What Do You Think About Marriage...?

[Buzzer]

Yet the "emotional" (I would say "political") side of the argument is precisely what you also have to win over in order to ensure that the progression of our rights is not going to be halted (or, as it sometimes happens unfortunately, reversed) by some conservative asshats who can draw on commonly recognized religious or family values. Moreover, as Pix pointed out, legal rights alone do not necessarily guarantee you the actual benefits you're entitled to if the law is not being followed or deemed legitimate. The law is not merely procedural but also symbolic in the sense that it has to rely not only on the threat of force or sanctions but also on a publicly recognized set of values. All of which comes down to the fact that we shouldn't surrender the "moral" side of the argument to our enemies.

I realize you're from Europe so you do not have this same sort of frame of reference to draw upon, but how familiar are you with the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S.? If we'd left things up to the individual attitudes of individual people in individual communities in individual states across the whole country, I can guarantee you that laws against mixed-race marriages would still exist in some parts of the country. Hell every single year we still hear about some small town somewhere cancelling the local h.s. prom and converting it into a private invitation-only party because parents in the local community are so against white-black dates attending.

When it comes to legal and procedural equality and rights of the minority, I think it's both unrealistic and unfair to tie the progress to how rapidly or how slowly individual attitudes change when there is no legal basis for continuing to uphold unjust distinctions in law.

Sometimes unfortunately it's a case of you have to write off some bigoted people as a loss, disenfranchise their power to enact their prejudices, silence them, shame them, sideline them, and wait for them to die off.

[Bhp91126]

Awwww... You're making me tear up too.

Actually Bhp, marriage as defined by the dictionary (forgive me, I haven't checked Roget's thesaurus) is a synonym for wedding. Now you might be able to argue that a civil union is different than a marriage, but that's splitting hairs.

I want a civil union. It isn't that I don't want to get all gussied up in a lovely white ...tux, with lots of lacy bunting and flowers in front of family and friends, its more that I don't give a good crap about religion. I'd rather not be in a church, or have a minister marry Mark and I. He feels the same. Proclaiming our love in front of family and friends after 30 years is unimportant to us. If they haven't guessed by now it isn't my cross to bear if they're terminally clueless.

What I want is what Iceblink so eloquently posted. I want the same civil rights that every heterosexual not only enjoys, but takes for granted. I want all the legal protections. I'm not sure I would change my name to his. I have hated my last name for a long time. It's one of those Polish numbers with extra consonants tossed in for no good reason whatsoever and I am dead sick and tired of correcting everyone and their grandmother of its correct pronunciation. But that's just a detail.

I envy you Will and Adam (age before beauty). As soon as its possible,and legal, we will be wedded.

Now the more important question: Where are you taking each other on the honeymoon?

:confused:

My definitions of getting married and a wedding come from an even higher authority: Hollywood!
Steve Martin in "Father of the Bride" explains it as the difference between the legal contract made in front of a city-official and the circus-productions that modern weddings have become.

It is pretty important to me to call myself married and him my husband, but that is more on an emotional level needing the legal back-up to do so. Like I said, it didn't change a thing between us, but we are reaping the benefits from the outside.

Also, if the religious nutcases need to distinguish their marriages from mine, they can look for a new expression for theirs, for all I care. And all those church leaders whining about being forced to perform gay weddings (which is absolutely not what has happened, nor will it ever happen) can seal off all their churches, temples, mosques etc. and rot in there.

[MikeW]

Marriage equality is about having equal protection under the law for gay men and women who choose to couple. This is especially important if you're in a relationship with someone and not on good terms with his/her family. What happens if he/she becomes sick and is hospitalized or dies? Without equal protection under the law, you could find yourself being excluded from any decisions regarding your lover's health and welfare, barred from visitation, barred even from attending his/her funeral, etc.

So, that's why this is important. We should have the same legal *rights* as straight people. There's absolutely NO reason we shouldn't *except* that it hasn't been apart of our society or culture since Roman times. We're changing that.

Now, imagine 20, 30 years down the road when there are gay couples living in rural or suburban areas where there are gay kids growing up. If they see these couples out and about, even if they never meet them, this will have a huge psychological impact on how they "understand" what being gay is and means. I think this is another aspect that is often overlooked and is also one of the reasons the fundamentalists get all bent out of shape about it.

Finally, I think marriage is very important if you want to have a family. It creates a bond that isn't just emotional but has roots in the legal underpinnings of the society itself. It creates a sense of safety for all involved. Of course *anything* can happen, but that's the point. A marriage constitutes a "family unit" that has its own established place in society.

