NationStates Jolt Archive

It wasn't a huge topic in the presidential election, but the subject of gay marriage was briefly brought up in the VP debate and both candidates mentioned the traditional concept of marriage. In California, it looks like they are about to make that the legal definition, too.
Here's my issue with this definition: I am fairly traditional when it comes to social issues, certainly more traditional than most people on this forum. However, in California and elsewhere, they're not talking about my tradition when they talk about traditional marriage. Despite being one the seven sacraments, no where in Proposition 8, or any other place for that matter, have politicians acknowledged the role the Church must play in the marriage. At first I just chalked it up to oversight, but now I'm starting to think their definition of marriage is completely different. Huh.

Now, because there are so many different traditions, wouldn't it make more sense for the state governments to stay out of the subject all together? Two or more people living together could apply for a civil union to get all of the property and visitation rights that currently go along with being a heterosexual married couple today, and if they so desire, get married in an institution of their choice. It wouldn't really be privatization of marriage, but would keep the government from performing a duty no religious group anywhere believes it has.

It wasn't a huge topic in the presidential election, but the subject of gay marriage was briefly brought up in the VP debate and both candidates mentioned the traditional concept of marriage. In California, it looks like they are about to make that the legal definition, too.
Here's my issue with this definition: I am fairly traditional when it comes to social issues, certainly more traditional than most people on this forum. However, in California and elsewhere, they're not talking about my tradition when they talk about traditional marriage. Despite being one the seven sacraments, no where in Proposition 8, or any other place for that matter, have politicians acknowledged the role the Church must play in the marriage. At first I just chalked it up to oversight, but now I'm starting to think their definition of marriage is completely different. Huh.

Now, because there are so many different traditions, wouldn't it make more sense for the state governments to stay out of the subject all together? Two or more people living together could apply for a civil union to get all of the property and visitation rights that currently go along with being a heterosexual married couple today, and if they so desire, get married in an institution of their choice. It wouldn't really be privatization of marriage, but would keep the government from performing a duty no religious group anywhere believes it has.People do get married by judges.
Religion doesn't have the right to claim any sort of dominance over the concept of marriage.

People do get married by judges.
Religion doesn't have the right to claim any sort of dominance over the concept of marriage.

But that is the claim made when people wish to restrict it to certain groups. And actually, social conservatives do have a point. Gay marriage has not existed in the United States much, so there's no way it can be traditional. But part of living in a pluralistic democracy is having many different traditions, and the government agreeing to have a more or less hands-off policy.

But that is the claim made when people wish to restrict it to certain groups. And actually, social conservatives do have a point. Gay marriage has not existed in the United States much, so there's no way it can be traditional. But part of living in a pluralistic democracy is having many different traditions, and the government agreeing to have a more or less hands-off policy.I simply disagree with how you worded the original post.
"How the church must play a role in the marriage."
No, in fact, they do not have to. It is perfectly legal to be married by a judge if you so wish.
I believe they're talking about marriage in the traditional sense of man and woman united.
Nothing to do with the church, other than the entire opposition to gay marriage thing.

I simply disagree with how you worded the original post.
"How the church must play a role in the marriage."
No, in fact, they do not have to. It is perfectly legal to be married by a judge if you so wish.
I believe they're talking about marriage in the traditional sense of man and woman united.
Nothing to do with the church, other than the entire opposition to gay marriage thing.

I was saying that sort of tongue-in-cheek. Sort of. I do genuinely believe in the sacrament; as I said, I'm fairly traditional. But I recognize other people as being "married," even if its by a judge.
Basically, I don't see how a judge marrying a man and a woman is more sacred than a judge marrying two men. Opponents of gay marriage bring up religion even when heterosexual marriage doesn't need to involve it. It seems unfair to hold gays up to the standards we don't hold others up to.

I was saying that sort of tongue-in-cheek. Sort of. I do genuinely believe in the sacrament; as I said, I'm fairly traditional. But I recognize other people as being "married," even if its by a judge.
Basically, I don't see how a judge marrying a man and a woman is more sacred than a judge marrying two men. Opponents of gay marriage bring up religion even when heterosexual marriage doesn't need to involve it. It seems unfair to hold gays up to the standards we don't hold others up to.Double standards are in fashion this time of year, or so I hear.

So I've been thinking about marriage a lot lately. I split up with my common-law spouse about three, four months ago...we never married. I did get married before that, a sort of 'marriage of convenience'...so the only time I really got married, it was a sham.

I'm a little leery of getting married for real, ever again. It's quite a thing to get out of, and other than legal consequences, it doesn't hold a lot of meaning for me. I mean, legal marriage as opposed to some other ceremony. I honestly don't see any qualitative difference (once again, other than legal).

