Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Baffler]

*waggles hand* If marriage as a legal concept was replaced wholesale by civil unions (holding all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities, of course -- marriage with the name filed off), there wouldn't be much debate. Even in areas where civil unions and marriages currently are legally equal, there's still (fairly appropriate) attempts to allow for same sex marriage. Separate but equal is not equal and all that.

But yeah, pretty much the entire crux of the issue is (religious) people holding the borderline blasphemous belief that the secular and religious institutions of marriage are the same thing. Making the implicit statement that the court is equal to god isn't something I'd exactly be comfortable with, were I religious, m'self :V

You've got it backwards, see. Religious people see others campaigning to allow gay marriage, and see a blasphemous denigration of the religious institution of marriage, by importing (some of) the trappings of the religious institution into the civil one, to put next to things that the religious institution does not allow.

I'm fine with formal unions between gay couples. And I know that I'm going to be dogpiled on and called a shitlord as certainly as I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but the word 'marriage' carries further connotations and I would rather people didn't give the name to those unions.

[Frumple]

Then you don't want marriage to have any legal import whatsoever, really. You want it kept in the church and out of the court room. That'd also nicely side step that not exactly minor issue of not all religions having the same connotations.

... I'd be curious to know what those trappings mentioned are, though. Legal same sex marriage doesn't exactly marry the couple in the eyes of god. And other than the word itself, which the religious folks kinda' only have themselves to blame for it being co-opted for secular use, I can't really think of any.

[Bohandas]

*waggles hand* If marriage as a legal concept was replaced wholesale by civil unions (holding all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities, of course -- marriage with the name filed off), there wouldn't be much debate. Even in areas where civil unions and marriages currently are legally equal, there's still (fairly appropriate) attempts to allow for same sex marriage. Separate but equal is not equal and all that.

But yeah, pretty much the entire crux of the issue is (religious) people holding the borderline blasphemous belief that the secular and religious institutions of marriage are the same thing. Making the implicit statement that the court is equal to god isn't something I'd exactly be comfortable with, were I religious, m'self :V

It's not *equal* to god, it is, in this context, *ABOVE* god.

[Baffler]

Then you don't want marriage to have any legal import whatsoever, really. You want it kept in the church and out of the court room.

Yeah. There's not really any more need for the state to subsidize marriages in the form of tax benefits, and that's all a civil union in the United States really is. Dependents I'm perfectly fine with, but just being married? There's no point now. You'd need to decouple things like medical consent too, but that's small potatoes by comparison.

That'd also nicely side step that not exactly minor issue of not all religions having the same connotations.

Precisely.

... I'd be curious to know what those trappings mentioned are, though.

The overt religious pieces are picked out, but a lot of the elements of the traditional Christian ceremony often hang around. This website, for instance, offers advice on modifying the traditional script, which is full of religious symbolism in its complete form. Not everyone goes for that, but "traditional-style gay weddings" are absolutely a thing.

And other than the word itself, which the religious folks kinda' only have themselves to blame for it being co-opted for secular use

How so?

[Bohandas]

Then you don't want marriage to have any legal import whatsoever, really.

That would be the ideal situation. I honestly can't imagine any valid reason why it should have legal import; and clearly the fact that it currently does causes problems.

EDIT:
Actually, the ideal situation would be for the whole institution of marriage to disappear -entirely-, from law, from religion, from culture, from everything and be relegated to the trash heap of history (and possibly also hipsters doing it ironically). If you really want to stay together you shouldn't need some shameful contract to enforce it; the only thing that adds is the possibility of regretting it later.

[Rolan7]

*waggles hand* If marriage as a legal concept was replaced wholesale by civil unions (holding all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities, of course -- marriage with the name filed off), there wouldn't be much debate. Even in areas where civil unions and marriages currently are legally equal, there's still (fairly appropriate) attempts to allow for same sex marriage. Separate but equal is not equal and all that.

But yeah, pretty much the entire crux of the issue is (religious) people holding the borderline blasphemous belief that the secular and religious institutions of marriage are the same thing. Making the implicit statement that the court is equal to god isn't something I'd exactly be comfortable with, were I religious, m'self :V

You've got it backwards, see. Religious people see others campaigning to allow gay marriage, and see a blasphemous denigration of the religious institution of marriage, by importing (some of) the trappings of the religious institution into the civil one, to put next to things that the religious institution does not allow.

I'm fine with formal unions between gay couples. And I know that I'm going to be dogpiled on and called a shitlord as certainly as I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but the word 'marriage' carries further connotations and I would rather people didn't give the name to those unions.

At one point I was fine with civil unions, it seemed like a fine compromise.  Why should I care what it's called, as long as people can enjoy the same effective rights?  It's just a word, and holding a mere word as sacred is just a fundie thing.

