![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shirenomadBeing someone with a Baptist background but a liberal adult exposure, who considers himself a bit of a social libertarian, I thought I'd toss in a tertium quid and see the reaction. Some of you may have already seen a shorter version of this in response to a post on someone else's journal (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cassaclyzm's, I think) but I hope to expand on the ideas, and address the concerns brought up in response. I ask that you all at least consider the option as something that would appease both sides. Please pardon my use of "they" to refer to all sides; I'm trying to distance myself. With that stated...
The reasons for defining marriage in legal terms is that it incorporates two people into a family unit, with such benefits as joint custody of children, next-of-kin status, household membership for tax purposes, etc. etc. This family status is a reasonable thing to grant to any group of people who live together and support each other.
But "marriage" is a bit of an abstract concept, as is proven by the present situation. The city of San Francisco, at least for the moment, gladly considers two men with a piece of paper to be in a state of marriage. Other cities or individuals gladly consider that paper to be nonsense. The two men themselves may have considered themselves married long before they got that piece of paper, and only sought it to receive the benefits listed in the earlier paragraph, and/or to make a statement regarding their legitimacy.
I happen to be big fan of The Amazing Race, and the last one (pre-Massachusetts decision) was won by a gay couple that gladly declared themselves married. In strictly legal terms, that was bunk. (I correct myself: that was bunk when they were in the US, valid in some of the countries they visited, and grounds for their re-education or even execution in others. Which just emphasizes the fluid nature of "legal marriage", and the problems with defining it.) But in their minds, married. Which, if it weren't for the desire to seek equality and the aforementioned benefits of marriage, would be all that mattered. It's up to them and them alone whether their vows actually mean that they'll stay together for life.
But equality and marriage benefits are both issues that should be addressed. "Civil unions", as they exists today, offer the second, but not the first: a legally married couple is still distinct from a couple in a state of civil union. That's why the gay rights movement is pushing the issue so hard. Unfortunately, the very word "marriage" is a bit of a sacred term to several religious groups that would rather it not be associated with homosexual relationships. They have no real problem with civil unions, mind -- if anything, many encourage it, since it at least promotes monogamy -- but calling it marriage is another matter entirely.
Now things get really sticky. If recent elections are any indication, these religious groups form a majority of the population. This being a democracy, it is unsound to ignore the will of said majority. So what's a government to do?
The problems all center around the government defining marriage in the first place. No matter where they draw the line, someone's voice gets ignored. But they have to draw the line somewhere, because they need to determine who qualifies for those lovely little marriage licenses. And they need to offer those marriage licenses because... wait, why DO they need to offer those marriage licenses?
Suddenly, a third option presents itself. Civil unions, as I've already stated, offer all the benefits of marriage save the name (see paragraph 1). The name is something you can give to yourselves, when it comes down to it (see paragraph 3). The only complaint is that the government legalizes that name for one group but not the other (paragraph 4). But why does the government need to legalize that name for the first group?
Make the only legal concept the civil union. Marriage is purely an issue for your individual religious group, etc. to handle. Hell, if you really want, have a ceremony in your house with no preacher whatsoever. It's not a legal concern, so you don't need someone who has legal power to supervise.
Meanwhile, the civil union becomes, in essence, adopting someone without the dependent status: they become a legal member of your family unit. This makes gay and straight unions, in legal terms, completely equal.
In social terms, yes, there will still be divisions, and guess what? Those divisions will be there no matter what the government says. If the US made it law today that gay marriage was completely legal, tomorrow there would still be some churches refusing to unite two men in matrimony and others that would be fine with it. If the US made it law today that marriage is only between a man and a woman, tomorrow there would still be some churches refusing to unite two men in matrimony and others that would be fine with it. The only difference would be whether the happy couples would be able to go to city hall afterward and get legally recognized. With the third option, that's no longer an issue.
This option has other handy applications, incidentally. There's no reason a civil union has to have romantic implications behind it. For instance, Joey from Full House could be given legal rights to take over caring for the kids should Danny, Jessie, and Becky die in a plane crash. In that case, he would not consider himself married to any of the Tanners (disturbing fanfics aside), but he would become a legal part of the family, like a brother. Or the Three Men and the Baby scenario could become a legal family unit. Again, nothing romantic involved. It's up to the individuals involved whether any part of these families form a marriage; as far as the government is concerned, it neither knows nor cares.
cassaclyzm's, I think) but I hope to expand on the ideas, and address the concerns brought up in response. I ask that you all at least consider the option as something that would appease both sides. Please pardon my use of "they" to refer to all sides; I'm trying to distance myself. With that stated... The reasons for defining marriage in legal terms is that it incorporates two people into a family unit, with such benefits as joint custody of children, next-of-kin status, household membership for tax purposes, etc. etc. This family status is a reasonable thing to grant to any group of people who live together and support each other.
