The result of the ConCon yesterday, while satisfying some here, has left a bitter taste in the mouths of a lot of people. While this proposed Constitutional amendment is virtually certain to die, if anyone thinks that this issue is going to die anytime soon, I am afraid to say that you are sadly mistaken. The legislatures inaction on this measure has done nothing to extinguish this as an issue in Massachusetts
That being said, I propose an idea (some may call it radical) to put this issue to rest once and for all. Eliminate the word marriage from state law, and call everything domestic partnerships or civil unions or some other term. It doesnt matter if it is between one man and one woman or two men or two women, dont call any of it marriage. I could be wrong, but I am fairly certain that this debate is over nothing but a word. When you break down the rights that are conferred unto currently married couples, and you ask people should they be extended to gay couples, you get a very favorable response. A solid majority of people think that gay couples should get the same rights as already married couples, but the hang up I feel comes from calling it marriage. Marriage is a term that has significant religious meaning for many people, and many of those people are truly good people, not demagogues like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. For many of these people, to allow the union of two homosexuals to be called marriage greatly demeans the religious significance of that term. It has been said in this debate that the church has no business in state affairs, well what business does the state have in hijacking a word that has deep meaning to many faithful? So instead of having this debate over nothing but one word, why not just leave marriages where they belong, in the church, and in respect to the state define everything as civil unions or domestic partnerships.?
When the Puritans came over to New England, they had been living with the Dutch in exile. One of the traditions they brought over was CIVIL MARRIAGE. The Puritans, of all people, kept the idea that government performs marriage and bestows the rights and responsibilities thereof.
<
p>
If you’re Jewish, you don’t need to have a rabbi or religious ceremony to define your marriage–if you got married by an authorized person, you’re married in the eyes of the religion. My husband and I got married by the town clerk, so therefore we’re married as Jews as well. If someone redefines “marriage” to be the religious ceremony, are we suddenly not married? Are we “unioned”?
<
p>
Of course that’s preposterous. But in the United States, the civil marriage is what’s recognized for all legal purposes. So if there is to be any redefining, it should be “civil marriage” and “religious union.” One of the whole points of gay rights is that as citizens, they have the exact same governmental rights and responsibilities as other citizens. The state decides who gets married.
<
p>
If a couple wants to have a spiritual blessing/ceremony, they can have a religious union in the house of worship of their choice.
<
p>
I’m not backing down for a bunch of closeted homophobes, which is what people who flinch at the idea of gay marriage are, if you dig down deep enough into their reasoning.
<
p>
Separate but equal. If the church chooses to recognize the civil union, that is their right. The only thing I am suggesting we change is the word, everything else, every right stays the same. And your referring to opponents of same-sex marriage as closeted homophobes does not really do much to advance your cause. While there are certainly some very despicable people who are in opposition to gay marriage, many people are rather fine people who have a serious problem with the state defining something that has a deep religious meaning, and for the state to define it as something other than what their church defines it as is something morally wrong in their view.
I first suggested this to GLBT activists five years ago, and blogged about it over a year ago when I first started.
<
p>
http://capecodporcup…
<
p>
The problem is the response upthread – no interest in solving the problem, just ‘I’m not gonna back down!’
<
p>
Well, neither are the Anti-gay marriage people, so see you in 2012!
Here’s a list of the Reps who voted to recess rather vote.
Try this link
“… people who have a serious problem with the state defining something that has a deep religious meaning, and for the state to define it as something other than what their church defines it as is something morally wrong in their view.”
<
p>
Most organized religions are homophobic. For someone to turn away from the idea that gay couples deserve the same rights as straight couples is homophobic, whether they couch it in religious terms or not. I’m not saying that these people think consciously that they’re homophobic, but that’s what it ultimately boils down to.
<
p>
Not to mention that religious canon has absolutely no legal standing.
And please read BOTH HALVES of the Establishment Clause which allows the unfettered practice of religion. It gives religion legal standing in the First Amendment.
<
p>
You can think they are homophobic. They can think you are morally wrong. It is still a free country.
<
p>
What problem do you have with marriage reverting to the religious establishment it came from, in return for all couples – gay and straight – receiving the same civil registration of their partnership?
the non religious who oppose gay marriage? Or those who oppose it but are not considered to be homophobes, even by their gay friends.
<
p>
It is possible to oppose gay marriage and not gay people. How many people oppose the war but not the warriors?
I really don’t think so. Because what you are saying is that I, as a gay man, should not have the same rights that you or your straight friends have. I pay taxes, I obey the laws, I give to charities, I have served in the military, I vote…why should I be less equal under the laws than you?
<
p>
It’s easy to say that you don’t “oppose” gay people, but you oppose gay marriage…apparently, you’re not opposed to me, you just don’t think we should be equals.
None of us should have the right to create children using genetic engineering, so none of us should have the right to have children with someone of our same sex. All of us have the right to marry and procreate with someone of the other sex.
<
p>
Supporting gay rights does not require supporting genetic engineering to create children for same-sex couples.
and for marriage society has decided (and the courts partially overrulled) that some people qualify for admittance and others don’t. This does not make some any better than others, it simply means the groups are different.
