ceremony to be performed. Any two adults should be able to enter a domestic partnership agreement whether sex or love even have anything to do with the relationship,and have the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple. It's not like the state can enforce all the 'to have and to hold, love and cherish, till death do you part' stuff anyway. That's a relic from the days of local officials acting as 'ministers of god' in the absence of ordained clergy.

[Umbram]

13. I agree. (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

14. Agreed. n/t

[Taverner]

17. Shit, now there's something I agree with

I've always been for that, and no one has ever been able to give me a reasonable argument (on either side) against it

[Froward69]

18. 7th rec Agreed

I wonder the mental stability of all when Mirage/Marriage (same thing) is about property.

one of the loves of my life married a Guy (not me)with a (at least seven figure) trust fund.

Another would not marry me as She thought I would never make more than $250,000 a year... (I have since)

then theirs the issue of Divorce... that makes one either gain or in my case give up half of my stuff.
it seems that everything changed (for the worse) once we got married anyway.
everyone seems to get in line to give up half their stuff. I just do not get it.


ok and about visitation in a hospital... my best friend had no trouble getting in to see me at the hospital. (same sex) Granted he was not wearing a pink Boa... But he would have, to cheer me up. (June 2008)

my parents were barred from getting married, as they had different levels of pigment in their skin.
no problems for the rest of their lives...

[lonestarnot]

19. But divorce is such a GOOD racket!

[Froward69]

20. damn straight it was

every one made money off of me... Both lawyers, my ex, not to mention court costs, and my local bar...

[Prophet 451]

22. Been saying that for years

Have a rec.

[MH1]

25. I agree completely except for one point.

Call the legal construct "domestic partnership" instead of "civil unions". Remove all sexual connotation. Why? Because there are some people - a relatively small number, but still deserving to be considered - who have a non-sexual partner that they need to be able to handle their affairs, visit them in the hospital, share their insurance policy, and so forth. I read an article a while ago that this is particularly becoming more prevalent among the elderly, who often after the death of a spouse, rather than take another spouse, still set up a "mutual reliance" type of relationship with a close friend, often of the same gender.

I don't see any reason why any adult shouldn't be able to set up a domestic partnership with any other one adult of their choosing, without implying a specific type of relationship.

[KittyWampus]

52. Thank You. I may not get remarried to someone where sex is involved at this point but MAY

want to join households with another woman who is a dear friend so we can have legal rights.

Why the hell is sex a determinant?

Can't thank you enough.

[gollygee]

26. Why does this always keep getting brought up?

1. The right-wingers big issue is that they claim gay people want to "destroy marriage". If marriage were done away with, it would be quickly and easily spun as marriage being destroyed, and guess who would take the blame? It would make things worse for gay people, not better.

2. The right-wingers don't want gay people to have any rights. In fact, strike that. They don't want gay people to exist, period. If a few have to exist here and there, they want them to be quiet and without rights in the closet. Some states have even passed laws that not only can gay people not marry, they can't do anything that looks anything like marriage no matter what you call it. Yes, some anti-gay people are ok with gay people having civil unions, but that's because it's something less than what they have. They don't want gay people playing their reindeer games, no matter what the games are called. If marriage were called "civil unions", only straight people would be able to have "civil unions".

3. There has been a huge change of public opinion on this issue. Several years ago, anti-gay marriage ballot proposals won by ridiculous margins, including in blue states, with no real advertising from the right-wing. But the proposal in California came very very close to not passing and required a huge amount of advertising money from the right wing to pass. Gay marriage will happen before too long. If Obama replaces a conservative Supreme Court justice or two, it's potentially one Supreme Court case away from being a reality. The current way of fighting for gay rights is making huge progress. Why should gay people change a winning strategy?

4. It's insulting to say, "Well then we won't let anybody marry!" Because that's really how it comes off.

[mondo joe]

29. And brought up by people who have zero interest in actually trying to achieve it.

"Idea" people.

[gollygee]

32. It sounds like

a stalling technique.

[PeaceNikki]

34. I wish I could rec your reply.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

28. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polmaven]

35. While I totally agree with you

regarding getting rid of the word "marriage" in the civil arena, and said the same in another thread yesterday....I have a bone to pick with you.

I have never seen a thread, nor even a single post which mocks you or any atheist or agnostic because you do not believe in God. I am actually quite sure such a thread or post would and should be deleted. May I ask why it is that you feel comfortable mocking my belief and that of many other DU members?

[asteroid2003QQ47]

43. Comfortable mocker checking in.

“More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion.”
--Harvey Milk

It's my calling, forgive me.

[polmaven]

44. So peaceful people of faith

are fair game on DU?

[asteroid2003QQ47]

45. Religion is a stain on humanity,

shame on those who do NOT mock it.

Enablers are fair game wherever they are found IMO.
I hope that answers your question.
-----------------------------------

“More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion.”
--Harvey Milk

[polmaven]

46. Sure does...

But it saddens me to know that some apparently progressive Democrats are so intolerant and hateful. How is that attitude really any different than that of the fundamentalists?