That was my perspective as an edgy, bitter young atheist from a broken home.  A lot of my friends were similarly disillusioned.  But what I eventually saw was that a lot of marriages *do* work out.  It's actually more common for non-religious families.  And it was still called marriage, because that word has primal meaning.

If religion defines marriage, which religion?  Why are atheists allowed to marry, if gays aren't?  Because marriage isn't religious, or even purely cultural.  Our species has an instinct for lifetime relationships, and marriage is just a word for that.  We put trappings of culture around it, and along the way we wrapped it in religion too.  But at it's core it's nothing more than wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone, with intimacy and reciprocation.

A cousin of mine finally got married last week.  It wasn't a clinical "civil union" for tax purposes, it was a recognition that they are two humans in love, hopefully for the rest of their lives.  There's a word for that, is what I'm saying.

[WealthyRadish]

She almost certainly got the idea from other clerks who have previously pulled the same stunt in favor of gay marriage in states where it wasn't legal, and I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned in the article. At least here in Colorado I remember local-level clerks doing the same thing in favor of gay marriage at least twice within the last two years, though the latest was during the political limbo the law was in after a circuit court dismissed a case attempting to ban gay marriage, with the clerk issuing licenses before being authorized to. I'm fairly sure the one prior to that was a pure political stunt and activist statement, triggered by a change in another state's law.

I personally found it hilarious that someone would do this rather than just resign, and she obviously has an even flimsier legal ground than the other defiant clerks, but to condemn the action on the grounds that it's illegal... do you feel the same way about the other clerks issuing licenses to gay couples while it was illegal? I severely doubt it (and that's not necessarily a bad thing, many good changes have come about through peaceful breaches of the law), and if that's the case, I would at least try to respect her making a stand like this. I think her beliefs about religion's role in government are ridiculous and frankly it's an embarrassment for American politics and culture that she's getting popular support for this, but it would be hypocritical of me to say what she's doing isn't in some ways admirable if I supported those clerks in Boulder doing the same thing in support of gay marriage. Of course, you may not support those earlier clerks, but that would be a surprise coming from a gay rights activist.

[Leafsnail]

People were getting married for thousands of years before Christianity was around, I don't see why it should get to claim a monopoly on the term and force everyone to abide by its prejudiced rules on it.

[Bohandas]

She almost certainly got the idea from other clerks who have previously pulled the same stunt in favor of gay marriage in states where it wasn't legal, and I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned in the article. At least here in Colorado I remember local-level clerks doing the same thing in favor of gay marriage at least twice within the last two years, though the latest was during the political limbo the law was in after a circuit court dismissed a case attempting to ban gay marriage, with the clerk issuing licenses before being authorized to. I'm fairly sure the one prior to that was a pure political stunt and activist statement, triggered by a change in another state's law.

I personally found it hilarious that someone would do this rather than just resign, and she obviously has an even flimsier legal ground than the other defiant clerks, but to condemn the action on the grounds that it's illegal... do you feel the same way about the other clerks issuing licenses to gay couples while it was illegal? I severely doubt it (and that's not necessarily a bad thing, many good changes have come about through peaceful breaches of the law), and if that's the case, I would at least try to respect her making a stand like this. I think her beliefs about religion's role in government are ridiculous and frankly it's an embarrassment for American politics and culture that she's getting popular support for this, but it would be hypocritical of me to say what she's doing isn't in some ways admirable if I supported those clerks in Boulder doing the same thing in support of gay marriage. Of course, you may not support those earlier clerks, but that would be a surprise coming from a gay rights activist.

I don't support those other clerks. Not to a degree where given the choice between condemning both them and this religious wingnut versus letting them both go I would choose to let it go.

Again, while I favor equality I would have preferred to see that equality brought about by marriage being abolished, not by it being expanded.

[Frumple]

The overt religious pieces are picked out, but a lot of the elements of the traditional Christian ceremony often hang around. This website, for instance, offers advice on modifying the traditional script, which is full of religious symbolism in its complete form. Not everyone goes for that, but "traditional-style gay weddings" are absolutely a thing.

Heh, they are, but marriage ceremonies and marriage are two different things. The legal process really has very little to do with the former -- it requires some signed papers and similar scutwork, and that's really about it.

M'actually fairly okay with complaining about or being discomforted by the traditional ceremonies being appropriated, though it always seems a little silly considering the variations surrounding the process. Monolithic as the abrahamic churches like to think they are, they're kinda' not the only shows in town. Unfortunately marriage itself doesn't have terribly much to do with that, for all that the churches have been doing their damnedest to appropriate the term for themselves.

... thinking on it a little more, I guess you could make an argument about there being parallel between the one-in-the-eyes-of-god and one-in-the-eyes-of-taxesthe state, but if you go that far you'd be fighting against anything that even looks like marriage, regardless of what it's called or what tradition it originated from. And as I've since been ninja'd, the concept predates most of the religions against inclusive marriage laws rather substantially.

How so?

