In 1968, Spence Silver, a 3M research scientist, accidentally created an adhesive with properties that were then novel. It was spherical; it had the thickness of a paper fiber; it did not dissolve; it did not melt; each individual sphere was very sticky. But when many spheres were brought together onto a tape backing, they didn't adhere very well.
For five years, Silver pitched his discovery to folks at 3M, but no one thought much of his creation. Finally, in 1973, an application was found: movable bulletin boards. But it was hardly an earth-shattering application.
Enter Art Fry, a new-product development researcher at 3M. He had learned about Silver's adhesive, and he thought to himself: If I could put some of that adhesive on the back of a piece of paper, I could create a more reliable bookmark for my church hymnal instead of the scraps of paper that keep falling out. He brought his idea to 3M. Some initially tried to kill the project; why compete with something that already exists and works so well already? But Fry and others persisted. They eventually went to Richmond, Virginia, to see if they could sell this notion of scrap paper with an adhesive edge. People were interested, and in 1980-a dozen years after Silver's discovery-3M launched the Post-it Note.
With all the hue and cry about civil union and its alleged inferiority, I ask myself: Do the people who accidentally created this new adhesive have any idea how powerful their invention is? I don't think they do.
So let me offer an application for their creation. Since October of 2001, I've been proposing a different way to move forward in our struggle toward marriage equality. The dominant voices from our community have demanded marriage for gays, and marriage has been the rallying cry ever since we came so close in Hawaii. But some of us want to see something that is at once more radical and more conservative: civil union for all.
It's clearly more radical, because no nation on earth has ever abandoned civil marriage and adopted an alternative. In a debate with an advocate of same-sex marriage, my proposal of civil union for all was dismissed as being so much wishful thinking. We will always have civil marriage, I was told. Really? This same advocate cautioned against filing marriage lawsuits too soon, for fear of suits that may be unwinnable in the courts of law and public opinion. All the while, she cited Hawaii- the suit most gay legal thinkers thought was premature-as the beginning of the current push for gay marriage.
Fifteen years ago, few of us fully envisioned the possibility of gay marriage. Dismissing civil union for all out of hand similarly represents a failure of imagination on the part of leaders in the gay community and elsewhere. After all, civil marriage cannot trace its lineage to the beginnings of ancient civilization. So who's to say that a nation might not one day adopt civil union for all?
And what better nation to do this than the United States? American exceptionalism is part of our birthright. If any nation is poised to reinvent legal relationships on a large scale, it is our great and innovative land. Liberty, justice, and civil union for all.
The other complaint I hear from the champions for same-sex marriage is: We didn't get civil union by asking for civil union. I was up here in Vermont when we got civil union, and to be honest, none of us were all that happy that we didn't get marriage. But at the same time, few of us conceived anything like civil union. It's awfully hard to ask for something that does not yet exist. Who would know to ask for a Post-it Note that hadn't yet been invented? Now that we have civil union for gay couples, it's not so unimaginable to ask for civil union for all couples, is it?
And this is what makes my proposal conservative. By saying that all couples, gay and straight, get a civil union, we solve a number of issues simultaneously. Take polygamy, for example. The defenders of traditional marriage wail that polygamy is right around the corner if society allows same-sex marriage. We all know, though, that marriage has long been associated with polygamy, and granting or denying same-sex marriage won't affect that history one whit. Civil union, in contrast, has no history. So let's define it: two people who are unrelated by blood and above a certain age are eligible for governmental recognition of their relationship and the benefits and obligations that come from that recognition. Poof! No polygamy.
And talk about the separation of church and state! Has anyone you know pontificated about the sanctity of civil union, about the need to protect traditional civil union? Of course not.
The champions of same-sex marriage think they can finesse the church-state issue by talking about civil marriage and how no religious body would be forced to conduct a gay wedding. These gay leaders have no idea how integral marriage is to the theology of many religious persons in the United States and elsewhere.
Time for some self-disclosure. I was formerly the chaplain of a conservative Christian college. I know the religious right fairly well. For many Christians, it's not just the sanctity of marriage colliding with strictures against homosexuality. Marriage is a mirror that reflects the relationship that Christ has with the Church. And if this metaphorical marriage consecrates two men or two women, who gets impregnated with the Spirit of God? The religious objection is far deeper than simply maintaining the status quo. It subconsciously (and sometimes consciously) reaffirms the distinction between the sexes and the traditional subservience of one gender to the other.
Who can forget how gender-bound our understanding of marriage is? Think of the sentences that are forever wed to the wedding ceremony. "I now pronounce you man and wife" (i.e., master and property). "You may kiss the bride" (more preferential treatment for the groom). For the life of me, I do not comprehend why gay people, of all people, want to buy into this history. Call one another "husband" and "wife" if you choose, but notice how straight couples are beginning to abandon this language in favor of something more egalitarian. There are no gendered expectations in civil union; it skirts the sex-specific baggage of religious marriage. In my book, that's an improvement.
Time for some more self-disclosure. I'm black. And am I the only one to notice that black clergy stayed pretty much out of this struggle until gays won the legal right to use the M-word? In Massachusetts, the Black Ministerial Alliance did not make their voice heard until after the advisory ruling that said that civil union would not do. That was when they stood in opposition, and not a moment before. Those of us who are black and gay often feel that we have to choose which community we will call home. As the battle for the M-word escalates and as more black clergy speak out against same-sex marriage, I know of one black gay man who is feeling torn between two communities he loves and treasures.
Call me deluded, but I happen to believe that most of the black clergy who are rallying against same-sex marriage would give civil union a pass. We don't know if they would, though, because we haven't asked them. Instead, we cluck our tongues at these unsympathetic black leaders: don't they recognize prejudice when they see it? But maybe we're so blinded by our dogged pursuit of the M-word that we don't see there are other ways of securing equality for all.
So here's my pitch. Civil union won't work if it's only for gays and straights can get married. That's called segregation, and segregation is illegal in America. And I certainly am not opposed to marriage for all. I just happen to prefer civil union for all.
A straight woman asked me: what about straight people who want to say they're married? I asked her: who's stopping them? Gay couples have been using the M-word for quite some time now; we've not waited for the government to give us permission. No one is thrown in jail for saying they're married or civilly united or whatever they choose. Indeed, the champions of same-sex marriage infantilize gay couples by making us feel we are incomplete until Big Brother calls us married. Hogwash. And to those who accuse me of harboring internalized homophobia, I say: look in the mirror, sweetheart. I don't need the M-word; why do you need it?
What I do need that I don't have now are the 1,138 benefits that the federal government gives to straight married couples. (You do realize that all those fabulous couples who got married in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004, don't have these benefits, don't you?) I need it to be portable, so that it is recognized from state to state. And the idea that only marriage will give us this is laughable. Besides, there's portability and there's portability. Will the married gay couple from Boston be recognized as married in Baghdad?
Last bit of self-disclosure. I am a practicing Episcopalian. And while I live in Vermont, I've followed closely the story of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal bishop of the neighboring diocese of New Hampshire. Robinson was once asked for his take on gay marriage. "If gay and lesbian people are full citizens of the country and state in which they live, they should be accorded the same rights as other couples. I don't think it matters whether you call it marriage or civil union as long as the responsibilities and the benefits are the same." Now, what would a man who had a heterosexual marriage, fathered two children, divorced, joined his life to that of another gay man well over a decade ago, conducted many, many marriages as an Episcopal priest, signed many, many marriage licenses as a deputy of the state, counseled couples prior to marriage, in marriage, and before divorce, and now oversees the Episcopal church in New Hampshire: I mean, what would he know about marriage?
All the same, Robinson may concede more than I want to concede. I would not be content with civil union for gays and civil marriage for straights. It's all one or the other for me. So like Monty Hall (remember him?), I say: Let's make a deal. Make it civil union for all, and we'll drop our insistence for marriage. And if the other side won't settle for civil union, then I guess I'll have to settle for marriage.
But I really would prefer civil union for all. After all, we gay people created it. It's a cultural makeover not even Queer Eye for the Straight Guy could engineer. It's simple and elegant at the same time. It takes religion out of the picture. It's new and improved. So let's make it ubiquitous as well.
Like that little piece of scrap paper with the weird adhesive on its edge. Who would have thought in 1980 that the Post-it Note would become so common? I didn't. And who imagines today that civil union for all could become universal? I do.
68 Comments for “Civil Unions: Make Them Universal”
posted by Ashpenaz on
I only support giving legal rights to couples, gay or straight, if those couples are in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. If they are not willing to take those vows, then I don’t think I, as a taxpayer, have to offer them any kind of support. I also support divorce penalties for those couples who do not live up to those vows, especially if there are children involved. I don’t want people to think that the search for gay marriage rights involves any watering down on the traditonal vows of marriage. I want us all to play by the same rules and suffer the same penalties if we break our vows.
posted by Pat on
Steve, I agree that ideally, what you propose is best. Under the law gay persons would have equality with respect to legally recognized relationships. If churches don’t want to call these marriage, they would still have that right. And, of course, if a person, even if gay, does not want to enter a civil union with someone of the same sex, he still does not have to. Of course, the hope is that eventually this person won’t enter a civil union with a person of the opposite sex without revealing his sexual orientation.
