In which ariyanakylstram makes an excellent point

[unixronin]

As ariyanakylstram pointed out about California Proposition 8,

If marriage is so damned sacred, get rid of divorce, not the right to marry.

Ah, but that would impact those who think they have a god-given right to say who may and may not marry and divorce as they please, wouldn't it?  Whereas banning gay marriage only impacts, you know, them.

Look, folks, it's this simple:  If you disapprove of gays marrying, DON'T MARRY ONE.  If your marriage is in such jeopardy that two people marrying several states away can put it at risk, maybe you should be paying more attention to your own marriage instead of worrying about who else is doing it.

You know, mote, eye, beam, all that jazz?  . . . You did actually read that book, right?

Comments

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

See my response to

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<lj=unixronin>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

See my response to <lj=unixronin>. The biggest difference I can see is the expectation of children in a marriage. Please note, I am not arguing that same sex couples should not get the same legal privileges that marriages have. I am arguing against the unilateral redefinition of terms to extend privilege by judicial coup. (Plus, the refrain of "discrimination" is simply incorrect.)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that's a reasonable correlation of expectation any more, given the number of childless marriages and single parents. I also point out that there is a dual standard in saying "Gay marriages don't result in children", refusing to allow gays to marry on that basis, then refusing to allow them to adopt children because they're, you know, unmarried. (And of course because gay parents will raise gay children, because after all there's NEVER been a gay child who came from a straight family.)

[anda.livejournal.com]

And I would specifically point out childless marriages in which the lack of children is not a choice, such as those which occur post-menopause.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I am not saying there is any reasonable correlation anymore. I am not arguing for withholding privileges from same sex couples. I merely state that discrimination is an incorrect term to apply to the current situation, for a number of reasons.

I keep hearing that it is no big deal, call it a marriage and be done with it, what does it hurt? Based on just the response to my posts on this blog, it is a very big deal. And I am not arguing against extending privilege, just incorrect rhetoric. Emotions are very high on the subject. I see it as an observer only, I don't have a position on the issue. From a social observer point of view, the courts are part of the government. The government power derives from the consent of the governed. If the courts go further than most of the governed want to go, the people have the power to restrict what the courts can do. People can only be pushed so fast. It is really interesting how things are shaping out.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

If marriage benefits society only when there are children, then what about my marriage to Woof? We do not intend to have children.

My sister and her husband adopted their daughter, just as many same sex couple adopt children. Is there no benefit to their marriage, simply because their daughter is not their biological child?

On the other hand, Woof's parents divorced shortly after his birth, and his father was not involved at all in raising him (never sent any child support, either). Did any benefit accrue to society from his parents' brief marriage?

I think that the expectation that children and marriage go together is no longer valid. If a child is married when its parents are born, that is no guarantee that they will raise the child together. On the other hand, reliable birth control makes it possible for fertile opposite sex couples to have regular sex without expecting children.

I think that human beings do best when partnered. I think that humans will choose partners, whether they can legally marry them or not.

Society benefits when these partnerships are registered/licensed, so that there's no confusion over who is "next of kin" for hospital visits, who automatically inherits, who can be covered by your family health plan, etc.

Personally, I think the government should get out of the "marriage" business, a word so full of religious connotations. All our government should concern itself with is registering partnerships -- civil union -- no matter what the sex of the people involved.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. And, outside of the church/religion/sect in which it is performed, a religious marriage ceremony should carry no civil weight whatsoever.
"You want to keep this to yourself? Fine, but it'll become a purely religious act that does not convey any secular benefits or privileges, because you do not have the requisite authority to grant them."

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Total agreement!

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

But that is basically what we have now. Marriages must be registered by the state, for a fee, and can only be performed by authorities licensed by the state. Often the authority is religious, but the civil part of the marriage comes from state regulation.

Are you saying that religious authorities should no longer be able to gain state licenses to perform marriages?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Oh, they can perform all the marriages they want. Just if they insist on restricting their ceremony to members in good standing of their particular faith and deny it to others, then they cannot demand that it carry any secular weight outside of their faith. If the State accepts their private, restricted ceremony as having special meaning, granting a special privilege that the state must recognize, then the establishment clause comes into play. While if they offer it freely to anyone who asks for it, then they are not demanding any special privilege, and instead become simply an agent of the state in that regard.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

The ability to perform marriages is licensed by the state. Any registered clergy can perform any marriage for anybody that the state allows to marry. A couple that wants to marry must but a license, and may then go to anyone the state has granted authority to perform the ceremony. That signature and two witnesses and it is done. It sounds like you are saying that the state should no longer authorize clergy to act on behalf of the state to perform marriages. Why? It will just increase the cost to the couple getting married as they then need two services instead of one. In general, people do not go to a person they do not like to ask them to perform the marriage. You are saying that because people can't do what they generally won't do anyway, that an entire class of people should be denied the right to perform marriages. I am losing the reason behind the proposed restriction.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

We have had this discussion before. Please note that I am not arguing against extending government privileges to same sex couples. I am objecting to incorrect rhetoric. I see this as a social experiment, attempting to push social norms beyond what a substantial majority are willing to tolerate. In this case, the minority are not going to get what they want. The big question is: Are they going to take it away from everyone else in the process of fighting?