The Kitten, the Witches and the Bad Wardrobe Willow & Tara Forever

by **maudmac** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 9:47 pm

Hey, Kittens. Here's a thread for us to talk about gay marriage.

These first several posts have come over from another thread. They're a good start for a discussion of what is one of the most important issues facing the gay and lesbian community.

So, weigh in about what you think about same-sex marriage. What are the same-sex marriage laws like where you live? Do you live somewhere with domestic partner registration or civil unions? Are you happy with those, or do you want marriage?

Are you married? If so, what do you call your spouse? If you're not married, would you get married if you could?

Walking in space we find the purpose of peace. The beauty of life you can no longer hide.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open. Our eyes are open, our eyes are open wide, wide, wide. -- Walking In Space

Edited by: maudmac at: 9/22/03 9:59 pm

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 9:52 pm

Originally posted by Darcy

For years we used to joke about the difference between "This is my friend, {name}" and "This is my .... 'friend', {name}". The long pause and slight emphasis in the second instance was supposed to denote that we were something more than just good friends.

I've mostly used "partner", but since we got married in Canada last month I now feel entitled to use "wife". I have mixed feelings about it in some respects - I'm old enough to remember when "Ms." came into common usage, and I have all the baggage about traditional marriage as a patriarchal institution.

But mostly I think I want to use it because it forces people to think a little. And if they're vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage, there's always the chance that they'll have a stroke on the spot. It's all good.

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 9:53 pm

Originally posted by maudmac

Darcy, you make a really good point about how using "wife" would make people think.

Use of that term for lesbian couples has always bugged me and I still can't quite get my finger on why. (I see I'm not alone in that.) There is that connotation that a "wife" is subservient to a "husband" but that's certainly not necessarily true. There's that looooong history of the "wife" being more or less property. There's the "I now pronounce you man and wife," suggesting that a man is always a man first, no matter what his marital status, but a woman becomes merely an extention of the man when she marries - no longer a woman, but a "wife."

And all of that sucks, of course, and is probably why it doesn't sit well with me to even think of my...gf/partner/whatever...as a "wife." But, you know, that really might be a shame. I'm very into reclaiming words and "wife" might be one worthy of reclamation for us. I don't know. It would take a lot of getting used to and I'm not sure I'd even want to try.

That said, though, I'm also not really happy with any of the other choices, either, for reasons everyone's already mentioned, I think.

How I introduce her depends on to whom I'm introducing her. If it's people I expect won't be receptive to the idea of a lesbian couple and, for whatever reasons, I don't intend to push their buttons (at, say, a funeral or something like that), I just introduce her by name and let them think whatever they like about our relationship.

If I were introducing her to possibly-not-receptive strangers and I did want to push their buttons, I would introduce her as my "partner." It just seems more committed than "girlfriend." But to casual company, to people one of us already knows, or to receptive strangers, I'd probably use "girlfriend."

This all sucks. I don't like any of those terms. None of them feel right to me.

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 9:55 pm

Originally posted by xita

I've always used girlfriend.

I am not down with wife, but then again it's never been a legal option, till recently. And it's confusing, because if we go and make up a word to mean the same thing, it's like gay marriage is different, so it's almost like a reclamation is in order, it's going to take a lot of getting used to it. But the benefit would be freeing those words of their traditional meanings.

Partner makes me think of business dealings. I like lover, but to some it implies sex too much. I like to concentrate on the word love in lover and that's who I think of it.

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:04 pm

Originally posted by Lijdrec

Back in June before the Supremes came out with their decision, some of the politically-incorrect Family were suggesting terms like FuckBuddy or MySodomizer, but now.....

I have always liked the term, Partner (but certainly not life-partner), though it has a certain staleness about it in modern usage when you think of terms like Law Partners, partnership, etc.... It's etymology goes to a French word, parcener, meaning a person who takes an equal share with another or others; coheir. That further derives from a 13th Century French term - Old French, parçonier, from parçon meaning distribution, from the Latin, partitio, a sharing, from partire, to divide. In French today the word for partner is associé, more properly associated with business practice.

Since Gay Marriage seems to be somewhat possible, I don't think we want to co-opt the terms Husband or Wife - many of the straights would be mad enough for our use of Marriage. Spouse is just so generic as to be totally useless. So I suggest that we go backwards into the Old French and use the term, parçonier - pronounced, par-sohn-yay. I kinda like the "yay" at the end! It has the etymology behind it and the span of years to segregate it from how it was used in 13th Century France.

Ah... I would like to introduce you to my parçonier, Robert.

Yeah! It has a good ring to it!

________________________________________________

Though I did have a flash on a name for a lesbian lover, going back into Greek mythology to the sea god Nereus who had 50 daughters known as the Nereids, Nereis, or Nerines. I don't think I would use nereid as science now uses that name for certain polychaete worms! Nereis or Nerine sounds better anyway! Although the terms do apply to the sea-nymphs who attended the god, Poseidon; and that might make it somewhat objectionable.

________________________________________________

Nope, I'm for parçonier, whether it be a gay male or lesbian couple.

Quoted from Xita.......

I am not down with wife, but then again it's never been a legal option, till recently. And it's confusing, because if we go and make up a word to mean the same thing, it's like gay marriage is different, so it's almost like a reclamation is in order, it's going to take a lot of getting used to it. But the benefit would be freeing those words of their traditional meanings.

Uh, let's face it gay marriage is different, despite what some would say about certain old joining ceremonies which some of the Orthodox faiths still perform. That ceremony was primarily an act of adoption and had nothing to do with sanctioning carnal love. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. What gay people have done in the last century and may do in this century has been completely new and different than anything preceding. The rights that have been hard-fought and won and the continuing fight for acceptance from the greater society has a goal of normalizing gay behavior so that no young person need grow up in with hate, hating himself or feeling unaccepted.

In doing so we are creating new traditions amongst ourselves. One of those is hopefully gay marriage. But what I read in your statement, Xita, made me cringe. You said, ".....so it's almost like a reclamation is in order, it's going to take a lot of getting used to it. But the benefit would be freeing those words of their traditional meanings." That is just too radical an idea for me. You seem to be saying that you wish to reclaim the terms, husband and wife, for gay usage and destroy the old meaning and with it the tradition that encompassed them?

Why should we seek to destroy the tradition of another (and indeed, traditions that some gays still value)? And I am sure that the ultra-conservative "family-values" lobby would read into your statement that you seek to destroy their religion and religious values as well. Is it not instead possible to include our new traditions into that of the greater society without destroying that of others? Can gays not strive to do that peacefully and without the cultural upheaval that is the fearful call from pontiffs, prelates, and America's ultra-conservative right? Indeed, does a people that most likely comprises less than 5% of the population have the right, let alone the ability, to destroy one tradition in favor of another?

I would hope that each tradition would be able to stand side-by-side, in support of one another. It is your wording and the thought-process behind it that scares me and adds fuel to the fires that the "family-values" lobby fans. Yes, it is true that it would seem that the "family-values" tradition would necessarily preclude a any gay tradition. But I think we can show that not to be true, simply by our existance and example. We do not have to work to destroy theirs, only build our own. Co-opting words as symbols of our rights is not the way to go. Our tradition is new and deserves a new word, just as gay was chosen over that word of the old tradition.

My best to you and your parçonier.

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:07 pm

Originally posted by xita

It's funny you seem to be making the argument that conservatives are making about not letting gay people be married. If we can be married then we destroy the meaning of their "marriage." I don't see that at all. I made the statement specifically because people like darcy are legally married to their partner. They went to canada and got married.

I think because it's legal it should be treated the same and the same words should apply. Yes the meaning of wife needs to change now from married partner of man, to female married partner. I don't think I am destrying their traditions by demanding the same term applied to a legal union be used for us. I think your rhetoric is dangerously close to denying me the legal right to marry.

I was not talking about all the little side unions and ceremonies (even the domestic partnerships) going on, that certainly isn't the same thing. Like it or not we are moving to legalization of our marriages and I am sorry if people perceive that as a destruction of their traditions.

This is not about tradition , this is about the law, and wife is a term referring to a legal marriage and now finally we get to use it too. And I have every right to demand that. I do not want our marriages to be referred differently , that's like separate but equal. And guess what? I am not settling for that, I want us to share the drinking fountain.

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:08 pm

Originally posted by maudmac

Quote:
You seem to be saying that you wish to reclaim the terms, husband and wife, for gay usage and destroy the old meaning and with it the tradition that encompassed them?