So I'm starting to wonder if, there being no need to acquire those legal 'rights', if I would be okay with some other kind of 'non-legal' ceremony. Like...I wonder if I'd end up feeling like the ceremony itself wasn't enough, would I, because of social conditioning, feel like I needed that marriage license, the 'real binding' shit?

I think, knowing I CAN have that 'real binding' ceremony makes a difference. I won't ache for it, not really, because it's always there if I feel like accessing it. I am someone who doesn't really care that much for marriage, and yet even I would feel horribly discomfited, and cut out if I couldn't get a legal marriage. I can't imagine what someone who really wants that sort of acknowledged, legitimised relationship, being denied it. Why deny that to someone? Seriously? Just for shits and giggles?

I was going to babble some more, but I think I'll eat some nachos instead.

I was going to babble some more, but I think I'll eat some nachos instead.
What type of nachos?

What type of nachos?

Fuckingly awesome spicy beef, tonnes of green pepper, green onion, and black olives on whole grain nachos. Delicious green salsa.

Oooooh yeah.

Fuckingly awesome spicy beef, tonnes of green pepper, green onion, and black olives on whole grain nachos. Delicious green salsa.

Oooooh yeah.
I'm not a huge fan of nachos (the cheese thing is a turn-off), but those sound like they could be truly delectable.
Anyway, back to the topic...

Fuckingly awesome spicy beef, tonnes of green pepper, green onion, and black olives on whole grain nachos. Delicious green salsa.

Oooooh yeah.
I know you hate freedom for a living and all that, but quite why is there no soured cream on that nacho?

I know you hate freedom for a living and all that, but quite why is there no soured cream on that nacho?

Because the sour cream is in a big bowl that I'm dipping the nachoed and salsa'd mess into.

It is a pointless game of symantics.

Traditionally, marriage was not religious. It became religious when religions took over the roles of government.

There is no oversight in the lack of a mention of religion in Prop 8. The state does not concern itself with the church, by law. The state is worried about the legal contract that is marriage. The church does not have to play a role in marriage. Ever. At all. Marriage is first and foremost a secular legal contract.

Playing the symantics game is bullshit. All it does is waste time that could be spent actually taking care of something that is a problem, rather than getting rid of a few prudes cringing because "boys kissing boys is icky".

There is absolutly no reason to seperate terms except for this "ick" factor.

[/venting rant]

I feel better now :)

Because the sour cream is in a big bowl that I'm dipping the nachoed and salsa'd mess into.
*sighs*

That's like dipping curry and rice in rita or something. Just. Say. No.

Because the sour cream is in a big bowl that I'm dipping the nachoed and salsa'd mess into.May I...may I have some? :(
*quiet voice*

Why are all these legal trappings about the "secular" marriage there? If the government sees some use into legally changing some pair (triple, quadruple, etc.) of people's next-of-kin, then it's a legal contract. If someone wants to participate some "traditional" religious ritual, they do it with (whoever they genuflect to).

Seems like the right both want the church-decreed mysteries to be official and still have it secular and have legal effect. Call in the transubstantiation corps to double the cake will you?

I was going to babble some more, but I think I'll eat some nachos instead.

http://www.susiethomas.com/journal/images/derail.jpg

And thus it began, hundreds were hospitalized or killed in the horrible thread derailment that followed . . .

:p

More on topic: I question all traditions until I get a decent answer for their existence. Many of them apparently have none.

Why are all these legal trappings about the "secular" marriage there? If the government sees some use into legally changing some pair (triple, quadruple, etc.) of people's next-of-kin, then it's a legal contract. If someone wants to participate some "traditional" religious ritual, they do it with (whoever they genuflect to).

Seems like the right both want the church-decreed mysteries to be official and still have it secular and have legal effect. Call in the transubstantiation corps to double the cake will you?

Marriage is essentially a legal arrangement, moreso than a social one. A simple ceremony would fulfill the social needs...but the legal implications are frankly, more important. In one fell swoop, you distribute property rights, personal rights, and so forth...in a relatively inexpensive manner. Contractual rights equivalent to marital rights are either impossible to achieve, or so expensive to approximate, that it hardly makes sense.

Marriage is essentially a legal arrangement, moreso than a social one. A simple ceremony would fulfill the social needs...but the legal implications are frankly, more important. In one fell swoop, you distribute property rights, personal rights, and so forth...in a relatively inexpensive manner. Contractual rights equivalent to marital rights are either impossible to achieve, or so expensive to approximate, that it hardly makes sense.

It should be pointed out just how weak the social aspect of marriage is. A couple need not live in the same house, town, state, or nation to still be considered married. They don't need to speak to one another. They don't even have to acknoledge each others existance beyond the contract.

