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

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?

What a concept.

:)

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

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, 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 .

You can read about why I'm not pro-gay-marriage, here ( http://flamingohouse.blogs.com/daily_dose_of_denis... ) - 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 ( http://flamingohouse.blogs.com )

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 ( http://flamingohouse.blogs.com )

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 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!

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 ( http://www.blogher.com/member/lisa-stone )
Surfette ( http://surfette.typepad.com )

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 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 ( http://melissanandjoshua.blogspot.com )

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?

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.

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 ( http://flamingohouse.blogs.com )

DanaFiles:

I just re-read the entire thread. You're right, of course, that you're outnumbered. I'm sorry you (and probably manicmom) feel ganged up on, but I'd have to say I'm not seeing any name-calling, and I think the conversation overall has stayed pretty respectful...if occasionally snarky.

But what are you asking for? You posted a comment disagreeing with a post. People posted comments disagreeing with you. Are *they* not supposed to disagree? Are *they* supposed to comply to your norm, once you express it?

I thought your comments here were very enlightening. So often we see only a one-dimensional side of any argument. It's not just that you disagreed with the majority, but that your own opinion does not adhere to some rigid definition of what the opposition is supposed to think.

Getting back to the issue at hand: what strikes me as most interesting is that both you and manicmom seem to be amenable to civil unions.

And so many of us who are pro marriage equality have said: leave "marriage" for the churches and "civil unions" for the state (as is done in other parts of the world.)

So if secularists and fundamentalists can agree on this, why is this such a huge damn issue? Call me Pollyanna, but it seems like most of the country actually would go along with this apporach if only politicians didn't need their wedge issue du jour to wield.

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer and Worker Bees
elisa@blogher.org/elisa@workerbees.biz

Dana, I do try to stay away from name-calling. I apologize for being flip and "agreeing" to call you ignorant; it was a joke in reaction to your asking for it, but I can see it may have been hurtful and that wasn't my intention.

As has already been mentioned, it can be a hot button when someone offers anecdotal evidence as "proof" of a societal norm.

Nevertheless, I think BlogHer is succeeding at encouraging discussion where everyone has a right to be heard. I see no flaming happening here--just debate. And as the saying goes, I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Putting your opinion out there invites debate. I think that's a good thing (for everyone). No, you didn't join BlogHer to agree with everyone else (I hope!), but to have a safe place for intelligent discussion. I can't speak for you, of course, but I personally am loving this thread--the issues it's raised, the different points of view, ALL of it. This is how we learn.

--
Mir from WCS
(BlogHer Mommy & Family contributing editor)

Personal: Woulda Coulda Shoulda ( http://wouldashoulda.com/ )

At Ty's Toy Box: Listen to your Mommy! ( http://tystoyboxblog.com/ )

Personally, I couldn't worship at a church that upheld what I believe to be such a fundamental lack of respect for human rights.

Not that anyone cares, but I don't believe in having Blind Faith when it comes to religion. I study not only my Catholic faith, but the religions of Judaism, Buddhism and even the Lutheran, Methodist and Baptist churches. How can I truly understand my own beliefs if I don't take the time to learn about others?

I'm not just Catholic because my parents told me I had to be. And they did. They forced Catholicism down my throat. And because of this I researched the differences between my faith and those of others. I decided to remain Catholic because I believed in most of what I learned as opposed to becoming Jewish, Buddhist, Baptist, Evangelical, Lutheran or Methodist.

As far as the Catholic church goes, they believe that homosexuality is a sin. Many Catholics will condemn a person for being gay or lesbian. They are uncomfortable. I don't agree with that condemnation. A person is a person and should be treated with respect.

As far as the "sin" goes. I don't know what I believe about that. I haven't grasped that concept yet. But at least I'm honest about it. At least I take the time to think about it, to express my feelings of uncertainty and not just jumping on the bandwagon of either side of the spectrum. But that's just me.

Can you tell me that anyone who practices any religion believes in said religion 100%?

My former college professer is Jewish and he eats pork. Should he stop going to temple because of this?

I'm glad to hear that you and your girlfriend have celebrated four years together. Happy Anniversary!

This day and age that's a long time for any couple, gay or straight. My husband I will be celebrating 5 years this October.

Do we have to hit the 10 year mark? or the 20 before you consider us serious about monogamy? Just wondering.

I can't answer your question on whether you are serious about monogamy. Only you can decide that.