Lijdrec, since we're all cringing, I had a good cringe at that. Destroy...what? Destroy the old meaning...and the tradition? That is exactly the argument the 'phobes and fundies use against those of us who would like to have our relationships acknowledged as equal to straight marriage. That it is somehow a threat to them. But I've yet to see a single one of them explain how allowing us to marry - and call it "marriage" - can possibly harm them or their institution in any way and I'd like to see you try.

Furthermore, how does us marrying, and calling each other "wives" and "husbands," indicate that we seek to destroy the religion and religious values of the "ultraconservative 'family values' lobby"? If I marry my partner and call her my wife, the religions of the world will crumble? That's laughable. We are no threat to anyone. If a belief system is opposed to our existence or the fair recognition of our relationships, that belief system has a problem, not us. It is intolerance and bigotry that need to be destroyed.

And, yes, as xita said, what you've said does seem to come very close to advocating a "separate but equal" situation and we all know how that worked out the last time we tried it.

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:10 pm

Originally posted by Lijdrec

Xita & maud....

If it seems that I am conflicted, well..... I am! But instead of answering your assertions individually let me tell you from whence I came; and where I think we should go. It's a bit convoluted, but I believe it is the easier and more sensible way to go about getting two gays in a civilly-recognized joining in this country.

I am a Roman Catholic, who is also gay. But both of those might seem to many to be mutually exclusive; and for some (many? most??) of those who grew up Catholic and gay I know that the incongruity did force them to make the choice. But for me, being Catholic was always about more than just religion; it was an extended family of uncles, aunts, cousins, second-cousins, ad infinitum. It was my heritage and tied to the lands that our families farm. In many ways I feel as much Catholic as I do gay. It would seem to me that both might be at the very heart of my soul or perhaps somehow a part of my genetic make-up. In short, I cannot deny either; although my religion did cause me to not to fully accept my gay side in my younger years. And now the gay seems to be coming to the fore. Perhaps I should now rebel against my religion, but I find I cannot.

What I do know is that both the Catholic and the gay me believe that marriage and our government do not mix! The Catholic in me says that marriage is a sacrament and should only be between a man and a woman. Both the Catholic and the gay citizen in me says that the government should not in any way allow an "establishment of religion, or prohibit(ing) the free exercise thereof." Governments have co-opted the concept of marriage (mainly from the time of the French Revolution) from religions and thus are thus aiding in the establish of those religions over any other. So here's my plan.... we have to destroy civil marriage!!! It is evil!!!!

And we all know the easiest way to do that is through the Federal court system. Fact is, in the United States marriage is under the pervue of the states. Gays cannot and should not fight for the right to marry in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia; it is just too large a fight to wage. What is needed is to get together a number of gay couples who have actually been married in their various religious denominations - Wicca, MCC, Presbyterian, Unitarian, etc. - in one or more states - probably New York, Texas and/or California - and then file one or more lawsuits on behalf of these couples for their state to recognize their marriages that have been sanctified by their religion. If their state governments and courts will not allow these marriages to be recorded civilly, then I believe the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution has been violated. That state government is then through their marriage laws allowing an "establishment of religion" AND "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And that is an arguement that you can take to Supreme Court.

Hopefully, the Supremes would accept that arguement and then strike down all marriage laws in all the United States (even Vermont!). But we then have to be ready with a new law to replace the old. That law would not mention marriage, but would speak only to the minimum requirements to two, three, four, or more persons who wish to join together to form a family unit. Those minimum requirements would only speak to issues of property, child care and responsibility, and dissolution of the family unit. In this way the major conservative religions (including my own) need only consecrate unions that meet their definitions of marriage and may specify that the contract of those so consecrated would have more rigorous pathways to annulment or dissolution. For those who want no religion, whatsoever, governing their family union, they may sign a simple civil contract of their own making which meets or exceeds the governments minimum standards; they need no ceremony. The government's only function would only be to record these marriage/joining contracts in order to provide those benefits that it legislates for the benefit of the "joined family unit." Indeed, if you do not want the government involved in your life (thinking of the Amish) you may not need a contract whatsoever or you need not record the contract you exercise with the government.

Now you may call your "joined family unit" anything you want. Your religious or other sensibilities may deem it to be a marriage; but don't expect everyone in the USA to believe that. And well, that is the way it should be. We cannot force persons with deeply held beliefs based in religion, however bigotted/hypocritical/etc. you may deem them to be, to accept your definition of marriage. And they cannot force their religious definition upon anyone else (read gays, polygamists, etc...)!!! That is why I believe divorcing government from the concept of marriage is important, because it precludes any "Defense of Marriage Amendment to the Constitution."

Many other gays have told me that this is nothing more than semantics. A number of lesbians that I know decry my ideas because they want to get married and they want the state to do it. I have a minor problem with those American gays who have gone to Canada to be married. I do not think they are helping the cause here in any way. At present their marriages have no legal standing whatsoever in the United States and I see no way in which they could be used to come to the end I foresee. In short, we need to battle for the right to form "joined family units" from within, not without. If your religion allows it, get married, joined, or whatever they call it, there in the state of your residence; then go to the state and ask for the benefits that any so "joined" persons should be due. When they refuse, sue. And win!

That's my fucked-over ideas about getting the government to recognize gay .... whatever....

...

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:12 pm

Originally posted by Darcy

We're getting a bit off-topic here (Mods, maybe this whole discussion belongs in the GLBT issues thread, or even its own topic?), but there have been a few issues raised that I feel compelled to address.

First - is the concept that reclaiming the words wife/husband necessarily requires destroying a tradition. I don't think of this as a destruction, but rather as an expansion, bringing the tradition forward to accomodate its actual use in society.

Second - I have a MAJOR problem with "we have to destroy civil marriage". What we have to destroy is the link between civil marriage and religious marriage. As soon as people like Bill Frist start talking about marriage as "sacred", my first amendment hackles go up. "Sacred" is a religious concept which has NO BUSINESS in actions of the state. The state shouldn't be recognizing religious marriages at all, and religious authorities should not be empowered to grant civil/legal rights, benefits, and obligations on behalf of the state.

I believe someone posted in the GLBT Issues thread that in most of Europe a religious ceremony by itself conveys no civil rights - the parties have to also go through a civil/bureaucratic hurdle in order to obtain the legal (not religious) benefits of marriage. That's how it should be in this country. Have all the religious ceremonies you want, but don't expect the state to recognize them or provide any goodies based on that.

The problem with using contract law in place of marriage is that our current system of laws uses marriage as a kind of shorthand for a whole set of rights and obligations. Allowing individual contracts means that other parties can no longer rely on that shorthand because those rights and obligations might be abrogated by the terms of the specific contract. It would only work if the contract was completely standard, which is essentially what marriage is. Using contract law to define a relationship is using a hammer to pound in a screw.

Third - In our 19+ years together, Melissa/Corky/Triscuit and I have participated in the mass wedding in front of the IRS building back in 1987, obtained a civil union in Vermont, and now have been legally married on Canada. Yes, that marriage currently has no legal standing in the US, but how do you think legal standing is going to be obtained? By couples going to Canada, getting married, and then asking not only the state but their employers, insurance companies, and other organizations (yes, including religious congregations) to recognize those marriages just as they have done for heterosexual American couples married in Canada. In order to begin litigating the issues, you have to have plaintiffs with legal standing, i.e. couples who got married in Canada and whose marriages didn't get the same recognition other Canadian marriages of US citizens did.

I'm filling out a change to my pension beneficiary forms to change the description of my beneficiary's relationship from "spousal equivalent" to "spouse", and daring them to challenge me. The new procedure for obtaining or renewing a driver's license in New Jersey requires a collection of identity documentation adding up to six "points", and a civil marriage certificate is worth three. At some point, someone's going to present a Canadian civil marriage certificate and ask the state to recognize it for purposes of identification. (Fortunately/unfortunately, we both renewed our licenses right before this initiative was announced, so the issue will probably be moot by the time we're due for renewal!)

Rights for minorities are rarely granted upon request - they have to be demanded, usually loudly! Domestic partnership benefits didn't start with the government - they started with private entities (corporations and not-for-proft enterprises) who were finally persuaded of both the fundamental unfairness and the operational disadvantage of using marriage as the test to qualify for benefits. Every organization which recognizes a Canadian marriage for its own purposes is a foot in the door for gaining governmental recognition.

