What will become of marriage?

On the final page of the 'Harm in Homosexuality' thread, the posts have suddenly become more civil and the discussion is turning more toward a definition of marriage. That's what I'd like to continue.Even some ultra-right Christians are starting to get the message that marriage, as it exists and is treated under law today, is very much not about procreation; it hasn't been for decades. The reactionary Family Research Council has apparently come to this realization, as evidenced by this piece by Allan Carlson.Carlson argues not only for returning marriage to it's procreative roots but also for bringing back the shame and stigma of illegitimacy. This is about as intolerant as it gets (at least I should hope so), but the FRC deserves some credit for recognizing that the definition of marriage has been changing for decades and that gay marriage is a natural progression of those changes.Any thoughts?

---

Dog is my copilot.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

quote:

---

On the final page of the 'Harm in Homosexuality' thread, the posts have suddenly become more civil and the discussion is turning more toward a definition of marriage. That's what I'd like to continue.

---

Reposting a comment from a thread I posted at the same time:At the end of the Harm in Homosexuality? thread, it was being increasingly suggested that the state drop the word "marriage" altogether and grant rights and privileges based on civil unions - which would be available to all couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual. The individual churches would have the freedom to grant or deny marriages based on their own terms, but in legal terms same-sex and opposite-sex unions would be equal. See Message 303 for the simplest explanation, as I seem to be having troubles conveying ideas today. As far as I see it, as long as the state isn't maintaining separate terms for homosexual and heterosexual unions (as with granting marriages to heterosexual couples and civil unions to homosexual couples), there is no risk of "separate but equal" inequality. It doesn't particularly matter to me if the government legalizes same-sex marriages or grants unions with equal rights and privileges to all couples, as long as no couples are denied rights that others are granted. At this point, it doesn't look likely that "same-sex marriage" will be allowed any time soon, but it seems that a surprisingly high amount of people are more willing to compromise if the term "marriage" isn't being used.Therefore, my questions are:What would objections to this idea be, if any (from either side of the marriage debate)?
This is more speculative, but I also wonder why such views haven’t gotten more attention from either media or legislators — especially Democrats, given that many detractors of gay marriage simply object to the attack on the traditional meaning of marriage.This message has been edited by Morte, 11-26-2004 02:21 PM

And you don't think the bigots would see that as an even more direct attack on marriage?The problem is not the terminology. The problem is that there are bigots that will oppose any attempt to grant equal status to lessor beings.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yeah, that's what I've been saying for ages. Yes, the government getting out of marriage is the most sensible solution. But that doesn't mean it's the most workable. The cries of, "look! The homosexuals finally destroyed marriage" would be deafening.The problem is, the reason the "civil unions for everybody" solution is so sensible is that it separates religion from government. But a good chunk of opponents to gay marriage have no interest in separating government and religion; they want the government to recognize their religion's definition of marriage.

You are completely right. The fight is not over gay rights, that is simply the excuse. The fight is a drive to turn the US into a theocracy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Just to let you know the link wasn't working for me, though I think it was on their server end.I am going to disagree with you in a very nuanced way.I very much hope that whatever we have... unions/marriage/etc... is still mostly about property and procreation. Not in the legitimation of having children department but in securing specific legal rights for what we want to call our family.Anything beyond that is a bit scary for me.I think, or hope, what you meant to say is that it is not just about procreation anymore. Otherwise, if it is only about creating some sort of legal recognition for people in love, what we have is government stepping in to legally legitimate relationships.That would force people in relationships to choosing to get married, ie take part in a ceremony they may not like or want to have to take part in.Some people would rather not have to put their social lives under legal contract.I think the dutch have a pretty interesting system. They have marriages, registered partners, and even if you have neither of those, then you can still get some legal benefits for people in proven long term relationships (without it being declared a marriage). The marriages are not religious and you have a civil ceremony with a judge. If you want a religious wedding then you have a second one after the civil one.What then is the difference between the marriage and the registered partnerships? Not much as far as I can tell. Indeed it may just be for those who are gay or do not want the stigma of getting married, since it has a historical connotation many do not like.Interestingly enough you don't see anyone freaking out here about "seperate but equal" issues.So to summarize, while the definition of marriage has been changing in many people's minds (including mine) that it is about legal contracts for those in relationships, without expectation for children, and so open to many varieties of relationships, I think it is important that it remain principly recognized as a legal tool and not some social sanction of a relationship.If it is just the latter, then we should relegate them all to churches or other community groups.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

