3. drives me crazy because it's SO ignorance driven. the law didn't make the Catholic church marry my Catholic father to my Jewish mother. Why would this be any different?
The fear of gay people being different and intrusive (I feel like the AIDS crisis convinced large swathes of the population that homosexuality itself is a virus, eager to insert itself into and overwriting their lives) is pervasive, in part, because, I feel like no one takes a damn civics class in school anymore. They don't know what laws means, they don't know what's in the constitution and they don't bloody care.
Also, if all legal marriage gets renamed to "civil unions" we still have the "gays are taking marriage away from us" argument.
oh i cant argue most of it... but i do know that "marriage" is a word with *religious* meaning to most people...most people do not think of it as civil law at all.... so by definition as soon as you say "marriage" you are talking religion to most folks. hence the furor.
also? a few events that are.. well lets call them what they are. stupid. have been used to scare the churches half to death.
ONE gay couple sues a church that wont let them marry in teh actual church building (they were talking about renting the hall and gazebo, and etc, and the churhc fellow was showing them around and basiclaly said "full access to anything except the actual church building interior" they sued the church lost the property.. had to sell it to pay the fine this is in EVERY single church bulleten about gay marriage i have ever seen.
Yes, I know about that case (it's relatively local). The gazebo is on a public beach and a designated historic location that receives funds for upkeep of the gazebo from the state because of its historic designation. The church was in the legal wrong in an admittedly complex situation.
Also, I was raised in two religions (minimum, long story), and I never, ever had an understanding that marriage is a strictly religious event. If it was, how could a person get married at City Hall or need a license?
nod well as for ME i figure all i need to know is 1. am i invited 2. where is your gift registry oh, and 3. whats the dress code
the re prints of the case do NOT talk about the state land... just the "gay people can legally demand to be married in YOUR church" which is scary if you dont think its in keeping with your religion.
the issue is..... Marriage is a DEEPLY religious event in many religions. its a sacrament equivalent to Holy Orders in the Catholic Church, for instance... one of the 7 Sacraments. not so much in other religions..... likewise in most of the born again groups....
the CIVIL side of marriage is the whole license and justice of the peace.
the confusion is we use the same word for both......and frankly i am of the opinion that the civil govt and religious lfe got too close for comfort a while ago on this topic.
but like it or not. marriage is a religious sacrement, a deeply religious binding of two people in many religions.... and i thinnk as long as we use that word for the civil and religious acts.... we are gonna have trouble
I refuse to use a different word for it because I'm gay. Are gay people who can get married in their churches and synagogues going to be not allowed to call it that?
I agree with you, dividing this out for everyone would be best, but I can't imagine that happening. Of course, at this point, I can't imagine anything good coming of this mess ever.
Approximately half of America would rather people like me be dead. That's the fact I hate myself for not being able to get used to.
wheras i think marriage is a word that has been used for both civil unions, and for religious ones. but since we HAVE a word for civil unions (that is.. civil unions) it makes sense to dump "marriage" out of the civil side, and continue its use for the religious side.
mostly because its going to be easier... and i dont think "gay people shoudl use a different word" i think ALL of us should use "civil union" for the paperwork and crp that means my taxes and next of kin and CIVIL law...... and marriage for religious stuff
and here we have part of the issue.. look how defensive you are getting over the choice of word.
i think we should divorce (pardon the pun) the CIVIL law governing the relationship between two people under CIVIL Govt....... and the RELIGIOUS ceremonies and beliefs.
i suggested the use of an existing term, "civil union" to be applied to all people, regardless of sexual orientation.. for civil law.
and people are getting angry that i might suggest that the GOVT not use one word, and instead use another.
will it change what you do? no will it change your legal status? no will it change your life? no
it would in fact put all of us equal under civil govt.. but people are angry and upset.. over what word to use. and THIS is the same position as the opponants of gay marriage.
how would changing what word the govt uses mean you were "not married" ? how would it change your relationship...... but you are willing to get upset and say it woudl... its the same thing form the other side
shrug i suspect the govt, with its love of legal language, will be easier to move to a new term, than churches its not "downgrading" anyone....not as far as i can see.
and i dont get that. if you get "maried" in civil court you can then not get "married " in church?why?
if we need to have different words for civil and religious unions. then *someone* has to give up the word married, and i doubt you can get the churches to give it up, but i think we could make an argument for the civil govt to do so.
the people who GET married would be able to use any term they like, the LEGAL term would be different for one than the other.
and you said "clerics should not be allowed to solemnize civil unions" and i ask why not?
In Canada gay and straight people can get married. There aren't two separate terms.