The really interesting stuff will happen if/when the first US state allows same-sex marriages (currently expected to be Massachusetts, but New Jersey also has a lawsuit in progress). At that point we'll be seeing litigation on how current civil unions and Canadian marriages will be treated. If we go to Massachusetts to be married (as we're planning to do - by a strange coincidence, we already had trips to Toronto and Boston scheduled for 2003 and 2004 before any of the marriage stuff came up!), there will have to be a determination of whether we are already "married" for purposes of Massachusetts law. If Massachusetts says we're married, then New Jersey is supposed to give "full faith and credit" to that official act under the US constitution. If they say we're not, then we'll get married in Massachusetts, and the same argument applies.

This is sort of the "camel's nose" theory of social change. First you get the camel's nose into the tent, then the head, then the neck - and eventually the whole camel is inside, and you can't ignore it any longer.

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:14 pm

Originally posted by Lijdrec

Darcy...

Threads go were threads go...... You asked what we should call our partners. That would come into scrutiny in light of the present drive to gain gay marriage in the States. To do so one has to explain themselves.

In your point two you state:

I have a MAJOR problem with "we have to destroy civil marriage". What we have to destroy is the link between civil marriage and religious marriage. As soon as people like Bill Frist start talking about marriage as "sacred", my first amendment hackles go up. "Sacred" is a religious concept which has NO BUSINESS in actions of the state. The state shouldn't be recognizing religious marriages at all, and religious authorities should not be empowered to grant civil/legal rights, benefits, and obligations on behalf of the state.

And that is exactly my point! Well, almost! Religious marriage and civil marriage are inexorably tied together blocking gays (and other groups) from attaining what they are due. Thus we have to uncouple them; destroy that link. But marriage is to most in this country a sacred act of their religion and has been for millenia. The only way to do decouple marriage from the government is to do the same thing that Lawrence v. Texas did to get government out of our bedrooms - our sex lives; we must get government out of controlling our loving relationships and how we choose to structure our families be that a secular or religious structure. The current civil definition of marriage is based in religion. That must be done away with, utterly destroyed, then rebuild the civil process by which marriages are recognized.

You expect government to be our savior in terms of marriage, it is definitely not. It is not a savior for gays, nor is it one for any devout religious person either. Governments have nothing to do with marriage. Governments in actuality have no right to grant marriages, only to record them for bookkeeping purposes. The power that government wields in granting marriages is misplaced, it has been abrogated, that right belongs to the people. If government really had such a right or indeed the power, then provisions for common-law marriages would not have to be written into the law.

Marriage is the bond that two people create between themselves and then affirm to their community. The community that affirms that marriage is NOT any governmental unit. The community is any one of a number of societal units to which the newly-married belong. That may be a religious community, a gathering of friends, etc. Government has no right in stating ALL the terms under which the marriage bond (contract) is executed. It has done this much to the consternation of many conservative groups by making divorce too easy. Others might think that divorce isn't easy enough. Still others in our country would have polygamous marriages. Thus the two (or more) that would form their marriage bond should have the right to contractually state the terms under which their marriage is to be conducted and dissolved. Government's only purpose should be to set minimum standards (ages, no. of persons who may be party to the contract, property rights in dissolution, certain other standards of which I fail now to think[!], etc.) and then to record and catalog those unions to determine benefits, etc. that would be accorded to families. Minimum standards may be set by the government. A minimum standard contract would be set in each state; but any contract could be written to standards that exceed those standards. The only parties that matter are those who sign the contract. In short I do not see why a marriage contract should be such a problem. The way I foresee it, diversity in the country would be expanded under such a system. You have to expect a little complexity if you want to aid all the diverse viewpoints within our country.

What you are doing is to be commended, it has a purpose and a goal. But I just do not see that goal as being attainable throughout all the United States. What you are doing is a piecemeal way of going about asserting the rights that are not only being denied gays, but are being abbrogated to the government by conservative religious groups. And I fear that we might end up with a hodge-podge of rights for gays in this country, with bi-coastal areas gay-friendly and the center a conservative bastion. Worse yet, the DoM Constitutional Amendment might be in place before a true victory is attained. We all would be better off when it is realized that our state or the federal government has no purpose in defining our loving bonds or how we structure our families. That is a right that should be (and I believe constitutionally is) reserved to the people. Government's only purpose should be to uphold and aid the product of our loving unions (marriages, joinings, whatever you want to call them) - our families.

I'm

-ed out again!

PS.... I am hoping, even praying that the Massachusetts Supreme Court does not see the error of their state's ways and rules against the gays seeking redress in their court. If we win in Massachusetts it will cause such a backlash in this country against gay-marriage right now that will set us back for decades. It may even accelerate the DoM Constitutional Amendment through the Congress and our various state legislatures. I am not sure where public opinion lies with us any more, recent polls have been disheartening; and I fear that a win in Massachusetts is not in our best interest now.

Peace to you all!

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:17 pm

Originally posted by xita

I don't really care if you and your community/religion accept my marriage, I am only concerned with the goverment. I am sorry you feel the way you do. If people were too concerned about traditions, we'd still have slaves and you couldn't vote. I am sorry if it upsets religious folks, but our marriages will be legalized make no doubt about it, no matter how hard you and your kind fight against it.

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:18 pm

Originally posted by Lijdrec

Xita....

You wrote....

I don't really care if you and your community/religion accept my marriage.....

That's my point exactly!! I know my religion would not accept any union into which I might enter; but it might be a start for Catholic gays working within our faith.

You also wrote....

I am only concerned with the goverment.

You put to much faith in the government and should assert your rights to a marriage/union outside of any governmental control that the government should then be forced to recognize.

You also wrote....

I am sorry if it upsets religious folks, but our marriages will be legalized make no doubt about it, no matter how hard you and your kind fight against it.

Do you know how to read woman! Did you read what I wrote at all!! I am trying to lay out a procedure by which all government units would be forced to accept any union between gays, transgendered, polygamous unions, etc... Maybe that's too radical for you! Or is it too radical for you to believe that I be gay and remain Catholic? That I choose to cleave to both communities to fulfill my life?

And BTW - it was over 2 years ago when I first came to the Kitten that I identified myself as a man.

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:19 pm

Originally posted by 3peanuts

Well...

I had a discussion like this with a ex.

I said to her I'd call my girl "fidanzata" (fiancee) and she said it was a way to keep stereotypes alive.

I don't think so: words as "wife" or "fiancee" have been used "against" women in a patriarchal society as ours for centuries. Now I want to make these words my own: create a new meaning for them, more fitting to my lifestyle, and use them in my social environment. I think it is revolutionary, in a philosophy of language optic. Using such words in a lesbian relationship being aware of the fact they were created to label het relations has a great power in breaking down the schemes and put opposite realities on the same level. I'm not her "companion", nor her lover. If she was a man, or if I was one, I'd call her as men call their partners. I don't want to be doomed to an everlasting "friendship" or "companionship": if I get married, or even if I feel married, I want to call her a way that leaves no doubt about the nature of our knot, in both social and sentimental terms.

It's the same as when I call myself a "fag": I have the right to use a word meant to hurt me the way I want. That word is mine, centuries of persecutions have made it belong to me, and I want to use it to break the same scheme it was created in.

My two cents... :hmm

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:21 pm

Originally posted by xita

Lijdrec, I've read every word you wrote carefully, and it makes no sense to me, so now feel free to question my reading comprehension skills. I can tell by your avatar that you are gay, you've also made it clear that you are a catholic. I don't care. I would never dare tell your religion what to accept. I do have every right to demand that my government give my marriage the same weight as a heterosexual one. You do what you want, no one is forcing your religion to sanctify gay marriages, you can pick whatever word you want to call homosexual partners, you can use it with your partner and have lots of fun with it.

I won't and there are many in this thread that won't either. I was never attached to the idea of using the word wife till Darcy made the excellent point she did. Now thanks to you, I am going to make sure I demand the use of that word. I hope many men call each other husbands and I can't wait for that day. I won't argue religion with you but if the government's definition of marriage bothers you and your kind so much, then by all means withdraw your marriage from goverment ENTIRELY, leave it the civil union in the hands of those that don't mind sharing it with homosexuals.

And in the future if you want to insult my intelligence, do so by email xita@xita.org

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:23 pm

Originally posted by Lijdrec

Thanks for the laugh you gave me with that, Xita!

Goodbye............

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:24 pm

Originally posted by charmedloverloes

Am I now lucky that I live in Holland, the first land where gay people can legally get married? I think I like living here now somehow.. :hmm

bye!!

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:25 pm

Originally posted by DrG

We are lucky, Loes. We are lucky that we don't have to go through what Darcy and the other kittens who wish to marry legally have to go through before they get equal rights. People fought the fight for us and civil marriage did not have to be destroyed to acchieve equality.

