I know I'm going against the grain here, and people will be out to ridicule me, but my question is this:

Holy Matrimony a.k.a. marriage took it's origins as a ceremony in a church. I know, of all places right? So many non-religious person attack religion and churches and priests. So why then, if you don't believe in church would you wish to get married? And why then would the state even care who "makes it legal" or not? Marriage licenses aren't that expensive, and the fee for a Justice of the Peace isn't that costly either (in Wisconsin, anyway). It's not like it's a multi-million dollar "institution."

As a Catholic (insert your groans and gripes here), it was important that I be married in my church, because I do practice my religion and I have faith that God is with me. That said, I don't agree with the Catholics' condemnation of homosexuals. We simply cannot grasp the concept of why individuals, both heterosexual and homosexual, would wish to participate in "holy matrimony" (in a church, no less) if they are against the church or religion?

I have many gay and lesbian friends. They desperately wish to get married. I don't blame them. When you love someone, marriage is the next logical step. But some of these relationships have ended so badly in break-ups and tears. Out of all of the same-sex relationships I've witenssed, none have lasted longer than 2 years. Call me judgmental or ignorant, but I've noticed my gay and lesbian friends are not "that serious" when it comes to monogamy. I know it's not like this with all same-sex relationships, and I'm glad to know many partners have been together for 10 or more years.

In my opinion (take it with a grain of salt), I think they should be granted a civil union. Which is similar to marriage. The "marriage" terminology is so outdated. Most marriages end in divorce these days. Sad but true. Perhaps if people didn't take it so lightly it would still hold it's sacred value.

Dana/a>

Thanks for your article, Liz. I appreciate the resolve of people like you (and Charlize Theron) 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 to start people in the right direction.

FYI, there are currently 1138 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.

Regards,
Dana

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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
Simple Still Life

[Warning: Thread hijacking below]

...because this conversation demonstrates *exactly* what we are on about with BlogHer code of "civil disagreement" and omnipartisanship.

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
Surfette

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.