It wouldn't really be privatization of marriage

That's exactly what it would be.

I see no reason to concede civil marriage to the churches just because they arrogate to themselves ownership of the entire concept.

Because the sour cream is in a big bowl that I'm dipping the nachoed and salsa'd mess into.

And where is the lovely, gooey melted queso?

for anything that goes right, it seems like there always has to be one little, or not so little, imperfection that goes wrong.

obama's landslide was wonderful. this marage definician loonacy is really kind of, what one might hope to be a last kick of the death throws, of the pseudoreligious fanatacism with which economic intrests which could care less about morality, any more then they do the well being of persons or nations, have been able to con the simple minded for several decades now.

i think its a major misfortune that this kind of insanity slips by, but there it is.

considering how well so much else has gone, deplorable as such nonsense is, we can at least thank whatever there is, that it wasn't something a whole lot worse.

and i'm not saying that to trivialize the problem. after all, it was gays hitler first stabbed in the back, after certain forces among them, his 'brownshirts', had been insrumental in bringing him to power.

so there's a banana peel here, that's a serious hazard, we all have to look out for.
its fanatacism's sour grapes, several of these issues, irrationaly issues, like not letting gays marry, and all this trying to close the borders nonsense.

It wasn't a huge topic in the presidential election, but the subject of gay marriage was briefly brought up in the VP debate and both candidates mentioned the traditional concept of marriage.

A 30+ year old man owning a (or several) 12 year old woman (women) ?

A 30+ year old man owning a (or several) 12 year old woman (women) ?

See, there's the point. That is a traditional marriage, for someone.
[Privatization is] exactly what it would be.
Maybe it is, I didn't give it as much thought as I should have.
I see no reason to concede civil marriage to the churches just because they arrogate to themselves ownership of the entire concept.
But it's not civil marriage that would be privatized, civil marriage would be removed completely. As you say, churches do not have a monopoly on marriage. I'm arguing that the state government doesn't, either. Legally, the stuff surrounding marriage is totally secular; no where in the state registry does it say " the union of John Doe and Jane Smith Doe has been recognized as holy in the sight of the Lord, etc., etc." It would be possible to keep all of the legal trappings, which honestly I think very few people think of when they think of "marriage," and allow marriages to be performed privately, with no government rules or requirements.

Because the sour cream is in a big bowl that I'm dipping the nachoed and salsa'd mess into.
I think I love you. *is hungry*

See, there's the point. That is a traditional marriage, for someone.

Maybe it is, I didn't give it as much thought as I should have.

But it's not civil marriage that would be privatized, civil marriage would be removed completely. As you say, churches do not have a monopoly on marriage. I'm arguing that the state government doesn't, either. Legally, the stuff surrounding marriage is totally secular; no where in the state registry does it say " the union of John Doe and Jane Smith Doe has been recognized as holy in the sight of the Lord, etc., etc." It would be possible to keep all of the legal trappings, which honestly I think very few people think of when they think of "marriage," and allow marriages to be performed privately, with no government rules or requirements.
Does this mean you would also be trashing all the tax status rules, inheritance rules, joint ownership rules, spousal benefits insurance rules, and host of other benefits and privileges that the state attaches to marriage?

Does this mean you would also be trashing all the tax status rules, inheritance rules, joint ownership rules, spousal benefits insurance rules, and host of other benefits and privileges that the state attaches to marriage?

That's what "all the legal trappings" means.

Everybody gets civil partnerships. No more marriage. Now everyone can bitch.

Done and done.

Does this mean you would also be trashing all the tax status rules, inheritance rules, joint ownership rules, spousal benefits insurance rules, and host of other benefits and privileges that the state attaches to marriage?

No, I would count those as "legal trappings."

Let me try to restate my case, I feel like I started on the wrong foot. The only reason I really hear about for opposing gay marriage is social: people don't think God wants gays to marry, they feel it will be the beginning of a slippery slope, or their just plain old homophobes, without any frills. While I think these are silly reasons, they do highlight an important point, which is no one thinks of marriage from the legal standpoint. There are many different ways people define it, but rarely is it "what my state says is is a marriage." What I'm proposing is to recognize there is no one definition of marriage, that there will always be some people who disagree with the state definition, and so it would be easier and fairer to replace civil marriage with a much more general contract idea. People could continue to be married (or not) at facilities of their choice, but the state government would not attempt the impossible task of defining what marriage is.

So the legal status would still be the same, it just wouldn't be called marriage? Everybody would go get their civil union certificate from the state if they wanted to be legally bound, but you wouldn't get married by the state?

