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

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'.

The reality is that 'marriage' is a 'loaded' word. You (the generic you) are not going to make people happy if you take marriage out of either context.

Actually, I see four contexts:

1) mixed-gender legal marriage
2) same-gender legal marriage
3) mixed-gender religious marriage
4) same-gender religious marriage

There simply is not a way that most of society today is going to accept that 'domestic partnership' is the EXACT SAME THING as 'marriage'. If there was, then you'd have been just fine with your domestic partnership, which was blessed by a church, right?

But you aren't (and RIGHTLY SO!). You want to be MARRIED.
So do I (when it is the right thing for myself and the partner to do). I don't want to be some second class thing, any more than Jim and Chris (or Stacy and her husband whose name escapes me) want to be some second class thing.

I don't care what you call the legal document, and I don't care if the signing of the document is witnessed by a judge or a minister (because while *I* don't believe in religion, I completely support *your* right to believe in it) but once you make a separation between church marriage and legal marriage, you lose my support.

To do anything else is to make ME less equal because I don't buy into the whole God and Religion thing.

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.

Your assertion that being "married" even nonreligiously will grant you the same status in the eyes of the general public as those of us married religiously is erroneous. I know a great many people who consider strictly civil weddings to be inferior to or invalid as compared to religious ceremonies, even though the same word is used to describe them. (Weirdos.) Unspecific generalized vocabulary does not eliminate prejudice.

The state *already* discriminates between civil and religious marriage. No one can be married in a strictly religious way. You have to do both for the state to recognize your religious ceremony (though they've made it convenient by granting clergy civil authority on this act). I know many who've had religious ceremonies without civil (pre-legal gay marriages/unions, handfastings, etc.) whose family and friends consider them "married", but legally there is no union. Using the single word to describe all the possible cases does not eliminate the discrimination of either general public or state authority.

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.

Re: Both matter.

[stacymckenna]

Oh!

I think I see where the confusion is for me now, if I'm understanding what you're core objection is.

If I understand, your interpretation of the system Chris described ("A new construct allowing for a legal family that is not made up of traditional married parents") would have the familiar "marriage license" for heterosexual couples, and a "domestic arrangement" form for anything else, like the siblings raising children together he described, or homosexual couples, etc. *My* understanding was that he was proposing that *all* legal joinings be served by a "domestic arrangement" form, and the word marriage would only be used by those joined in a religious ceremony. It would be like everyone having a 13th birthday, but only Jewish children having bar/bat mitzvahs.

Re: Both matter.

[the_celestia]

And thanks to being on dialup, I didn't get this post before I wrote out another one trying to explain myself better (I really shouldn't do taxes, which I do understand, and this at the same time...)

I wasn't even taking into account the sibling family situation, to be honest. I'm not sure what I think should occur there.

No marriage I'm part of would be traditional married parents...I'm far too old to have more children (and what children I have, are not the product of a marriage).

I cannot agree with reserving the word marriage for only those couples joined in a religious ceremony.

To me, that places any couples married solely in a civil ceremony as some lesser degree of 'coupleness', and that to me is no different than the state telling Chris and Jim (or any of the other three same-gender couples whose weddings I have either attended or will soon attend) that they could have this 'other mostly equal thing' but not a marriage license.

Re: Both matter.

[stacymckenna]

The point is, the state would no longer issue "marriage" licenses. Your religious org would deem that you'd been married (much like bar mitzvahed) on top of the legally recognized "domestic partnership" (much like a 13th birthday) that all couples are entitled to.

Ok, I agree to disagree.

[the_celestia]

I think I understand you're still dead set on keeping the term 'marriage' for religious services. You would like the State to use the term 'domestic partnership' to replace the term 'civil marriage'.

Do I understand you correctly? If I do, this sounds to me like you are having a bit of an issue about a certain word...you don't want religion to give up the word 'marriage' (but you'd be fine with the civil end of things giving it up in favor of the different term).

Why not have religion make up a different term? Some religions already have a different term ('sealing'...and if you don't think there is a HUGE difference, to LDS church members, as to whether your marriage was 'sealed' or just 'married', let me introduce you to some friends of mine sometime).

I'm still dead set on keeping the term 'marriage' for civil marriage. I'm fine with religious organizations using the word also. I think anyone who cares about the difference will be able to figure it out.

One has, for lo these many years, applied for a MARRIAGE license from the State. When one wishes to dissolve that MARRIAGE, one applies to the STATE, for a divorce.

As you stated above, one cannot be only religiously married, one must obtain the civil license from the State. The State grants the privilage of executing said document to Clergy.

I see no reason why the State should now change their term for Marriage to Domestic Partnership.

You seem to still be telling me that only those who are 'religious' are entitled to the term 'marriage' and I just do not see where that is any different that telling same-sex couples that only male-female couples are entitled to the term 'marriage'.

I'm sure you don't consider homosexual couples to be lesser persons than hetrosexual couples (considering where we're holding this discussion)...do you consider me a lesser person because I am not religious? (Be honest, it's not going to bother me, I've got family members who freely admit that this makes me so lesser than them that they won't permit their children to speak to me...)

I think you're basically telling me I can't get 'married' (under these proposed changes we're discussing) because I don't belong to or believe in religion.

I find that to be every bit as discrimnatory as telling a committed gay couple they can't get married because they're same-sex.

Perhaps the only answer is, as you suggested, to make up all new words.

Re: Ok, I agree to disagree.

[stacymckenna]

I couldn't care less which groups refer to joinings using which words, whether it be marriage, domestic partnership, sealing, or snarfblat. YOU'RE the one who's desperately attached to the word "marriage" and refuses to give it up one way or the other. *Chris* proposed the option of making all legally recognized joinings called something else and giving the word "marriage" back to religion, so I've been discussing the issue based on his proposal. I have just been confused as to why you care WHAT the state calls it as long as everyone's using the same form and getting the same legal rights. Essentially, what does the word "marriage" mean to you that you're so afraid would be removed from your relationship if it were called something else?

I think you're basically telling me I can't get 'married' (under these proposed changes we're discussing) because I don't belong to or believe in religion.
If the word "marriage" was reserved for only the religious ceremony and had no legal/state usage, yes. Just like you couldn't be called baptized or bat mitzvahed or confirmed or saved or handfasted or any of those other terms that refer solely to people who've participated in a religious ceremony they believe in. That doesn't mean you'd be lesser in any way (well, at least as far as I'm concerned), the word just wouldn't be applicable.

I see no reason why the State should now change their term for Marriage to Domestic Partnership.
Much of the objection to same sex marriage is based in religion. Religious folk (the obnoxious kind) are so hell bent on keeping the word "marriage" that they'd vote and fight to prevent C&J from getting one because it goes against their religious beliefs. If the easiest way for C&J to get equal legal rights in their joining is for the state to change the word, I'd say that's a damn good reason for the legal designation to be changed for everyone.

[the_celestia]

OK, you win the Internets.

Thanks for the discussion, it's been interesting.