In my original post, I simply stated what I noticed with my friends. Upon reading my entry, Ella stated to me that she and her girlfriend have an open relationship in which they freely date and have sex with others while remaining together as life partners. She also told me if she and her girlfriend could get married they would, but still keep their open relationship.

I suppose I just can't comprehend that. Why get married, just to maintain a lifestyle that you would if you were single? When I asked her, she told me I wouldn't understand. That there are others like her and her g/f who have similar relationships.

I wasn't trying to generalize and I realize it came across that way. For that I apologize.

Again, Happy Anniversary, and many more to come.

... the other "benefit" to a state-sanctioned union is often the "right" of inheritance (not that those rights are necessarily all that generous -- the state can take a fair amount). Basically, if you die, your spouse would be entitled to a portion of your estate, in addition to your children, and before your siblings, etc. would.

It's always a good idea to have a will, so you have a say where everything is going; however, I think it's especially true for those who are in same-sex marriages (however you define that term). I'd strongly recommend those of our married gay sisters and brothers to make sure that they have wills -- ESPECIALLY if you're parents.

Great conversation. Liz, I'm with you all the way.

Karen
Chookooloonks ( http://www.chookooloonks.com/chookooloonks )
Emerald Market ( http://emeraldmarket.typepad.com )

Thank you all for your viewpoints. It's nice to see that when a women gives her opinion and it may not be in agreement with everyone else's, it still doesn't matter.

And the retaliations to my post were numerous. I'm outnumbered. Or maybe I'm the only one who had the guts to give forth an opposite opinion.

And why is it when I give a different side to things, the name calling and animosity surfaces?

Remind me again why I joined BlogHer? To comply to the norm? To agree with everyone else?

Thanks for enlightening me.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet." - from "Romeo and Juliet"

I agree marriage is called *marriage* because the government makes it legal. But let's turn that sleeve inside out. To what extend does a government make a marriage illegal? Surely in the case of people who would otherwise not be able to enter into a legal contract. For example, too young, married to another, etc.

The fact is that irrespective of the merits, people of the opposite sex get certain legal privileges when they marry, while people of the same sex, do not. I have seen some pretty dysfunctional heterosexual couples who are married and some gay couples who seem married in most every positive way, save for the official license.

In medieval times, before the codification of law, the Church performed clerical functions (hence clerics) because the Church had a monopoly on literate scriveners.

Later, with the evolution of the printing press and as nation states took over the clerical functions and civil law became far more powerful, church law receded into the background.

The marriage ceremony and sanctification is one of the last "legal" functions that the church has held onto - and the ban on divorce only in the last century moved from church control to civil control. For example, some dissolutions are not recognized by the Church, but are recognized by the State.

Should the State be involved in who marries whom if the two individuals are otherwise legally able to marry? That is, they are single and of age. The idea that there is a law that says only Catholics can marry Catholics, or only Jews can marry Jews, or only whites can marry whites, or only blacks can marry blacks, today strikes most of us as odd and out of step, but the concept that only opposite sex marriage are "right," still holds sway for many.

Being a baby boomer, I can recall how overwrought some people would get - in the 1950s and 1960s - when a mixed race couple were seen dating - and this was NOT in the solid South, either. Dire predictions were made about society's fiber and the like if mixed marriages were allowed.

I recall my own parents going to the polls to vote to repeal a law that prevented Asians from owning property - perhaps a leftover from World War 2 or earlier.

Who can say what is in someone's heart? Not the Church and not the State, but the couple themselves, and to my mind, until collectively we are better able to judge ALL marriage vows, we ought not prevent those who are in love, but who we don't understand, from weighing what their own hearts say to them.

Make of our hands one hand,
Make of our hearts one heart,
Make of our vows one last vow:
Only death will part us now.

- from "West Side Story"

"Will you join me in a civil union?" is just never going to work.

Marriage is marriage; it's called a *marriage* license by our government. The state chooses to call it marriage, and I agree with what you're saying here. :)

Of course, there's a million things this post could be about, but when I blog, I usually try to focus on one thing. I've only got a few paragraphs to flesh out a thought process! Plus, I'm a Sex & Relationships Editor - I happily leave healthcare discussion to other peeps unless we're talking something like birthcontrol or STDs!

That said, universal healthcare is a program. Personally, I deeply wish we had a better education system in the United States, but today, education is also program. I can get passionate about programs and program reform, and certainly these things are super important and worth all the discussion we care to give them.

But here I'm talking about the *right* to get married, to be recognized as a married American citizen and to obtain all the rights and benefits that that status currently confers in America.