It wasn't a huge topic in the presidential election, but the subject of gay marriage was briefly brought up in the VP debate and both candidates mentioned the traditional concept of marriage. In California, it looks like they are about to make that the legal definition, too.
Here's my issue with this definition: I am fairly traditional when it comes to social issues, certainly more traditional than most people on this forum. However, in California and elsewhere, they're not talking about my tradition when they talk about traditional marriage. Despite being one the seven sacraments, no where in Proposition 8, or any other place for that matter, have politicians acknowledged the role the Church must play in the marriage. At first I just chalked it up to oversight, but now I'm starting to think their definition of marriage is completely different. Huh.

Now, because there are so many different traditions, wouldn't it make more sense for the state governments to stay out of the subject all together? Two or more people living together could apply for a civil union to get all of the property and visitation rights that currently go along with being a heterosexual married couple today, and if they so desire, get married in an institution of their choice. It wouldn't really be privatization of marriage, but would keep the government from performing a duty no religious group anywhere believes it has.

Everybody gets civil partnerships. No more marriage. Now everyone can bitch.

Done and done.

No, I would count those as "legal trappings."

Let me try to restate my case, I feel like I started on the wrong foot. The only reason I really hear about for opposing gay marriage is social: people don't think God wants gays to marry, they feel it will be the beginning of a slippery slope, or their just plain old homophobes, without any frills. While I think these are silly reasons, they do highlight an important point, which is no one thinks of marriage from the legal standpoint. There are many different ways people define it, but rarely is it "what my state says is is a marriage." What I'm proposing is to recognize there is no one definition of marriage, that there will always be some people who disagree with the state definition, and so it would be easier and fairer to replace civil marriage with a much more general contract idea. People could continue to be married (or not) at facilities of their choice, but the state government would not attempt the impossible task of defining what marriage is.

I've never been impressed by the "we must destroy marriage in order to save it" argument.

Marriage is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Marriage IS a legal institution deeply ingrained in the fabric of our law -- with literally thousands of corollary rights, privileges, and benefits.

The solution to this problem is to provide equal protection of the law to everyone: i.e., any two adults may get married regardless of gender.

EDIT: To be clear, the definition of "traditional marriage" as a nuclear family is utter bullshit. Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8810766&postcount=603) are some links on the matter from an old post (but I haven't checked to see if they still work -- and it appears several don't :() If anyone really wants to argue the point, I'll find fresher links.

I've never been impressed by the "we must destroy marriage in order to save it" argument.

Marriage is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Marriage IS a legal institution deeply ingrained in the fabric of our law -- with literally thousands of corollary rights, privileges, and benefits.

The solution to this problem is to provide equal protection of the law to everyone: i.e., any two adults may get married regardless of gender.

1. I am willing to bet that if you destroy it, the asshats will be running to the polls to have it re-instated for everybody in short order.

2. I wouldn't rely upon the Universal declaration of human rights.

3. It's just a word. If freedom of the press was replaced by freedom of the media, I wouldn't really care as long as the end result was the same. Why should anyone else.

While I am at it Churches should have to pay taxes. Chiseling fucks.

I've never been impressed by the "we must destroy marriage in order to save it" argument.

Marriage is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Marriage IS a legal institution deeply ingrained in the fabric of our law -- with literally thousands of corollary rights, privileges, and benefits.

The solution to this problem is to provide equal protection of the law to everyone: i.e., any two adults may get married regardless of gender.
I trust your legal judgment over mine. But isn't what you call marriage just as arbitrary (if slightly fairer) than what opponents of gay marriage say?

I think a key point is that "traditional marriage" is a VERY recent concept, within the last century or two. And its only "traditional" because its what a majority of people decide (or are told) to believe in. I will contend that marriage is not defined in the US constitution (at least last time I checked), but the constitution does grant EVERY US citizen equal rights. It also says states may not discriminate. Yet this is the current status.

In truth, it may take a bit for people to accept a "new" people (not that the idea of homosexuality is recent in any respect), just as it took a while for African Americans to be accepted. At the end of the day, a civil union has the same legal meaning, but as long as marriage is denied, it means the gay community does not have the same freedom that the rest of the country enjoys. And this is fundamentally wrong.

(Oh yah, Hi!)

[snipped] thing about 'traditional marriages' is the definition.

for some, 'Traditional Marriage' is any one or combination of the following.
older man and younger woman
both must be virgins
both must've lived together for several months
must be arrained and/or agreed upon by the fathers of both Groom and Bride
one man one woman
one man however many women he can support
Groom must pay for the Bride's dowery
etc...

so Traditional Marriages can be anything... including Same Sex Marriages.

which is why I try not to use the term 'traditional marriage'.

Fuckingly awesome spicy beef, tonnes of green pepper, green onion, and black olives on whole grain nachos. Delicious green salsa.

Oooooh yeah.

Ooooohhh now I'm hungry. Thanks Neesika!