Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
then pretty soon churches and the religious ceremony of marriage will be completely separated from the civil/legal contract. It can't happen soon enough.
I've always though churches granting a legal status was just plain screwed up. Let the churches marry who they want, and let the government grant civil unions to any pair of consenting adults. Simple arrangement that avoids soooooo much trouble.
the first two comments.
As a gay man who is (finally) legally married in my home state, I must say I have mixed feelings about this. If it is only a matter that the couple will need to get a legal magistrate to sign the marriage certificate, it is just a symbolic act and is only a small imposition on the couple. However, what I don't like is when heterosexual couples forego legal marriage, or even marriage in any form for this reason. That makes the statement that legal marriage is not important and that is exactly the opposite message that the equal marriage movement is trying to make. Denying same sex couples legal marriage is denying them an significant civil and human right and we shouldn't be saying that right is not important.
"For supporters of gay marriage, it means avoiding the possibility that friends who are homosexual will never achieve marriage status, and for those on the other side of the debate, it means the religious communities they belong to won't be forced to comply with a state mandate with which they disagree."
The latter part of this statement merely legitimizes the misleading fear-mongering that the anti-gay-marriage forces have put forth.
No church in this country has ever been forced to perform a marriage ceremony against its dogma. And none ever will. It would be a violation of the first amendment. We have plenty of precedent to demonstrate that.
Catholic churches have never been forced to perform ceremonies for couples in which one or both parties are divorced, even though those marriages are legal in the U.S.
No church was ever forced to perform marriages for interracial couples, even after Loving vs. Virginia.
Churches have been able to put any restrictions on marriages they perform as they want. If a church says that the couple must have pre-marital counseling, or not live together, or whatever, the law has never said otherwise. The couple can get legally married; they can't legally force the church to marry them.
The claim that "if gays can get married, then our church will be forced to marry them" is simply a lie used to scare people about gay marriage and legitimize denying gay couples equal rights under the law. I always thought lying was a sin, but apparently the anti-equality folks have made an exception.
I'm married. Since we are atheists, we did not get married in a church, and no clergy were involved at all. How does this "I won't" campaign apply? How is any church "in the marriage business" when you don't need a church to get married?
How on earth did the state get the right to determine who can and cannot get married?
Gays should be fighting to wipe out the state's right to create yet another class of "more equal" people (the "married") rather than trying to get themselves into the "more equal" category.
If our government was not extending special privileges and additional welfare (think "survivor's benefits to those who once were more equal but now are just equal single people), no one would give a rats ass who got married.
Marriage should be something performed in a church and if your particular church won't marry you to your gay boyfriend (or alternately, 4 women, your cousin, etc.) find one that will.
The clergy are going about this the wrong way: they should still perform the marriage but only to those WITHOUT a "license". The term "marriage license" is so offensive in so many ways: how dare the state dictate your most personal decision. Next thing you know they'll begin torturing--oh that's right, we do that too.
Single people: America's largest group of discriminated against.
the church gives the seal of approval and the state sets up the legal details.
Imagine if you needed a "single" license.
As far as gay marriage, I empathize with any citizens who aren't being treated equally. But we could avoid all this If we got back to basics: it violates the church/state separation that the Constitution's Establishment Clause guarantees us when the state empowers clerics to marry (i.e., legally unite) a couple, whether gay OR straight. Leave this administrative function to the government (city hall) to issue the license, register and authorize the union, without the unnecessary pageantry and superstition (find a cleric to opiate your union afterwards, if you want).
Separate the Church from the State. Everyone gets a marriage license, not signed by a clergy member. Everyone who wants a "church wedding", be they gay or straight, can have the ceremony after they are legally married, to be performed by the clergy of their choosing.
That being said, I do applaud the thought behind this effort. Kudos to the religious leaders who support love and have taken a moral stance against discrimination and the denial of a basic human right. I wish more religious leaders would agree that any two people brave enough, and in love enough, to make a lifetime commitment to each other deserve to be married. Unfortunately, I live in the so called "Bible Belt" and while we are making noticeable progress against hate and homophobia, it isn't going to happen here just yet.
I sent my resignation letter to the Southern Baptist Convention as a teenager to protest their ridiculous stance on Choice and rabid homophobia.
Ditto to almost all of the 10 letters posted so far. I'd like to bring up the collateral issue of all those legal privileges conferred by marriage: power of attorney, inheritance of property, hospital visitation, filing taxes jointly, survivors' benefits and pensions, medical decisions, family health insurance coverage, and of course guardianship of minors.
These are not religious issues. The standard argument that these privileges are only granted by society to facilitate the raising of children would be more believable if childless couples were denied them until/unless children came along. Try taking these rights away from your D.I.N.K. friends and see where that gets you!
I hope that this restructuring of our cultural symbols, led ironically by progressive churches, can help us see these rights as civil rights justly available to all equitably whether we be married or single.
P.S. I'm married 30 years and father of 3 single adults
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
