Marriage by Any Other Name

[torasama.livejournal.com]

While a rose may be a rose by any other name, the same does not hold true of marriage. Marriage is marriage. Civil unions are not equal to marriage, both in society's eyes and the law's - couples joined under a civil union do not have the same rights as a married couple. Denoting long-term, committed same-sex relations as 'lesser' opens a legal Pandora's box and provides a venue for continued discrimination, by applying a different set of rights to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

To deny a civil marriage to a same-sex couple is blatant discrimination per the 14th Amendment. Just as the anti-interracial marriage arguement that all races had the "same right" to marry others of their own race didn't work in Loving vs. Virginia, the arguement that homosexuals have the "same right" to marry people of the opposite sex doesn't work, either.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's fine to deny queers their rights because even the blacks hate us. But if blacks were incapable of marrying other blacks the streets would burn. Nothing galls me more than when some idiot that would have been lynched for his sheer impunity as recently as 50 years ago stands up and tells gays "Ya'll wait now, ya hear?"

One Martin Luther King Junior said why keeping people in a second-class status waiting is not workable. And then this black guy comes along and says it to gays.

And people wonder why I loathe the Dems as much as I do the "Party of Christ" (so-called).

[torasama.livejournal.com]

...Ok, you do know that at one point in history blacks couldn't marry other blacks, right?

While it is incredibly ironic coming from a POC, it's not fair to blame everything on the hate that comes out of the black community.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes...when they were slaves. Marriage between blacks was not recognized, because legally blacks weren't the human beings they are, but the legal fiction and brutal reality was that they were chattel property.

And while the marriages weren't legal, many blacks did defy their owners and married each other. When the 13th Amendment was passed, marriages skyrocketed because newly emancipated Freedmen confirmed legally what had existed previously. I'm not as ignorant as you may think I am.

[pantsu.livejournal.com]

I don't think marriage should exist period. Look at what we do with it.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

I agree.

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

My position is that government in general should not be involved in marriage at all. If the government is to use the term Civil Union then that term should not relate to a sexual relationship but to a relationship in which shared property occurs. Thus under "Civil Union" A father and son could have such a union and have nothing sexual at all going on, just sharing ownership of common property...

As for the whole "poor homosexuals" movement, I ask again why only two, why not anything consentual?

[ihatepeoplealot.livejournal.com]

"why only two, why not anything consentual"?

this

[torasama.livejournal.com]

"Consensual" does not mean whatever you think it means. As for 'why only two,' that's mostly a tax issue, but that's a discussion for another time and place.

As for the first paragraph, this says it well:

"Marriage was a civil accord long before it was a "religious institution."

So, therefore, marriage should still remain a civil institution, and religion and continue to fiddle about with whatever they want to do.

Simply renaming a marriage a "civil union" is nonsense and a cop-out."
- theburn

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

"Marriage was a civil accord long before it was a "religious institution."


Utter nonsense.

Up until about 200 or less years ago religion and state often shared powered. So to say that governments back then recognized marriage for secular reasons is to ignorant of history or to be a out right liar. It would be impossible to tell why governments of the ancient world got involved in marriage.

The trouble is you want government to recognize homosexual marriage so you can use the government to force acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage. It is a power trip and a goal of "changing society" that you want and not rights at all.

If by privatizing marriage and making government only involved in the civil property sharing thing you would get equal rights to any other union as they would all be based on property and not sexual relationships. BUT as I said rights isn't your real goal, normalization of the homosexual lifestyle is your goal.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Depends on how you look at it. In plenty of societies polygamy is perfectly legal, and some fundamentalist Mormons decided to be stubborn and practice it still today.

The way I see it is that if people want to be polygamist, more power to them. The problem with more sexual partners is that they all want an equal piece of you. And when you have to sort out that kind of mess....just thinking about it makes me shudder.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Civil unions are not equal to marriage, both in society's eyes and the law's

Depends where you are. In California, they are explicitly defined to be equal under the law. The only problem comes because of Federal law, the same as it is with medical marijuana.

As for them being equal in society's eyes, there is nothing the law can do about that.

Instead of complaining that some people aren't able to marry who they want (same gender person, dog, apple pie, whatever), the correct answer is to get government to not license any marriages, it can only create civil unions between any two persons. Then we can go through and explicitly determine which "marriage benefits" actually apply generally and keep those that we want and get rid of the rest.

[pantsu.livejournal.com]

I agree.

And you know, sometimes I think the only reason this issue is so huge is because civil unions don't dish out the same benefits. I don't know about anybody else, but that is kind of depressing to me. :|

[torasama.livejournal.com]

Depends where you are. In California, they are explicitly defined to be equal under the law

Domestic Partnership (CA) - Differences from marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Differences_from_Marriage)

As for them being equal in society's eyes, there is nothing the law can do about that.

No, but the law can make them equal under the law.

Instead of complaining that some people aren't able to marry who they want (same gender person, dog, apple pie, whatever), the correct answer is to get government to not license any marriages, it can only create civil unions between any two persons.

Gay marriage =/= bestiality =/= marrying an object. For further elaboration, see this (http://uthinkimjoking.livejournal.com/2180.html).

Renaming all marriages as civil unions is not going to solve anything. This (http://open.salon.com/blog/dave_cullen/2008/11/06/the_fallacy_of_renaming_marriage--and_the_danger) explains it right well.