Quote:

That is just too radical an idea for me. You seem to be saying that you wish to reclaim the terms, husband and wife, for gay usage and destroy the old meaning and with it the tradition that encompassed them?

We have lost the distinction that marriage is between a man and a woman 3 years ago in the Netherlands. The words that are used to describe heterosexual spouses get used to describe gay spouses as well. And oddly enough the institution of marriage did not crumble into dust, not civil nor religious marriage suffered in any way. Straight people are still getting married as if nothing happened. The only difference is that gay people can get married too.

Oh wait, there is one more difference. The percentage of people who have opted to hold a church wedding, as well a civil one, has risen significantly. Yep, all those lesbians calling each other wife and all those gay men calling each other husband did not manage to destroy any traditions.

As for traditions, they aren't set in stone. They are never so sacred that change is forever forbidden. They evolve, some past traditions would be totally unacceptable now. Somehow those traditions changed and got replaced by different ones that will change as well. Change does not equal destruction.

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:28 pm

Originally posted by Darcy

I think perhaps we've been a bit unfair to Lijdrec in our responses. We're all more or less aiming for the same goals, we simply differ in our approaches to getting there and what we believe is feasible.

I think we all agree that individuals, not a government, determine what constitutes a family or marriage for purposes of the way we live our lives. However, like it or not, governmental recognition of relationships is a prerequisite for all kinds of benefits and obligations under current law. "Marriage" as a civil status automatically carries with it a host of assumptions which smooth everyday interactions with businesses, governments, and other organizations.

I disagree that civil and religious marriage are inexorably tied together. If that were the case, then we'd already have civil recognition of our marriages, since there are churches that would happily marry same-sex couples! The obstacle has been obtaining the civil license. I believe that part of the "marriage movement" must include educating people on the difference between civil and religious marriage. Lambda Legal has been holding town meetings throughout the state toward that end, as well as in support of domestic partnership legislation which would provide some protection for non-marital relationships, such as parent/adult child sharing a household, or seniors who are unable to get "married" because they would lose income they need to live.

I happen to think it will be a lot easier to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions than to try and go through all the myriad laws and regulations (not to mention the millions of other legal entities which make use of the concept of marriage for their own purposes) to determine which make sense as applied to various family units, or ask organizations to review individual marriage contracts in order to determine whether certain rights/responsibilities exist between the partners. I also think it's a lot more reachable than a goal which includes relationships that are even farther outside people's concepts of traditional marriage than same-sex marriages.

For example, a legal spouse automatically has medical power of attorney. Do you really want emergency rooms to request a copy of the "marital contract" (and maybe have their legal department check it over) to verify that you have the right to be involved in your spouse's treatment, i.e., that medical power-of-attorney wasn't excluded from your particular union? If multiple spouses are recognized and they disagree on treatment, does it have to go to the courts? How many names can we reasonably expect schools to keep on file as parents? (I have trouble getting the state's IT department to accept more than one contact for trouble tickets!

)

I'm not saying that units of three or more adults can't have valid moral/ethical relationships, only that I think government can legitimately limit the recognition of "spouse" or "domestic partner" to a single other adult for purposes of conferring rights and obligations, if only to keep that identity sufficiently clear to be workable. I believe that meets the standards of reasonableness established in numerous court cases in a way that restricting the gender of the parties does not.

We don't need to convince our families, friends, and coworkers that we're married - they know it. But the legal status of being married will simplify dealings with people and organizations that don't/can't know that in any other way.

It's not nearly as piecemeal a process as you seem to think. The advantage of marriage over civil union is that only Vermont has civil unions. The unique status of civil unions has allowed states to get away with refusing to recognize them because they have no comparable status -but all 50 states have a legal status of "married". The US Constitution requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the official acts of other states. It's been used recently to force Mississipi to recognize a Vermont adoption by a lesbian couple even though the state's own laws prohibit adoption by same-sex parents.

So, even though it will undoubtedly end up at the US Supreme Court before all 50 states are forced to recognize them, once the first US state extends marriage to same-sex couples, we have the basis for requiring ALL states to recognize ALL marriages performed under that state's laws. I've been known to argue that we could balance the state budget in NJ by raising the cost of a marriage license, enacting same-sex marriage, and opening a 24-hour license bureau in Newark airport, but that only works if we're the first! :laugh

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:29 pm

Originally posted by Lijdrec

Darcy...

Thanks for the bit of support... I was feeling like I was whistling in the wind......

The contract is the marriage bond, signing it makes you married. In my plan you would then register/record that contract with the clerk of the court for your county. The clerk would probably then issue a certificate of registration or some other such document that would have the effect of the old marriage license. Or maybe it would be a two step process, you might first file an "intent to file a marriage contract" and that might be a document similar to today's marriage license application and then the "certificate of recording" would be the second part that confirms a marriage contract was executed.

About civil marriage and religious marriage being inexorably tied together... I just found this article early this morning from the DenverPost.com. It is by an attorney whose thinking is exactly in step with my own. I hope posting an article isn't a faux paux, but it is a worthy read. This ole Hoosier farmer is glad to see that I'm not as wacked as some would believe.

============================================================================

THE DENVER POST

Article Published: Sunday, September 21, 2003

perspective:::Straight, gay could both lose

By Michael Woodson

In the gay and straight debate over the legal definition of marriage, both sides actually could lose.

The debate about the definition of marriage is based on the states' long-standing power to license, conduct and regulate marriages. We know that power has always been presumed constitutional. But that may have ended 32 years ago without notice.

Before gay marriage was an issue, there were few challenges to the states' regulation of marriage because the regulation seemed to match the majority's religious sentiments. However, a changing society and the gay community's quest for the license to marry have changed that.

There would be no controversy if the power to license, conduct and regulate marriages was not assumed by the state. But, because the state is the authority on "legal" marriage, state definitions of marriage cause controversy when individuals or groups with new or divergent definitions feel discriminated against.

That happened in the late 19th century, when Mormons challenged federal laws against polygamy and state laws to disenfranchise polygamists. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Morman plaintiffs, saying that practicing polygamy was criminal conduct, not an expression of religious freedom. The court implied that monogamy was inherent to the state's definition of a legal marriage, while distinguishing polygamy as conduct, not belief. In reality, both polygamy and monogamy are "conduct" and "belief," and the court favored the conduct and belief of the religious majority over the minority Mormon conduct and belief.

But decades later, in Loving vs. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court held that a Virginia law barring interracial marriage was unconstitutional. The law was originally based on the religious theory that God put the races on different continents and in different countries and that God therefore did not intend for the races to mix in marriage.

The clash of religious views provoked by state marriage regulation in those cases and others illustrates that state regulation of marriage could fall short of the famous "excessive entanglement" test created four years after the Loving ruling.

In the landmark case of Lemon vs. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court struck down two state laws that augmented the salaries of teachers who taught secular subjects in parochial schools. The court held that for the laws to stand it was not enough for them to have a secular legislative purpose, and to not advance nor inhibit religion. The court also said that state laws involving religion must not cause excessive or ongoing entanglement between church and state, as might happen if the state had to monitor the parochial school teachers to make sure they weren't lacing secular subjects with religious thought.

The state's power to license, conduct and regulate marriages raises similar entanglement problems because religious and other groups continually try to insert their beliefs about marriage into state definitions.

By failing to divorce state and religion, the current marriage regulatory regime fails the Lemon test and imperils the freedom of religion and from religion in all marriages.

In regulating marriage, how can the state avoid prejudice to the beliefs of one or another group, whether those involve polygamy, "open" marriages," the proper age for marriage, heterosexual or homosexual marriage?

State regulation of marriage also has been defended as a way of protecting partners in the marriage. But, brutality, cruelty, infidelity, abuse, incest, neglect, endangerment, and other human behaviors may take place in any cohabiting or other relationship and can be proscribed by laws that aren't specific to marriage.

As for the legalized benefits associated with marriage, why not link them to specific positive behaviors the state wants to encourage in all relationships? For example, benefits for people who stay home and care for family members, dependents, the young, the ill and the elderly.

The language of many religions has long referred to marriage as "holy," "sacred," "blessed," or "a sacrament" until an increasingly statist culture called it an "institution" but did not fully remove marriage's religious element.

For these reasons, the state regulation of marriage, no matter what secular reasons are used to defend it, has been an unconstitutional establishment of religion since the Lemon ruling in 1971, because marriage is too excessively entangled with its religious roots for government not to tread on those roots.