One wonders though, if they might be willing to go for civil unions for all, if they can be convinced that it will in some way return power to the churches.For example, putting marriage in the legal books is exactly why it is desirable to those they find undesirable.With it off the books then they can suddenly create things like Official Baptist Marriages, or TVangelist Marriages. These will not be on the legal books and so they can prevent gays from getting "really married" forever and ever. In their churches and private lives they can even discriminate based on such distinctions. Like "family trips" will only accept families as recognized as OBMs.I think "privatizing religion" could be sold to many people, even those desiring the theocracy. Heck you could even pitch it as logical. Privating things is good. Deregulating is good. If the government is in charge of marriages then it is a public institution open to public regulation.Even if the top neocons have a problem with that, the lower level people may go for it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, I agree with both you and jar on this point. Trouble is, as the linked FRC article above points out, there is probably no legal way to keep marriage as it is today without allowing gays to marry.Marriage will thus have to change one way or another and the only potential change that would exclude gays would be a re-definition of marriage as being only for procreation.Given the choice between (1) marriage only for procreation with civil unions for everyone else (gay or straight), (2) marriage for everyone or (3) civil unions for everyone with the term 'marriage' left only for the churches to bestow and recognize, which do you see as the most likely?

---

Dog is my copilot.

quote:

---

And you don't think the bigots would see that as an even more direct attack on marriage?

---

I don't see how - the state is leaving marriage up to the churches. That's exactly what they want - a traditional, church-sponsored "marriage". Meanwhile, legally same-sex and opposite-sex unions are given the same treatment.I can understand your view - if you had asked me even a month ago I would have stated support only for allowing same-sex marriage. But if equal rights are granted from the state's perspective and no separate name is used, does it really matter what it's called? They could call it "secular marriage" or for all I care. Just as long as the legal term isn't separate for heterosexuals and homosexuals.

quote:

---

The problem is not the terminology.

---

To many, it is. If I had a quarter for every time I'd heard someone say, "I don't support gay marriage, but I do support equal civil unions" or "I'd support gay marriage if it wasn't called 'marriage'" I'd be rich.Now, I don't particularly understand why they place such emphasis on the word. But I don't understand why we do so either - I used to, because I thought it was important that it be called "marriage" for both orientations so that it would be equal. But calling it "civil union" for both orientations is also equal, and it removes the problem of the social stigma attached to the word "marriage"...From an e-mail I wrote in the middle of October:

quote:

---

What I really cannot understand are people who say that they accept civil unions but not marriage. In most issues, I can understand a moderate stance, but it just doesn't make sense to me in this context - if you don't think it's wrong, or you don't think it's the government's *place* to tell them it's wrong, why not let them marry? Why would you support a *government* ban on the marriages but not the civil unions? It's neither real equality nor the "enforced morality" some are calling for ... No reasoning I can fathom would lead to such a view in the first place, and yet it seems to be the most prevalent amongst people I know.

---

My response now would be:But if it's no longer legally called "marriage" for heterosexuals, does it matter what the name is? As long as unions between homosexuals and unions between heterosexuals are called the same term in legislation, does it matter that the term is "marriage"?

I don't know. Let's ask Jerry Falwell? Doesn't sound like he sees it that way.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I very much hope that whatever we have... unions/marriage/etc... is still mostly about property and procreation. Not in the legitimation of having children department but in securing specific legal rights for what we want to call our family.

---

I see what you're saying, holmes, but it is that very idea of procreation that provides the only basis for which marriage can be denied to gays while being maintained in law independent of churches. Please try the linked article again, it took a moment for it to load when I last checked, but it did load.In a nutshell, the article argues that unless marriage is redefined as being for procreation, there is no legal basis for denying it to gays. The writer is fully aware that such a re-definition will mean that marriage rights will be denied to many straights as well as gays, but he says, more or less, "so be it".Incidentally, the writer also calls for destroying the 'right to privacy' under which old laws making contraception illegal were struck down by courts.

---

Dog is my copilot.

I said neocons at the top may not buy into that. Certainly I was under no illusion that Fallwell would. That guy is scary as anything.I can only hope he keeps saying things like you just quoted and scare enough Republicans straight next couple elections.He really is overestimating his power and missing how many voted Red just to go party line, but are for abortion rights and against God stamped everywhere.Heheheh... Maybe Arnold Schwarzenneger will start making some good speeches to counter that clown and build up the moderate Reps. I think he'd have much more pull than Fallwell.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes if it is defined as only about procreation, and they somehow make artificial insemination and/or adoption not count as "children" for gay couples.I wasn't saying that marriage should be only about procreation (how is he going to handle infertile couples I wonder?), just that it shouldn't only be about "love". It is a legal contract and should not be used by the gov't purely as a social sanction for relationships. That is exactly the business that the gov't should be getting out of at this point.It should be about property, children, and securing certain rights due to the financial commitments within the legal contract. That will leave it open to gays. Ahhhhhh the lovely stench of the FRC.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

The problem is, the reason the "civil unions for everybody" solution is so sensible is that it separates religion from government. But a good chunk of opponents to gay marriage have no interest in separating government and religion; they want the government to recognize their religion's definition of marriage.

---

I don't see the problem here. The government would be under no obligation to recognize church marriages, and the church would be under no obligation to recognize government unions.Were you talking about the difficulty in passing such a bill?{Edited to change "is" to "would be".}This message has been edited by Morte, 11-26-2004 03:43 PM