I view it differently.

Post #307,144 by Another Scott 4/10/09 7:13:23 PM Reply	I view it differently. It's not just a battle over a word. The word is more than just short-hand. It wasn't that long ago that mixed-race marriages were illegal in many parts of the US. While analogies are always imperfect, making an analogy to that from the present situation is instructive, I think. Why couldn't there have just been a Civil Union for Obama's parents? Traditionally, many people believed that the races shouldn't mix. Why not just call a mixed-race union a Civil Union since so many people were upset about mixed-race marriages? Why not? Because "equal protection" is a vitally important concept. It must not be subordinated to religious doctrines. We tried "separate but equal" - it doesn't work and it's not good enough. Many of those who are most vociferous in their opposition to gay marriage are intent upon restricting the rights of others based on a world-view that is ultimately grounded in their religion and in their ignorance and fear of those who are different. Their fear of gay marriage has the same root as their fear of gay teachers or gay soldiers or ... As the Iowa court pointed out in their ruling in Varnum v Brien - http://www.iowacourt...arnum/07-1499.pdf - , unless there's a compelling state interest for an exception, then the law must apply equally to adults. The child-rearing argument holds no water, as the court pointed out. Neither do the other usual arguments against gay marriage. Nobody is forcing a church to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone. Civil Union laws aren't good enough. Gay Marriage needs to be permitted. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #307,145 by drook 4/10/09 7:48:24 PM Reply	You missed the implication of what I said (Some) people are hung up on the word "marriage". I think for the most part they're hung up on the reality of what that word represents, and if we don't call it that it's like not recognizing China. It's a way of denying reality. So basically, I think they're wrong. However ... the fact that those people exist is the reality I have to deal with. I could pretend they don't exist and say, "Just call it marriage." But that doesn't seem to be working so well. So what could we do that achieves equality and pisses off both sides just about equally? (Usually the hallmark of an effective solution.) The state doesn't get to use the word "marriage" for anyone. Fundamentalists want to say, "You (the state) can't call that a marriage, because my religion says only a man and a woman can get married." Fine. You've just claimed "marriage" as a religious term, not a legal one. Then the state can't call what you have a marriage either. So gay couples don't get to call themselves "legally married". But neither do straight couples. They all get the same civil union as everybody else. And if they can find a church willing to perform a religious ceremony for them, and they call that a marriage? Then they're married. -- Drew
Post #307,146 by Another Scott 4/10/09 9:00:25 PM Reply	But the horse left the barn and is in the next county. I've said before that I think that the benefits and responsibilities that we associate with "marriage" should more objectively be associated with "family". My grandfather and his elderly sister lived together (with my uncle) for decades after their spouses died. There was nothing sexual going on, but they were a family as much as any other. Why shouldn't they have been able to file a joint return or claim all of the other benefits of married couples? Fixing that wouldn't involve abolishing the civil term "marriage", it would involve instead more formally defining "family" and adjusting the legal code as appropriate. I think "marriage" is a perfectly good term and there's no reason to give it up. Those who have no religion should not have to give up the term, either. Finally, I think there is less chance of disruption in applying a broader interpretation of "marriage" than in eliminating the term. I don't think that giving in to those who say "no marriage for you!" is a good solution because, as you say, it's not the word that really matters. They would (and they will) find another "tradition" on which to hang their ideology of excluding those who are different. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #307,147 by drook 4/10/09 9:17:55 PM Reply	Good idea, but DOA They'd just do a global search-and-replace on "marriage" and sub in "family". Defense of Family Act, etc. By changing the debate from "What counts as marriage?" to "Why is the state defining this in the first place?" you can at least (try to) have a better discussion. -- Drew
Post #307,193 by boxley 4/12/09 10:57:53 AM Reply	marriage is a religious term not a legal term the legal history all deals with inheritance and taxes not rights or abilities. With dna testing and civil unions the state gets out of the religion business remember that separation of church and state thingy?. Any one can claim they are married regardless of the state. I remember two guys from my youth that were married, introduced themselves as such. Were respected as such by people that knew them and that was in the late 1960's. They didnt need obama to walk them down the aisle to feel right. thanx, bill
Post #307,203 by drook 4/12/09 11:51:48 AM Reply	So they were covered on each other's insurance? They could visit in the hospital? They got the inheritance if someone died suddenly without a will? Yeah, that's the legal stuff, not the religious. And it's the stuff that the state hasn't (yet) decided to say can happen any other way than marriage. -- Drew
Post #307,208 by boxley 4/12/09 12:13:40 PM Reply	actually neither had insurance :-) they did discuss having wills, and general poa on each other so yes they were covered and it does cover the same things marriage does. A marriage license is similar to a general power of attorney confering many of the same rights and responsibilities
Post #307,192 by boxley 4/12/09 10:51:16 AM Reply	nope, my marriage was illegal in virginia when did I ever give a fuck about what was legal? The law in virginia could have determined that my marriage was a civil union, why would I care?

Welcome to IWETHEY!