<
p>
By the way, you can ask the gay friends that I have invited to spend the night in my home, or gone on vacation with, or worked with, or volunteered with, or studied with, or have otherise enountered in my day to day life if I think of them as anything less than me. They, too, disagree with me on this issue, but likewise (I hope) do not think less of me as a person. In many cases these friends are smarter, funnier and all around better people than I am by a long shot. In that sense, we certainly are not equals and the benefit does not go to me.
given the fact that you feel empowered to deny them rights that you enjoy, I do imagine they think less of you in some regard. It’s kinda hard to respect people who wish to deny the expansion of rights to others. Geez.
None of us should have the right to create children using genetic engineering, so none of us should have the right to have children with someone of our same sex. All of us have the right to marry and procreate with someone of the other sex. See, lightiris? Everyone should have the same rights, and no one is trying to deny anyone any rights that they would continue to enjoy.
<
p>
Supporting gay rights does not require supporting genetic engineering to create children for same-sex couples.
<
p>
Let me ask you, do you think everyone should have the right to enter into a same-sex marriage?
several years ago that there should be slaves, that people couldn’t marry outside of their race, that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, etc., etc.
<
p>
Does this mean that because society said so, we should just concede, as you say, that “different institutions have different requirements”? I don’t think so.
lost control of my blockquote:
<
p>
Should read:
<
p>
<
p>
The word also has significant meaning to non-religous people. Why should they have to forfeit the term marriage as they understand it to convenience the sensibilities of religious people who oppose gay marriage?
Iris – calling my car a bicycle doesn’t give it two wheels. Automakers created cars, not drivers.
<
p>
Likewise, whatever significance ‘marriage’ may have acquired amongst non-religious people (who in my experience tend to be more the ‘just a piece of paper’ mentality) doesn’t rob it of its religious and sacred meaning derived from the religious institutions which created it.
<
p>
Will they be redefining unction, baptism and communion for us as well?
Unction, baptism and communion do not have any legal significance. Marriage does, such as on tax returns. As such, the state has the interest — and the requirement, under our Consititution — of offering it equally to all citizens.
<
p> – Dan
I’ve been to many weddings, in churches and non-church environments. Interestingly, they always end with the statement “and by the power vested in me by the state/commonwealth of ______ ……” The authority to marry couples comes from the government; the priest/minister/rabbi/etc. only acts as an agent of the state, as far as making the marriage legal is concerned.
<
p>
And for those who want to insist that marriage is religious, kindly remember that many religious traditions, such as the United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalists, and Reformed Judaism, consider marriage to be also between 2 men or between 2 women, not just between 1 man and 1 woman. A definition of marriage which excludes gay couples is not only sexual orientation discrimination, but is also religious discrimination.
but it would have to be done on a national level not a state level. The reason is that federal law makes reference to marriage so if Massachusetts doesn’t have a concept of legal marriage then Massachusetts residents would have to marry out of state to get the federal benefits of marriage. There’s also the “full faith and credit” clause of the constitution. If I have a union in Mass. and go to another state I wouldn’t have any legal standing for my union there.
<
p>
Of course on the flip side gay couples who marry in Massachusetts now don’t get those benefits from the federal government or from other states but there’s really no recourse for that now except possibly through the courts.
<
p>
For people who for religious reasons object to the institution of marriage being extended to same-sex couples there is the fact that nobody’s suggesting that religious institutions be compelled to perform or recognize same sex marriage. The word is the same, but religious and civil marriage are two separate things. A good example of how this works now is the Catholic church and divorce. Legal marriage can be disolved via divorce, but Catholic marriage cannot. I know of few who feel that the Catholic church should be compelled to recognize divorce or that civil divorce should be outlawed. These two different views of marriage coexist relatively peacefully. Hopefully we’ll at least reach that level of peace with same-sex marriage.
Marriage is more than symbolic — it has a very practical value in this country.
<
p>
To simply eliminate legal marriage in Massachusetts would be like if Montgomery, Alabama had eliminated the transit system rather than integrate it.
<
p> – Dan
It’s the Courts that determine whether or not excluding gays from marriage is allowed for in our constitution. They appropriately decided it is not. People are already married, they already have families, and we the public should not be welcome to delegitimize their families. You know, there used to be all kinds of laws prohibiting blacks from marrying whites, and these sorts of prohibitions are clearly in that vein. I frankly think that Massachusetts is pretty used to gay marriage. And, if they are not, they can get used to it or move. Gay people have the right to have sexual relationships (remember, it was only what last year or so that Scalia somehow thought that wasn’t constitutional either), they have the right to adopt children (and they do), and in Massachusetts they have the right to marry. The idea that we need to take the word marriage out of state law is laughable. I’m married. I’m content with word marriage in state law. The arguement that it infringes on freedom of religion is also laughable. You know, that could as easily be argued the opposite way. I just look forward to the day they kill this thing.
This is just another way to deny equality to gay couples.
<
p>
No one was even discussing such ideas until marriage equality came around. And if there had never been any cases involving LGBT couples seeking marital rights, no one would have ever suggested doing away with the word marriage.
<
p>
Those who say gay couples should get all the same rights as straight married couples, but not call it marriage, are lying about their support for the rights of those gay couples. The word marriage IS one of the rights.
🙂