And when taxpaying citizens are being denied rights that other taxpaying citizens have access to for reasons that have to do with the freedom of those citizens to be who they are, yeah, this American gets seriously disturbed. What can I say, it's in the blood.

Call me judgmental or ignorant, but I've noticed my gay and lesbian friends are not "that serious" when it comes to monogamy.

I've noticed that my Catholic friends are most likely to get married in a church with absolutely no interest or regard for said church. Oh, the stories about lying to the priest in Catholic marriage counseling. Oh, the complete lack of church attendence after said marriage.

But then, that's a handful of people. And I also have a Catholic friend who takes her religion very seriously, so none of the above was true for her.

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence. It's heavily effected by where you live, your age, who your friends are, etc.

Danafiles, I am not out to ridicule you. Your opinion is welcome here, and I'm glad you came and started off the comments. But I do think that the concept of marriage in today's world has expanded way beyond the confines of the church. If it was only something that concerned the church, the state wouldn't be involved at all, and the rights of secular citizens wouldn't be effected.

[Warning: Thread hijacking below]

...because this conversation demonstrates *exactly* what we are on about with BlogHer code of "civil disagreement" ( http://www.blogher.com/community-guidelines ) and omnipartisanship ( http://www.blogher.com/node/997 ).

As some of you know, I started blogging in the summer of 2004, when I blogged the DNC for the LA Times. It was an ugly summer for this issue in particular, as many parties made lots of embarrassing political hay out of the issue of marriage. Meanwhile, women's beliefs on the subject were again packaged as those of "soccer moms" or "fundamentalists" or "urban sex and the city-ettes" rather than the reality: A powerful majority with so many different opinions that we defy labeling by double-X chromosome. So thank you, all of you, for being willing to have the conversation I never saw then and that I'm still not seeing in mass mediums.

[End of thread hijacking; back to the topic]

As for myself, I believe every American resident should be able to exercise the right of choosing their own domestic partner and civil union. It's a simple constitutional matter of equal religious freedoms and civil rights.

As for marriage, well -- don't get me started on the M word. As I know from personal experience, no paper can ever cement or ratify what has to take place in two hearts and souls every day.

Okay - off to have lunch with my darling parents, who have been happily married for 44 years...

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder ( http://www.blogher.com/member/lisa-stone )
Surfette ( http://surfette.typepad.com )

I'm not saying Liz is short sided and only thinking of one issue. But I think if we are going to hold rally's and try to change our laws there are alot more to be concerned about than this one issue. Universal health care would wipe out the concern, for one, that anyone gay or straight can't get insurance.

Space and Time ( http://melissanandjoshua.blogspot.com )

How is sacrificing a virgin, and that doesn't happen anyway, deny basic civil rights? Slavery yes, but the church never endorsed that anyway, and especiall since the New Testament.

Space and Time ( http://melissanandjoshua.blogspot.com )

Ofcourse, there's a whole lot more to words than simply words.. but I think we need to start the change there.

Let one word (for example "union") stand for a sanctified union of two individuals according to a church's definition and let this word serve only for any religious issues. Separate this word from any civil matter and require a separate ceremony. (so no more priest/minister signing the state's marriage license. And let the couple decide if they celebrate the date they were married or they united).

Give a second term (let's say "marriage") to any legal union of two adults. This way the marriage could encompass a variety of issues: permanency vs. time-limited ("renewing your license every year like a car license), sexual make-up (take religion out of the process, and what arguments would the state have for denying gay marriages?).

The current laws for marriage stay for marriage. Wouldn't this eliminate many of the current problems? Ofcourse, in my mind this is so logical that it will never occur.

Debra
A Stitch In Time ( http://astitchintime.blogspot.com )
Simple Still Life ( http://simplestilllife.blogspot.com )

I could be wrong.. but I think Denise might have been referring to some of the accepted religious practices as mentioned in the Bible. Though maybe not the sacrificing virgins thing...

Debra
A Stitch In Time ( http://astitchintime.blogspot.com )
Simple Still Life ( http://simplestilllife.blogspot.com )

They were examples of what I think would include denial of basic civil rights. There are all sorts of interesting groups calling themselves "religions" and "churches".

~Denise
Daily Dose of Denise ( http://flamingohouse.blogs.com )

Are you suggesting that Liz is only interested in this particular issue and not issues like universal healthcare or maternity leave? Since when does caring about one issue mean you can't care about others? As Americans it is our responsiblity to care about all issues, or as many as we can wrap our heads around without exploding. ;-)

Also, look at Liz's post - the reason she feels strongly about gay marriage is because she sees our country as limiting the rights of a specific group of people. It appears to me she explained why this is important to her,she cares about my rights as a citizen of this country as much as she cares about yours or her own. It seems like a pretty decent reason, to me.