The problem is that civil marriage is not going anywhere. It’s here to stay forever. So in order to attain equality, civil marriage will have to be extended to gay persons. It will just be a matter of semantics, as many churches will not recognize them as marriages anyway (if it matters).
Also, I don’t believe having civil unions for all will be any more of a deterrent to polygamy or unions to related persons, underage persons, non-persons, etc, than the current marriage structure. Whereas there is no good reason to keep “of the opposite sex” in the definition of marriage, there is good reason to keep “two consenting adults” and level of consanguinity in the definition of marriage. Same could be said for civil unions.
posted by Karen on
Ash,
“I only support giving legal rights to couples, gay or straight, if those couples are in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships.”
This is not currently how things are for straight people. Opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry for any reason, and if they do not choose to initiate a divorce, the state cannot force them to, even if it “knows” they are not sexually exclusive. In other words, people are free to contract whatever sort of marriage arrangement they like – as long as they’re opposite sex.
What you’re wishing for is radically intrusive and anti-liberty. You might not like open relationships or forgiving infidelity, but that’s not your choice to make for other people.
“I don’t want people to think that the search for gay marriage rights involves any watering down on the traditonal vows of marriage.”
There’s no reason for them to think that. Civil marriage entails no vows other than “I wish to enter this marriage” and “There is no lawful reason that I can’t”.
What you want is to create so-called “covenant marriages” and make them the only option for everyone for legal recognition of a marital relationship. Which is fine, but there’s no constitutional reason why this is required to be the case, so I’m reminded of a song…
“You can’t always get what you wa-ant!”
posted by Steve - Geneva, IL on
I don’t understand why the religious right isn’t on board with you here, other than the fact that it seems their underlying motivation is not really true Christianity but rather that they don’t like gay people.
Do they really believe that marriage is a sacrament? How would they feel about the government defining baptism or communion? Do they want the government to settle the age old disputes about sprinkling vs immersion? Infant baptism vs. adult baptism? Grape juice vs. wine? Should the goverment decide who is and isn’t eligible for baptism or communion?
Any Christian would think these notions are ludicrous, but does it make any more sense that the government does this for marriage?
posted by Bobby on
“I don’t understand why the religious right isn’t on board with you here, other than the fact that it seems their underlying motivation is not really true Christianity but rather that they don’t like gay people.”
—The religious right rarely supports something they deem sinful. To them the government must encourage morality, heterosexual marriage, and all kinds of things. It’s not a question of them liking or disliking gay people, it’s a question of beliefs. If I go to India I won’t be able to find meat for human consumption unless I go to a muslim village. It’s a culture thing, just like in Calabasas, California they forbid smokers from smoking on public streets. Most people don’t respect individual rights, what is happening in Calabasas is a good example of that.
posted by Ashpenaz on
In fact, you have to take vows of lifelong sexual exclusivity to get married–anyone on this board who has been married will tell you that. Ask any of the married couples you know. It’s true that straight couples can’t be compelled to divorce by the state. However, if one of the partners gets tired of the open arrangement, he or she can sue. Right now, Elton’s partner could pull a Heather Mills–and rightly so. Marriage equality for gays means playing by the same rules–why are so many gays afraid of that? Why do they want to make sure there is a clause in the marriage contract which allows for multiple partners without penalty?
posted by Karen on
“In fact, you have to take vows of lifelong sexual exclusivity to get married–anyone on this board who has been married will tell you that.”
No, you don’t.
I’m sorry, you’re just factually incorrect here. Just because infidelity can be grounds for divorce does not mean that marrying requires such a vow. Most ceremonies do include such vows, but that’s a personal choice the couple can make. NO SUCH VOWS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW.
We are playing by the same rules. You know, except for the one rule that they won’t change: the opposite-sex-only one.
“Why do they want to make sure there is a clause in the marriage contract which allows for multiple partners without penalty?”
WTF? Show me evidence that the “gay mainstream” is advocating, not just for access to civil marriage, but also for infidelity to no longer be grounds for divorce. It’s just not true. You are MAKING THIS UP IN YOUR HEAD, GET HELP.
posted by Karen on
And I’m not sure what you mean by “pulling a Heather Mills”. Nothing from that marriage breakup seems to fit this scenario, at least from my cursory glance at Wikipedia.
But if Elton’s partner can do the same things that Heather could do to Paul, doesn’t that directly contradict your claim that gay people aren’t playing by the same rules?
You, sir, are the one who wants majorly different rules. You want covenant marriage – or nothing – for all, and you’re intent on hijacking the perfectly reasonable quest for civil marriage equality to assist in your bizarre, anti-freedom crusade.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Read the articles on marriage by Dan Savage and Michelangelo Signorile for a start. Have you seen a marriage contract? Do you know what it says? The fact that you can penalized for having a sexual partner outside the marriage means that the contract is for lifelong, sexually exclusive partners. Also, while not legal, per se, most couple take vows which include “forsaking all others, ’til death do us part.” If gays want to be seen as men of their word, then they have to take those vows and stand by them. Ask any straight married couples if they took public vows of lifelong, sexual exclusivity, and what they would do if their partner broke those vows.
Elton lives in England which has civil unions. If we want civil unions in America, we’ll need to show that we are willing to step up to the plate and play by the same rules as straights. I don’t want “special marriages for special people.”
posted by Bobby on
Ashpenaz, there are straight swingers who get married and fool around. Most states also have no-fault divorce, which means you can’t sue someone for commiting adultery, nor can you get off paying alimony if your partner cheats on you in most states.
posted by carriekin on
Each one on earth need marriage to prove their love and it is a proof that their great love can be accepted by all people in the world. “That is love, It shows our heart is full of love. We wanna love and be loved and spoiled” one of my bisexual friends knew at http://www.bimingle.com said on her blog. That’s why all LGBT love finding the right match online altought some people regard them as special one.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I don’t support marriage laws which facilitate open relationships, straight or gay. If that means greater restrictions on straight relationships, that’s OK with me. I don’t want gays or straights to have access to no-fault divorce, so I will work to change the laws accordingly.
Perhaps gays can be better than straights. Gay relationships in history were marked by intense loyalty–Damon and Pythias, Achilles and Patroclus, etc. Perhaps we can be the model for lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships that straights strive to emulate. Maybe we can be the leaders in a movement to create a new generation of relationships marked by fidelity, loyalty, and integrity. Unless you think straights are doing such a good job you want to be like them.
posted by Karen on
“If we want civil unions in America, we’ll need to show that we are willing to step up to the plate and play by the same rules as straights. I don’t want “special marriages for special people.”
We are willing to play by the same rules. In fact, that’s exactly what we’re trying to make happen: have the *same rules* apply to us and not some separate, unequal set of rules invented specifically for Teh Gays. You keep saying over and over that we aren’t, but saying it doesn’t make it true.
You want us to play by the same rules, only you ALSO want, at the same time, to make the rules much, much stricter for everyone.
“Have you seen a marriage contract?” Marriage contracts, other than the tacit agreement to live by the laws of the state regarding marriage, marital property, divorce, etc, are not required to get married. You simply *do not know what you are talking about*.
Yes, adultery can be grounds for divorce, but that isn’t the same as legally promising lifelong sexual exclusivity.
For one thing: Lifelong = absolutely wrong. Marriages CAN last lifetimes, sure. They even SHOULD. But they aren’t required to.
For another thing: although adultery is grounds for divorce, the definition of that is pretty strict (at least in Maryland): male organ/female organ penetration. In other words, you can’t get a fault divorce just because your husband got a blowjob from a hooker. That doesn’t sound like a “[legal] vow of sexual exclusivity”, lifelong or not.
And the most important point, and thus the one that you’ll ignore: having adultery be grounds for divorce is STILL not the same thing as a legally required vow of (penetrative) sexual exclusivity for the duration of the marriage. If a couple decide to have an open marriage, they’re allowed to, even though YOU don’t like it: that’s called freedom, buddy. Sorry. They’re not breaking any laws, and that’s because laws are not there to keep YOU, or even YOUR GOD, happy.
You are all kinds of mixed up, and it’s the same basic kind of mixed-up that ALL religionists are. You just can’t comprehend why there should be a seperation between your personal moral convictions and the actual duties and actions of the government of the people.
