Is it the end of marriage?

[crboltz]

It's been a while since I've gone on one of my Prop 8. rant, while, there have been a handful of things that have prompted me to get off my butt and rant away.

Comments

[the_celestia]

The only problem I have with that is that for someone like me, who does not believe in organized religion (church), then your proposal takes away marriage for me, and hands me some supposedly equal legal construct.

I don't see how that is any different than the situation you've been living with - your way gives marriage, a legal right I've had all my life so far, to the church (which in essence takes it away from me, who has no church...unless you now want me to pretend to believe in something I don't believe in).

Don't get me wrong - I support marriage for any two adults of legal age (duh. I was at your wedding!)....but I can't support doing so by making marriage a rite of orgainzed religion instead of a legal right.

[jimkeller]

I'd still throw you a wedding to coincide with the signing of the domestic partnership agreement, but I've always been a bit of an iconoclast that way. :)

[crboltz]

I do understand your objection to my proposal. In an ideal world, people would be smart enough to separate legal marriage and religious marriage, and if we could I think most of the anti-same-sex-marriage-equality folks would then shut up, and take their Prop 8 and shove it....where it belongs.

[stacymckenna]

I'm confused by this argument/objection. If we renamed the legal, non-religious form to "domestic partnership" (or whatever), what exactly would we be taking away from those who are not married in a religious fashion? I know countless number of people who now have elaborate weddings and parties and ceremonies without religious involvement in their marriages. If we simply labeled it differently to signify whether or not there was religion involved, what would we be depriving you of?

[the_celestia]

Let me try to explain it this way: It's no different than if I told C&J they could have a domestic partnership but not a marriage

[stacymckenna]

So we need two entirely new words and elimination of the word "married/marriage" altogether because too many people apply territorial baggage to it...

I have never been able to relate to people having issues about attachment to a particular word.

[the_celestia]

There's no need for two entirely different words at all.

But there is also no reason or need to give the word 'marriage' to religion and take it away (replacing it with 'domestic partnership - which to me sounds like a cleaning service) from those who are perfectly OK with the buy a marriage license from the state part, but who would be having that license signed and witnessed by someone who isn't in the business of religion.

If you don't relate to people being attached to a specific word, then how about if we call legal, non-religious (i.e. civil) marriage 'marriage' and religious marriage can go make up something like Religious Partnership? Because if there's no reason to be attached to the specific word, then I'm sure that folks who want to be married by a church will be just fine with being Religious Partners, right?

[stacymckenna]

I personally don't give a flying leap what we call my marriage/partnership because I know what it is. If you can convince the rest of the religious community to abdicate claim to "marriage" and start using "religious partners" I'm all for it!

I advocate new designations because both religious and anti-religious camps want to claim the word "marriage" as *solely* their own, which is not an issue that can be solved with "my claim is older/more logical/more righteous than yours" debate. When the toddlers start fighting over who can have the toy, the easy solution is usually to take it away from both of them...

[jimkeller]

I'm curious if you'd feel that way if, instead of a marriage license, the state issued all couples a civil union license, which is what was signed in the church as the sanctified what they called a marriage. In this scenario, obviously, it wouldn't be right to "reserve" the word marriage for the churches, allowing a civil ceremony to still be called a wedding/marriage if people so chose. This probably wouldn't remove the religious-wacko objections to same-sex marriage, but I'd like to understand if the word is important, or if the sense of equality is what matters to you.

Both matter.

[the_celestia]

Both the word and the sense of equality...because if you take the word 'marriage' away from either side, no matter which one, there's going to be too many folks who don't see it as equal - regardless of which one they feel isn't 'right

Re: Both matter.

[stacymckenna]

As I understand it, people have been consistently unhappy with "domestic partnership" because they legally were not the same thing, and there were still rights (usually those assumed by default for those who were married) not being granted through domestic partnership

Re: Both matter.

[the_celestia]

Any marriage is only as strong as the parties involved.

And I could not possibly care less how other people declare their marriage, but I think the various states have made it fairly clear, they are quite willing for clergy to have the green light to handle the process, but the actual legal recognition remains with the state - not the church.

If I knew someone thought less of civil marriage than religious marriage, I probably would not have much interest in knowing that person further. Life's too short and I've already reached the halfway point - and I've got lots left to do.

I don't distinguish between religious marriage, civil marriage, or common-law marriage.

What I don't see is how any one marriage (for example, C&J's) makes any other marriage (for example, some couple who are in the news because they're all bent out of shape because the paperwork now says 'Party A' and 'Party B' instead of Bride and Groom) less of a marriage.

That, to me, is the real issue.

Re: Both matter.

[stacymckenna]

So, if you object to people getting bent out of shape about the form saying "Party A" and "Party B" instead of "Bride" and "Groom", why do you object to it saying "domestic partnership" instead of "marriage"?

Re: Both matter.

[the_celestia]

You lost me on the curves here (which is partly because I'm trying to do tax work while answering LJ which is a bit confusing)...

Are we all going to be signing ONE indentical form saying Domestic Partnership?

Or is there going to be a 'Domestic Partnership' form for those of us who are not religious, and a 'Marriage' form for those of us who are religious?

I object to only two things:

Making it different based on whether the persons are religious or not,

and

Making it different based on the gender identities of the persons involved.

If you're saying everyone now gets a domestic partnership, regardless of religious status or gender status, then I'm fine with that.

Otherwise, I'm not.

No differences if it's C&J both identifying as male.

No differences if it is my two other friends both identifying as female.

No differences if either or both parties are religious.

No differences if they choose to have the words said and the form signed by a clergyperson, or by a properly appointed representative of the State.

Re: Both matter.

[jimkeller]

Interesting. Personally, I think I'd have been fine with the domestic partnership if it was the same document the heterosexual couples signed. But I can see where the fact that I had the religious ceremony might color that perception.

Re: Both matter.

[the_celestia]

If we are ALL going to have ONLY domestic partnerships (including those who also have religious ceremonies) I'm fine with that myself.

What I am NOT fine with is giving it a different name (and having it be a different document) for different cases, whether that's assortment of genders or basic belief systems.

But I know darn good and well that the religiously married are not going to go for being Religiously Domestically Partnered.