[Iceblink]

Yet the "emotional" (I would say "political") side of the argument is precisely what you also have to win over in order to ensure that the progression of our rights is not going to be halted (or, as it sometimes happens unfortunately, reversed) by some conservative asshats who can draw on commonly recognized religious or family values. Moreover, as Pix pointed out, legal rights alone do not necessarily guarantee you the actual benefits you're entitled to if the law is not being followed or deemed legitimate. The law is not merely procedural but also symbolic in the sense that it has to rely not only on the threat of force or sanctions but also on a publicly recognized set of values. All of which comes down to the fact that we shouldn't surrender the "moral" side of the argument to our enemies.

For the progression of some matters of equality, you do have to win the emotional argument. You can pass a law that says lgbt people must be treated equally in employment and housing, but it can be difficult to enforce if you can't prove there was discrimination in not getting a job or apartment. When it comes to the government issuing a marriage license, it is not that difficult of a question as there is not a matter of there is only enough openings to go around so only some people are going to get it. Once a court rules it is illegal to not issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, city and county clerks have no choice. Anyone that meets a few requirements in the state such as being of certain age, and it must be the same for everyone gay or straight, or is not already married must get it. If a county clerk refuses to issue the license to gay couples, it will become obvious. If a government employee tries to deny social security to a surviving gay spouse or charges a surviving spouse inheritance tax, it will be obvious. In this case, spotting the discrimination would be easy. Almost all, even those that vehemently disagree are going to do exactly what the court instructs. There might be some that early on refuse and it could mean some government employees are fired or resign and it could even mean some county clerks are held in contempt, some could even be jailed, but once we have the definite ruling from the Supreme Court, the hardest part of the battle for marriage equality is won. The only way for elected politicians to override SCOTUS's ruling is almost impossible to obtain for a matter like this with where we are at in this country. It was actually nearly impossible to obtain even before the mood of the country had shifted to majority support. They do not make that process easy for a reason. Since this is discrimination in the matter of something through the government, it is much easier to enforce and recognize violations than it is in discrimination in the private sector. Once we all have the right to government-issued marriage, I really don't care if I've won the heart and mind of some bitch 600 miles away from me, wearing nothing but her Walmart bra and panties, eating microwaved sausage links and smoking her Pall Mall menthols and sitting with her third husband at her kitchen table bitching because someone like me got married. (That's how I always imagine my personal gay hater.) She can sit there and fume, because I will married and she can't do anything about it.

[meridannight]

I don't think one can argue for gay marriage solely based on legal stuff. It always leaves the space open for conservatives who can argue precisely that gay people wouldn't need to be able to get married if they received all the same benefits from a civil union.

why do we need to invent a different institution with all the same consequences and legal obligations if we already have an existing institution for that? that says it exactly that gay partnership is not the same partnership as a straight one. how is it not the same then?

that is exactly the premise in this situation. see, if the conservatives are willing to give the same legal partnership rights to gay couples, that just means they are not willing to name it ''marriage''. ergo, marriage must be something exclusive to heterosexual couples. how is a legalization of a partnership between two people exclusive to heterosexual couples? if you're willing to give ground on one then it doesn't make sense not to give ground on the other.

those conservatives arguing against gay marriage keep promoting with this the viewpoint that a union between a man and a woman is more special, better, than a union between a man and a man. this is exactly why they are not willing to have gay couples get to call their union a ''marriage''. because they need to retain their illusion that their heterosexual relationships are still somehow better than homosexual relationships. that some sort of divide is still being recognized between homosexuality and heterosexuality. this is the only grounds they have left to argue against homosexuality and still come out not completely having lost credibility. and this is precisely why homosexual couples need marriage rights, and not just civil union rights with all the same benefits. because of the bigger picture. it's not just about individual rights. it's recognizing that homosexuality is on exactly the same legal, medical, and social grounds as heterosexuality. because it is.