That, and you just can’t admit to yourself that you (along with a large number of other people) have been duped by the religious right-wing. You can’t understand that they’ve basically done the analog of showing you “Girls Gone Wild”, Mardi Gras parades, swingers websites, and “Barely Legal” porn – and convincing you that all straight people support this behavior. You will always believe that gays are hedonists because that is what you have been told to believe. And breaking out of that delusion would force you to face exactly how much time you’ve wasted in their twisted world.
It’s never too late, James. Mourn the past, and then LET GO of it. Get on with your life.
posted by Jerry on
On a recent trip to Tahiti, a French province, our tour guide said that the French government ONLY recognizes marriages performed by civil authorities. Sort of a reverse form of church/state separation, right? We also learned that many people in Tahiti don’t get married by the state because divorces are extremely expensive. Instead, they marry in the church where divorce is simple and cheap, but obviously forego governmental benefits.
Steve’s suggestion here makes perfect sense. The government grants civil unions – which means extending federal benefits to the couples. The churches can then perform “marriages” as fit within their religious doctrines.
posted by Karen on
“Steve’s suggestion here makes perfect sense. The government grants civil unions – which means extending federal benefits to the couples. The churches can then perform “marriages” as fit within their religious doctrines.”
This is already the case, though. It’s just that these “civil unions” are called “legal marriage”, members of the clergy are generally authorized to officiate them, and they are not available to same-sex couples for some reason.
posted by tavdy79 on
(You do realize that all those fabulous couples who got married in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004, don’t have these benefits, don’t you?)
Not wanting to rub salt into the wound, but you do realise those same married couples have fewer rights in their homeland than they would if they moved to a whole range of other countries including the UK, Denmark, New Zealand, Israel, Canada, Spain and South Africa? Ironic since the first three of those countries don’t even have legal gay marriage yet…
Isn’t there something seriously wrong with that picture?
posted by Bobby on
“I don’t support marriage laws which facilitate open relationships, straight or gay.”
—I don’t support the government telling me what kind of marriage I can or can’t have. With the exception of poligamy, I allow married couples to do as they wish as long as it’s consensual. A civil marriage has little spiritual or moral value, it’s just like a driver’s license or a social security card, it confers benefits, nothing more.
“I don’t want gays or straights to have access to no-fault divorce, so I will work to change the laws accordingly.”
—Why not? Since when it’s a good idea for an unhappy couple to stay together? Yes, divorce hurts, but it hurts more to be stuck in a relationship where both partners hate each other. I know one gay couple in that situation, they bought a house together, so breaking up their union would be complicated, and so they both cheat on each other.
Capitalism teaches that the best thing you can do for a failing business is to let it fail. Don’t give it subsidies, don’t cut their taxes, don’t write new regulations to make them competitive, let them fail and let a better business take their place. I believe marriage is the same.
“Maybe we can be the leaders in a movement to create a new generation of relationships marked by fidelity, loyalty, and integrity.”
—Freedom isn’t about everyone following the same model. Freedom is about everyone doing their own thing.
posted by Keori on
Ash, I took you up on your challenge and looked over my paperwork from when I was in a civil heterosexual marriage. At no point, from the marriage license to the vows we wrote, to the certificate, to the divorce paperwork did I find any reference to “exclusive sexual partnership” or “forsaking all others.” Our sexual morals as a married couple were defined by us as a couple, not the state, not the family court, not a religious body. And no, it’s none of your business what they were. I will say – simply to dispel your already-forming assumption that some type of sexual sin or dysfunction must have been the cause of our marriage’s failure – that I left my husband because he was an emotionally abusive tinpot dictator. Sex had naught to do with it.
Lawrence v. Texas found that the state has no business morally or legally defining sexual acts between unrelated, consenting adults in a private place. Hence the sodomy laws in Texas were struck down. The precedent of Lawrence v Texas was recently applied to strike laws prohibiting the sale of sex toys. The Judiciary has made it quite clear that the sexual acts of consenting adults are not for the State to regulate. That includes sexual acts committed by married people. The only interest the State has in regulating marriage is taxation and prevention of consanguinity resulting from incestuous procreation, since consanguinity is scientifically proven to have an unacceptably high risk of birth defects that would likely become the State’s burden. Taxation problems are the reason for prohibiting civil polygamous marriages.
Marriage is what you make of it. For you or anyone to attempt to force your moral/religious views of marriage on the entire civil populace is no better than the hysterical right trying to do the same thing to gays. I find it far more disgusting, frankly, due to its blatant hypocrisy. Gays don’t attempt to define the parameters of straight relationships. Why should straights have the right to define ours?
As much as I would love to abolish civil “marriage” and just “civil union” everyone outside of a religious ceremony, it ain’t never gonna happen. So we gays may as well just settle for civil marriage equality for everyone. *sigh*
posted by Erich Riesenberg on
I think it is fascinating that with all the talk of marriage versus civil unions, people still do not understand the current legal differences.
My understanding is the government grants a marriage license, which is the only legal aspect of marriage. Some people choose to have a religious ceremony at the same time. The church ceremony has no legal significance, though a pastor can also be enabled by the state to issue a civil marriage license.
I think it would be logical to separate the two functions more formally, to call the state function a civil union and the church ceremony marriage, with a law providing that before such and such a date, all legal marriages are civil unions, and all reference to marriage is refernce to a civil union. If that does not happen, I expect the issue will just be drawn out until gay people can get “married” and it will take longer to reach that time.
Make note that Ash is all confused, he generally dislikes gay culture, now wants it to save marriage for everyone. I feel sympathy for people like Ash, I usually guess they are closeted people who came out to late to get into the trouble younger gay people get into.
I don’t understand why people want to get involved in others’ marriages. Legal marriages serve a variety of purposes, mostly legal efficiency. If the purpose were purely religious, there would be no use for state involvement. I think it should be between two unrelated adults, otherwise you can set up tax efficient dynasties.
posted by Karen on
“he generally dislikes gay culture”
No, he generally dislikes something bizarre that he has decided to call “gay culture”.
It consists of all the sordidness, whining victim mentality, and/or radical opinions that he can find attributed to a gay person or persons. And gay people, being human, are like all humans: a stunning reservoir of despicable behaviors, neuroses, excuses, and ignorance.
Of course, looked at through another lens, gay people are also, like all humans, an equally stunning source of grace, strength, integrity, and principle.
But James never looks at gay people other than himself (and some guy’s brother that he occasionally claims to be dating? I’m a little confused about that one) with that lens.
As far as civil marriage vs. civil unions, I fail to see the difference. A religious ceremony is a religious ceremony, and a government record is a government record.
posted by Bobby on
“I don’t understand why people want to get involved in others’ marriages.”
—Because marriage is a public matter, you need to get a blood test, get permission from the state, you celebrate the union in front of people, you might advertise it in the newspaper, have you ever filled up an application for a job? They always want to know if you’re single, married, divorced or widowed. If you’re married, you likely wear a wedding ring, advertising your status to the world.
Just look at the TV, look at how many TV shows are dedicated to weddings, marriages, etc. Look at those people that make marriage proposals in public places, like graduation or a baseball statidum? It’s a national obsession. It’s all so tacky.
posted by Brian Miller on
For all the “moderates” suggesting this course of action, not a single elected politician in any state or federal jurisdiction has been willing to introduce a bill to end government marriage and replace it with another status.
This is because it would actually be viewed as more radical to do so than jump to marriage equality.
The utility of the “end all government marriage now” debate is to keep gay people and their allies locked in an endless debate and allow politicians to avoid their responsibility to provide equal protection under the law as the 14th Amendment requires.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Straights support gay marriage, not out of compassion for the marginalized, but because straights want open marriages, too. They think that since being gay means having multiple partners, and therefore, gay marriage can only mean legal sanction for open relationships, they can use gay marriage as a way of changing the meaning of marriage for anyone.
In my teens, I had lots of straight, supportive friends. When I became a Christian, their support dried up. I realized that for them, gay meant sexual adventuring, and their support for me was really a way to justify their own sexual immorality. When I decided to express my homosexuality within traditional values, they witheld support.
It’s interesting that when I say I only support marriage which involves vows of lifelong sexual exclusivity, I am attacked by both straights and gays. I’m seen as not really supporting gay marriage because I support traditional morals.
posted by Bobby on
“Straights support gay marriage, not out of compassion for the marginalized, but because straights want open marriages, too.”
—Please, straights are completed outdated when it comes to sex, they wouldn’t know what to do with an open marriage if they had one. Some of them don’t even know what foreplay means, they didn’t even know about oral sex before Monica Lewinsky. Straights are the kind of people that commit adultery with the same person again and again. Now, the few straights that do support gay marriage, do it out of principle, because they believe in equality, because they’re not selfish, because they’re not afraid of change.
“I realized that for them, gay meant sexual adventuring, and their support for me was really a way to justify their own sexual immorality. When I decided to express my homosexuality within traditional values, they witheld support.”