[asteroid2003QQ47]

47. Hardly unique in your opposition to Harvey Milk's wisdom,

wisdom for which he paid the ultimate price, it saddens ME that intolerance of
hate and perversion is viewed by the 'faithful' as intolerant and hateful!

"How is that attitude really any different than that of the fundamentalists?" A question obtuse to a degree that detracts from the issue at hand and is undeserving of a response.
--------------------------------------

“More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion.”
--Harvey Milk

[LanternWaste]

49. His quote that you post...

His quote that you post is factually wrong however. Long story short, greed for land has been the catalyst for far more deaths than any other single reason-- with religion being used merely as a justification at times.

('Blood and Soil' by Ben Kiernan, and 'Genocide and Settler Society' by Dirk Moses)

[asteroid2003QQ47]

54. Thank you for the references, I have not read them, have you?

You seem a little too eager to proclaim the innocence of religion while ignoring religion's historical obsession with power as equated with "land" and the people who inhabit it.

I'll try to find the Kiernan and Moses books at the library as Amazon prices for them are out of my class.
---------------------------------------------
Genocide of the Tasmanian Aboriginals

Excerpt from Edward Wilson's, "On Human Nature", in which Wilson described the case of the genocide of the tasmanian Aboriginals.

The British settlers nearly completed a violent genocide on them (they hunted them like game), which caused some outcry. Then a well-intentioned Calvinist minister showed up to lead the remnant to a reservation and to teach them about Calvinism. but this abrupt revolution in their philosophies and way of life was more than they could handle spiritually, and they simply stopped reproducing and died out within one generation.
Wilson maintains that the Calvinist minister, despite the best of
CONSCIOUS intentions, UNCONSCIOUSLY was "acting under the compulsion" of another instinct-the tribal-agression instinct-and was REALLY there to finish the genocide his own kind had begun, only by politically acceptable (and therefore most effective) means.

[LanternWaste]

56. Yes, I have read them...

Yes, I have read them :shrug:

"You seem a little too eager to proclaim the innocence of religion"

No more, nor no less than I am eager to proclaim the innocence of other human constructs such as philosophy-- that is, in and of themselves, they are more often than not simply benign.

(Or, on the plane you provided-- no more, nor no less eager to proclaim the guilt of religion as many do... six of one, half a dozen of the other, I guess.)

I usually find that human atrocities are predicated on greed-- with nationalism, religion, philosophy, clan lineage, historicity, or politics, etc. being merely the justification to both defend that decision, and to more easily allow the placation of those who may not initially agree with that decision to follow it.

(I certainly hope that by saying that, you don't also believe I'm "too eager to proclaim the innocence" of philosophy, politics or clan lineage....)

[asteroid2003QQ47]

57. A perfectly reasonable well thought out response that I am not about to quibble with, LW.

Not emotionally invested in simplistic black and white evaluation I can easily live with religion symbiotically sharing the limelight with land/greed/power as related to human folly.

[Sanctified]

36. How about work to legalize all marriage.

Instead of taking away rights because others lack them, it's better to work towards giving them to all people. Today you can already go get Married by a government official if you want, today you need a piece a paper from the government before you can get married in a Church. So everything you already stated is already required or offered, you are just changing the word marriage with union which is purely semantics.

My suggestion is stop stop crying in your Wheaties, pull up your pants and go out there and work to get equality for all people. When slavery ended blacks had to openly work for equality and they are still working for it 150 years later.

[Evoman]

37. Just do what I did.....refuse to get married until gay people have the same right.

If you can force yourself to have principles in a similar manner, it gives you a reason to fight even more for other people who don't have what you have.


Luckily, it's now legal in Canada. So now I'm engaged. Hope to get married next year.

[DailyGrind51]

40. Today, marriage takes two rational people and turns them into petulant children.

[Solon]

42. I'm afraid that your argument is full of shit...

I'm not going to repeat all that many other people have pointed out, but your idea will never make it off the ground, and you know it. Its mental masturbation, no more, no less.

[LanternWaste]

48. Sounds to me as though it's analogous to banning...

Sounds to me as though your scenario is analogous to banning the front of the bus.

Yet rather than cutting off the front of the bus, how about we simply allow everyone the equal right to sit wherever they want to in that old bus?

[Xenotime]

50. Marriage is the biggest ponzi scheme on the planet

And people still fall for it everyday.

[PassingFair]

51. You're forgetting something...

Marriage is a series of legal entanglements
PRIMARILY, (but not ONLY) for the purpose of
ensuring the CARE AND FEEDING OF OFFSPRING.

Mostly so the father has legal ties to
the child.

That being said, I believe that gay families
should have the same legal rights and responsibilities.

[meow2u3]

53. This sounds like the if-I-can't-marry-nobody-should argument

It also sounds like a two year old throwing a tantrum. :cry::cry::cry: When will I see the blue face from holding your breath?

It's time for some DUers to grow up.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

55. Projection, STP?

We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are.
--Anais Nin