Excerpt:

"First, marriage is an idea, not just a word. The word is merely a label for a concept/idea/tradition/institution--all those things. You can rename it as many times as you want, that won't change anything. Or solve anything.

Anti-gay forces are fighting for the institution of marriage. Change the name and they will fight you every bit as hard. You won't have won anything."

[blindgeoff.livejournal.com]

WORD!

To my fellow hetero-people...

STOP TRYING TO PROTECT MY MARRIAGE!

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

LOL to your icon :D

[torasama.livejournal.com]

If I'm reading you correctly, you want to rename all legal marriage as civil union. Is that right?

However we live in a direct democracy in this state and the people have decided not to allow gays to marry here.

False reasoning. They decided not to let interracial couples marry either, remember?

I like your questions, though.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And the answer is that people should not be allowed to deny rights to others. Abolitionism and woman suffrage were minority movements as well. Should we have waited for the majority of society to approve of the Emancipation Proclamation (in which case we'd still have slavery in the South today?), or for majority sanction for women's right to vote (in which case we'd still be waiting on that, too)? If not....

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

I think it depends on the legal jurisdiction and the intent of the law. In many parts of the world simply living together in a committed (sexual) relationship over a period of time places the relationship in the common-law-marriage catagory, with equal or near-equal status as those who have gone through the hoops and ceremony of proper marriage. So I'm not so sure that civil-union would not be equal to marriage in all instances. I think there is intent for civil unions to not be made entirely equal.

Marriage has traditionally been under the authority of one's religion to bless a union/commitment. At some point in history the government(s) took over this role, blessing this union/commitments with legal contracts and obligations. The breaking of this contract has legal repercussions instead of just the guilt of conscious.

I believe the governments should not be in the business of judging our relationships. I don't understand the intent. A married person does not warrant a different tax bracket then a single person, or any other government service for that matter. The married man and single man ought to be equals under the law under all circumstances. The single person is considered lesser of the two equals, only because they're not married.

If the intent is for care of children, then the child benefit should be administered to the child directly, or in care of the parent or guardian.

If the intent is simply contract law, where there are consequences for breaking contract, then it has always done a piss-poor job. To love and cherish, honour and obey... all things under this contract, are far too difficult to be held accountable to.

Marriage is a lifetime commitment socially and a lifetime obligation legally. Both run counter to nature, which sees homo-sapiens (regardless of sexuality) in serial monogamy. Society has lived up to nature, only by the breaking marriage contracts through divorce and other means.

It's the other means that is usually most bothersome. The breaking of any contract is a relatively costly endevour, thus forcing those who want out of a contract to sometimes/often find other not-so-legal means. A husband who quite simply walks away from his marriage finds himself legally obligated to this contract of marriage some 20 years after the fact where I would expect it should be null and void after the relationship has dissolved.

Civil Union, as defined being unequal to marriage, is still contract law. I suspect such a contract is equal to marriage in it's obligations to the two partners entering the contract. Where it differs is (and what most take objection to) is with the third partner, the entity who is administrating the contract. Not allowed to adopt kids, not allowed spousal support, etc. I would think it's possible to redefine these parameters at anytime as public support backs such initiatives.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Wrong. Marriage didn't become religious until after the Council of Trent in the West and in most cultures is still considered a financial transaction between two families solidified by payment of bridewealth.

The "religious nature" of marriage is puerile bullshit and has little to no relevance to the historical record.

Let's argue the semantics

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

Personally I want to see the gay community answer some important questions before I support their gay-married.

Who takes who's last name?
Who is walked down the isle?
Do both guys attend the batchlore party?
Do both women attend the batchlorette party?
Do we call the married couple Mr and Mr? Mrs and Mrs? T

Re: Let's argue the semantics

[torasama.livejournal.com]

It's usually up to the couple. While in a heterosexual realtionship these things are defined by gender roles, there really isn't an equivalent in a homosexual relationship.

They have seperate bachlor(ette) parties.

Most would go by Mr and Mr/Mrs and Mrs, yes.

Re: Let's argue the semantics

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You're presuming that heterosexuality-on-the-Western-model will transliterate exactly to homophilic relationships. Things are never that simple.

Re: Let's argue the semantics

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

I can't speak for the homosexuals, but most of your questions are a bit silly from even a heterosexual perspective.

"Who takes who's last name?"

My wife didn't take my last name or vice versa. She's still "Alvarez", I'm still "Yocom".

"Who is walked down the isle?"

We also got married in a spartan ceremony in the Salt Lake County Clerk's Office: Assistant County Clerk to officiate, two of my friends as witnesses, no guests. No aisles, and certainly nobody getting walked down them.

"Do both guys attend the batchlore party?
Do both women attend the batchlorette party?"

We also didn't have bachelor/bachelorette parties. I would assume gays might have two parties, just like many het. couples have separate bachelor and bachelorette parties.

"Do we call the married couple Mr and Mr? Mrs and Mrs?"

Yes

Re: Let's argue the semantics

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Here in Canada we've had Same-Sex Marriage for a bunch of years now.
The answer, of course, is unless you're involved, who gives a shit.
What would these questions impact your support for or against SSM?
If I told you the last names are taken from the name in alphabetical order, would that sway your vote either way?
I hope your questions are not serious.