—Maybe they couldn’t stand you as a Christian. It’s like declaring yourself a republican, you tell people you’re conservative, plenty of folks can’t stand you. I don’t think this has anything to do with sexuality. I think they where christianphobics, and if you had been straight, the reaction would have been similar.
“It’s interesting that when I say I only support marriage which involves vows of lifelong sexual exclusivity, I am attacked by both straights and gays. I’m seen as not really supporting gay marriage because I support traditional morals.”
—That’s because “morality” has been used agaisnt gays for centuries. So an argument based on morality lacks power in this community.
posted by Keori on
Ash, my partner read your comment about gay relationships being open and laughed until she got hiccups. We’re so happy being monogamous that we’re the envy of our straight friends.
Define your own marriage however you like. No one here will stop you. I’m certainly quite happy living a sexually exclusive lifestyle with my partner. Our objections are not to monogamy, but to the idea of someone else’s idea of sexual morality dictating the lives of all consenting adults. That notion of moral superiority and control is what is keeping us law-abiding adults from legally marrying the one we love.
posted by Karen on
“When I became a Christian, their support dried up.”
Maybe that’s because when you became a Christian, you also became a sanctimonious, self-righteous jerk?
posted by Karen on
“when I say I only support marriage which involves vows of lifelong sexual exclusivity, I am attacked by both straights and gays.”
Yes, you are. But it’s not because we all want open marriages. It’s because your idea is a TERRIBLE idea. It’s completely antithetical to the core concepts of liberty and secular government that protect us from tyranny.
Not only that, but you haven’t even thought it through. What would be different from the current situation – since currently you can choose to divorce an unfaithful spouse (gay or straight, assuming gay people have access to marriage licenses)? What do you propose to be the legal consequences of infidelity once you’ve sworn legally that you won’t ever have sex with anyone but this person?
Forced divorce, even if the couple wants to stay together and work it out? Jail time? Fines? Perjury charges? A scarlet A on your bodice? WHAT?
What about when divorce is necessary? Does a battered wife deserve to be legally bound to never in her lifetime have sex with anyone other than her abuser? Does she have to choose between abuse and celibacy? Because LIFETIME vows of sexual exclusivity do not even allow room for remarriage.
“I’m seen as not really supporting gay marriage because I support traditional morals.”
No, you’re seen as not really supporting gay marriage because you DON’T support it unless this bizarre “lifetime vow” thing is tacked on. You think we don’t DESERVE marriage since, in your foolish opinion, we’re not faithful to our partners enough. (And you have the carefully selected anecdotes and logical fallacies to back it up!) You’re seen as not really supporting gay marriage because you take every thread about it and hijack it with your misguided nonsense about how terrible gay people really are and how the world would just be such a better place if everyone had your values and beliefs and always lived up to them, too.
posted by Pat on
Define your own marriage however you like. No one here will stop you.
That’s true. It’s just an excuse for some people to remain a victim and blame everyone else for their misery. I support marriage equality and only intend to enter a marriage monogamously. And if we get the same marriage rights that currently exist, I can do just that, instead of whining about other peoples’ marriages. Funny that. In the meantime, no one needs marriage to enter a long term monogamous relationship.
posted by Bobby on
“Funny that. In the meantime, no one needs marriage to enter a long term monogamous relationship.”
—Very true, a marriage license is nothing but paper. If we legalize gay marriage tomorrow, it’s not like most gays are gonna become Stepford husbands, nor will dating be any easier.
posted by Mistereks on
“I only support giving legal rights to couples, gay or straight, if those couples are in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. If they are not willing to take those vows, then I don’t think I, as a taxpayer, have to offer them any kind of support. ”
The key for me is not fidelity, but shared financial responsibility. When you marry someone, you are mutually responsible for the debts of the other. I think that increases overall social stability (the main public good that comes from marriage, in my mind) because you are motivated to make sure your partner doesn’t get themselves into a pickle that you will have to get them out of.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes, you are. But it’s not because we all want open marriages. It’s because your idea is a TERRIBLE idea. It’s completely antithetical to the core concepts of liberty and secular government that protect us from tyranny.
Unfortunately for that logic, Karen, marriage is not a right; it is a privilege.
Your mentality is best exemplified by the Beyond Marriage document, in which gays and lesbians argue that there should be no rules and that the government should grant equal benefits to every relationship, no matter how bizarre, because they are all “equal” and “valid”.
Society should not grant you the benefits of marriage when you adamantly refuse to accept the responsibility. You can scream about “liberty” all you want, but you are at perfect liberty to be promiscuous, have multiple lesbian partners, and whatnot; the government simply need not reward you as if you were monogamous and committed.
What do you propose to be the legal consequences of infidelity once you’ve sworn legally that you won’t ever have sex with anyone but this person?
Simple. Infidelity means that the marriage and vows are invalidated, with all common property going to the cuckolded spouse and all common debts being left to the unfaithful one.
One wonders how attractive cheating on your partner would be if you knew that being caught doing so would immediately remove all your joint property and leave you responsible for all debts.
Forced divorce, even if the couple wants to stay together and work it out? Jail time? Fines? Perjury charges? A scarlet A on your bodice? WHAT?
Again, simple. If they want to work it out, they may remarry; however, until two years pass, the cuckolded spouse retains all property, and the unfaithful one the debts.
What about when divorce is necessary? Does a battered wife deserve to be legally bound to never in her lifetime have sex with anyone other than her abuser? Does she have to choose between abuse and celibacy?
Heavens, no. That’s why Jesus Himself stated that divorce was acceptable in cases of abuse and infidelity. There is no shame or sin upon one who has not broken their vow to another, but who has had that vow broken by the other.
posted by Jason D on
While my partner and I are happily monogamous, we in no way wish to impose our personal choice on every other couple, especially as a litmus test for governmental recognition. What business is it of Uncle Sam’s to go poking around in other people’s bedrooms to see if they’re with the right person? How would you even enforce such a dictate? Would either of you two sleep at night forcing a happy, healthy, well-adjusted and respected couple into a divorce just because their relationship doesn’t live up to your ideals? That’s really not far from telling a happy couple they don’t exist because their genitalia doesn’t match up.
How about putting forth some realistic goals for marriage? I don’t think divorce is the problem, I think access is the issue. This may seem counter to the marriage equality argument, but give me a chance. How quick would someone be to get married if each person were only allowed to get a no-fault divorce 3 times in their lifetime? Is marrying this person worth losing one of your chances? Would 16-21 year olds be so quick to get hitched if they found out that only some of the benefits would be available to them the first year? And that their marriage would have to be renewed every year until they both turned 21 otherwise it would be annulled automatically? What if you had to meet with a social worker 3 times before being allowed to legally wed? How about a 6-9 month mandatory waiting period between ending one marriage and marrying someone new?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Our objections are not to monogamy, but to the idea of someone else’s idea of sexual morality dictating the lives of all consenting adults. That notion of moral superiority and control is what is keeping us law-abiding adults from legally marrying the one we love.
Or:
How would you even enforce such a dictate? Would either of you two sleep at night forcing a happy, healthy, well-adjusted and respected couple into a divorce just because their relationship doesn’t live up to your ideals?
I guess that explains this attitude and this behavior among married gays.
posted by Pat on
I guess that explains this attitude and this behavior among married gays.
And Neil Bush, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, David Vitter,…
posted by Keori on
Pat,
Oh, we mustn’t be confused here! Remember that when gays cheat on their spouses or partners it’s a cardinal sin and worthy of public stoning and revocation of any legal rights and responsibilities. When a Republican pundit or Christian figurehead does it he’s just misguided or momentarily weakened by temptation and needs our prayers for his recovery. Especially if he makes a large donation to the Republican National Committee or key lobbyist group shortly after seeking “therapy.”
posted by Karen on
“Unfortunately for that logic, Karen, marriage is not a right; it is a privilege.”
The courts of this country, at least when addressing issues that AREN’T teh gays, disagree. The right to marry, after meeting a few basic requirements similar to the ones you must meet in order to vote, is understood to be fundamental. At issue here is whether it is ok for one’s gender to be part of those requirements. The answer, of course, is simple. “No.”
Not at issue here, but something that you and James keep bringing up, is whether the state should explicitly require vows of fidelity as part of those requirements, whether gay people’s marriages are recognized or not.
“Infidelity means that the marriage and vows are invalidated, with all common property going to the cuckolded spouse and all common debts being left to the unfaithful one.”
You are at liberty to set up a prenuptial agreement that specifies such a financial penalty for unfaithfulness. You are also at liberty to initiate a fault divorce citing unfaithfulness according to the laws of your state, even if you didn’t bother to do so.
So, what you want, if I understand you correctly, is not so much forced divorce, but for couples who would not choose to enact such a prenuptial agreement to be prohibited from marrying in the first place, and for any fault divorces on the grounds of infidelity to usually bankrupt the person at fault.
