BlogHer - Marriage: What's the state got to with it? - Comments

What or who gives you the

Dana J. Tuszke — Tue, 30 May 2006 09:49:22 -0500

What or who gives you the right to decide that someone else's reason "isn't the right reason"? Who are you to decide that an open relationship isn't ok? It doesn't effect you in any way, shape or form.

I didn't say that these persons didn't make the right decision. I stated that getting married for financial or legal benefits, doesn't make it right. If that's the only reason a couple got married I feel sorry for them. I would hope they got married because they loved that person and wanted to spend the rest of their lives together. Because they wanted to be faithful and true to that person. That they would not want another.

You got married because you love your husband, how do you know that others in an open relationship DON'T love their spouses? They do, and monogamy simply isn't the way they feel it is necessary to show their love. Or maybe openness IS the way they choose to show their love.

I don't know if those persons love their spouses. I'm not the one who gets to decide that. That's up to them. But I would think that if you truly loved your spouse you wouldn't want to have sex with someone else. Remember, that's just my opinion. Not fact or unwritten law. To me, the ones who participate in open relationships come across as though they can't or won't fight the tempation. (Another opinion!) What happened to the vows they took to be faithful?

Separation of church and state???

Liz Rizzo — Mon, 29 May 2006 20:53:43 -0500

What a concept.

The (Catholic and Christian)

TW — Mon, 29 May 2006 18:40:12 -0500

The (Catholic and Christian) Church has supported slavery. Usually under the Paul said slavery was fine, so it is fine by God justification.

In fact the Episcopal church will be considering a resolution at their summer meetings to make reparations for such acts. ~TW

The subject was roses

Katherine Lawrence — Mon, 29 May 2006 17:56:07 -0500

In my view, marriage would be equivalent to civil union. One could be married by a judge, a ship's captain, or a person of religious authority. The witnessing and solemnization of vows (contract) would still take place.

The idea would be to separate Church and State. The State is the one enforcing the marriage contract anyway, insofar as obligations, taxes, inheritance, and rights. All of the "rights" of marriage are enforced by the State and the State has the machinery to do so.

As to the other "rites" of marriage - those often happen in a church or temple.

Bad example. There is a law against murder. The State is responsible for dealing with this crime, even though virtually every religion has a commandment against this crime.

My view is that the State issues a marriage license and can process the license through the exchange of vows (with or without invoking the Lord). And if someone wants the big fancy church wedding, then that is extra.

Another "bad example." I graduate from the University and get my diploma. I am a graduate. If I attend or choose not to Commencement, it does not change the fact I have matriculated.

I am a graduate without any ceremony.

Maya, some Celtic,

TW — Mon, 29 May 2006 16:09:22 -0500

Maya, some Celtic, Tantrism,...all have a history of human sacrifice and in the case of tantrism may perhaps still have such things, but they will definitely be considered murder rather than religious practice here. Sorta like those religions that go for ritual child abuse and the like .

Anti- marriage....

Denise — Mon, 29 May 2006 14:49:27 -0500

You can read about why I'm not pro-gay-marriage, here - in a nutshull, I'm anti-marriage in general but I'm more so for gay folks because joining this flawed institution seems like one of those "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em things". Joining straight folks in this respect isn't going to make marriage any less flawed than it is today.

Dana - here is where you and I really differ. It's actually the stumbling block I have with people in general.

Legal and Financial benefits as a reason to get married, still doesn't make it the right decision. Regardless if a couple has an open relationship or not, doesn't make it okay.

What or who gives you the right to decide that someone else's reason "isn't the right reason"? Who are you to decide that an open relationship isn't ok? It doesn't effect you in any way, shape or form.

I got married because I loved my husband. Not because of health insurance or tax breaks.

You got married because you love your husband, how do you know that others in an open relationship DON'T love their spouses? They do, and monogamy simply isn't the way they feel it is necessary to show their love. Or maybe openness IS the way they choose to show their love.

As I said, an open relationship does not work for me but I have a lot of respect for a couple who can do this. A couple who can open those doors and still love each other the next day. Amazing and awe-inspiring, that's how I look at those relationships.

~Denise
Daily Dose of Denise

A lynched....