[BurqueBear]

Hmm... so many well made points and different perspectives here. Definitely a joy to read. For my two cents: I do not want to be married. There is a stigma about the word "married" that implies some things I am very uncomfortable with.
There is a stigma attached to the word "marriage" that I do not like. I am not a Christian. I truly mean no offense to any of the Christian faithful here, but I am uncomfortable with people thinking that my union is in any way related to a God I don't believe in. In America, it seems you cannot separate Christianity from marriage. The other stigma that seems to be attached to marriage, at least here in New Mexico, is that kids and "settling down" will ensue. I will never "settle down", and I know myself well enough to know that I would be a terrible father. I know not to drop children or eat them, but after that, I'm at sea. I don't want those two expectations hanging over my head.
All I really want is the civil rights. I want my lover to be able to make medical decisions on my behalf, to inherit whatever I build with my own hands, and to receive any survivor benefits that I have earned. I don't want an institution like marriage. I want society to recognize that I have someone I love, someone I will spend my life with, and someone whose welfare I regard as being above my own. I want my love and commitment to be validated and not questioned.
I'm also moved to quote my quasi-homophobic father: "Marriage was created to legitimize the offspring and make clear the succession of thrones." I say, let the heteros have the word "marriage". Why do we need to follow in their footsteps?

[Wardo94]

I'm not as crazy as most are to get married. Most say a relationship is wasted if youe goal isn't to get married. That's a poor outlook on it. If I don't get married, then that's fine by me. What matters more, is finding the right person and hopefully sticking it out for a long time. And if the time comes, I don't mind getting married.

[Bowyn Aerrow]

In my 20's I wanted to marry, settle down, blah.

By the time I hit 40 I started seeing marriage as an institution, not as a thing of honor and love and that sort of stuff.

IDK, maybe because I was denied it and told one too many times 'A black man will be president before gays marry'. Or maybe it was watching so many people throw away marriages over stupid shit.

One of my nieces got married a year and a half ago, she is filing for divorce.

So much until death do us part. And seriously she wants a divorce over the stupidest of reasons.

I got tired of hearing about the Sanctity of Marriage, I got tired of hearing so many divorcees (some more than just once divorce) getting their panties up in a wad over two men marrying, yet they couldn't manage to keep those vows and at least try to make it look sacred...

I got tired of hearing about how God approves or doesn't approve, I got tired of the offers of second best positions, civil unions, Domestic Partnerships.

I got tired of going to weddings and hearing the couple make serious vows, then a few years later all of that 'honor and cherish' 'through sickness and health, for richer and poorer and holding no others until death do us part stuff becomes meaningless.

So I seriously doubt that marriage even shows love - it shows a desire to temporarily con the crap out of the other who is as willing to con and lie through their teeth.

And gays are no better. I'm already hearing of too many LGBT folk who got married and now want a divorce.

So I'm not buying the whole 'we will make it more meaningful because we were denied it so long' story.

Humans - Bah! Marriage - Humbug!

[Virge]

[SIZE="5"][COLOR="Red"]Wow! I never expected so many different perspectives on this and wouldn't you know it,.... I'm going to add a few more to this. hahahhahaha!

First ---
If you don't support the concept of same-sex marriages then you should at least support the effort and the struggle and make your support known. We who are working to achieve it not only for ourselves but for all like us yet to be born --- are confronting the very people who have made it their business to oppress, kill and imprison gays for 3,000 years based on bronze age religious Blicti (a Llanito word meaning "not worth an iota' or "meaningless words.")

Second ----
Reading the 35 LONG comments on this my work became real easy. I quit reading as soon as I came to anything about how the commenter felt same-sex marriage had no bearing on HIS life or HE had no intention of getting married if it becomes legal. I didn't stop reading because the opinions differed from mine. I stopped because this isn't an issue that should be looked at from an egocentric perspective limited to how it will effect YOU. There's a hell of a lot more at stake here than any single one person and failures of some to recognize that is a disappointment. This issue is bigger than men getting the right to get married. It is about establishing EQUALITY. If the opponents of same-sex marriage prevail they will not stop there in spite of what you'd like to think while you sit back in your life and don't want to be bothered. They will continuously seek to warp laws in order to discriminate, ostracize and even punish "ungodly unheterosexual people." NEVER underestimate the fundamentalists.

I will not even begin to discuss how being able to marry my man will change our lives or anything else about us. I will say this and be done with it. We're going to do it in a way in state where it's not yet legal that will embarrass the hell out of the people who oppose it...not for "us" but because of "all of us here now and yet to come."

[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[AlohaShannon]

I live in a culture where it is EXTREMEMLY common for heterosexual couples to be together for many, many years and never get married. I believe that some choose to not marry as a progressive statement and I believe others choose not to in order to prevent complicated break ups.

I personally choose to look at marriage through a romantic lens. Marriage to me is the ultimate expression of commitment (I'm not saying that those who choose not to marry are not committed, this is MY personal view). I feel that legally marrying tells your partner that through good or bad you will not give up, that you are with him for as long as he'll have you, that your love is so great that the idea of not sharing marriage vows hurts your heart.

But that's just me...like I said, I'm a hopeless romantic.