Ok… but what does this have to do with gay people? You have a fringe movement, moralistic, authoritarian plan to “save” marriage and society by forcing the government to enforce fidelity. I’m sorry to tell you, but most straight people oppose that, too.
We don’t oppose it because we don’t believe in monogamy. We oppose it because it’s a stupid idea.
“The government simply need not reward you as if you were monogamous and committed.”
It’s none of the government’s business if I’m monogamous, and it’s not the government’s place to reward or punish me for my consensual, adult sexual behavior. Civil marriage is not, in fact, a reward for monogamy, but rather a legal arrangement that recognizes that most adults (gay or straight) form a primary familial/intimate relationship with one unrelated adult.
I know you think that I only say that because I wish to have “multiple lesbian partners”, but this is not the case. I also oppose wiretaps on my phone, even though I am not a terrorist. I also oppose most gun control laws, even though I am not a criminal.
Privacy and freedom are not merely tools of the criminal and the debauched. They are absolutely essential tools for avoiding tyranny.
posted by Jason D on
ND30 said”
I guess that explains this attitude and this behavior among married gays.”
I see, you find one bad example of a gay married USA couple, and smash it into an absolutely unrelated issue of consent in CANADA. What is that exactly supposed to prove, —other than you can use circumstantial evidence out of context?
It’s quite simple, if you want to hold yourself to the standard of monogamy, you’re certainly entitled to. You’ll find me and my partner in the same boat. However, it does not make any sense to attempt to mandate that for all married couples. Quite frankly compulsory monogamy would be difficult to monitor –and our government officials have far better things to do with their time.
The key to any successful relationship is to be honest with yourself and your partner about what you want, and what you do not want. What you can compromise on, what is deal-breaker. If two people discover that exclusivity works for both of them, hooray. If two people find that a level of sexual openness is what the both want, then who am I to begrude them that?
Confession time: I don’t understand open relationships. I have talked with several gay couples about their open relationships, and it still doesn’t make sense in my head. Relationships are complicated enough, one man is more than enough for me. The rules that some open couples come up with confuse me more. If you can do other people, why is kissing/repeats/mutual friends/when you’re in the same area code out of the question? Then one day, when I had talked and listened and talked enough, I came to the honest conclusion. I still don’t get it, but the beautiful thing is that I don’t have to get it. It doesn’t have to make sense to me, I don’t have an open relationship.
I don’t understand this need to control other people’s lives that don’t affect you.
posted by Karen on
You might also consider, if the American principles of liberty and privacy aren’t enough for you (bah!):
Moral behavior is not actually moral if it is not freely chosen. This is a point that I find hard to argue with – and I think this is a fairly standard idea in Christianity as well? (How y’all then rationalize God using a faith/morals test under duress – how you act and/or believe when you also believe you’re threatened by eternal damnation – I do not know, but apparently it is done somehow.)
Likewise, if the government has to twist your arm – bribe you with the benefits of legal recognition of your marriage, and threaten you with bankruptcy – in order to get you to be faithful to your partner, you are not really being faithful. You are merely being fearful.
For many people, the moral value of faithfulness is far more important than the utilitaritian value of monogamy. Enforcing the latter at the expense of the former is not something that many people embrace.
But, again, you’re more than welcome to do so by means of pre-nuptial agreements.
posted by Karen on
“What is that exactly supposed to prove, —other than you can use circumstantial evidence out of context?”
Not only can he, but it appears to be his favorite passtime. He thinks it’s persuasive, for some reason.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And Neil Bush, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, David Vitter,…
This applies to them as well, Pat.
Now, let’s see you and your supporter Kaori do the same and hold gay people accountable for their behavior the same way you do these folks. Or was the point to rationalize away gay behavior by claiming “Republicans do it too”?
Next, to Karen:
The courts of this country, at least when addressing issues that AREN’T teh gays, disagree.
The reason that restrictions on voting, which is an explicit constitutional right, are valid is because they are written into the Constitution itself.
You claim the Equal Protection Clause is what establishes the constitutional right to marry. But, as the Constitution makes clear, “equal protection” applies to EVERYONE, regardless of race, age, blood, existing relationships, or even citizenship. Hence, ANY restrictions on marriage, by that argument, would be unconstitutional.
So, what you want, if I understand you correctly, is not so much forced divorce, but for couples who would not choose to enact such a prenuptial agreement to be prohibited from marrying in the first place, and for any fault divorces on the grounds of infidelity to usually bankrupt the person at fault.
Not at all. They are not prohibited from marrying; they simply must be willing to accept the consequences of their refusal to follow the rules.
If a husband cheats on his wife, the husband becomes solely responsible for all the couples’ debts, the wife retains sole title to all the couple’s property, and the wife is no longer legally bound to the husband. There is nothing stopping her from remarrying him if she wants; there is nothing precluding her from giving him title to property that she owns, or assuming debt that he has received. She makes the choice.
What I am doing is simply putting the financial and legal fate of the cheating spouse in the hands of the cuckolded spouse. I don’t believe that women who are cheated upon should have to wait for a hostile court system to decide what they deserve; I believe they, as the party who abided by the rules, should have full and immediate title to everything, with the choice being solely theirs as to what they want to do with it.
Next:
Moral behavior is not actually moral if it is not freely chosen. This is a point that I find hard to argue with – and I think this is a fairly standard idea in Christianity as well?
Christianity is a balance of Law and Gospel; the Law functions as a curb and guide for behavior, the Gospel functions as the motivation and reward. You need both in balance in order to be effective.
Applying your theory, Karen, it is “immoral” of you to require your child to do anything she doesn’t want to do. It is “immoral” to punish people for breaking the law, since people should only have to do what they want to do.
For many people, the moral value of faithfulness is far more important than the utilitaritian value of monogamy.
That would be because “faithfulness” is a matter of perspective, and “monogamy” is a fairly-straightforward yes/no. The former allows married gays to have sex with underage boys and still call themselves “faithful” because it was part of their agreement with their partner; the latter points out that sex is sex, and that you’re obviously not having it with just one person.
Laws should be written on the basis of the utilitarian.
posted by Pat on
This applies to them as well, Pat.
That’s good.
Now, let’s see you and your supporter Kaori do the same and hold gay people accountable for their behavior the same way you do these folks.
I do.
Or was the point to rationalize away gay behavior by claiming “Republicans do it too”?
No, my point was not to rationalize the behavior at all. I’m just wondering why you picked an example of some unknown local politician as an example of a married couple that cheats. Sure I picked Republicans. I’ll add Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy to the list. And if you wanted to add the underage factor (which was irrelevant to this discussion, by the way), you could have included Joseph Kennedy II or Strom Thurmond.
What’s interesting is the ones here, including myself, who simply want “of the opposite sex” removed from the legal definition of marriage have stated that we are (or will be) monogamous in a long term relationship.
I suspect that David Vitter, et al, held the view that everyone who enters a marriage must be monogamous. If that’s true, a lot of help that did.
As others have suggested, those who want the type of penalty that you propose for being unfaithful can get a legal agreement to do so. By the way, has Vitter surrendered all of his property to his wife yet?
posted by Karen on
“Applying your theory, Karen, it is “immoral” of you to require your child to do anything she doesn’t want to do. It is “immoral” to punish people for breaking the law, since people should only have to do what they want to do.”
Not at all. It is simply not a demonstration of the “morality” of the child to do what I say because I will punish her if she doesn’t. It is merely a demonstration of her practicality.
It is also not a demonstration of my morality if I do not murder you from fear of punishment. Not to say that it’s not good to punish murderers, but a true demonstration of my morality is only possible when you understand that I would not kill you even if it *wasn’t* illegal or if I knew that I would get away with it.
As for what you believe Christianity is, I apologize if I gave the impression of caring. 🙂
“Not at all. They are not prohibited from marrying; they simply must be willing to accept the consequences of their refusal to follow the rules.”
That’s the same thing. If they are not willing to accept your consequences – the mandatory prenuptial agreement that you would like to enact – they are not able to marry. They are prohibited from marrying.
“Hence, ANY restrictions on marriage, by that argument, would be unconstitutional.”
As I said, the courts disagree. Marriage IS recognized as a fundamental right, even though it is not explicitly written into the constitution. Your understanding of rights and restrictions, as well as the Equal Protection clause, is flawed.
The right of the people to freely assemble and speak are explicitly guaranteed in the constitution, but restrictions are still allowable. Try publishing lies about someone sometime, and you’ll quickly understand what I mean.
The fundamental, though tacit, right to marry exists. The right, inherent in the equal protection clause and upheld by modern jurisprudence, not to be judged by my gender – even relation to someone else’s gender – exists. Both can be validly restricted in some cases, but in combination you can easily see that my gender cannot validly be used as a restriction in marriage.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Pat, here’s the irony.
