When it Comes to Marriage, Let the Religious Right Have It

[Omaha Steve]

http://sdgln.com/social/2009/11/04/when-it-comes-marriage-let-religious-right-have-it

Why we should not just wait to go back to the ballot, but get out of the marriage fight altogether
Arlon Jay Staggs | Wed, 11/04/2009 - 9:54am

In Maine, we have lost another heartbreaking ballot initiative and we will soon hear the “re-activists” from countless marriage equality organizations saying they are out to “change hearts and minds.” They want your money and support to repeal Prop 8 in 2010. What they are really doing is cultivating “marriage madness,” and now is the time for it to stop. In fact, not only should we not go back to the ballot in 2010, but the LGBT community should get out of the marriage fight completely.

Our focus should be on earning equality rather than a title for our relationships.

Almost daily, you can find a blog, Facebook notice, or editorial comment where these re-activists spout out their anger and zeal; and with yesterday’s loss in Maine, expect them to ramp up their rhetoric even more. Delusional but well-intentioned, they claim to have enough “grassroots support” to win, which is another way of saying “we have no money and no experience, but we know a lot of really passionate people.”

They are actually “coffee-cup organizations” of pissed-off nobodies who met at a Starbucks and gave themselves a cute name, all in reaction to Prop 8.

Let’s rewind a bit and take a breath.

Why are we so enamored with becoming a part of such a miserable societal failure in the first place? The National Center for Health Statistics reports 60% of marriages for couples between the ages of 20 and 25 end in divorce. (When the bride is over 25, the rate drops to 50 percent.) What entrances us so about the opportunity to participate in a religious tradition that only boasts a 40 percent success rate? Your relationship exists regardless of what you name it. You get to define it, not the government and not the electorate. When it comes to marriage, let the religious right have it.

FULL story at link.

[PDJane]

1. Not quite there..........

make all marriages civil marriages. The civil marriage becomes marriage for everyone, the religious marriage becomes an expensive option, and the whole argument becomes irrelevant.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. I concur, only if all unions are civil which relegates "marriage" to the religious.

It has to be Federal and universal for that to work.

[PDJane]

6. Yes. That's where I was heading.

[Roosesvelte]

32. I Posted Something Similar In GD

I didn't realize this thread was here. It is written much better than my post, but hey, I'm not a columnist either. I think this approach is the next stage in the battle and winnable.

[bluestateguy]

2. No I do not agree

Marriage is more than a title. There are specific legal and economic benefits that come with this contract, and to deprive gays of that is effectively saying that we regard their relationships as second class to heterosexual unions.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. If all unions are civil unions and its supported at the Federal level, it will be fair to all

That leaves the term "marriage" to the religious for now...

[Toasterlad]

8. Depriving Gay People of the Legal, Societal, and Moral Connotations of Marriage Is Bigotry

Whether you make civil unions that standard for all is irrelevant. Changing the definition of marriage for bigoted reasaons is bigotry.

Very fucking simple.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Those would sacrifice equality over the use of a single word are very simple indeed

The term marriage, in and of itself, is part of the problem. It has the connotation of a religious ceremony and the blessing of some church and deity. We as a society need to move beyond that.

First establish absolute equality under the law for all formalized unions at the Federal and State level. Call it being joined, getting hitched, whatever. It really doesn't matter. There is no 2nd class formalized relationship. Existing ones would be grandfathered. All have the exact same treatment under the law. Let the churches do what they want with NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE which means they COULD NOT perform formal unions, or whatever it gets called in the law. They can call whatever they do what they want as well. Most likely within a few years all formalized unions will be referred to as marriage, assuming the term survives (I personally think it should not)

I know a number of hard core atheists. They refuse to use the term married since it indicate a religious ceremony and with it certain expectations, behaviors, and beliefs that they reject. They do the government thing and then have a party. More of us should take that approach. It eliminates the veneer of religiosity over the relationships adults choose to enter into.

Get absolute equality first and the common usage will follow, not that it matters.

[Toasterlad]

13. Marriage Was a Civil Term LONG, LONG Before It was Co-opted By Religion

This idea of "traditional marriage" that the bible-thumpers evoke is barely 100 years old. Marriage always was - and always has been - about the division of property and the establishment of rights and responsibilities between two people.

