I no longer recognize marriage

[sereneorange]

hat tip to fixed_air
I shall be using this with ass hats that are opposing Gay marriage

A gay man experiments with language, love and law.

 

I no longer recognize marriage. It’s a new thing I’m trying.
Turns out it’s fun.
Yesterday I called a woman’s spouse her boyfriend.

She says, correcting me, “He’s my husband,”
“Oh,” I say, “I no longer recognize marriage.”

The impact is obvious. I tried it on a man who has been in a relationship for years,

“How’s your longtime companion, Jill?”
“She’s my wife!”
“Yeah, well, my beliefs don’t recognize marriage.”

Fun. And instant, eyebrow-raising recognition. Suddenly the majority gets to feel what the minority feels. In a moment they feel what it’s like to have their relationship downgraded, and to have a much taken-for-granted right called into question because of another’s beliefs.
 

---

Truth be told, I don't think that marriage should be a legal status at all. I think that everyone should be allowed to have a civil union with one person at a time and if they want a religious marriage as well, do that too.

Comments

[qweerdo.livejournal.com]

I love this. If they say that the word "marriage" is a religious thing, then, we should take out all reference to it in all official government documents.

[serene-orange.livejournal.com]

ZACTLY!!

[qweerdo.livejournal.com]

It's so stupid, too. They've made such a big stink out of it being a religious word that we almost have to take it out of the law language.

[reanimated.livejournal.com]

"oh, well then i guess the government shouldn't recognize it, either."

[qweerdo.livejournal.com]

what?

[reanimated.livejournal.com]

"If they say that the word "marriage" is a religious thing..." you say "then i guess the govt shouldn't recognize it, either."

[1-rhiannon-1.livejournal.com]

I love this! This will be lots of fun! :D

[neanahe.livejournal.com]

Technically, marriage isn't a religious thing, but a legal one that defines a civil contract between two people who are not blood relatives to establish each other as their next of kin and to combine their worldly assets. This is why marriages can be presided over by a judge, to accommodate those who aren't religious. All marriages are, in fact, civil unions at their core.

Ideally, since religion and government are not supposed to impede on each other, recognizing homosexual marriage as a legal matter would not force any church or organization to bless or recognize a marriage they do not approve of. No pastor would have to preside over a union he or she thinks is a bad idea (for whatever the reason).

Eventually this will sort itself out. Most older people, for whom homosexuality was a social taboo, are freaked out by the idea of gay marriage. Most younger people (including the majority of young evangelical Christians, at least one survey has shown) are not. In another 20 years, as the old guard dies off, this issue will resolve itself in a fair and just way.

The civil rights movement took a few decades, and the gay rights movement won't be won over night, either. These things always take time. It's frustrating, but true. :P

[serene-orange.livejournal.com]

I know, but my feeling is, since the argument being used so often is that marriage is a matter of religion and people's religion doesn't allow for same sex marriages, then religion can have the damn word.

I am not gay, and I don't particularly want to be married, but I am extremely sick of people expecting everyone to live by the rules of their religion.

[captspastic.livejournal.com]

The way marriage is currently and traditionally been defined, isn't it both?

Trouble is, many of these religious organizations entities are trying to with marriage, what they attempt in EVERY aspect of modern Americans life. To take it over, and define it solely on their terms.

Marriage currently is defined as both a religious ceremony as well as a legal union. This is and has been nothing more than an attempt by the religious right agenda to cement more religious demagoguery into legislated law in this country.

[neanahe.livejournal.com]

I can stand up and claim that I own the Washington Monument and thus should be allowed to paint it hot pink, but that doesn't mean I do and can. What people say and what the facts are often at odds.

It is both, but the courts and the church preside over different aspects of marriage. The union is only as spiritual as the two people taking part in it, so I would argue that the legal aspect of it outweighs any other. This is why gays want the right to marry, because of the legal benefits of the institution.

The hard-core religious right only make up 25% of the population. Most religious people, for the record, don't even fall into this category of self definition. This 25% recently got their ass handed to them at the national polls, so they are not as powerful as they pretend to be. As for the gay marriage issues, California is a set back, and nothing more.

[captspastic.livejournal.com]

This 25% recently got their ass handed to them at the national polls, so they are not as powerful as they pretend to be. As for the gay marriage issues, California is a set back, and nothing more.

If you believe that, you weren't looking at the final Popular Vote tallies.

52% to 46% isn't exactly handing someone their ass on a platter. As unpopular as John McCain was, to still get 46% of the vote, isn't a landslide. It's scary.

As I have said before, with what the republican party has done to this country over the past 8 years, the democrats should have been able to run Fidel Castro as president and won in a landslide vote. The fact they ran someone like Barack Obama, and eeked out a 52% to 46% victory is absolutely nothing to rest on your laurels about.