What’s interesting is the ones here, including myself, who simply want “of the opposite sex” removed from the legal definition of marriage have stated that we are (or will be) monogamous in a long term relationship.
Then you say this.
I suspect that David Vitter, et al, held the view that everyone who enters a marriage must be monogamous. If that’s true, a lot of help that did.
Why should we believe gays and lesbians like you who claim they are or will be monogamous, when you eagerly point out examples of others who claimed the same and didn’t?
And next to Karen:
If they are not willing to accept your consequences – the mandatory prenuptial agreement that you would like to enact – they are not able to marry. They are prohibited from marrying.
Then, by that logic, laws that require you to accept ANY consequences in regard to marriage are wrong because they “prohibit you from marrying”. Laws that require you to support the children you produce are wrong because they “prohibit you from having sex freely”.
The true agenda of liberal gays comes out at this point. You want the benefits of marriage, but you want to be able to ignore the responsibilities and requirements at will.
Furthermore, Pat, you have often said that encouraging monogamy would encourage long-term commitment, reduce disease, and remove social consequences — just as you claim it does for straights.
Why, then, are you so opposed to the state taking action to encourage monogamy by making it a requirement of receiving marriage benefits and protections?
posted by Karen on
“Then, by that logic, laws that require you to accept ANY consequences in regard to marriage are wrong because they “prohibit you from marrying”.”
No. Put the logic down – you’re not using it right.
YOU want to change marriage. YOU want to make the consequences much harsher. YOU want to prohibit people from marrying who currently can. Hardly anyone else does. All I want is to have the SAME rules AS THEY EXIST TODAY apply to MY marriage as well.
“You want the benefits of marriage, but you want to be able to ignore the responsibilities and requirements at will.”
No. I want the benefits of marriage, and I want to not be subjected to a bunch of new rules about marriage that you want to enact for our own good because you think you know best.
You HAVE to be doing this on purpose. You can’t really believe that what you’re saying is logical. You can’t really miss the gaping holes in your argument.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Karen, you clearly stated that legal restrictions on behavior within marriage, penalties for violating marriage rules, or responsibilities that they didn’t like and didn’t want to be subject to “prohibited people from marrying”.
Therefore, laws that leave you liable for your partner’s debts, or laws that require you to care for and support children in the marriage, or that calculate your combined income in determining eligibility for benefits, or anything of the sort “prohibit” people who don’t want to have to do that from marrying. Gays and lesbians already complained and whined about how those were “unfair” and how they were “prohibited” from entering domestic partnerships (or had to dissolve existing ones) because of those rules being extended to gay couples.
All I want is to have the SAME rules AS THEY EXIST TODAY apply to MY marriage as well.
Oh really?
And FWIW, I think that we should be working towards a more flexible civil family law that does allow for plurality.
And further down:
If someone wants to marry 3 women, it’s none of my business as long as they all consent.
You can’t even follow the existing rules about only two people. What’s your next argument, that we shouldn’t have that rule because it “prohibits” people who want to marry multiple people from exercising what you claim is their “fundamental right” to get married to whomever they want?
posted by Karen on
Oh for f**k’s sake.
THEORY. PRACTICE. THERE’S A DIFFERENCE.
THEORETICALLY I have no problem with plural marriages, but as I have stated many times, there are practical issues and also it’s not nearly as persuasively a constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT as same-sex marriage is. And you’ll never find me actually voting for or arguing for or participating in legal plural marriage.
And no, you’re wrong about what I supposedly “clearly stated”.
What I clearly stated was that YOU would like to prohibit people from marrying who currently are comfortable marrying with marriage laws as they stand, but are uncomfortable with your insane required prenup.
Your bizarre scheme to “fix” marriage with a zero-tolerance-for-dalliance policy has zero to do with us. You just love to claim that because we don’t want to enact your Extra Special New Stronger Marriage Rules, we “don’t want to play by the same rules as straight” and “aren’t really committed to monogamy”.
posted by Karen on
I mean, seriously. You’re so friggin’ dishonest. If anyone bothers to actually follow those links and read the conversation, they’ll see things like this:
“Changing the law to allow for same-sex marriage is trivial (see: Massachusetts.) Changing it to allow for plural marriage is very non-trivial. The number of participants in a marriage is not a suspect class, whereas sex is. My marriage is prohibited on the basis of my sex. This is a much more invidious and clear violation of my constitutional rights than bigamy laws are, AND it’s simple as pie to fix. So fix it.”
And this:
“Philosophically, I would like there to be flexible family law that allows citizens to create the kinships that make sense for THEIR lives – no matter how bizarre – as long as no one’s rights are being violated. But such a wonderful, flexible structure is not guaranteed by the constitution. My right to be treated as an individual, and not as a member of class “White”, or class “Female”… that is.”
Plus all the rest of the bullshit you make up about my argument, like “your argument is that you should be allowed to marry based on your sexual attraction to the same sex” and all the other problems with your arguments that I bring up and you never address.
But you bank on no one ever reading the whole thing, and just thinking “Ooh look, ND30 just caught Karen in a contradiction!”
You didn’t. Even if you convince a few people that you did, we both know the truth, don’t we?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
THEORETICALLY I have no problem with plural marriages, but as I have stated many times, there are practical issues and also it’s not nearly as persuasively a constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT as same-sex marriage is.
You have claimed that marriage cannot be denied based on the Fourteenth Amendment.
Tell us, where in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say that you cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, but you can on the basis of blood relationship, age, or number of existing marriages?
The number of participants in a marriage is not a suspect class, whereas sex is.
Why? Didn’t you write this?
For many people, the moral value of faithfulness is far more important than the utilitaritian value of monogamy. Enforcing the latter at the expense of the former is not something that many people embrace.
Since monogamy, according to you, is not important, is meaningless, should not be considered at all as necessary to marriage, and should not be legally enforced because it “prohibits” people from getting married, why then, should people be denied marriage and the benefits thereof with as many partners as they choose?
And you’ll never find me actually voting for or arguing for or participating in legal plural marriage.
I just did.
And FWIW, I think that we should be working towards a more flexible civil family law that does allow for plurality.
Are you denying that you made that statement now?
posted by Karen on
“Tell us, where in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say that you cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, but you can on the basis of blood relationship, age, or number of existing marriages?”
The part – it’s not explicitly written, but it’s how the courts have been interpreting it – where gender is a protected, “suspect” classification. And number of marriages, age of majority, and blood relationship isn’t. It’s really quite simple.
The reason suspect classifications exist is that as a society, we’ve noticed this pattern. Laws where citizens’ freedoms are abridged based on their effectively immutable characteristics – religion, sex, race, national origin, and (to some extent) ability, and possibly someday orientation – are generally bunk. They are not based on any real practical issue, and there’s a real injustice done to people when they are used.
So we’ve decided that citizens really deserve to judged as individuals, and not as a member of one of those classes – male, Asian, Buddhist, naturalized immigrant – unless there’s a damn good reason.
Age is a practical issue of consent. It makes sense to treat a child differently than an adult – it’s not discrimination. And you’ll notice that they are treated differently in many contexts without issue. Marriage is just one of them.
Blood relationship is a practical issue of birth defects mostly, and clannishness/aristocracy concerns as well. It’s not discrimination. There’s no such thing as a “class” of people who want to marry their brother – at least not as the class “female” is legally understood.
Previous valid marriages is also a practical matter, though not one I feel is particularly pressing – it’s just that our laws are built around 2-person, mutually exclusive marriages. It would take radical change to the structure of our laws to allow for it.
The reason I (gasp!) said that I thought we should be working towards that is because it’s a more elegant solution. I’m an engineer. A solution that works for 99% of people is better than a solution that works for 98%. And theoretically, I don’t see any inherent problem in plural relationships of consenting adults, because of this little thing called LIBERTY which you seem to have a problem understanding.
As a practical matter though, there are too many problems with plural marriages for me to actually support changing our legal system in the foreseeable future. I realize you have a problem with nuance, but there really is a difference between “we should be working towards flexible family law” and “Legalize polygamy!” So, no, you didn’t.
“Since monogamy, according to you, is not important, is meaningless, should not be considered at all as necessary to marriage, and should not be legally enforced because it “prohibits” people from getting married, why then, should people be denied marriage and the benefits thereof with as many partners as they choose?”
Excuse me? When did I say monogamy was meaningless?
No, it should NOT be considered as “necessary” to legal marriage the way you want it to be. Because the sex lives of spouses – in fact, of ALL consenting adults – are private. It’s none of your damn business, no matter how much you think it’s for our own good. It’s that liberty thing again.
My personal values esteem monogamy very highly. But its value is all tied up in the fact that it is a CHOICE, and not something that the government extorted from me by proferring various benefits that are predicated on it.
You just can’t understand that even good things should sometimes not be mandated by law, and even bad things sometimes should not be illegal.