Denise — Mon, 29 May 2006 14:39:54 -0500

I'm not a christian and I am gay but I am also anti-gay marriage and I've been lynched for all of those. I have 9 lives or something? ;-)

It was a pretty calm discussion, wasn't it?

~Denise
Daily Dose of Denise

In a country where we

Dana J. Tuszke — Mon, 29 May 2006 14:01:00 -0500

In a country where we separate church and state everywhere else. It seems fitting that we'd do it with marriage also.

Maybe I'm too old-fashioned. Who knows.

Great posts, ladies. I've had a good time discussing this.

Don't worry, Mir. I didn't

Dana J. Tuszke — Mon, 29 May 2006 13:55:56 -0500

Don't worry, Mir. I didn't take offense to the comments. I expected it. Many people who don't agree with me in my opinions are quick to call me those names and I just opened the door for it.

I've enjoyed reading your personal blog for sometime now and it was good to read your posts here as well as the others.

It wasn't my intention to come off as offensive. But in arguments, we often take the defensive. It's just human nature.

I look forward to debating more, but I feel drained. Politics and Religion are two of my three great loves.

Thanks for all the fun! It was great!

Exactly what I meant with the thread hijacking above...

Lisa Stone — Mon, 29 May 2006 13:55:28 -0500

To your point:

And first and foremost, I think we as women will need to learn to discuss this (like we have here) and other issues without cutting each others throat before anything real can be done. When together, even with different opinions, we will accomplish much.

Agreed. Let's keep doing it!

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

okay...

Dana J. Tuszke — Mon, 29 May 2006 13:51:18 -0500

This is a very good point. I'll gladly take up the idea that my husband I have a civil union. But wait! In my Catholic faith, I wouldn't be truly married in the eyes of God. I wouldn't be joined in Holy Matrimony. And that's important to me as I live in this country that allows freedom of religion.

"What therefore God hath joined together,let not man put asunder."

- Jesus Christ (Matt . 19:6)

So, that means Liz is right. Let's abolish marriage in the legal sense. Let's eliminate the state's involvement, period. Because they are taking away a human right to get married! (But they really aren't, now are they? A homosexual can still get married, just not to the same gender. Because according to the bible homosexuality is a sin!)

So if we eliminate the state's involvement that would mean no civil unions either. So then no homosexual could get "married" or be legally "joined".

So I guess we're all screwed. I've obviously opened a can of worms so full that I can't type anymore.

I really hope that civil unions are legalized. And if that makes me the bad guy, I'll have to deal with it.

I don't look at it being

manicmom — Mon, 29 May 2006 13:13:52 -0500

I don't look at it being ganged up on. Dana and I do have a different opinion than the majority, but I also see being able to stand up to that opinion without wavering. I am with Dana in that I too have studied many different religions and cults and have come back to what I believe.

Not sure where I was going with that, but I didn't feel like this was a lynching, but a pretty civil discussion and alot more civil than I have seen at other forums.

And first and foremost, I think we as women will need to learn to discuss this (like we have here) and other issues without cutting each others throat before anything real can be done. When together, even with different opinions, we will accomplish much.

Space and Time

Question

Dana J. Tuszke — Mon, 29 May 2006 13:06:53 -0500

In your earlier post, you stated you were against marriage. I'm curious as to why?

Perhaps I would better understand your viewpoint.

Why do these people get married? You know why - legal and financial and yes, even, emotional support and security. It's not your way or mine, but it seems to work for them, doesn't it?

Legal and Financial benefits as a reason to get married, still doesn't make it the right decision. Regardless if a couple has an open relationship or not, doesn't make it okay. I got married because I loved my husband. Not because of health insurance or tax breaks. When I got married, I knew I would be faithful to my husband. Not run out and get a divorce or have an affair when the going got tough. You are right it is not the decision for you or me to make. And there are several couples who abuse this institution. It's frustrating. I've been conflicted with this subject for as long as I can remember. I suppose I should just give in to the popular belief like everyone else, right?

The thing with civil unions...

Liz Rizzo — Mon, 29 May 2006 10:46:50 -0500

Is that everyone needs to be able to get one. It seems often what's being talked about is having two state-sanctioned options.

A potential difficulty I see, is that you're creating something new, rather then giving the existing right of marriage to everyone. So what will fall through the cracks? How will civil unions be recognized in cases of health insurance or inheritance? Is that a concern? (Again, I don't actually know.)