Not just little to no resistance to marriage being suborned as a secular concept, but active and regular attempts to directly couple the two. Easily the greatest, most fervent, and most regular proponents for bringing the court into the church has been the religious side of things. Boils down to 'em wanting to be catered to by the legal system, and damn whoever gets shafted by it (which is significantly more people than homosexual couples, by the by).

It would have been fairly easy for the religious groups to say, "No. Use a different term." to the legal trappings, and refuse association (which might not have stopped the cultural (re)appropriation, but at least it would have mostly stopped the silly shit we're dealing with nowadays). But they didn't, and have since largely and vigorously insisted against any other course of action, even rallying against equal institutions by a different name -- see the nature of civil unions in the US, just as an example. The secular world has co-opted the term marriage to a fair extent because the religious one has pretty consistently refused to accept or offer other options.

It wasn't a clinical "civil union" for tax purposes, it was a recognition that they are two humans in love, hopefully for the rest of their lives.  There's a word for that, is what I'm saying.

T'be honest, that's half the reason I'd like to see marriage ditched as a legal term. It's supposed to be about union and lasting love, or at least publicly declared relations, not taxation and hospital visits and whatnot. Let marriage be decided by the married, not the county clerk's office. And don't let the latter claim any dominion over it. Keep them clinical and right the hell away from your relationship dynamics.

[Descan]

There's also the fact that plenty of religions are like "What, gay marriage? Sure. Why are you even asking? We've got no problem with it!" and they had been prevented from practicing that. :v Do we not allow them to call it marriage either?

[Calidovi]

People were getting married for thousands of years before Christianity was around, I don't see why it should get to claim a monopoly on the term and force everyone to abide by its prejudiced rules on it.

Might makes right.

To actually respond to your statement, marriage may have been around, but not in the form that we know of. "Modern" concepts were introduced with Judaism but continually changed over time, though little by little.

[Truean]

Wow, this where I don't care WHAT people think but I care HOW they reach their conclusions. So many flaws, sir:

False comparison between her illegality and clerks who issued gay marriage licenses recently, when that was illegal.

No. Full stop. You've missed something of absolutely, completely, utterly critical significance here: Standing.

Standing is required to sue. Standing is having a law effect you personally. People deliberately do illegal acts, like say, issuing a gay marriage licenses when it's illegal, to get standing so that they are allowed to sue. They are trying to seek legal redress from the government. She isn't; she's just thumbing her nose at the law.

Those earlier clerks, who deliberately, illegally issued gay marriages, were trying to start a court case to convince the government that gay marriage was right. Specifically, they were trying to initiate a lawsuit about it for formal legal discussion. She isn't; and she knows that's impossible now. She knows that formal legal discussion has already happened in the form of a supreme court lawsuit. Her side was well funded, and heard at length. It lost. She doesn't care about reason, logic, fairness, or anything. She's pissed cause she doesn't like gays and she's hiding her bigotry behind religion. She's purposefully trying to look like a victim and a martyr while throwing a hissy fit, cause her side lost fair and square.

There's no comparison between her and earlier clerks who recently issued gay marriage licenses they knew were illegal. Those clerks were TRYING to get the courts involved. The court already told her and everyone else no. She's telling the courts her version of God (as opposed to anybody else's) is more powerful than they are and to go pound salt. BIG difference. Huge difference.

The clerks who illegally issued gay marriages are properly compared to the clerks who illegally issued interracial marriages between white people and black people. Both were trying to get standing to start a lawsuit. This lady, has to know that's not possible, because there was just a lawsuit over this. The court isn't going to rehear it just because she doesn't like it, and they already sure as heck considered "I think God doesn't like it" as part of the lawsuit last month. They already ruled against it once, why on earth wouldn't they rule against it again 2 months later...?

She knows she's not gonna get standing. She doesn't want the court to intervene; she wants them to buzz off to put it politely. She's doing it anyhow.

[Rolan7]

It did make it back to the Supreme Court, though.  Which it *shouldn't* have because they already decided, so this was a massive waste of time.  But I guess she was trying to get another day in the highest court of the land, and got it.  Because Christianity.

I guess my limited understanding is that the clerks who issued gay marriage licenses should be fine, because the Supreme Court ruled in their favor - retroactively justifying their actions.  Otherwise, I guess they would be fired for failing to perform their duties.

Unlike those extremist Christians who refused to perform their duties after the ruling, and got weeks of press time...  Did any of them even get fired?  Maybe they were excused because they were acting according to their convictions, as if that's actually a valid excuse for breaking the law.

But as much as I dislike this lady, she seems to have done the same thing the pro-gay-rights clerks did.  Forced the issue back into the courts.  If that's a valid excuse for them, I guess it is for her too.

[Leafsnail]

Might makes right.

To actually respond to your statement, marriage may have been around, but not in the form that we know of. "Modern" concepts were introduced with Judaism but continually changed over time, though little by little.

And they have been changed once again to be more inclusive.