You aren’t winning, ND30. As far as I can tell, nobody but you and James actually think that gay people don’t deserve marriage because we’re all a bunch of non-monomgamous hedonists, and that we shouldn’t even fight for it unless we’re willing to also stick our noses into everyone else’s business.
Liberty. Privacy. Think about them.
posted by Jos76 on
It is not quit clear to me why so many right-wing conservatives are completely against gay marriage. They are essentially trying to convince people that mutually respectful relationships are not beneficial to the couple or the society around them. In addition, Democrats that favor civil unions over marriage rights are opening the door to straight couples entering into civil unions so that they can get the benefits alloted, without actually getting married. Civil unions, then , will actually lower the overall marriage rate. Who is to stop two straight ?friends? from filing for a civil union in order to get work-related benefits in a state. Legalizing gay marriage would raise the overall marriage rates and civil unions would lower it. This is perhaps the goal of both political parties. Civil unions means no access to Social Security, whereas marriage does give access.
I?m a legally married gay man in Massachusetts, and because there is no federal recognition of our marriage, we will not contribute to the bankruptcy of Social Security because we will not have access to the money that we pay for legally married straight couples who tap into the Social Security Benefits of his/her spouse. Civil Unions may have nothing to do with gay rights, but rather may be a way of keeping money available in Social Security.
Jos76
http://www.jos76.wordpress.com
posted by Pat on
Why should we believe gays and lesbians like you who claim they are or will be monogamous, when you eagerly point out examples of others who claimed the same and didn’t?
NDT, you missed the point. I said that we do not want to legally impose monogamy on marriage, and would be happy to have marriage for gay persons in the exact way straight persons have marriage. What I said about Vitter and others is that I suspect that these people would want to impose monogamy for everyone else, but yet, couldn’t do it themselves. Of course, I do not know for sure that Vitter has held these views. Maybe I’m wrong, and he really believes that monogamy for marriage shouldn’t be required and/or he believes that he doesn’t have to be monogamous in his own marriage.
You or whoever (who is “we” by the way?) do not have to believe me. I really don’t care. Besides, if I’m lying, and not monogamous, at least I wouldn’t be a hypocrite for imposing monogamy on others, sleeping around just like Vitter et al, while saying that everyone else should be monogamous.
Furthermore, Pat, you have often said that encouraging monogamy would encourage long-term commitment, reduce disease, and remove social consequences — just as you claim it does for straights.
Why, then, are you so opposed to the state taking action to encourage monogamy by making it a requirement of receiving marriage benefits and protections?
First of all, I am supporting marriage equality. To do this, I want simply to eliminate the words “of the opposite sex” as opposed to otherwise changing the institute of marriage. Despite its flaws (and the current nonequality), I do believe that marriage is better now than it was. I think it’s great to see people stay together despite the fact that laws do allow people to get out if one or the other falls out of love and/or becomes toxic or whatever.
I don’t feel the need to be morally superior to straight persons or morally self-righteous to change the standard of marriage to get equality. I don’t believe any subgroup has to “prove” that there as morally good as another to get equality. And the beauty is that anyone who isn’t marriage material does not have to be forced to marry.
Also, I guess I find it distasteful for the government to go into our bedrooms and decide what kind of sex is allowed for married couples. If one (or both) of the couples cheat, I’d leave it up to them to handle it. If they want to impose a type of agreement that you propose, I would not want to prohibit them, because it’s THEIR agreement, not the government’s.
posted by Pat on
sleeping around just like Vitter et al
Looks like Eliot Spitzer has added his name to this list.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I?m a legally married gay man in Massachusetts, and because there is no federal recognition of our marriage, we will not contribute to the bankruptcy of Social Security because we will not have access to the money that we pay for legally married straight couples who tap into the Social Security Benefits of his/her spouse.
Perhaps you aren’t aware of what the Social Security spousal benefit actually is.
Even if he or she has never worked under Social Security, your spouse at full retirement age can receive a benefit equal to one-half of your full retirement amount.
Or what the rules are around spousal benefits.
If your spouse has also worked under Social Security–If your spouse is eligible for retirement benefits on his or her own record, we will always pay that amount first. But if the spouse benefit on your record is a higher amount, he or she will get a combination of benefits that equals that higher amount.
In short, the only way in which spousal benefits would ever be meaningful to you is if one of you has not worked enough to receive your own Social Security benefit.
And perhaps you aren’t familiar with the arguments made during the debate on Arizona’s Proposition 107.
Consider Al Breznay and Maxine Piatt, who joined the unsuccessful lawsuit to keep this proposition off the ballot. Their argument against Proposition 107, which appears in the Secretary of State’s information pamphlet, is based on real life. A retired couple on fixed income, they live together because marriage would cost Piatt a large portion of her Social Security income.
Or, from another perspective:
But marrying would mean paying more in taxes as they both struggle to live on Social Security, he said.
So let’s see: gays and lesbians argue that they are taking a tax and Social Security hit by not getting married, yet their advertising against bans on gay marriage shows couples who don’t want to get married because it would a) raise their taxes and b) lower their Social Security benefits.
posted by Karen on
“In short, the only way in which spousal benefits would ever be meaningful to you is if one of you has not worked enough to receive your own Social Security benefit.”
This directly contradicts what YOU quoted.
Even if they have their own social security benefit, if their spouse had a higher benefit, that will increase the benefit they receive.
As far as taxes and social security go, the situation is different from couple to couple. When remarriage reduces SS benefits, it’s because the previous spouse earned a BIGGER benefit than the current one. For other couples, it will be different. In fact, for couples who stay together forever – isn’t that important to you? – marriage can only increase social security benefits, not decrease them.
It’s the same with taxes – more couples benefit tax-wise from being married than suffer – 51% to 42% according to a 1996 congressional report, and that was BEFORE the cuts that did away with the marriage “penalty”.
It makes no sense to say that because some (straight and gay) couples do not wish to marry for financial reasons specific to their situation, gay couples don’t deserve equality. And it DOES make sense for those couples to argue against sweeping bans on gay marriage that have unintended consequences for straight, unmarried couples.
However you try to spin it, not being able to get married is NOT a benefit.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Even if they have their own social security benefit, if their spouse had a higher benefit, that will increase the benefit they receive.
LOL….only if you’ve somehow managed to work so little that your own benefit is less than half of your spouse’s.
Check your annual Social Security flyer next time you receive it, Karen, and see if you’re willing to take half of your partner’s, versus your own benefits.
It’s the same with taxes – more couples benefit tax-wise from being married than suffer – 51% to 42% according to a 1996 congressional report, and that was BEFORE the cuts that did away with the marriage “penalty”.
First, those cuts only affected the LOWER brackets and assisted most those with wildly-disparate incomes. Married couples, especially those with similar incomes, are still penalized.
Second, those cuts are going away, as the Democrat Party has made clear.
It makes no sense to say that because some (straight and gay) couples do not wish to marry for financial reasons specific to their situation, gay couples don’t deserve equality.
So you’re admitting that couples aren’t automatically benefitted by marriage and that, in numerous cases, marriage actually PENALIZES people.
posted by Karen on
Yes, of COURSE I’m “admitting” that couples aren’t automatically benefited by marriage, you twit. I said as much. You look stupid when you gloat about things that are obvious.
“LOL….only if you’ve somehow managed to work so little that your own benefit is less than half of your spouse’s.”
Which is entirely possible, of course. And continues – LOL! – to contradict what YOU said, which was that NO ONE could use a spousal benefit unless they hadn’t worked at all.
And regardless of that minor point, and regardless of what marriage “penalties” exist now (very little) or will be returning (unknown):
We got on this because you were pointing at the unmarried straight couple ads and saying they were a contradiction to the “it hurts it financially” arguement. They aren’t, as I’ve explained.
The few straight people – mostly retirees – who decide not to marry for *financial* reasons are perfectly right to fight the sweeping gay marriage bans which end up – unintentionally – hurting THEM, too.
The many, many gay couples who WOULD marry – and financially benefit from it – are also perfectly right to point out how not having the choice forces them into a worse financial situation.
In conclusion, you also look stupid when you point out contradictions that… aren’t.
posted by Karen on
Sorry, should read:
‘the “it hurts us financially argument”‘
not ‘the “it hurts it financially arguement”‘.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes, of COURSE I’m “admitting” that couples aren’t automatically benefited by marriage, you twit.
Then your argument that it being limited to straight couples hurts ALL gays carries no weight.
And continues – LOL! – to contradict what YOU said, which was that NO ONE could use a spousal benefit unless they hadn’t worked at all.
Actually, this is what I said:
In short, the only way in which spousal benefits would ever be meaningful to you is if one of you has not worked enough to receive your own Social Security benefit.
Finally, gays and lesbians have already made it clear that they don’t want to live under current marriage laws because they would then have to assume responsibility for their partner’s debts, go to divorce court, and have their state benefits reduced — just like married people have had to do for years.
posted by Karen on
“Then your argument that it being limited to straight couples hurts ALL gays carries no weight.”
