A Bright Gay Future For Marriage

[varun]

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/13/a_bright_gay_future_for_marriage.php
A Bright Gay Future For Marriage
E.J. Graff
December 13, 2006

While you were enjoying November’s tilt away from the far right, there’s some more good news you may have missed: The world is steadily warming toward same-sex couples. Just two days ago, the U.K. celebrated the one-year anniversary of its civil partnership law, which legally recognizes same-sex couples. And in November, both Israel and South Africa (a very odd couple indeed) joined the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Spain in recognizing marriages between two women or two men. That brings to total number of nations that have done so to six, in as many years, with the Scandinavian countries now jockeying to see which will be next...

...But full marriage, with use of the legally powerful but contentious M word, is just the tip of the iceberg. Around the world, almost all the developed countries recognize same-sex couples under some other name. All the Scandinavian countries have “registered partnership” laws, which are marriages without the magic word—and will almost certainly be upgrading to full marriage in the next few years. Other jurisdictions with such laws already on the books include most of Australia, states in Argentina and Brazil, Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, New Zealand, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

But wait, there’s more. To our south, Mexico City just passed a civil unions law; the Mexican state of Coahuila is working on one as well. In September, Uruguay’s senate passed a civil unions bill by 26 to 2; it’s expected to sail through the house. The Colombian senate recently passed a civil unions bill. Ireland, where citizens favor civil unions by between 64 and 80 percent (depending on the poll), has a commission working on its bill.

So why has the U.S. lagged on legal recognition for two women or two men who want to care for each other in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer, until death (or divorce) do them part? For several reasons. First, because we have the largest fundamentalist voting bloc outside the Muslim world. Second, because unlike much of the developed world—and unlike Europe through most of history—we have “either/or” marriage systems, with no intermediate legal recognition for couples who haven’t taken formal vows. Third, and most important, because the U.S. isn’t a single nation at all, in the sense that’s true in, say, Australia or Spain. We’re actually 50 tightly yoked nations, with 50 different sets of marriage laws. Although Massachusetts and Alabama are no more likely to agree on the finer points of marriage law than are Denmark and Poland, American states’ legal fates (and media coverage on social issues) are far more closely bound together...

[BattyDem]

1. With so many countries recognizing same-sex unions and/or marriage ...

isn't it possible that the denial of rights by the US will, in a few short years, have an impact on tourism? Why would gay couples who enjoy full, legal recognition in their own countries choose to travel to the US when they know that if one of them gets sick or has an accident, the other will have NO rights at all? What would the economic impact be on our country if all those couples stopped spending their vacation dollars here or stopped seeing American movies or buying CDs by American artists or boycotted all American-made products? What if the governments of those countries who recognize same-sex couples demanded that those couples maintain their rights when visiting the US? Could this eventually become a major issue in world diplomacy? :shrug:

The rest of the world is moving forward while we're going in reverse. It's only a matter of time before it has an impact on us. JMHO

[Critters2]

2. Last night, my church's board voted to allow me to do "covenants"

for same-sex couples, but not to call them "marriages". I'm deeply disappointed. But the tide is turning. I told my glbt parishioners today that it's only a matter of time. And then I cried with them.

[youthere]

3. I just don't understand this...

even my mother who supports GBLT rights, and wants them treated the same under the law, won't support the word "marriage". I just don't get it. What is it about the word "marriage" that seems to trip everyone up?
I don't get it. I don't get it. I don't get it.

[Critters2]

5. Me neither. I thought I served a progressive church, but this is the point beyond which

they won't go. I don't understand it at all.

[BattyDem]

6. Time for a media blitz -- People need to make the distinction between ...

CIVIL marriage and RELIGIOUS marriage. Right now, the word "marriage" is so tied up in religion that most people don't recognize one simple fact: without a state-issued marriage license, the religious ceremony means nothing. ALL marriages are civil contracts. The only thing religious about a marriage is the ceremony in church, which is entirely optional.

The right to enter into a civil contract should have nothing to do with a religious ceremony. Denying rights to same-sex couples in order to "protect the sanctity of marriage" is ridiculous because there is no "sanctity" in a civil contract! Sanctity only exists in the rite of marriage, not in the right of marriage.

[youthere]

7. I'm all for that...

Everytime I bring this argument up with my mother she sees the logic in it but she still just can't get past it. She recently remarried (there's that word again) in a civil ceremony and when I tell her it is not a marriage, it's a civil union, it really raises her hackles.
Like I said, she supports GLBT rights-even though she has her own personal hangups about homosexuality, but this (marriage label)is a major sticking point for her. How do you fight it?
I'm at a loss. I :banghead: just :banghead: don't :banghead: know :banghead: what :banghead: to :banghead: do. :banghead:

[Critters2]

9. As a pastor, I think of marriage as the religious ceremony, too

The state-sanctioned thing is a contract, not a marriage. Try explaining that to lay people! One thing that would help would be if pastors didn't sign wedding licenses. I have a friend who is refusing to sign them now. He'll do a wdding, but if you want a license signed, he sends you to a judge for that. He says it's cut down on the number of people who want a wedding at his church because it's pretty. But his Deacons aren't happy....because they don't understand the difference.

I've come to believe that it's a violation of the Establishment Clause for clergy to sign state wedding licenses. But I'm in the minority here.

[BattyDem]

4. My 20 year old niece and all her friends ...

have NO problem with gay people getting married. They are the leaders of the future, so it's just a matter of time. :-)

There are also PLENTY of heterosexual adults like me who have no problem with gay marriage. As usual, it's the bigots who made it an issue. They are cultivating hate and fear to get what they want. For the moment, it's working ... but it won't last. Reasonable, fair-minded people always find a way to prevail.

[marmar]

8. I am sure at one point in the Netherlands, people could never envision equal marriage...

It will happen, eventually. I think what needs to happen is that more heterosexual LGBT allies, myself included, need to be more vocal. I agree, it's pre-programmed weirdness about the word "marriage" that's the big hangup. I have friends who are very supportive of LGBT rights, and are fully supportive of adoption and domestic partner rights. But when I say to them, "Well, it sounds like you support same-sex MARRIAGE," they respond, "No, I don't support marriage."
They support all the benefits of marriage, but not marriage itself.:shrug: Years and years of religious dogma, I guess.

[mattfromnossa]

10. Call me an optimist.

I think it is only a matter of time.

[Critters2]

11. I'm sure it is. I just wish it would hurry up! nt