There is NO equality if bigots are allowed to exclude gays from the status of being married. PERIOD.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Errr, not even close

The definition was as a sacrament and that goes back to the establishment of the Christian church and runs throughout western culture.

You are also ignoring the chance to dump the religious aspects and move society ahead at the same time, a classic coup fourre. Yours is a limiting view

[Toasterlad]

16. Mine Is a Equality View.

I'd suggest you do a little more research on marriage: it predates christianity by a long while. And as I said, what we view societally as "traditional marriage" is not that old. Prior to the 20th century, marriages were much more about division of property, with the woman considered to be among that property.

I'd love to see religion dumped from society. However, as I've explained to you, religion is only associated to marriage by the co-opting of the church. Marriage existed before modern religion, and it can exist just fine POST modern religion. And, since the point is to demonstrate that gay couples are no different than straight couples, changing the terminology because of religious bigots defeats the purpose.

In any case, you will never get straight Americans to accept civil unions instead of marriage. It is stupid to try, and it dilutes and weakens valid attempts to gain actual equality. Gay people will have the right to be married on a federal level long before any idiotic effort to get straight people to embrace civil unions could possibly succeed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Yours is a fixed view that ignores the larger picture and is fixated on one word

Yes men and women have had bonded relationships since the begining of time, but in the US, marriage has always been religeouis first. Smae with Europe since the advent of Christendom. YOu comments about prior to the 20th century is just not true. Also remember that peasants married as well as nobles.

I agree that Federal recognition is the key

[Toasterlad]

24. Wrong.

Try here for starters:

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

While there has been a religious influence on marriage in the United States from its inception, marriage itself was and always has been a civil term, here.

[sui generis]

38. why are you here?

do you know how offensive this line of argument is? We're not the ones fixated on a word, by the way. "IF" you have to use "if" in a sentence describing our rights, they're not rights at all, just another lame fantasy.

We will be married. You may partake or not, and you won't even be obligated to thank those of us who are fighting for it tooth and nail.

Civil Broom Jumpin' - that's what we should call it. :sarcasm:

[ThomCat]

19. What sounds simple linguistically is not simple legally.

Laws refer to marriage and people who are married. Thousands of laws would have to be changed simultaneously on the federal level and in every state for this to work. That just isn't possible.

Otherwise, All the benefits continue to remain with the people who are called Married, no matter what you think.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Actually you can legally declare them as words with equivalent meanings

and when laws are updated the wording would be updated then.

[ThomCat]

29. No, you can't. Legally they already have separate meanings.

Those meanings are specific, and very specifically exclusive.

Have you ever worked in a professional setting where you had to reconcile the conflicts between similar but different versions of anything? Seriously, have you ever had to do any real work that has any bearing on what you are announcing here as if you know what you are saying? I have had to reconcile contract language where we had similar but different versions, and it is a nightmare. You can't just say, "I'm calling them both equal."

A lot of law and public policy is based on the separate definitions and the separateness of marriage and civil union. You can't make law and public policy just disappear on a whim without causing chaos and harming a lot of people. The differences would need to be worked out very meticulously and thoroughly, by searching for everyplace in law and public policy that is affected, and by reconciling those differences every time they are in conflict.

The best you could do is legislate how that reconciliation is to be handled and what outcome is to be achieved. But you certainly can't wish away the whole reconciliation process.

[TommyO]

33. Religion doesn't own the word, or the institution

why should we give in to religious terrorists who hold us hostage to their chosen beliefs?

[gleaner]

3. Many people who are in love ...

want to make a public announcement of their intention to spend their lives together, and that is why marriage is important to them. I've been married for 35 years and I am a straight woman, but I completely support the right of people who are not in an incestuous relationship to marry whether they are straight or gay.

I have known many straight couples who live together and never marry and that is fine with them, but we should all have the same choice. When you are pushing for what you want and it is both a civil right and a human right you will have heartbreaks and set backs, but that doesn't mean you should stop pushing.