I also suspect that even if what you get at the licensing department is called a civil union certificate instead of a marriage certificate, people are still going to say that they are "married." And I think that's just fine.

Open relationships

Denise — Mon, 29 May 2006 10:34:32 -0500

You know a lesbian couple with an open relationship, I have known two heterosexual couples with such an arrangement (and a couple of polyamourous couples, too). That's something entirely different and not specifically related to homosexuality.

Why do these people get married? You know why - legal and financial and yes, even, emotional support and security. It's not your way or mine, but it seems to work for them, doesn't it?

~Denise
Daily Dose of Denise

Marriage: What's the state got to with it?

Liz Rizzo — Sat, 27 May 2006 13:39:30 -0500

Contributing editor Liz Rizzo also blogs at Everyday Goddess.

I thought I was the only one.

For a few years now I've been thinking about getting married. No, not to anyone in particular, and not in any given time frame - but thinking about marriage and what it means to me. Because I strongly believe in marriage - long-term, come-what-may, monogamous marriage.

Now, for me, marriage has never had anything to do with a church. One of my personal pet peeves is people who never attend church, but then get married there. Or getting married in a church you don't believe in because of family pressures. We all choose our compromises, I guess. And certainly, many people are religious and connecting their marriage to their church is very important to them. For many people, marriage has a whole heck of a lot to do with their church. Lucky them if they live in a country where they have their religious freedom.

I will never be married in a church.

But for most of my life, I did accept the fact that getting married means a trip to your local marriage licensing department. It always kinda gave me pause, that aspect, but marriage does have legal meaning. Legal benefits. Legal disadvantages even.

I've never been one to think "a piece of paper doesn't mean anything." It does mean something. Just like the degrees I hold. Yes, I wanted them. They mean something.

So ultimately, should I get married, I would want to "make it legal."

Except that lately, more and more, month by month, I've realized that I have a serious issue with getting legally married in a country that doesn't allow homosexual people the same rights. Were I to desire to get married today, I know I would look into other options, and I think my future husband would have to be of the same mind.

Because I can get married and have a husband, and in reality, it's a choice to make it any of the state's business. Except...

I also know that there are huge disadvantages to not "making it legal," the biggest of which (I believe) is medical insurance issues. It seems insane not to take advantage of the right that I have as a heterosexual in America - the right to get legally married and be recognized as married.

So I just assumed that I was the only one who was thinking what I've been thinking. But I'm not.

I've recently met others who feel the same way, and suddenly I wonder, how many of us are there? And I wonder, is there a lawyer out there working on a legal connection package? Power of attorney, etc. There are ways to connect without a marriage license. What can you cover, and what vulnerabilities remain? I'm sure this is something the gay community has explored, but I think there may be a developing heterosexual market here. I'm not a lawyer, so I can only scratch the surface of this thinking. I'm talking about something that everyone can access, so as to easily consider the option and be fully informed.

I'd also love to see a financial analysis of the monetary cost of the "marriage tax" vs. the cost of privately insuring a spouse. Hell, if enough heterosexual people stopped registering their marriages, a market might develop for a spousal health insurance policy and make it more financially reasonable. And it could potentially increase pressure to allow legal marriage between any two people who want to get married.

Freedom. Rights. For me, that's what America is supposed to be about.

Ultimately, how much do your principles mean? Ultimately, how reasonable is a sacrifice and what level of sacrifice do you choose? I think of it like paying taxes for education. I don't have children, but I benefit from living in an educated society. I'm not homosexual, but I benefit from living in a country where freedoms and rights aren't based on gender, race, sexuality, geographic location, occupation, etc.

Movements can be effective. Marches. Lobbying. People coming together to effect change.

Another thing that changes the world: Individual Actions.

Americans marched for racial freedoms and equal rights, but at the same time, people of different races fell in love and got married. Sometimes I wonder which of these is the most powerful.

Sometimes I think it's what we each do day to day, the little choices, the personal stands, that ultimately change our world.

So on the day that I am fortunate enough to decide to get married, it's going to matter to me that every American has the same right. If we don't - all have that right - I don't think I have it in me to sign that little piece of paper. Because right now, as an American, it simply doesn't mean what I believe it should mean.