While religious words and terminology may not matter to the state, the meaning of words is essential to shaping the beliefs of the religions that use them. Suppose the government declared a particular mode of communion, baptism or circumcision to be valid, and required all valid communion, baptism and circumcision to be licensed by the state. Certainly, there would be an uproar - and should be a rebellion. Why is marriage different?

Another aspect in which the state regulation of marriage may violate the Constitution is in courthouse marriages. There, a slide occurs toward state religion in that a religious practice is converted into a secular state practice for a fee. If this would be unthinkable with communion, baptism or circumcision, why is it acceptable with marriage?

Maybe the gay community and the traditionalists could get behind a constitutional amendment barring Congress or the legislatures from licensing, conducting or regulating marriage at all. No faction would then need to be concerned that government's power could imperil any other faction's definition of marriage.

As long as we believe it our duty to correct unconstitutional laws, maybe it's time to amend the states out of marriage and protect the religious, marital and association rights of everyone without stamping the imprimatur of government on any of them.

Michael Woodson is a Denver-based lawyer who writes about public affairs.

==========================================================

Edited here just to add some links to some a series of articles that the DENVER POST had on gay marriage and the DoM Amendment, which reads:

The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other DENVER POST articles and their links include:

Should marriage amendment become law?

YES: Let America Decide

By Rep. Marilyn Musgrave - U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave represents Colorado's 4th Congressional District, which covers northeastern and east- central Colorado. She stand in stauch opposition to gay marriage.

Her concluding remark: Marriage has stood for centuries as a union between one man and one woman. That's why so many diverse supporters are standing shoulder-to-shoulder to protect it. If marriage is to be radically redefined, the decision should, at the very least, be made by the American people and their elected representatives, not by unelected, unaccountable judges.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should marriage amendment become law?

NO: Concept is Just Fear Run Amok

By Julie Tolleson - Ms. Tolleson is a Denver lawyer and a spokesperson for Equal Rights Colorado, a gay and lesbian lobbying organization.

Her concluding remark: But the call for the incidents of marriage is not just about seeking economic perks. It is about having the right to build families recognized under the law.

It is about the right to say "I do" before friends and family - and have it mean something.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defining Marriage a Tricky Task

By Anne Mahoney - Ms. Mahoney is a professor of sociology at the University of Denver. She is writing a book on marital equality and is the co-author of several articles on the topic.

Her concluding remark: The ideal American marriage is moving toward a form that sociologist Frank Furstenberg calls "symmetrical." Although sex remains salient, gender may become irrelevant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:31 pm

Originally posted by maudmac

Okay... So if the government doesn't license, conduct, or regulate marriage in any way, how does that work?

You're just automatically married to whoever you say you're married to? Or you have some kind of contract with another person...a contract which is a legal document?

If it's not a legal document, how does that grant us anything? If the government gets out of the marriage business entirely, and I have some kind of contract with my partner/gf/wife/whatever, what good does that do me when I need to, say, file a lawsuit on her behalf? It would become a legal issue. I still need a piece of paper from the government that says I have spousal rights. (Or, in the case of something like a divorce, spousal responsibilities like alimony.)

I'm just not understanding how we can have our relationships recognized and fully take advantage of the rights and responsibilities of marriage without the government being involved in any way whatsoever.

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:32 pm

Originally posted by Lijdrec

Nothing more legal than a contract.

And as I stated above you might first file an "intent to File a Marriage Contract" and that might be a document similar to today's marriage license application and then the "Certificate of Recording" would be the second part that confirms a marriage contract was executed.

But what is important is the marriage contract itself. In it you specify your spousal rights and just how your marriage is to be conducted. No longer then is the government telling you that your marriage should be so and so. You and your spouse control that destiny. Note too, that such a contract may be amended through the agreement of the parties. So if you find you have both become enamoured with another person... add them in for a menage-a-trois!!

And what I really would find interesting is just how many supposed conservative Christians would actually be married in their churches and sign a contract that backs up the tenants of their faith...... ie.... NO DIVORCE! Or at least quite difficult to obtain one. I think you would see some of the main-stream religions of America loosing members left and right!

You have to get away from the idea that the government grants you anything in marriage. You and your spouse are all that matters, the two of you grant yourselves to each other in marriage. The only thing that the government can do is RECOGNIZE your marriage by recording your contract. The government is POWERLESS in marriage, it always has been until Napoleon and others in the French Revolution got the idea that he wanted to take it away from religion (the Roman Catholic Church).

The power belongs to you and your lover. Only the two of you can grant a marriage to one another. Demand that the government stop repressing us by abrogating that power. It is our inalienable right.

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:34 pm

Originally posted by maudmac

Okay, I hear what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that if the government does not recognize my spousal contract as a marriage, then it's just me and my gf standing there with our hands on our hips saying, "Fuck you, we are too married!" at the hospital, at the insurance office, in a courtroon, wherever the validity of our union is being challenged.

And an "Intent to File a Marriage Contract" or a "Certificate of Recording" seems no different to me than a marriage. Because that certificate would be what you'd have to show to prove that you have this contract with each other.

Say you and your bf/husband/partner/parçonier/etc., have one of these contracts, and nothing else - no powers-of-attorney, e.g. - because those should all be unnecessary if you have these spousal contracts, right? (Just as they are unnecessary for straight couples who marry.) Now say that one of you is incapacitated and needs someone else to make medical decisions for him. You trust that every hospital will accept your contract and allow either of you to make decisions for the other? I imagine the hospital would challenge your assertion that the two of you are each other's next-of-kin. In which case, you end up in court and in a situation where the government will or won't sanction your union.

If one of you died and the other filed a lawsuit on his behalf...your very right to file that suit takes you back to court and back to needing the government's stamp of approval.

And if the government accepts these contracts as something that entitles both of you to all the rights and responsibilities of marriage...well, then we're right back to the government sanctioning marriage or some equivalent of it.

I know none of us needs a piece of paper from any government to know that our relationships are equally valid, equally committed. But...to all the people out there who've been shut out of their gf/bf/partner/whatever's lives and estates due to sickness or death; to all the people who don't have health insurance because their partner's carrier won't recognize them as a spouse; to all the people who lose custody of their children or are never allowed to get custody in the first place, etc., I think the fact that they both considered themselves married might not make much difference.

My gf and I have powers-of-attorney (and wills and living wills), but it still won't allow for us to, say, file a joint tax return. If we did so anyway, and the IRS came a-knockin', we are supposed to show them our contract and that's all that would be necessary to get them off our backs?

The fight to have our relationships recognized as marriage is obviously a tough one, no matter how we go about it. Even the fight to have something that's equivalent to marriage meets with much opposition in every state in America and in most countries around the world. I still think that pressuring the government to expand their definition of "marriage" is still the best way to accomplish our goals. And I think so because I believe that no matter what you do, to fully have the same rights as straight married couples, it's still going to come to government involvement anyway; you'll still eventually need the government to accept the validity of your union.

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:36 pm

Originally posted by Lijdrec

maudmac::: I'll try to answer you paragraph by paragraph.

Yep, that's the way it is now... now it means nothing because civil marriage has not been challenged in court. But in the future when Civil Marriage Law is struck down as unconstitutional.

Ok.... then call it simply a receipt for the charges of recording your Marriage Contract. Who shows anything now to prove that they are married? Most people take your word for it. If marriage were treated as I think it should be treated then no one can deny your assertion. If you do have to prove it you have this receipt from the government stating:

Received from Anna Lez and Zelda Dyke For

Recording of Marriage Contract, 1 September 2004 ............. $12.00

What it proves is that you have a Marriage Contract in effect. But the fact that you have the power, the right, to write your own Marriage Contract free of governmental control is what is important.

Ok... about you and your partner in the hospital, etc... What I am speaking to is changing/destroying Civil Marriage Laws through the use of a First Amendment (Religion) arguement in the Supreme Court. There are a number of legal instruments now that gays must avail themselves of to cover any situation in which they may find themselves. I doubt a simple Marriage Contract would now do the job, Powers of Attorney, Living Wils, Wills and other instruments providing directions in case of.... - all are needed now to give a gay couple the needed protection from our society. The Marriage Contract (or the receipt for Recording it) would only be necessary in a post-Destruction of Civil Marriage world.

maudmac wrote:

And if the government accepts these contracts as something that entitles both of you to all the rights and responsibilities of marriage...well, then we're right back to the government sanctioning marriage or some equivalent of it.