The LGBT community is entitled to full citizen ship, and that includes the right to choose to be married. During the civil rights struggle in the 60s, the activists were always being told that they should "be patient" and wait for this right or that one. They labeled it "gradualism," and they rejected it. Human beings are all entitled to the same protection under the law and I don't think it is acceptable to tell them that it is OK for them to wait for it for any reason.

The Fundies have already taken away large chunks of everybody's freedom. I cannot benefit from stem cell research even though I have MS because they blocked it successfully for at least 8 years. There is no reason to give them anything else, except maybe the fight of their lives in every legal venue we can find.

[Toasterlad]

7. How Much More of This Uncle Tom, Bigot Appeasing Shit Are We Going to Be Subjected To?

I'd just like to know how many more homos and allies are going to be foisting this wrong-headed, defeatist fairy tale so I know how much Excedrin I have to buy. If you could all just check in to give me a rough guess, I'd appreciate it.

While you're doing that, maybe you can explain to me why we didn't have to change the name marriage when blacks wanted to marry whites, or when Jews wanted to marry gentiles. I'll give you a hint: it had something to do with not validating bigotry.

Separate Is NOT FUCKING EQUAL. It's VERY FUCKING SIMPLE.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. There is a religious component you blithely ignore, which needs to be addressed, to kill it

The approach I and many others support is to invalidate marriage as a legal concept since it is based on religion by establishing a single (not separate) status of formally joined as a civil process. It is inherently equal. It also allows the religious people their freedoms to do their ceremonies and takes away the cloud of inferred religiosity from the rest of us.

The opportunity to redefine the language should not be missed just because some simpletons can not understand concept. Marriage as a word and others like husband and wife, with all the stereotypes and baggage would die with it.

It is that fucking simple

[Toasterlad]

12. Marriage Is Not a Relgious Contract In This Country, Which YOU Blithley Ignore.

You are not married by a priest or minister or rabbi. You are married when your marriage license is filed at city hall. That's why two people can get married by a justice of the peace.

If the religious fucktards want to get up in arms about sharing a word with gay people, they can invent their OWN fucking word. We have as much legal right to the word as they do, and a much better rationale for keeping it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. It still has overwhelming religious overtones

This is a chance to get equality and chuck the religious issues at the same time. Some of us are going for it while others draw petty lines in the sand over a word that hopefully soon be an anachronism

You are indeed married by the priest, rabbi etc, its RECORDED when its filed. There is legal precedent for that. I attended a wedding recently where at the very end the words were "By the authority vested in me by the State of California and a minister of the gospel, I now pronounce you..." Tend to recall something like it being said at just about every wedding I have been to since I got back to the States.

[Toasterlad]

17. The Priest, Minister, What Have You Acts As An AGENT OF THE STATE

That's why they say "By the power vested in me by the state of _______". A marriage performed by clergy is no more valid than one performed by a justice of the peace. And no matter WHO marries you, your marriage is not legally recognized until it is filed with the local government.

The fact that marriage has religious overtones to ignorant people is irrelevant. It is a legal contract between two people completely divorced from any religious meaning. It is the term we use to define the legal coupling of two people. There is no reason to capitulate to religious bigotry and change that, even if you were to get the religious people to accept civil unions, which you will never do.

This entire argument is an insult to gay people, and hinders efforts at REAL EQUALITY.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. Sorry you can't see the bigger picture and are hamstrung over a single word.

Note marriages are recognized from the ceremony. If either participant dies before the paperwork hits the town hall, they are still considered married for inheritance and insurance purposes.

Marriage is in the minds of many a religious ceremony and to some a sacrament. The approach I describe is an enhanced separation of church and state. Explicitly recognizing two events which are currently muddled together legally.

The fixation over a single word makes this entire argument is an insult to gay people, and hinders efforts at REAL EQUALITY

[Toasterlad]

23. Fine. I'm Done With You. Waste Your Time And Sabotage Real Equality With Your Horseshit.

You still haven't explained how you're going to get the straight people to go along with having their marriages suddenly reduced to civil unions. Your plan is ludicrously impossible and counter-productive, but since you're too obstinate to realize that, it's pointless to discuss this further with you.

