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

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.