Well in fact, we as gays still want the government to sanction marriage. We want the benefits that stem from being in a marriage in this country. I do not see those changing. But SANCTIONING a marriage by providing those benefits, is not the same as GRANTING a marriage. Sanctioning a marriage is an act of affirming marriage, while granting one implies a power. The power to define is, specifically, that which we are fighting against here. And since only the parties to a marriage (and God, and we have to leave God out of the government!) have the power and the right to grant themselves to each other in marriage, then the government's power over marriage to define it, control it, is broken.

There are two powers at work here that are confusing some people. One is the power to tax and other monetary powers - that belongs to the government. The other power/right is that which belongs to the people individually and collectively to form unions under contractual agreements - that belongs to us. It is my point that reclaiming the power (through the courts) to write our own contractual marriage agreements forces the government to recognize your status as marrieds and thus all the benefits become available. The government cannot then write a law that it will only provide benefits to heterosexual marrieds.

Yes, right now we have to avail ourselves of a gay or gay-friendly attorney (and trust in their skills) to outfit us with a battery of documents with which to fit every possible occasion. A Marriage Contract will not do that. But in a future after a Supreme Court battle such as Adam Gay & Steve Queer v. Georgia over such a First Amendment religious right to define their own marriage, perhaps then it will. That is why I say such a court decision would necessarily have to simply wipe out Civil Marriage.

If we only seek to have government expand the definition, then there is always the possiblity in the future that the definition will be contracted back to that of a man and a woman. Indeed, looking at the present statistics, I believe that such a political (changing a law in the legislature) or even a lower court decision would be overcome by a Constitutional Amendment. But in reality the state has no power to grant a marriage, it has taken that power out of the hands of the people who put it in the realm of their religions. So we should re-exert that power/right. And now it is time for gays to make a religious arguement (I know for many that seem 'queer') in the courts and demand that government relinquish that power back to the people.

Only then if the government should accept/affirm any marriage it must accept/affirm ALL marriage unions. If the government wants to allow marrieds to file jointly and avail themselves of a tax credit then I, Robert and maybe Kerry down the road would be able to file as marrieds. If fact, then we can really get the government down to affirming our families, which have become most important to us.

...

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:37 pm

Originally posted by Lamashtu

Lijdrec, I think you have an interesting idea, but I have some concerns that I wish you could clear up for me.

One of the problems the government would have with this arrangement is the paperwork involved in processing all of the unions. Right now, the only thing the law recognizes in terms of marriage is either marriage or divorce. To make marriage that fluid would, most likely, lengthen the time it takes to grant any sort of marriage or divorce. It would probably raise taxes as well, because the government would have to dedicate more manpower to the issue of recording and dissolving marriage contracts. And if you take the power away from the states and have the federal government handle the filing of marriages, each issue will take even longer to process.

You mentioned that allowing individuals to choose whom they wish to marry would then force the government to grant all of the same rights to them as they grant to a heterosexual couple. This includes tax deductions and other benefits. If any number of people could marry under one contract, the government would lose money. It may then compensate by raising other taxes or maybe even resort to a marriage tax.

Another issue would be the age of consent to marry. If the government had no control of marriage, wouldn’t that allow anyone of any age to legally marry anyone else, such as a six year old child marrying a thirty year old adult? Right now, a parent can legally allow a minor of a certain age (depending on the state) to marry, so, even now, marriages are not for adults exclusively. If there is no law prohibiting minors to marry, anyone could take advantage of a child, as children are not fit to give consent. How would this work?

Also, if the government should accept all marriage unions, wouldn’t that then make incest legal? If the parties involved consent to the union, the law must recognize the marriage, any marriage. That raises health issues along with a number of sexual abuse concerns i.e. Father daughter incest.

I would really appreciate it if you could explain how these problems could be solved within your argument.

-Mina

by **Repost Moderator** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:38 pm

Originally posted by Lijdrec

Sure Lamashtu.... I seem to be Mr AnswerMan today....

Paperwork, cost, marriage granting and divorce costs, the Federal government.... whoa!!!!! Some of your problems just do not exist, and others are misconstrued. Still others are easily explained.

As I see it everything in your first paragraph is a mute point! Costs are taken care of by filing/recording fees; and those are most likely to be much higher than $12 I mentioned. That was what it cost me the last time I bought a plot of land and recorded the deed; the costs are bound to be much higher. All they are doing is typing it up and putting it into a Court Order Book, or scanning it into a computer, or creating a photocopy, etc.; and the fees would handle that! There may be a separate Register of Marriages to record the particulars of the identities of those who are party to the contract, but I see none of this increasing costs above what is already done.

Divorce has always cost money to handle in the courts; but creating a contract that might specify how property would be divided in the event of a dissolution might actually decrease the workload on divorce courts. In effect by having the parties create their own contract through an attorney passes much of the burden of the costs to those seeking marriage. So now you have one more fee to think of when planning your marriage.... attorney's fees! Of course, you will probably be able to get around that an download a standard contract from the Internet!

Uh, no one grants a marriage to you under my system; you enter into it on your own with your spouse. There is no "by the power granted to me by the state of Californicated - I now pronounce you wife and wife." There is only you and your spouse, your family and friends, perhaps your minister, priest, rabbi, shaman, or priestess, and God or The Great Spirit, if you should so believe. When you take your vows (or whatever you wish to call it) in front of witnesses and sign your contract (and witnesses sign it) then you and your spouse(s) are married - and you did it all yourself!

The power, that the states now wield and is not due to them, is the power to define our relationships (among consenting adults) and the power to grant a marriage. Yes, those powers should be stripped. In doing so I have no intention of then placing them or the bookkeeping in the hands of the Federal government. Marriage has nothing to do with interstate trade. It is a local issue the same as your birth or death. Each state would set up its own bookkeeping (delegated to the counties, parishes, or other similar unit), which actually wouldn't be that much different than what it already does!

When it comes to taxes, well, I really doubt polygamy would be all that popular. Though earlier this year a friend who is a lesbian and I were jokingly considering a four-some (she and hers, me and mine) as partly a business proposition and to form a family and have children. I think the federal government would easily get around it by putting a household cap on any tax benefits or by specifying that the benefit is due to a family of certain minimum and maximum size.

As to the age of which entering into a marriage contract is to be allowed, I can only say that I never understood how some states (Kentucky comes to mind) could allow marriage at such a young age (with parental consent) as 14 for a girl, while at the same time I believe the age was 16 for the boy. Frankly, marriage is a bond, a contract entered into by the parties. In my own state I believe the age that one may legally enter into a contract is 18, I see no reason why that shouldn't apply to entering into a marriage either! If a person is of such maturity at an earlier age, then that person may redress the courts to emancipate themselves. So I see no problem with the age of consent to marry. In effect it might become more difficult for the young to marry and my personal opinion is that is probably a good thing.

Incest and pedophilia would certainly not be made legal. The age that states allow a person to enter into a legally binding contract would not allow pedophilic relationships. Besides both are psycho-pathologies that have nothing to do with romantic love between two persons. Allowing same-sex marriage does not in any way sanction such perversitites as incest or pedophilia.

So now do me the favor of answering a question of mine. To which organized family-rights lobby do you belong? Or am I totally wrong about the intent of your questions?

by **Lamashtu** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 4:45 pm

If marriage were relegated into a simple contract, it would be like a prenuptial agreement, in that it would only be executed when one or all the parties wished to dissolve it. Believing that marriage should be a contract assumes that the marriage will fail; that is the legal argument against prenuptial agreements. Also, youâ€™re assuming that the marriages wouldnâ€™t be challenged in court as many prenuptial agreements are. If marriage were to become a simple contract, it would hold no more weight than a current prenuptial agreement. So, why get married?

You wrote that the state government should create a separate â€œRegister of Marriagesâ€

by **Lijdrec** » Wed Sep 24, 2003 2:01 am

Lamashtu

Sorry about the mixup, but someone naming themselves after the Akkadian female demon that steals suckling babies from their mothers and eats them... well.... that and it being your first and only post here at the Kitten. And well..... anytime anyone starts talking about incest concerning gay marriage, you could easily speak of pedophilia in the same light. And then I start having Santorum flashbacks.

________________________________________________________

MARRIAGE CONTRACTS:

People have been writing marriage contracts for a millenia, two millenia, or even more, what's the problem? The contract is a legally binding agreement, marriage has always been - in part - a contract, or a bond if you wish. But marriage is more than that; it may be taken to denote the action, contract, formality, or ceremony by which the conjugal union is formed or the union itself as an enduring condition. Government should only concern itself with the fact that the contract/bond exists; upholding your contract as the standard for your marriage in any legal action. The action of being married, the formality you give it, and the ceremony by which you become married, are all up to you - government should not/must not play a part in any of that. What is also up to you is what goes into the contract, how you define your marriage. In our nations past the local (state) governments accepted the Christian definition of marriage and have only allowed unions between one man and one woman. That is where those governments have erred under our Federal Constitution.