Not true. I never once suggested that every single gay couple would financially benefit from marriage.
Most committed couples find it in their best interest – financial AND otherwise – to be married. There are a lot more financial considerations than SS and taxes, but those are significant ones. Not having the option to be married DOES hurt all gay couples, because there was no guarantee that they’d be in that small percentage, and there’s none that they’ll stay there. When marriage is available, they can always choose not to participate, and they can change their status if need be. But if it isn’t available, the choice is made for them, in a way that USUALLY will be a financial negative. No option for all gay couples = it hurts all gay couples. Usually hurting your average gay couple = hurting all gay couples.
“This is what I said: In short, the only way in which spousal benefits would ever be meaningful to you is if one of you has not worked enough to receive your own Social Security benefit.”
… Which continues to be false. It could also meaningful to you if you worked enough to receive your own, but your spouse worked far more and earned far more, making their benefit more than twice the amount of yours.
Would you care to address the fact that your contradiction wasn’t actually a contradiction? Or would you just like to ignore it and go off on some other tangent?
posted by Karen on
By the way, your last paragraph is so stupid as to really not deserve an answer. But since you’ll probably whine that I ignored it, here:
That is not at all what that 2004 article says.
It says a few people chose to deregister for various reasons when a new law about their domestic partnership took effect.
For one thing, it’s not “gays and lesbians”, it’s a few couples.
For another thing, that law is not “current marriage law”. It lacks any of the federal benefits – and some of the state ones – of being married, and causes confusion and complications that straight married couples do not face.
In fact, most of the reasons that are given for deregistering is a direct result of unequal marriage laws for gays, or uncertainty over how certain benefits will be affected by the new law.
Like this:
“Because immigration is a federal matter, registering won’t allow foreigners to legally immigrate. To the contrary, it could be interpreted as an indication of intent to stay in the country, possibly leading to deportation.”
The others are simply reasons why some straight couples choose not to get married, too.
And one gasbag says that “for a lot of LGBT people, being independent financially is an important part of who they are”. No evidence given, and no one is actually quoted as saying that this is the reason they are deregistering.
The important part of the article is this:
“Over the summer, the secretary of state’s office mailed letters to the 28, 083 couples who have registered under the current, weaker law, warning of potentially undesired consequences of the new version and the Jan. 1 deadline for opting out.”
In other words, there ARE potentially undesired consequences under this NEW law, and in the two months after these letters went out, 313 out of 28,083 couples deregistered – only SOME of which did so for that reason.
Seriously – how stupid DO you think we are?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In fact, most of the reasons that are given for deregistering is a direct result of unequal marriage laws for gays, or uncertainty over how certain benefits will be affected by the new law.
Oh, I don’t think there’s a lot of uncertainty; they are treated just like married couples.
Which means they are responsible for their partner’s debts, they have to share property with their partner, and they can’t double-dip from welfare.
But for some reason, that’s hard for liberal gays and lesbians to stomach, even though married people have been doing it for years.
And I loved your argument here:
“Because immigration is a federal matter, registering won’t allow foreigners to legally immigrate. To the contrary, it could be interpreted as an indication of intent to stay in the country, possibly leading to deportation.”
As it was interpreted under the old law, too. That’s nothing new.
posted by Karen on
“Oh, I don’t think there’s a lot of uncertainty; they are treated just like married couples.”
Absolutely false; a bald-faced lie. Read the damn article. You’re the one who linked to it.
“But for some reason, that’s hard for liberal gays and lesbians to stomach, even though married people have been doing it for years.”
No. I don’t mean to insult the mentally handicapped, but are you retarded?
A larger number of couples deregistered than usual after letters went out about the new law. But the “rush” months, combined, still only constituted about 1% of the couples that received the letter.
Many of them (probably roughly the number that used to deregister monthly before the new law passed) JUST BROKE UP – it happens.
The people quoted in the article deregistered for various other reasons pertaining to the new law, like potential (or certain) loss of certain benefits they’ve been relying on.
And some percentage of that 1% of registered couples – BUT NOBODY QUOTED IN THE ARTICLE – might possibly have deregistered because they didn’t want the responsibilities of traditional marriage that the new law entailed.
Like I said, how stupid do you think we are?
posted by Karen on
Also, not that I haven’t already completely debunked this absurd tangent you’ve gotten on about how this article “proves” that “gays and lesbians” don’t want the responsibilities of marriage:
Even if less (possibly much less) than 1% of registered gay domestic partnerships – did deregister because they didn’t want the common property rules and such – that only means that they didn’t want that with their CURRENT partner. It’s entirely possible that, for whatever reason, they do not wish to be married (or close to married) to that person, but did wish to be domestic partners with them according to the old rules. It proves nothing about their views on marriage in general.
Since you love anecdotes:
One of my ex-girlfriends had a Louie. He was kind of like of a step-dad – he’d pretty much been her dad since age 13, but her mom never married him. I believe the issue was some debt that Louie had, that he didn’t want to become “common property”. Now, had the old-style domestic partnership been available to them in Florida, they might very well have registered. And if a law passed that created common-property rules for that relationship, they probably would have deregistered.
In no way does this anecdote prove anything but their pragmatism. They still believe in marriage – it would just be stupid for them, specifically, to get married.
And now I’ll repeat myself:
“Would you care to address the fact that your contradiction wasn’t actually a contradiction? Or would you just like to ignore it and go off on some other tangent?”
It seems, so far, that the answer is “tangent please!”
posted by Leo on
Why do so many threads on this site come down to pissing over some fictional litmus test that gays are supposed to pass in order to be seen as equal under the law?
This fixation on monogamy defies any grip on historical reality.
The notion that heterosexuals need gay folk to give them license to open their marriages or cheat on their spouses is unhinged.
There always been people who took what could be called a casual approach to marital fidelity.
The aristocratic houses of Europe have been for centuries packed to the rafters with bastard children, concubines and lovers. Husbands and wives maintained separate bedrooms. Hmmm? The clergy including more than a few popes and cardinals were among the worst offenders. When Charles kept Camilla around after marrying Di it was widely understood that he was just maintaining tradition. These tendencies didn’t stop when they crossed the Atlantic.
This country’s history? Why do almost all African Americans have some percentage of European ancestry? It sure wasn’t the embrace of monogamy on the part of slave owners. Study the history of New Orleans and learn about the Quadroon balls and the role mixed race people, especially the women, played in the society.
Study the social history of our cities. A hundred years ago most cities of any size had thriving red light districts that catered to all tastes?suppling patrons with women, girls and boys. Who do think patronized these whore houses only single men?
Jefferson?Sally Hemmings? It’s generally understood Franklin was a quite rake in his day (also spent most of his life unaffiliated with any church). Architect Frank Lloyd Wright was a satyr. Joseph Kennedy and sons? Ted Haggard? We could go on. Among the affluent, who could afford it, it was widely assumed the men would get themselves a little side action when the wife wasn’t in the mood, or pregnant or when it was that time of the month.
Why should the bar be set any higher for same-sex relationships? This is tedious.
Some people will be monogamous and others won’t be. Gay, straight whatever.
Is a history of infidelity commonly cited as reason to withhold a civil marriage license from a heterosexual couple?
It’s comes down to equality under the laws as they now exist.
If you feel that the laws pertaining to adultery and divorce need to be tightened for the betterment of society then write your state lawmakers.
It’ll be interesting to see how many take up the charge. If history is any indicator heterosexuals like to keep their options open.
posted by Karen on
Watch out, Leo. You’ll be accused of saying “Heterosexuals do it, so it’s perfectly all right if I do it!” Next thing you know, you’re the flaming, loose-moraled reason that Christianity opposes homosexuality.
Some people just don’t get it.
posted by Karen on
And you can thank ND30 and Ashpenaz for monomaniacally bring this up, each and every time marriage or morality is mentioned. And sometimes when it’s not.
posted by likearock on
Steve Swayne’s concept ending gov’t. sponsored marriage deserves support!
I’ve discovered through trial and error that serial monogamy is generally what I’m most comfortable with, but in reality my situation is far more complicated.
Marriage is the last thing I’d choose; life is complicated enough without getting tied up in a gov’t. sponsored one-size-fits-all lifestyle contract. YMMV!
BTW, for me ‘gay’ is as passe’ as marriage in the 21st Century; ‘queer’ is here!
posted by Craig2 on
Sorry, but this isn’t feasible.
Abolishing civil marriage and combining it with civil unions is a good long-term strategy. However, in practice, civil unions are an alternative form of ceremonial and ritual recognition that doesn’t use the M word, but is acoompanied by substantive relationship rights and recognition until we can secure same-sex marriage proper;
at which point, some might still prefer civil unions as a secular alternative to same-sex marriage.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