For someone criticizing others for being too hung up on a single word, you sure seem convinced that everything hinges on changing that word. Sounds like YOU'RE the one hung up on it.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Many denominations will wish to preform same sex marriages

and call them marriages. How do you propose to stop them? We have religious freedom. So when the UCC minister calls it a marriage, and the people in the marriage call it a marriage, you simply propose that the government be the only party NOT calling it marriage, even though you claim it would be equal to marriage. And called marriage by my minister. Are you coming with guns to stop him from saying 'marriage' without a big frilly dress being present?

[WillParkinson]

34. I'm sorry I can't see your "bigger picture" either....

I do not want "civil unions" I want to be married. As my parents and grandparents were. As Paul's parents and grandparents were. I believe in keeping with the traditions, even if I alter them a little.

[ShadowLiberal]

9. I think the article writer misses the point on what a gay marriage victory would mean

I think the writer misses the point, think back to some of the big victories that African Americans won that were considered landmark successes for them, like Brown vs Board of Education, and the 1964 civil rights act.

Sure those victories for blacks helped them win some equality, but it didn't erase the racism right away, there was lots of resistance to these victories in some parts of America where racism was still strong. Some states tried to get around Brown vs Board of education, a lot of racists protested it, that's why the little rock 9 was such a big thing.

A gay marriage victory nationwide won't make the hate and bigotry go away that gays suffer from, but it'll serve not only to give gays more equality, but also as a symbol of the battles we've won. It'll be a tool to help fight the bigotry, once people get used to gay marriage after a few years of it (it's happened in other countries, heck I think it was the Netherlands where over 5 years after gay marriage was legalized there was a 50% shift among pastors/rabbis/etc from opposing it to supporting it, with many of them even admitting that gay marriage did some good things no one ever predicted before it was legalized) it'll help fight that kind of bigotry that causes people to bash gays daily all over the internet and in the real world.

[closeupready]

18. It's almost like the author is arguing in favor of brief encounters, tea rooms and bus stops.

Because that's where that road leads - to transient relationships based upon little more than immediate sexual release.

Opinion pieces like this remind me more and more all the time that I am getting older, and that younger people sometimes speak so ignorantly because (obviously) they can't recall what life was like in the 70's and early 80's, because that's what life was like in the days when gay people could be arrested and thrown in jail just for being gay.

[cate94]

25. It is a fallacy to think that the religious right only objects

to the word marriage. The proof that they will stand in the way of any GLBT rights is proven by the laws passed in AZ and Fl during last years election. Constitutional amendments in those states prohibit the recognition of civil unions as well as marriage. If it really was just the word "marriage", why did those laws pass? Why did they fight against civil unions in WA? If we give up on marriage they will put all of their resources into fighting against civil unions. And make no mistake, they put their resources into fighting against marriage first but they will go after any rights we earn. I didn't look at the anti-civil union money in WA, but I bet you find Catholic and Mormon dollars high on the donor list.

The religious right tells us we are trying to redefine the word "marriage" and here ya go trying to redefine the word in attempts to get the intolerant to be tolerant. Good luck with that. These are the very same people who object to GLBT's being protected from hate crimes. These are the same people who willl keep you from visiting your partner in the hospital even if you have power of attorney health care.

Catholic priests don't have an obligation to marry divorced people. In fact, they won't marry divorced people unless they get their previous marriage annulled by the church. Divorced people are legally allowed to be married according to the state. What is the difference between allowing divorced people legal remarriage and allowing gay marriage, either way churches are not forced to marry anyone? The chuch continues to pretend that they will somehow be impacted by gay marriage. Of course these are the same people who tried to blame their cover up of child rapists as a problem with gay priests. AS if it wasn't a problem with pedophiles or ephebophiles and a hierarchy willing to look the other way. It was gay priests. And if you are wondering why I am picking on the Catholic Church, it is because they were a huge donor for the anti gay marriage effort in both CA and Maine. I am also ex Catholic and very familiar with it.

My desire for marriage is not about a title. It is about wanting full and equal rights. Marriage is a contract. Nothing religious about it. Contract. It is a legal contract that confers over 1200 legal rights. Got that? It is not a frigging title. The fact that hetero's don't have respect for the contract they entered into doesn't sway me from wanting to legally marry my partner of 17 years. If you don't want to get married don't, but don't get in my way.