Changing the word only allows people who are entrenched in their religion or hatred to go on thinking and pursuing validation of the belief that straight marriages are more acceptable than gay. Not only that, but it would leave the door open to legal differences. Being married entitles you to 'x', being in a civil union entitles you to 'y'. You can bet that the deeply conservative would pursue this sort of division in an instant, no matter the intention.
Not to mention, but being gay =/= being an atheist. I know many gay people who would be offended that though they are faithful, they can't call themselves the same as what their straight counterparts can.
and again.. if all couples..... straight or not... need to have a civil contract to be "married" under civil law... and teh govt has NOTHING to do with religious ceremony, how can the govt discriminate?
people who want to think your marriage is less than their marriage will do so regardless. the law will not change their minds.
well if we divide the words out, then obviously if your church or what not permits mariages between people of the same sex, its a marriage.... but you take the CIVIL law right out of it.
do i think it will happen? sigh... no do i think it SHOULD be that i, a het married lady, have to deal with the fact that my churches opinions of my relationship... and my tax status are different things? yup. i think we really, desperately, need to divide out the religious marriage.... and the civil legal contract
and i will remind you that there are many many people who dont think you should be able to marry someone of your same gender...... who do not want to see you hurt, or dead.. or anything. they may or may not wish to DEAL with you at all, but most of the people i know(an admittedly limited sample) who oppose gay marriage... are totally opposed to the idea that anyone should be assaulted or harmed for their gender choices or what not.
my husband was against gay marriage for a long time...... and he is hardly in favor of harming you or anyone.... it wasnt until i pointed out the CIVIL meaning of a marriage, that we have... that our friends who are gay CANNOT get without jumping through hoops.... that he came around. it doesnt equate all the time.
i suspect the problem does end up with polarized sides...... since certainly SOME, (and the loudest) anti gay marriage folks are potentially dangerous.... it is a safety thing to assume that anyone anti gay marriage is potentially hazardous.
just remember, the vast majority...... the people who are the main body of voters. dont really CARE what you do as long as they dont have to personally deal with it...... the reason they vote against gay marriage is because they think they WILL have to deal with it, and they think it will involve their religion. the same people who are fine with "that nice gay couple across teh street" are voting against marriage because they are afraid of what it will mean for their church. .... because "marriage " is religious.
Marriage in officially athiestic communist countries was marriage. Marriage between two atheists in this country is marriage. Marriage started as an economic partnership. Marriage as a religious sacrament is a cultural second thought.
Let me just say, as a person in who is in a civil, heterosexual marriage:
but like it or not. marriage is a religious sacrement, a deeply religious binding of two people in many religions.... and i thinnk as long as we use that word for the civil and religious acts.... we are gonna have trouble
Then the religious people need a different word for *their* arrangement. "Sacrament of matrimony", for instance.
WE WERE THERE FIRST. Marriage as a human institution is older and more widespread than any religion in particular, or even than religion in general. The fact that a lot of Americans think it's *primarily* religious is unfortunate, but they are WRONG.
I will not let them -- or you! -- say that my civil marriage isn't "really" marriage, that I should be willing to drop a word that is woven into our legal codes, because it destroys their delusion that all human institutions are religious.
No. Civil marriage *is* marriage. I am just as married as someone who was married in a church.
Hear bloody hear, and amen. (Also married in a civil ceremony, and very happy with it.)
The one thing I *didn't* like about getting married was filling out the paperwork for the license and reading that same-sex couples were specifically forbidden to plow through the exact forms that I was.
as i said..... i dont have any problem with anyone being married. but i think the confusion between civil and religious terms will only be resolved by DIVIDING the terminology
and under CIVIL law... well... fine, you have a basis for demanding CIVIL rights..... but when you demand that people change their religious beliefs to suit you? no they wont.
so in my non expert opinion the way to get over the problem that a lot of people are opposing your civil rights on religious grounds, is to *separate* the terminology.. legally.
since we already have a term for the contract under civil law that is a civil marriage. "civil union" i suggest we have the givt only. ONLY recognize that leave the churches to their own choices.
Seconded. Why should ... ah, never mind. I can't let myself get drawn into this right now; too many other stressors etc. going on, but... let everyone marry. If they want to have a religious ceremony, call it "holy" matrimony rather than just "matrimony", or "holy marriage" rather than just marriage.
Too simple for the bigots to accept, though. Damn.
You are absolutely right about the ignorance factor. A semantic point they seem to be missing: we have two general types of wedding ceremonies, religious and secular, but as far as the legality of the resulting marriages, they are all equal. The Catholic Church may not allow a wedding between two divorced people, and will never be forced to perform such a wedding ceremony, but they cannot stop those people from being legally married. The Church may not recognize the marriage, but it has no authority over the legal rights.
