Hell with Prop 8. Can we repeal marriage altogether? For everyone? As far as I’m concerned, the government belongs out of my bedroom, and out of my relationships period. They don’t have a say in who I can be friends with, they shouldn’t have a say in who I choose to be more than friends with, regardless of the depth or expected length of my commitment. Civil unions for everyone, fine. Let people form whatever sort of contracts they like. That’s most of what a legal marriage is, anyway. Not much different from a business partnership, except that the business is a life and a home instead of an occupation and a shop (say). And most of the clauses that belong in that business contract (that are currently automagically the consequences of being legally married) are perfectly legal clauses to stick into any contract between any two people. Or three people. Or as many as you damned well please. I don’t think even the most extreme religious types have a problem with two men going into business with each other. Or three men. Or eleventy. The main issue seems to be that the entire concept of marriage, and those aspects of it that go above and beyond the black and white letter of the law, are inextricably tied up with things like religion and personal values. Which is fine. But those things are none of the government’s business. I don’t know why that’s not more obvious. It’s all very personal, and really has nothing to do with the logistics of running a city, state, or country, so mind your own beeswax, G-Men. Let’s just make the two things separate. Problem solved. If a particular church doesn’t want to marry anyone but heterosexuals, fine. If they don’t want to marry fourteen transvestites, whatever. Those fourteen transvestites can take their business elsewhere. But anyone who wants to gets to decide to combine their finances, share joint ownership of a home, blah blah blah. Hardly any change from what’s already possible. No big friggin’ deal. We run into a few issues when it comes to children, but I don’t think they’re anything that can’t be worked out. Health insurance is another problem, but here’s the solution to that one: universal health care.
Personally, I don’t much believe in marriage. I think a lot of it is a bunch of religious hoobajoob, and otherwise a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo. Neither of which has anything to do with how I feel about my husband, really. If I wasn’t part of an international couple, I probably wouldn’t have messed with it. It’s more or less a shortcut to signing a whole mess of other legal documents. I truly don’t see what all the fuss is about. Whether or not homosexuals are allowed to marry… is their behaviour going to change? That’s a big, fat, fucking no. What changed after my wedding… Let’s see… I dunno. Zip squat. Oh, right. I had an extra piece of paper lying around. Seems like a whole lot of kerfuffle over a bit of semantics (I got scolded every time I tried to make an argument out of semantics when I was a kid — I would like to scold this entire loopy country in turn). Call them married, or call them two people who live together, enjoy fucking, and plan to keep doing it for a while. What-ever. Nothing meaningful will be different.
I’ve been arguing this, although little less passionately, for a few years now.
I think there was actually a scene on The West Wing where a gay congressman had said he wanted the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.
Marriage is a label we put onto a religious ceremony/union and an entity that is formed when two people choose to live as a couple permanently (or indefinitely).
I think the government got into marriage business many centuries ago because they wanted to usurp the church’s authority on the matter.
In my opinion – if you want to get married – go to a church and that can be your little ceremony – but that ceremony should have nothing to do with whether the government think you’re together.
All other people (straight and otherwise) should have to form a “civil union” or some other binding agreement very much like a partnership agreement.
In fact, I think they should be compelled to do just that and put it in writing – including who will do what, how much each will contribute and what happens when one person dies or they decide to end it.
Then they should be forced to sign it in front of some kind of notary and a public official (judge, clerk, etc.).
I think if people were forced to look at and sign a document telling them all the implications involved with being married – you’d have a lot less marriages and a lot less divorces of those that do get married.
Nice post.
I’ve been arguing this, although little less passionately, for a few years now.
I think there was actually a scene on The West Wing where a gay congressman had said he wanted the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.
Marriage is a label we put onto a religious ceremony/union and an entity that is formed when two people choose to live as a couple permanently (or indefinitely).
I think the government got into marriage business many centuries ago because they wanted to usurp the church’s authority on the matter.
In my opinion – if you want to get married – go to a church and that can be your little ceremony – but that ceremony should have nothing to do with whether the government think you’re together.
All other people (straight and otherwise) should have to form a “civil union” or some other binding agreement very much like a partnership agreement.
In fact, I think they should be compelled to do just that and put it in writing – including who will do what, how much each will contribute and what happens when one person dies or they decide to end it.