But "marriage" is a bit of an abstract concept, as is proven by the present situation. The city of San Francisco, at least for the moment, gladly considers two men with a piece of paper to be in a state of marriage. Other cities or individuals gladly consider that paper to be nonsense. The two men themselves may have considered themselves married long before they got that piece of paper, and only sought it to receive the benefits listed in the earlier paragraph, and/or to make a statement regarding their legitimacy.
I happen to be big fan of The Amazing Race, and the last one (pre-Massachusetts decision) was won by a gay couple that gladly declared themselves married. In strictly legal terms, that was bunk. (I correct myself: that was bunk when they were in the US, valid in some of the countries they visited, and grounds for their re-education or even execution in others. Which just emphasizes the fluid nature of "legal marriage", and the problems with defining it.) But in their minds, married. Which, if it weren't for the desire to seek equality and the aforementioned benefits of marriage, would be all that mattered. It's up to them and them alone whether their vows actually mean that they'll stay together for life.
But equality and marriage benefits are both issues that should be addressed. "Civil unions", as they exists today, offer the second, but not the first: a legally married couple is still distinct from a couple in a state of civil union. That's why the gay rights movement is pushing the issue so hard. Unfortunately, the very word "marriage" is a bit of a sacred term to several religious groups that would rather it not be associated with homosexual relationships. They have no real problem with civil unions, mind -- if anything, many encourage it, since it at least promotes monogamy -- but calling it marriage is another matter entirely.
Now things get really sticky. If recent elections are any indication, these religious groups form a majority of the population. This being a democracy, it is unsound to ignore the will of said majority. So what's a government to do?
The problems all center around the government defining marriage in the first place. No matter where they draw the line, someone's voice gets ignored. But they have to draw the line somewhere, because they need to determine who qualifies for those lovely little marriage licenses. And they need to offer those marriage licenses because... wait, why DO they need to offer those marriage licenses?
Suddenly, a third option presents itself. Civil unions, as I've already stated, offer all the benefits of marriage save the name (see paragraph 1). The name is something you can give to yourselves, when it comes down to it (see paragraph 3). The only complaint is that the government legalizes that name for one group but not the other (paragraph 4). But why does the government need to legalize that name for the first group?
Make the only legal concept the civil union. Marriage is purely an issue for your individual religious group, etc. to handle. Hell, if you really want, have a ceremony in your house with no preacher whatsoever. It's not a legal concern, so you don't need someone who has legal power to supervise.
Meanwhile, the civil union becomes, in essence, adopting someone without the dependent status: they become a legal member of your family unit. This makes gay and straight unions, in legal terms, completely equal.
In social terms, yes, there will still be divisions, and guess what? Those divisions will be there no matter what the government says. If the US made it law today that gay marriage was completely legal, tomorrow there would still be some churches refusing to unite two men in matrimony and others that would be fine with it. If the US made it law today that marriage is only between a man and a woman, tomorrow there would still be some churches refusing to unite two men in matrimony and others that would be fine with it. The only difference would be whether the happy couples would be able to go to city hall afterward and get legally recognized. With the third option, that's no longer an issue.
This option has other handy applications, incidentally. There's no reason a civil union has to have romantic implications behind it. For instance, Joey from Full House could be given legal rights to take over caring for the kids should Danny, Jessie, and Becky die in a plane crash. In that case, he would not consider himself married to any of the Tanners (disturbing fanfics aside), but he would become a legal part of the family, like a brother. Or the Three Men and the Baby scenario could become a legal family unit. Again, nothing romantic involved. It's up to the individuals involved whether any part of these families form a marriage; as far as the government is concerned, it neither knows nor cares.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-26 09:12 am (UTC)What about the gay people who are religious, though?
See, I'm obviously all for the gay marriage thing. I see no problem with legalizing one of the main ways that people can show off their love to others. And while some people may consider themselves married, sometimes it's nice to have that little piece of paper to look at that says, "people recognize us."
I, personally, don't want to get married. I see little point in it overall. If I love, why do I need a piece of paper to say that I'm in love? But I know that the majority of people don't see it this way, and anything less than marriage just isn't what they want.
I don't see where the government has any right to say that gay marriage is illegal, just because they don't like it. Churches, on an individual basis, may have the right to refuse a gay marriage, but given that whole 'seperation of church and state' thing, the act itself shouldn't be made illegal. It is discrimination to do so.
And that's my two cents. Not very coherent, or explained, but I honestly don't feel the need to have to justify my beliefs on this matter. ^_^
no subject
Date: 2004-02-26 10:26 pm (UTC)But I do? That's discrimination! ;P
Seriously, two things:
I don't see where the government has any right to say that gay marriage is illegal, just because they don't like it.
It's not a question of the government not liking it. It's a question of a majority of the population not liking it. Again, this is a democracy. That means majority rules, whether you consider them idiotic or not.
...the act itself shouldn't be made illegal. It is discrimination to do so.
Not discrimination under the plan I listed, where it obliterates the legal concept of marriage for everyone.