Argh! Argh! Argh! Let the muttering begin.

We HAD to get married to sustain our relationship, unfortunately. Because my mate isn't a US citizen and we didn't win the green card lottery, without the "sanction" of marriage we'd have been unable to pass immigration.

It chaps my hide that while I was able to get married, my very best friend is unable to marry his companion of ten years. (Sample of 1, but I've got plenty more, DanaFiles.)

The hypocrisy around marriage ALSO chaps my hide, but good. My first marriage lasted three years, unable to withstand the pressure of my fundamentalist inlaws, among other things. Britney Spears in Vegas, anyone? Britney gets to do that why? Because she's straight? Oh, that's a good reason, eh? Jeez.

My 02 is that a civil marriage should be available to EVERYONE that wants one, gay, straight, foreign, native, whatever. The rights conferred by marriage are essential in a humane partnership and it's cruel to deny them just because "you" (individuals, gov'ts, societies) don't approve of the sex of the mates. If you want to get your marriage blessed by whatever organization you believe in, you go right ahead. Exclusionary religious orgs that are saying they'll be forced to perform gay marriages are talking nonsense. (See Prof Kim's comment.)

Argh. Stomping off muttering now...

Nerd's Eye View ( http://www.nerdseyeview.com )

It's a civil contract, enforced by law, supervised by the courts, with implications in taxation and how other entities, including businesses, individuals and other governments of the Republic, treat the couple so bound. As such, it seems to be that the nature of marriage should be weighed and considered on the basis of civil rights and civil liberties -- freedoms our society as a whole embraces.

If a church or other religious organization wants to wrap extra religion-based conditions around marriage, it seems to me that's their choice -- and let the enforcement and consequences of those extra conditions remain in the realm of the religious organization (such as refusing to perform services they don't want to perform, or even excommunicating violators).

However, I don't see a reason why society as a whole should enforce restrictions on freedom based on the doctrine of a particular church or sect. If a church wants to prevent a parishoner from marrying a homosexual or Jew or Methodist or atheist or African American or non-tea totaller (all bases for restrictions, historically) or Tinker Toy afficianado or wearer of plaid pants or whatever is deemed "unacceptable" this year, it seems to me the most that church can do is prevent such marriages from happening in their own church -- not prevent it from happening in another church, or in no church at all.

One of the traditional conservative tenets over the years has been the idea that, when it comes to public policy, it's better to err on the side of liberty. Rightly or wrongly, the "Nanny State" has been pilloried as government meddling in private lives. I personally find it ironic that the political base behind forcing governments to deny gay marriage, etc. comes from the same conservative quarters.

I don't know what church believes in virgins sacrifices or slavery, so I don't know what that has to do with following a churches beliefs? I do believe that marriage is a basic right. But it's not the end all be all to living a good life unlike many other civic rights.

Space and Time ( http://melissanandjoshua.blogspot.com )

Well Mir, the New Testament abolished all food laws. I haven't see it advocate homosexuality, but when I do I'll change my mind. I believe we as Christians should remain inflexible. The Bible hasn't changed it's principles, so why should we as a society? I'm not afraid of saying I'm a Christian.

Practicality? Even heterosexuals can have a civil union, so that's not a main issue.

I'm wondering why gay marriage is an issue for Liz when many other issues in Ameica concern more of a population. Let's rally for Univeral Healthcare so that no one goes without insurance, gay or straight. Or longer maternity leaves. And that would also include the gay community, because if they adopt they get a materity leave as well. Why just this one single issue?

Space and Time ( http://melissanandjoshua.blogspot.com )

Right now, churches can refuse to marry someone, and it happens all the time. A Catholic church can refuse to marry someone who has been divorced. There are churches who won't marry people who are not of their faith, or who haven't passed their pre-marital counseling program. Pastors refuse to perform ceremonies for couples whom the pastor deems unready or unsuited for marriage. Allowing civil marriage for same-sex unions does not deprive churches of their right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs.

Now the theological discussion, that's a different conversation.

Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com )
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Law and Journalism/Media ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/kim-pearson )

You aren't the only one at all.

Must a couple be married in a church? Is religious authority a requirement?