Then they should be forced to sign it in front of some kind of notary and a public official (judge, clerk, etc.).
I think if people were forced to look at and sign a document telling them all the implications involved with being married – you’d have a lot less marriages and a lot less divorces of those that do get married.
Nice post.
The system we have now is inextricably intertwined with the Christian ideal of marriage, which is precisely the reason the government should step away. They are essentially giving exclusive support to a religious paradigm that simply does not apply to everyone or to every situation. The legal implications have little to do with the symbolic/social/personal implications, and those should be completely up to individuals to decide upon how to approach, especially since they just do not have any particular effect on society at large. Whether a couple/triad/yadda-yadda wants a church wedding, a hand fasting, or no ceremony whatsoever, it’s a separate issue. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but nobody should be free to meddle in the personal affairs of complete strangers.
I was married in a completely secular ceremony by a member of the Universal Life Church (basically the ULC is a loophole that allows anyone who wants to to become an ordained minister). I would imagine that according to strict Christian tradition, they’d have to consider me to be unmarried, since God had nothing to do with it. Except that by law, I am married (since they conflate what the government does with what their church does), and therefore Christians somehow feel justified in believing that their Christian dogma about marriage applies to me. It does not. And this really does bother me. I don’t appreciate having all of their expectations on me. I feel free to approach my marriage in any way my husband and I find appropriate. Screw anyone who thinks that the piece of paper I’ve got in my files restricts me to a certain, pre-conceived (mainly religiously-derived) set of appropriate behaviours. If the government gave that piece of paper a different name, I think I would be spared some of this burden.
Marriage between one man and one woman… to me, that’s a violation of the separation of church and state. This is an ideological issue. It’s a freedom of expression issue. And try as hard as they may, preventing people from using the title “married” will not change anyone’s biology or actions. You can’t cause an entire class of human beings and their associated behaviours to cease to exist by eliminating the vocabulary. I don’t care what Orwell wrote in Nineteen Eighty-Four. I still can’t see what these assholes think they’re accomplishing.
I’m actually becoming quite disgusted with the term “married” altogether. Too many religious implications for an atheist like me. I think I’d like to find some other way to describe my situation. Christians can keep their “marriage”… I’d like to see the rest of us abandon it, replacing it with whatever we find personally meaningful.
The system we have now is inextricably intertwined with the Christian ideal of marriage, which is precisely the reason the government should step away. They are essentially giving exclusive support to a religious paradigm that simply does not apply to everyone or to every situation. The legal implications have little to do with the symbolic/social/personal implications, and those should be completely up to individuals to decide upon how to approach, especially since they just do not have any particular effect on society at large. Whether a couple/triad/yadda-yadda wants a church wedding, a hand fasting, or no ceremony whatsoever, it’s a separate issue. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but nobody should be free to meddle in the personal affairs of complete strangers.
I was married in a completely secular ceremony by a member of the Universal Life Church (basically the ULC is a loophole that allows anyone who wants to to become an ordained minister). I would imagine that according to strict Christian tradition, they’d have to consider me to be unmarried, since God had nothing to do with it. Except that by law, I am married (since they conflate what the government does with what their church does), and therefore Christians somehow feel justified in believing that their Christian dogma about marriage applies to me. It does not. And this really does bother me. I don’t appreciate having all of their expectations on me. I feel free to approach my marriage in any way my husband and I find appropriate. Screw anyone who thinks that the piece of paper I’ve got in my files restricts me to a certain, pre-conceived (mainly religiously-derived) set of appropriate behaviours. If the government gave that piece of paper a different name, I think I would be spared some of this burden.
Marriage between one man and one woman… to me, that’s a violation of the separation of church and state. This is an ideological issue. It’s a freedom of expression issue. And try as hard as they may, preventing people from using the title “married” will not change anyone’s biology or actions. You can’t cause an entire class of human beings and their associated behaviours to cease to exist by eliminating the vocabulary. I don’t care what Orwell wrote in Nineteen Eighty-Four. I still can’t see what these assholes think they’re accomplishing.
I’m actually becoming quite disgusted with the term “married” altogether. Too many religious implications for an atheist like me. I think I’d like to find some other way to describe my situation. Christians can keep their “marriage”… I’d like to see the rest of us abandon it, replacing it with whatever we find personally meaningful.