As far as I can tell, any religion can be as bigotted as it likes; that's a separate problem that has you feeling like you're beating your head against a wall. And honestly, I doubt that bigotry and hatred and fear of The Other can ever be eliminated from human nature. We can only work to eliminate their ability to abuse and mistreat people. And it has been pointed out frequently that human rights are not to be determined by popular vote; if we had waited for general social approval, would anyone vote except white male property owners?
nod and right now. for various reasons..... the churches are convinced that if the state legalizes gay marriage, they WILL be forced to accept it. reasonable? probably not.....
but if you dont understand the fear that is driving your opponants, you cannot do anything about it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rm
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 12:07 am (UTC)The fear of gay people being different and intrusive (I feel like the AIDS crisis convinced large swathes of the population that homosexuality itself is a virus, eager to insert itself into and overwriting their lives) is pervasive, in part, because, I feel like no one takes a damn civics class in school anymore. They don't know what laws means, they don't know what's in the constitution and they don't bloody care.
Also, if all legal marriage gets renamed to "civil unions" we still have the "gays are taking marriage away from us" argument.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 12:30 am (UTC)so by definition as soon as you say "marriage" you are talking religion to most folks.
hence the furor.
also? a few events that are.. well lets call them what they are. stupid. have been used to scare the churches half to death.
ONE gay couple sues a church that wont let them marry in teh actual church building (they were talking about renting the hall and gazebo, and etc, and the churhc fellow was showing them around and basiclaly said "full access to anything except the actual church building interior"
they sued
the church lost the property.. had to sell it to pay the fine
this is in EVERY single church bulleten about gay marriage i have ever seen.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 12:33 am (UTC)Also, I was raised in two religions (minimum, long story), and I never, ever had an understanding that marriage is a strictly religious event. If it was, how could a person get married at City Hall or need a license?
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 12:44 am (UTC)well as for ME i figure all i need to know is
1. am i invited
2. where is your gift registry
oh, and 3. whats the dress code
the re prints of the case do NOT talk about the state land... just the "gay people can legally demand to be married in YOUR church" which is scary if you dont think its in keeping with your religion.
the issue is..... Marriage is a DEEPLY religious event in many religions. its a sacrament equivalent to Holy Orders in the Catholic Church, for instance... one of the 7 Sacraments. not so much in other religions.....
likewise in most of the born again groups....
the CIVIL side of marriage is the whole license and justice of the peace.
the confusion is we use the same word for both......and frankly i am of the opinion that the civil govt and religious lfe got too close for comfort a while ago on this topic.
but like it or not. marriage is a religious sacrement, a deeply religious binding of two people in many religions.... and i thinnk as long as we use that word for the civil and religious acts.... we are gonna have trouble
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 12:50 am (UTC)I agree with you, dividing this out for everyone would be best, but I can't imagine that happening. Of course, at this point, I can't imagine anything good coming of this mess ever.
Approximately half of America would rather people like me be dead. That's the fact I hate myself for not being able to get used to.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 01:07 am (UTC)I agree, and I'm straight. I think the word "marriage" has been sullied by the bigots who don't want to let gays in love share the word.
Let THEM use other words for their ceremony: sealing for the Mormons, holy matrimony for them that cares, etc.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 03:24 am (UTC)but since we HAVE a word for civil unions (that is.. civil unions) it makes sense to dump "marriage" out of the civil side, and continue its use for the religious side.
mostly because its going to be easier... and i dont think "gay people shoudl use a different word" i think ALL of us should use "civil union" for the paperwork and crp that means my taxes and next of kin and CIVIL law......
and marriage for religious stuff
all of us
straight or not
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 03:33 am (UTC)Since my husband is essentially an atheist in all but name, that would mean I wasn't married either.
and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 03:47 am (UTC)i think we should divorce (pardon the pun) the CIVIL law governing the relationship between two people under CIVIL Govt.......
and the RELIGIOUS ceremonies and beliefs.
i suggested the use of an existing term, "civil union"
to be applied to all people, regardless of sexual orientation.. for civil law.
and people are getting angry that i might suggest that the GOVT not use one word, and instead use another.
will it change what you do? no
will it change your legal status? no
will it change your life?
no
it would in fact put all of us equal under civil govt.. but people are angry and upset.. over what word to use.
and THIS is the same position as the opponants of gay marriage.
how would changing what word the govt uses mean you were "not married" ? how would it change your relationship...... but you are willing to get upset and say it woudl...
its the same thing form the other side
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 03:56 am (UTC)Most faiths have their own terms, and they can also use marriage if they wish.
My bigger idea: don't let clergy solemnize civil marriages.
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 04:02 am (UTC)i suspect the govt, with its love of legal language, will be easier to move to a new term, than churches
its not "downgrading" anyone....not as far as i can see.
and i dont get that. if you get "maried" in civil court you can then not get "married " in church?why?