No. I can be married in my home, in a garden, at a meeting hall, at a beach ... you name it. I do not need a person of religious authority present to sign the fact that my partner and I have solemnified our vows, although witnesses are necessary and a secular authority, if authorized, can sign off. Think of the Justice of the Peace, or a judge, or even a captain of a ship at sea.

The main part of the marriage is getting the license and then following through. I think that this is the role of the State.

The ceremony and pageantry is where the church can come in. And many people, perhaps a majority, will not feel married until the marriage ceremony is concluded in a church or temple.

I understand the underlying and latent homophobia about same-sex marriage. But apart from a person's personal discomfort, does the State have a compelling interest in preventing same-sex unions?

At one time, people of different races were blocked from being married (miscegenation) and these laws were on the books in many States within living memory. It was argued that children of "mixed races" or even "mixed religious heritage" would end up badly off.

The last vestige of this is banning same-sex marriage.

But I ask, if a same-sex couple wants to be married, so what? How is my life changed by this? Am I going to go out of my way and ask that a Constitutional Amendment be passed to block that? "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

I think that if a religious denomination does not wish to perform a ceremony for a same-sex couple, they should not be forced to do so, but at the same time, if two people of the same-sex who are of the age of consent and otherwise legally able to marry, then the same-sex couple should not be prevented from getting a certificate from the State (aka City Hall) and then have witnesses and a person of religious or secular authority to sign off.

funny you would mention the church dana, because in cultures where there is no church, there is still marriage. and it has everything to do with male hegemony and wealth accumulation. in other words: marriage is what the culture says it is.

that said, i think marriage should be eliminated in favor of civil unions for everyone. you could have a wedding ceremony if you choose, but it would have no legal meaning. it would exist solely as a religious or spiritual ceremony.

now why areligious would chose to get married? the legal protections are one huge reason. property inheritance, property splitting in the event of a breakup, next of kin issues -- all tremendous reasons to get married.

I'd really hoped this discussion would stay in the realm of the practical; i.e., what civil unions mean, whether that's equivalent, why heteros don't have a comparable option, etc.

Manicmom, "changed His mind?" You keep kosher, right? Because God "said" it's an abomination to eat pork.

Please let's not get into a scriptural pissing match. While I'm all for holding the scriptures close to your heart (if you choose to follow them), I'm also for remembering that all we have to guide us in organized religion is our best INTERPRETATION of God's will. Comments like that are why I'm afraid to tell people I'm Christian; as a whole, we appear to be a pretty inflexible and judgemental lot. Go figure.

--
Mir from WCS
(BlogHer Mommy & Family contributing editor)

Personal: Woulda Coulda Shoulda ( http://wouldashoulda.com/ )

At Ty's Toy Box: Listen to your Mommy! ( http://tystoyboxblog.com/ )

When you're talking about basic civil rights, then I believe a church really has to follow the letter of the law. Your church can't believe it's ok to sacrifice virgins or enslave another human being etc... But, I don't really believe that marriage is a basic civil right, either.

~Denise
Daily Dose of Denise ( http://flamingohouse.blogs.com )

just because you only know queers who have been unable to "make it" for more than 2 years doesn't mean they aren't that serious when it comes to monogamy.

What it means is different for every single one of those people, there are more reasons for breaking up than there are for hooking up. One of the reasons might be that the pressure placed on a gay relationship by a condescending, judgemental and unaccepting society, (not to mention their family, friends and coworkers), is more than they can take - as a couple or as individuals.

Would your relationship survive if you were judged and poked and prodded and examined and denied in one way or another, EVERY SINGLE DAY by someone?

Walk a mile in their shoes before you judge people by your standards, please.

By the way, my g/f and I just celebrated our 4th anniversary, after a year of "dating". Do we have to hit the 10 year mark? or the 20 before you consider us serious about monogamy? Just wondering.

~Denise
Daily Dose of Denise ( http://flamingohouse.blogs.com )

I had to come back to this. I wonder why this issue is something you feel strongly about that is wrong in the states when there are just as many issues that are as important or more important. Why aren't we lobbying the government for Universal Healthcare for everyone? Gay straight or undecided? There are many people, myself included, living a lower quality of health because we can't afford insurance. I like the socialist part of our neighbors to the north for that very reason.

Also, another unfair practice is our ungodly materinity leaves in the states leaves much to be desired? When you have children, will it bother you that many women are forced to go back to work 6 or even less weeks so they can maintain a job, health benefits, and other benefits? I'm not criticizing you in the least, I just wonder if there are other things you wouldn't be able to the US just because someone can't do it? I'm not meaning to be harsh, I just think there's alot more important issues to be rallying for that affect all of us.