In light of what I have said above, I do not see how you could define a marriage contract as being nothing but a simple pre-nup agreement. The contract is written not only to determine property rights but to also define the marriage based upon the tenets of your belief systems. So it is so much more. It would be written up based upon your religious beliefs or moral code. Government has no right to determine the tenets of your belief system. If you are an atheist/agnostic then you may have your own set of rules to write into the contract to govern your and your spouse's behavior. If you are a member of a religious denomination, that denomination might have a set of guidelines for inclusion in a contract. In order for your marriage to be consecrated in your religion, the hierarchy of that religion may require you to include their wording - their definition of marriage - within your contract. If you follow that faith you should be willing to accept their definition (NOTE: I am Roman Catholic, that doesn't make me a hypocrite just a bit confused!). The contract can be as detailed or as simple as you may desire. It may also be a simple form that you copy off the Internet and execute without the benefit of an attorney or ceremony; the form the contract and the ceremony of your marriage takes is all up to those marrying.

Mina - you and others seem to look to government as the last word/upholder/keeper of the institution of marriage, it is not, those who partake of it are. You also seem to think that government is the end-all for bringing meaning to a marriage - it does not. Meaning in a marriage comes from what you and your lover bring to a it. That is why you enter into a marriage, to proclaim it in front of family and other loved ones; to affirm in light of either your faith, your beliefs, or your morality; and to proclaim your love. The contract only codifies that under your own set of terms and beliefs. That is something that the government has so far been doing and calling it the institution or marriage. But in doing so government upholds a religious belief. Defining and creating a marriage is a personal issue/power/right - government should not control those aspects of marriage.

The MONETARY COST of my PROPOSAL:

I have been a geneaologist for nearly 20 years now, I have been in and around almost every type of record that is created by man and is recorded by government, be that city, township, county, or state; and I've been through several types that pertain to genealogical events in a persons life by the Federal Government. Counties (or a similar unit) primarily record marriage records now; and I do not see that changing. And what they do already is create a marriage register and in fact they record marriages twice. The first time is in granting the license, the second time government records the marriage return (signed license).

Since governments do not grant marriages under my proposal, you might come to them with your executed contract and marriage registration form (perhaps two copies, each an original) in hand (Note: after the fact of your marriage!). The marriage registration form would be a standardized form probably set by your state and available from your attorney (or off the Internet). You walk into your county health office or other designated governmental office (probably the same as before) with your paperwork or perhap even a computer disc in hand depending on your local government's requirements, give them to a clerk and pay a fee which covers all the costs that government incurs in handling/recording your paperwork! They most likely would affix a seal to your original copy of your marriage registration form and return it to you as a testament that your marriage was recorded. You do practically the same thing now, so where is the added cost that you seem fixated upon?

What I propose does not destroy the beauracracy that handles the paperwork that a marriage produces; nor does it create anything new or anything beyond what exists under the present system. What I propose, however, does destroy what is written within that paperwork, the ideas, and the laws that codify those ideas. For it is within the written word defining marriage that the power lies. And when the individual has control over what is written, then the individual has the power which has always been their inalienable right.

________________________________________________________

My apologies for mistaking your intent when you mentioned incest. But when someone mentions incest in an arguement dealing with same-sex marriage with me my gaydar goes off in a negative way. Are they from the Christian Far-Right and is the mention of gay men and pedophilia far behind? It's bad enough when a US Senator (Santorum) with whom you share your Faith starts in on the slippery slope and his statements belie the fact that he does not understand what our Catechism has to say on homosexuality. So I get a bit defensive.

________________________________________________________

Hmmm.... ok, I see your point now about incest. Incest has always been a social taboo in most any society. In my Faith it was taken to an extreme and you were not allowed to marry anyone within 6 degrees of consanguinity of yourself. That meant at one time that you counted back 6 generations in your pedigree and if you shared any ancestor with your espoused love you could not get married without a dispensation from the church (I used just such a dispensation to trace some of my ancestors in 16th and 17th century Switzerland). Later, thankfully, the Catholic Church changed that to just a straight 6 degrees back and then forward to your espoused (halving the previous requirement). So if you are to be married in most any religion of the world, there is already a built-in prohibition against incest. But at what degree of consanguinity do you consider incest to be?

Are first cousins being incestuous? During the French occupation of what is now the (French-Catholic) Canton of Jura, my then young, great-great-great-grandfather, Jean Baptiste IMHOFF married his cousin, Marie FLEURI, under the Napoleonic Code that the French occupiers imposed on that part of Switzerland. Also some elderly women (55-70) married some rather young men (14-16), one of which I believe was an Aunt marrying a Nephew. All of this occurred in the village of Soyhieres; and I know why they did it! It was done to preclude the unmarried men of the village from being drafted into French military service; in other words the villagers used the civil law against the government it did not recognize! I know this because later even after France withdrew from Switzerland the Napoleonic Code remained in effect (give a government an inch and they take a mile! Or all your cows!). And in those civil marriage registers was an annulment of the IMHOFF/FLEURI marriage that explained that the marriage was exactly that, a sham to escape the military. So the Civil Code did not seem to have the prohibitions that religious code had.

Yet what I also find interesting about this, is that the annulment notice was written by a Roman Catholic Priest. Indeed the process that my ancestors took to acquire an annulment was through the Catholic Church! They did not seek any civil recourse although the marriage was not even consecrated in the Church (the area was then appended civilly to Ct. Bern). Yet, this was evidently acceptable to the civil authority, because Jean Baptiste IMHOFF and Marie FLEURI both later married (other persons) both in the Church and in accordance with that same civil authority (or I wouldn't be here writing this!). This entanglement of the civil and religious authority is at the center of my abhorence of the government controlling marriage. But I digress..... back to incest!!

So is it enough that religious prohibitions and the social taboo be used to control incestuous marriages among adults? That is a most interesting question because, well, homosexuality was considered, and still is by many (debatably most?) people, a social taboo. Personally, incest between a parent and a child no matter what the age of the child is abhorrent to me. Yet I wouldn't want to outlaw it on the basis of my or any one else's moral code. So is it a health issue? Well, it may be a genetic issue in the health of offspring. But what of incestuous relationships in which one of the parties is sterile or an incestuous relationship that is homosexual? No chance of reproducing; or is there? Well there may be - I read recently that there is new research that showed that stem cells could be used to turn normal genetic material - from mice in the research - into either ova or sperm!

Okay, the government does have the power to legislate health issues and incest certainly can be that. Yet, I see a reverse-Santorum slippery-slope leading back to same-sex marriage as a health issue if it were in a part of marriage law. What might be a saving grace is that the legislation governing incest need not be a part of marriage law. If incest is legislated against in general as a health issue, it would also be illegal in the specific of marriage. Well, at least I hope so!

I would hope that logic would be correct. Wow! I wasn't sure if I could find my way around your assertion that the government must retain some control on marriage when it came to incest. Did I really get past need for governmental control to regulate marriage as concerns the incest arguement? I think I did! Got anything more you would like to throw at me?? Getting past your incest arguement makes me feel - STRONG!! Well, mentally at least! And to think, I almost gave up on it about an hour ago! LOL!!

Count me

-ed out again! Gotta get some sleep!

Edited by: Lijdrec at: 9/24/03 2:45 am

by **WebWarlock** » Wed Sep 24, 2003 8:16 am

I have been reading this thread with some interest, I may not have much to contribute except my support and point of view.

Let me state something first and unequivocally, I support marriage between two people of consenting age, regardless of genders. If a man and a man want to get married, or a woman and a woman then they should have that same option as a man and woman.

The unions of people of the same gender will not undermine society nor will somehow “cheapen” the marriage I have. I will support any politician that supports this.

The mere fact that it is now the 21st century and we are still denying this basic right to fellow human is not only unconscionable, but it speaks of fear and loathing that humankind has for it’s fellows.

Ok, here is what marriage actually means. Nothing and everything. Getting married, minus the ceremony, the pomp and circumstance, is really nothing more that your signature and your spouse’s on two documents, a marriage license and a marriage certificate. That’s all the government cares about. No one has come to look at my license to be sure I can call myself “husband”. I signed my sons’ birth certificates as their father and as my wife’s husband and not once did anyone ask to check.