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 04:09 am (UTC)That's a downgrade to me.
Maybe you're not thinking about those of us who don't go to church. I'm a solitary pagan.
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 04:17 am (UTC)the people who GET married would be able to use any term they like, the LEGAL term would be different for one than the other.
and you said "clerics should not be allowed to solemnize civil unions" and i ask why not?
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
From:Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 04:56 am (UTC)Changing the word only allows people who are entrenched in their religion or hatred to go on thinking and pursuing validation of the belief that straight marriages are more acceptable than gay. Not only that, but it would leave the door open to legal differences. Being married entitles you to 'x', being in a civil union entitles you to 'y'. You can bet that the deeply conservative would pursue this sort of division in an instant, no matter the intention.
Not to mention, but being gay =/= being an atheist. I know many gay people who would be offended that though they are faithful, they can't call themselves the same as what their straight counterparts can.
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 05:01 am (UTC)people who want to think your marriage is less than their marriage will do so regardless. the law will not change their minds.
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
From:Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
From:Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
From:no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 04:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 03:21 am (UTC)do i think it will happen? sigh... no
do i think it SHOULD be that i, a het married lady, have to deal with the fact that my churches opinions of my relationship... and my tax status are different things? yup. i think we really, desperately, need to divide out the religious marriage.... and the civil legal contract
and i will remind you that there are many many people who dont think you should be able to marry someone of your same gender...... who do not want to see you hurt, or dead.. or anything. they may or may not wish to DEAL with you at all, but most of the people i know(an admittedly limited sample) who oppose gay marriage... are totally opposed to the idea that anyone should be assaulted or harmed for their gender choices or what not.
my husband was against gay marriage for a long time...... and he is hardly in favor of harming you or anyone.... it wasnt until i pointed out the CIVIL meaning of a marriage, that we have... that our friends who are gay CANNOT get without jumping through hoops.... that he came around. it doesnt equate all the time.
i suspect the problem does end up with polarized sides...... since certainly SOME, (and the loudest) anti gay marriage folks are potentially dangerous.... it is a safety thing to assume that anyone anti gay marriage is potentially hazardous.
just remember, the vast majority...... the people who are the main body of voters. dont really CARE what you do as long as they dont have to personally deal with it...... the reason they vote against gay marriage is because they think they WILL have to deal with it, and they think it will involve their religion. the same people who are fine with "that nice gay couple across teh street" are voting against marriage because they are afraid of what it will mean for their church. .... because "marriage " is religious.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 08:45 am (UTC)Not to take away from what you are saying, but to say that there is a lot of stupid in America.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 01:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 02:24 am (UTC)but like it or not. marriage is a religious sacrement, a deeply religious binding of two people in many religions.... and i thinnk as long as we use that word for the civil and religious acts.... we are gonna have trouble
Then the religious people need a different word for *their* arrangement. "Sacrament of matrimony", for instance.
WE WERE THERE FIRST. Marriage as a human institution is older and more widespread than any religion in particular, or even than religion in general. The fact that a lot of Americans think it's *primarily* religious is unfortunate, but they are WRONG.
I will not let them -- or you! -- say that my civil marriage isn't "really" marriage, that I should be willing to drop a word that is woven into our legal codes, because it destroys their delusion that all human institutions are religious.
No. Civil marriage *is* marriage. I am just as married as someone who was married in a church.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 03:05 am (UTC)The one thing I *didn't* like about getting married was filling out the paperwork for the license and reading that same-sex couples were specifically forbidden to plow through the exact forms that I was.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 03:31 am (UTC)and under CIVIL law... well... fine, you have a basis for demanding CIVIL rights.....
but when you demand that people change their religious beliefs to suit you? no
they wont.
so in my non expert opinion the way to get over the problem that a lot of people are opposing your civil rights on religious grounds, is to *separate* the terminology.. legally.
since we already have a term for the contract under civil law that is a civil marriage. "civil union" i suggest we have the givt only. ONLY recognize that
leave the churches to their own choices.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 06:02 am (UTC)Too simple for the bigots to accept, though. Damn.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 01:13 am (UTC)As far as I can tell, any religion can be as bigotted as it likes; that's a separate problem that has you feeling like you're beating your head against a wall. And honestly, I doubt that bigotry and hatred and fear of The Other can ever be eliminated from human nature. We can only work to eliminate their ability to abuse and mistreat people. And it has been pointed out frequently that human rights are not to be determined by popular vote; if we had waited for general social approval, would anyone vote except white male property owners?
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 03:34 am (UTC)and right now. for various reasons..... the churches are convinced that if the state legalizes gay marriage, they WILL be forced to accept it.
reasonable? probably not.....
but if you dont understand the fear that is driving your opponants, you cannot do anything about it.