Space and Time ( http://melissanandjoshua.blogspot.com )

Thanks for commenting manicmom (and everyone!)

I have to say that is an interesting concern. I find it hard to believe that a religious institution would ever be forced to go against it's own doctrines by the state.

My concern with civil unions to date is that they only exist for gay commitments - heterosexual couples still have to be "married," the civil option isn't open for them. (I may be wrong here, but I believe that's the case.) Plus, nowadays, there's issues where gay couples do have health insurance rights in some companies that heterosexual couples can't access unless they get married.

Growing pains, I suppose.

Thank you!

Thanks, Mir,

I wonder, do you know if that's true, that the concept of marriage was born in the church? I agree that it's not of ultimate relevance today if it was, but I have to admit I thought that the church probably borrowed it the same way Christmas was created from pagan winter festivals.

I'm a fundamental Christian and one of the things I worry about legalizing gay marriage is that what protection does the church have if they refuse to marry someone? My church wouldn't marry them, but I would hate to see us sued because we held firm to what we believe.

I agree with the civil union(kind of) because then it wouldn't involve the church. Just because the word marriage has evolved in society doesn't mean God evolved and changed His mind how he felt about it.

Space and Time ( http://melissanandjoshua.blogspot.com )

Quakers are a diverse lot, and practices vary from meeting to meeting, but there are among Friends many marriages bound by the couple and shared by the community without a great deal of concern for what the state has to say. "Marriage under the care of the meeting" is a beautiful thing and many, many meetings are simply concerned that the couple share clarity about their love and commitment, and less concerned with gender.

Some people consider taxes a matter of choice and conscience. Why shouldn't the same thinking apply to state licensure of relationships?

This probably doesn't answer the concerns about insurance and whatnot.

Oooh oooh Mr. Kotter! Pick ME!

I'll call you judgemental and ignorant. As long as you asked.

Anecdotal evidence or a sample size of 6 (or whatever) doesn't equal statistical validation.

I've noticed my gay and lesbian friends are not "that serious" when it comes to monogamy.

Right. Well. What we've learned from that is... that your friends seem to break up a lot. It has absolutely zero bearing on the gay community as a whole, or whether this segment of the population is entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Last time I checked, no one asked "how seriously do you REALLY take this?" before issuing a marriage license.

I've gotta say, I found that incredibly offensive (and I'm hetero). Even if it was true... your point is...?

Then again, I guess I'll have to own up to having a bias right at the beginning of your comment. You're a devout Catholic who disagrees with your church's view of homosexuality? But you continue to worship within their teachings? Ooooookay.

Personally, I couldn't worship at a church that upheld what I believe to be such a fundamental lack of respect for human rights. But maybe that's just me. And yeah, I'm a Christian, and I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I also think that saying "marriage began in the church" as a justification for it being unavailable to those who wish to join OUTSIDE of a church is rather... narrow. Marriage--like many things in our society--has transformed into something more than a religious ceremony. It's available outside of that setting for just that reason. And it should be available to everyone.

Great post, Liz. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

--
Mir from WCS
(BlogHer Mommy & Family contributing editor)

Personal: Woulda Coulda Shoulda ( http://wouldashoulda.com/ )

At Ty's Toy Box: Listen to your Mommy! ( http://tystoyboxblog.com/ )

Thanks for your article, Liz. I appreciate the resolve of people like you (and Charlize Theron ( http://tinyurl.com/zoy65 )) in not taking advantage of rights that are denied same-sex couples.

A Legal Guide for Lesbian and Gay Couples, by Nolo Press, is a good resource if you're working on a "legal connection package." It's aimed at LGBT folks, but I think a lot of it is applicable to any unmarried couple. Most attorneys who specialize in LGBT issues do have experience in preparing these types of documents, as you say. The Human Rights Campaign has an attorney referral tool ( http://tinyurl.com/kwqzm ) to start people in the right direction.

FYI, there are currently 1138 ( http://tinyurl.com/5ga95 ) federal rights granted to married heterosexual couples that are denied to same-sex couples. I imagine unmarried heterosexual couples are also denied many of them.

I don't have a financial analysis of the marriage tax vs. private insurance, but if you're interested, there's an analysis of The Cost of Marriage Inequality to Children and Their Same-Sex Parents ( http://tinyurl.com/quru5 ).

Regards,
Dana

Mombian: Sustenance for Lesbian Moms
http://www.mombian.com