But society treats you different. So different that only way I can only describe it is it like a secret club that all married people know about and we keep it from all the single people. You are now a part of society, or rather you now a citizen while everyone else is still a serf.

It’s hard to describe. More importantly it’s hard for me to figure out why so many others out there fear the idea of “gay marriage”.

I am with Xita on a lot of this. Marriage does not really need the support of the organized churches. I got married in Jamaica and could not tell you what denomination the pastor who married us was. But does it need the government? Yes. Without the government there will be no recognition. It wasn’t the church or the local community that I registered my marriage with, it was the recorder of Cook County, IL.

In any case, count on me and my family to throw in what ever we can to aid this cause. I have been writing my Senators and my Representatives (both State and Federal) to express my opinions with them.

Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

The Other Side,
home of Liber Mysterium: The Netbook of Witches and Warlocks: Available October 31st, 2003!

“Well-behaved women rarely make history.” - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich,
Professor Harvard University.

by **Lijdrec** » Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:04 pm

Well... I have been doing some more reading this morning. I figured that if anyone had a viewpoint on the issue it would be Canada. And indeed I found a document by the Law Commision of Canada entitled: Beyond Conjugality. It discussses the Diversity, Values, Relevance, and Legality of ALL personal relationships. Chapter Four: The Legal Organization of Personal Relationships of that document speaks to the legality of all relationships. A lot of you will love what they say, it's all very polititcally correct. I was especially interested in what they had to say about personal contracts to define relationships, in part the document reads:

People are always at liberty to express their commitments through contracts. Whether written or oral, contracts do regulate personal relationships...... Parties may choose to state explicitly in a written document their shared expectations and demand execution of such a contractual arrangement through the civil courts. The ability to forge one's own contractual regime and negotiate the terms of one's commitment is a valued tool in a free society and one which must always be available. But it is a tool beyond the reach of many people. Leaving the parties to design their own contractual or private law arrangements imposes too high a burden on people who do not have time, energy or the requisite knowledge to do so. The possible involvement of a lawyer to design such arrangements is also too costly or inconvenient for the majority of people. Furthermore, there is also a concern that the stronger or wealthier party may impose unfavourable terms on the poorer or weaker party.

Although contracts will continue to remain an important method for individuals to determine their mutual rights and obligations, they are not a sufficient remedy in and of themselves. The contractual model may respect the value of autonomy but often falls short of fulfilling other values such as equality or efficiency since too few individuals are prepared to negotiate the terms of their close personal relationships.

I have only this to say, this is the attitude of most liberal governments and of the most liberal of parties working within those governments. It is NOT an attitude to which I ascribe. I feel it is a most condescending arguement to make. It is one that is used any time that government is put forward as the savior for those citizens that are seen as either too poor, too busy, too weak, or not knowledgeable enough (read: stupid) to make a decision that is most important in their life. Therefore it is believed that government must speak for those poor, weak, busy, stupid citizens and make the decision for them. What government does in most of those cases is then eat away at the rights of the people to control their own lives.

The fight for gay marriage is all about reclaiming the RIGHTS of the people. It was the exact same fight to reclaim RIGHTS that was fought against the sodomy laws. Simply redefining marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry does not preserve our rights. Even if the right is conferred through a court decision such as Massachusetts, the power to redefine still lies with the government through the recourse of a constitutional amendment. Unless we assert our rights in this matter, the matter will forever be one of contention.

The Law Commision of Canada document had this to say, in part, about Registration Instead of Marriage:

......In order to have legal consequences, people would have to register their relationship. Legal consequences would accompany only the additional and separate step of registering the relationship for civil purposes. The system of civil registration would be open to all, married couples and others, who want to obtain public recognition and support of their relationships while voluntarily subscribing to a range of legal rights and obligations.

This idea has many advantages. By removing the link between marriage and legal consequences, the spheres of religious and secular authority would be more clearly delineated. By establishing a civil registration scheme open to all persons in committed relationships......

However, one disadvantage of leaving the solemnization of marriage to religious authorities is that the option of marrying in a secular ceremony would be lost. This may be a serious disadvantage given that civil marriage ceremonies constitute a growing proportion of marriages solemnized in many Canadian jurisdictions. Nevertheless, this would not prevent couples from calling "marriage" the registration of their unions and celebrating this commitment.

It should also be noted that under this model, married persons would have the choice, currently unavailable to them, whether or not to have their relationship status formally recognized by the state. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this choice. On the one hand, it promotes the value of autonomy for married and unmarried persons alike since they all will be able to choose whether or not to register their relationships. On the other hand, it may create the undesirable situation of undermining individuals' reasonable expectations. If individuals do not understand that a religious marriage unaccompanied by a registration does not result in any legal consequences, they may be lulled into a false sense of security having entered only a religious marriage. This would have to be understood and reinforced particularly by the religious organizations currently empowered to marry.

It should also be noted that this option may require substantial provincial and territorial co-operation. The complexities of divided jurisdictions would pose a challenge to the replacement of marriage with civil registration.

While there are many principled advantages to this model, it is not likely an option that would appear very attractive to a majority of Canadians. Replacing marriage with a system of registration undermines choice in the regulation of close personal relationships. Removing marriage as a choice for conjugal couples prevents them from continuing to use a legal mechanism that many regard as fundamental to their commitment. While further debate about the appropriate role of the state in marriage, including the possibility of removing the state from the marriage business, is worthwhile, we do not believe that this is a viable reform option at this time.

I would like to note here that my scheme is to have Registration and Filing of a Marriage Contract not simply registration. I find what is said above in the Law Commision of Canada document most condescending. Within this statement they consistantly point out that decoupling marriage from the government and relying only upon registration is 'a good idea' and that should probably be read as 'well, it gives the people back the rights we've taken from them.' But they consistantly come up with 'practical' reasons (excuses) not to return to the people those rights that are truly ours.

It also points out that you do not have to register your marriage, which would be true. There are those who find the government in their lives so repugnant that they would not seek governmental acceptance or recognition of their marriage. Yes, there are disadvantages to NOT registering and again the document takes the condescending attitude that Government knows what's best for you and you should thus do it our way.

Then there is that arguement brought forth that with only registration, it's goodbye to the secular marriage ceremony; and well so many people want that. Do people really want government solemnizing a spiritual (love) event? Isn't that the establishment of a State Religion??? Ah, but the liberal parties are the parties of love? Jeesh!

That section is ended by saying: While further debate about the appropriate role of the state in marriage, including the possibility of removing the state from the marriage business, is worthwhile, we do not believe that this is a viable reform option at this time. So it is worthwhile - does this mean that it is the 'right thing to do'? - but not a viable option - read: we have control, why should the government reliquish it.

There are numerous other good sections to read within the fourth chapter of thehe Law Commission of Canada document. One of these is a Brief History of Marriage Laws, which is very good despite its brevity. It also point out the continuity of modern civil marriage law with that of religious control of marriage (ecclesiastic or Canon law).

Additionally, there is The Case for Same-Sex Marriage. More on that later, maybe, gotta run into town.....

Edited by: Lijdrec at: 9/24/03 11:07 am

by **xita** » Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:40 pm

I would say my love doesn't need the goverment or religion to validate it. My love is its own force and there isn't any institution that can either strengthen it or sanctify it.

I do need the goverment to give me the rights and priviliges that a marriage brings all heterosexuals.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose."

-Me & Bobby
McGee

The Kitten, the Witches and the Bad Wardrobe Willow & Tara Forever

Wives and Husbands - the Gay Marriage Thread

Wives and Husbands - the Gay Marriage Thread

Re: What is your preference? Girlfriend, Partner etc.

Re: What is your preference? Girlfriend, Partner etc.

Re: What is your preference? Girlfriend, Partner etc.

I have a hankering for an Old French Term

Re: I have a hankering for an Old French Term

Re: I have a hankering for an Old French Term

Re: I have a hankering for an Old French Term

Re: Whatever you call it ....

Re: Whatever you call it ....

Re: Whatever you call it ....

Re: Whatever you call it ....

Re: Whatever you call it ....

Re: Whatever you call it ....

Re: Whatever you call it ....

holland

Re: holland

Re: Fair's Fair

Re: Fair's Fair

Re: Fair's Fair

Re: Fair's Fair

Re: Fair's Fair

Re: Fair's Fair

Re: Fair's Fair

Re: Fair's Fair

Re: Fair's Fair

Re: Fair's Fair

Marriage, from a married guy's pov

Contracts an Marriage

Re: Contracts an Marriage

Who is online