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.

[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]

That is absolute, brilliant, inspired genius!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[neanahe.livejournal.com]

Landslide, smlandside. Who cares? The Dems took both houses of Congress and the White house, and that's what counts. It doesn't take a Regan-sized landslide; just the right, slight majority in the right places. I'm not resting on my laurels (as they are lumpy, uncomfortable things to rest upon, and they make my back hurt in the morning). I just don't believe in hysteria, and I think a lot of other people don't either. After 8 years of having our most basic fears played upon, I think people are hungry for reason and common sense.

That is what the election of Obama was really all about; calm over hysteria, and calm won and it won by a higher margin than Shrub Bush ever carried. There will always be people on the left as well as the right waiving their hands and screeching that the sky is falling. It's just an acorn (as opposed to ACORN), people. Relax. We can figure this out and get through it. We're tough, and justice has a way of prevailing in the long run.

[captspastic.livejournal.com]

Landslide, smlandside. Who cares?

If you don't want a repeat of the last 8 years in the near future. YOU should.

[reanimated.livejournal.com]

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

[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.

[reanimated.livejournal.com]

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

[reanimated.livejournal.com]

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

[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."

[qweerdo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's what I said.

[reanimated.livejournal.com]

okay, never mind, guess i shouldn't try to show agreement with you. -_-

[qweerdo.livejournal.com]

I'm fine with you agreeing. I just didn't understand why your first comment was in quotes.

[reanimated.livejournal.com]

then why say 'that's what i said'? i know that. ;-) never mind, i guess i failed at being silly.