As for the "nobody's" fighting for marriage equality, they are citizens of this country fighting for equal rights for all of us. How dare anybody call them "nobody's"? They are exactly the type of people this country was built by. WTF kind of person dares to call people fighting for equal rights a nobody? Who was Martin Luther King before he started fighting for civil rights? Most of this article was just capitulating BS, but calling people fighting for your rights "nobodies"? Arrogant, appeasing bullshit.

[varun]

28. The domestic partnership bill in WA state is a good example

the religious right used the same anti gay ads in WA as they did in Maine. In WA there was no marriage referendum - but a domestic partnership legislation. But the ads showed that if the domestic partnership bill passes, children will be forced to learn about homosexuality.

If you ask for marriage, you may get domestic partnership. If you ask for domestic partnership, you end up with nothing.

Set your goalposts farther.

[Starry Messenger]

26. Nope.

Marriage. All of this hair-splitting is a pure time waster.

[t0dd]

30. It's more than just a title.

Marriage carries significance and meaning in our society. It's no longer solely a religious institution. Loving gay couples should be allowed to commit to each other and call that bond marriage. And when interracial couples were fighting for the right to marry, no one suggested civil unions for all or any of that nonsense. Full marriage equality and nothing less.

[Tyo]

35. Exactly

No matter how it's been popularly viewed, marriage hasn't been a religious institution in this country for decades if ever. Clergy are granted authority by the state to formalize marriages. Without state approval (and a duly licensed couple) they can not perform a marriage that is legally binding. Also, as you point out, the word carries huge social significance. This probably more than the legal aspects is why the theocrats are so desperate to keep us from having it.

[David Zephyr]

31. There is a lot of sentiment within our community along the same lines.

I posted in dsc's thoughtful thread on this very subject.

Sometimes, I think we should push in a more focused way to take the equality of marriage rights within the civil union umbrella for now and leave the culturally and religiously loaded term "marriage" alone for the time being.

The questions we need to ask ourselves are: Do we want the civil rights or the name "married"? Do we have to have them simultaneously? Can one come before the other?

These are good questions. I'm glad to see reflections.

We don't win the marriage battle when it comes to mob rule, majority rules elections...yet.

We do win the Civil Unions battle (even in ballot initiatives as in Oregon).

What are we fighting for?

Wouldn't a lot of our sisters and brothers benefit from the civil rights within Civil Unions now?

Omaha Steve, thanks for posting this. There are many who feel the same as Arlon Staggs, "When it comes to marriage, let the religious right have it."

The point that I see that he misses in his article though is this: For GLBT couples who are raising children, the word "marriage" means a lot to them and their kids. It does. I can't argue with that.

This just isn't an easy question.

[sui generis]

37. I'd like to see a show of hands.

Really. I think you guys are in the EXTREME minority within our community. Nevertheless, it is you who will be quoted as speaking for all of us by people who have a vested interest in painting us with a broad brush.

It is NOT good enough - baby steps are for babies. We're adults with adult lives, and if we're not asking for EVERYTHING to be ABSOLUTELY equal, including what we call it, then we're endorsing inequality, by baby steps.

I'd rather have nothing - as we do now. We get by, and it's even to our financial advantage in some cases, but having a half-baked fake idea of civil unions, not recognized at the federal level is just patronizing to us as fellow Americans, and I won't participate in that.

[David Zephyr]

39. You ridicule our history as "baby steps". You should be ashamed of yourself.

Please read the post again. Especially the end of the post.

But I really must ask you a few things?

Are you actually scoffing at all of the incremental progress that many of us have worked for decades to achieve for us thus far as just "baby steps"? You mean to say that those little bits of progress won by hard work and great sacrifice by our GLBT community just a string of pathetic "baby steps" in your smug eyes?

Do you consider Harvey Milk's small (by today's standards) successes "baby steps"? Would you mock his achievements? Do you think that Larry Kramer was some sort of joke? Or the Mattachine Society?

Do you consider the years I spent in ACTUP fighting for my friends who were dying and our achievements for some help from the feds as "baby steps"? Do you belittle that?