[reanimated.livejournal.com]

this is the entire problem: "Technically, marriage isn't a religious thing, but a legal one"

it is a religious thing, made into law. the govt should not be using that word.

[neanahe.livejournal.com]

Ah, but the tradition of marriage has existed almost as long as mankind has, always with its feet in the legal world and one hand (the left, I'd guess, since that's where the ring is worn) the religious world.

In it's simplest terms, marriage is a social contract that creates a family unit. With marriage, a pair of people become one legal entity with regard to taxation, property dispersal, etc. It incorporates what was previously a casual relationship.

The reason the government is involved is because it is a contract, and the government has always overseen contracts and regulated them. This is why the feet of marriage - what it stands on and for - are in the realm of the law.

The hand of marriage, the sacred vows that most people make when they enter it, are in the world of religion. But the hand must reach out to grasp this side of marriage, and if it doesn't the institution still stands and is supported under the law. If you don't want to grasp any spiritual side to a marriage, if you just want to sign a license and have a judge pronounce you married, your marriage is still as valid as one of two people who exchanged vows in a church.

Hence, the law trumps the church in this regard.

And I say this as a religious person.

[reanimated.livejournal.com]

i think the legal and religious aspects need to be kept separate, which seems to require separate names for it. the conflation of the two causes problems.

[captspastic.livejournal.com]

Ah, but the tradition of marriage has existed almost as long as mankind has, always with its feet in the legal world and one hand (the left, I'd guess, since that's where the ring is worn) the religious world.

That is not EXACTLY an accurate statement. In actuality, marriage has only even started becoming ANY sort of legal issue in the last 50-75 years. Prior to that, it has always been treated as a private completely non-legal issue. Predominantly due to the fact that wives and children were considered "property" for a large part prior to that. Nor has it existed "as long as mankind has", nor was it's inception largely part of "creating a family unit". Again, it was a property issue. Attempting to create a barrier from unwelcome interference, so to speak (I.E. other men). You DO realize that as late as the 1800's, men routinely fought duels over women and to the winner, the women/property was rewarded. Meaning she had NO say so in the matter, whatsoever.

The reason government is involved in the legal marriage, and more accurately what you reference, the divorce actions has been pretty much as a result of the womens movement. Women, quite deservedly so, got tired of being tossed aside at some jack-asses whim and began seeking methods to make changes in laws that allowed them to have protection under the law, from unscrupulous husbands that would toss they and their children aside for little to no reason at all, leaving them out of the lurch, abandoned and in many cases, extreme dire straits. Remember, pre-nups weren't even thought of before the 1970's.

The hand of marriage, the sacred vows that most people make when they enter it, are in the world of religion. But the hand must reach out to grasp this side of marriage, and if it doesn't the institution still stands and is supported under the law. If you don't want to grasp any spiritual side to a marriage, if you just want to sign a license and have a judge pronounce you married, your marriage is still as valid as one of two people who exchanged vows in a church.

Leeet's not forget, that there are MANY religious marriage ceremonies that are and have existed outside of the law as well. Prior to the modern day issues concerning the "legal" definition of marriage, some of the more enlightened churches were already performing gay marriages without the benefit of legal licenses. The older, polygamist sects of the Mormons have been doing it for many, many, many years, since you can only have one LEGAL marriage license at a time. Won't even go into the marriage of what be by today's terms, under-age girls.

[captspastic.livejournal.com]

That is absolute, brilliant, inspired genius!

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

It's annoying how people fall back on their religion and claim it isn't their bias against homosexuals but the Lord God.

Yeah, well, like slavery and interracial marriage, the Bible turns out to be wrong about other things.

[reanimated.livejournal.com]

the bible is not a legal document, nor is it an accurate history book.

[theclamsman.livejournal.com]

I think that everyone should be allowed to have a civil union with one person at a time and if they want a religious marriage as well, do that too.

Sssssso...I can have a civil union with one person and a religious marriage with another? SIGN ME UP! :D

[serene-orange.livejournal.com]

if the church is okay with it, and it means nothing legally, sure.

[reanimated.livejournal.com]

you'll be just like the mormons in texas then! congratulations!

[tubesoxrock.livejournal.com]

utah. not texas.

[reanimated.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints

[tempest-azure.livejournal.com]

I have held this belief for a very long time. When you get married, the bride/groom/family pays for it, not the government. You have to file for a license for tax purposes. When a divorce happens you go to CIVIL court. In my humble opinion, married couples should receive no benefits from taxes and all marriages should be conducted on a non governmental term. Everything acquired through the marriage would be settled by civil lawyers outside of court.

That way if Joe and Fred wanna get married they have the same opportunities that Bill and Mary.