Do you consider the efforts of my dear, now elderly lesbian and gay friends, who marched with me, worked telephones, gave tens of thousands of dollars from their pockets to achieve domestic partnership rights within California corporations and now state wide just "baby steps"?

Do you mock all of that progress that benefits our GLBT sisters and brothers as "half baked" and "fake"?

I've worked since 1970 for GLBT causes. Thanks for ridiculing and mocking all of those efforts as "baby steps".

I'm sure you there at your keyboard believe you would have accomplished more. Well, let me applaud you in advance for all you intend to do, your all or nothing grand and self-rightous stand.

What a dope I've been all these years taking "baby steps" and working for all that "fake" progress.

You really told me off good, didn't you?

Now be very proud of yourself.

[sui generis]

40. Get over yourself please

We're all in this together - and you just made your entire reply ALL ABOUT YOU.

I wasn't attacking you personally anyway, so sorry you took it that way. I just think that the civil unioners are wrong, and I've more than made my point.

Please don't EVER claim your experience is something unique or different in this forum, around people whose history you don't know - that was a gentle warning that we've all lived through the worst of this shit together and NOBODY has the right to try to pull rank, especially not for the purpose of instilling some drama in a reply.

The things you were talking about were not baby steps, by the way. When I say "half baked and fake" it's referring to what we're being spoon fed by people who don't want us to be married. Again, I'm sorry for your misinterpretation. If you want to torch a monster, you've come to the wrong castle. THAT was mocking, but not with malice.

I don't understand your anger at me over my reply. I'm not the one keeping you from getting married, but you seem to have forgotten that. I'm a purist, you're not, and there is no color attached to that judgement. In your life you've discovered that you can accept making incremental progress. In my life I've never settled - and perhaps both of us have been successful in our methods to believe those methods are right for us.

One thing is certain, it will take both of us. So if you dander is back down missy (:P) I can promise you that saying I'm against civil unions doesn't mean that I'd vote against civil unions if that was the only choice available. I'm for marriage though, and if I'm going to give effort and money to a cause it will be to deliver marriage to all Americans, equally, and not settle for anything else.

You see, there were some people in Maine who were for civil unions but against civil marriage who voted against marriage, and that in a nutshell is the real reason I don't like civil unions.

[David Zephyr]

41. Well said.

But keep in mind the election in Washington State. That was a good thing.

On the other hand, I'm probably more of a purist than you know (my friends think so anyway), but I admire you and want you to remember that we've made a lot of progress since 1969 and it's taken all of us.

One of the greatest things that ever happened to our community, in my little opinion based on having lived through it, was watching how our lesbian sisters jumped in with all feet to help my gay brothers when AIDS was devastating us left and right in the 1980's. Up until then, for the most part, gay men could be pretty misogynistic back then -- even keeping our sisters out of our bars and clubs. Seeing that unhesitating wave of lesbian support was almost mythical now in scope.

We should not be going after each other. Becuase this is what our enemies want.

I am a proud, life-long socialist and homosexual and a non-believer in a 30+ year intra-racial relationship with the greatest guy on earth. So I'm hardly mainstream and would probably fall on the "purist" scale as much as anyone else. I've lived my beliefs since I was a teenager and never apologized for it.

sui generis, we are going to get there. Their walls are coming down. And you are making it happen and I appreciate and value your convictions. You are, after all, on my side. I know I'm on yours.

[sui generis]

43. grooviness

:grouphug:

:hi:

[sui generis]

36. Absolutely, totally, completely disagree, without ifs ands or buts.

We ARE going to have equal rights, no matter what, sooner or later.

To say we can't or shouldn't get married STILL means our family arrangements are considered peculiar and deserving of a different status. The two ideas do not jive.

I'm an American FIRST, and every American should have the ability to legally declare their family unit and "next of kin". Marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one.

I think the first one is more realistic. First we need to fix our constitution and state constitutions.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

42. The Bottom Line Is...

the bigots don't want us married, civil unioned, or anything else approximating an ability to have societally-approved commitments to each other. I think we should not give in to their bigotry. Marriage for all!