The Cowardly Solution to Gay Marriage

[General Zod]

What, if any, hand must a church have in marriage in USA? What happens when a heterosexual atheist couple want to get married?

Is this a serious question?

Yes. I live in Australia, and am not familiar with the actual laws in the USA. One hears all sorts of horror stories, like laws about the value of pi, and I wanted to get the facts straight. Even if you've got a decent link, I'll wander off and educate myself.

They do the same thing as anyone else who doesn't want to get married at a church and go through a judge or some other person legally capable of officiating a ceremony. Unfortunately the bigots aren't satisfied with this and want to keep the institution to themselves.

[Lord of the Abyss]

One hears all sorts of horror stories, like laws about the value of pi, and I wanted to get the facts straight.

Here's a Straight Dope column about the pi thing.

Are churches 'forced to marry anyone when they have religious objections for doing so' now? Who has proposed that they should be so forced?

No one, as far as I know. To my knowledge it's just slander and/or paranoid fantasy from the bigots.

[Omega18]

Are churches 'forced to marry anyone when they have religious objections for doing so' now? Who has proposed that they should be so forced?

No but, you might as well to confuse some the religious fundies into supporting the bill or new measure in order to protect themselves against the phantom threat rather than having to fight against the perception. (If done on a state basis by ballot, I can see an ad on Christian TV stations and radio about how they need to vote yes on the measure in order to protect religous marriage. All the sneaky tactics don't have to be performed by the bigots.)

[bobnik]

They do the same thing as anyone else who doesn't want to get married at a church and go through a judge or some other person legally capable of officiating a ceremony. Unfortunately the bigots aren't satisfied with this and want to keep the institution to themselves.

Thanks for that. I thought that was the case, but you know what they say about making assumptions.

[Dargos]

Why not define the religious wedding ceremonies as just that, religious ceremonies that have absolutely zero legal value. Have only civil marriages/civil unions recognized by law. You know, separation of church and state and all that. Of course that means those that are religious or want to have that “big white dress ceremony” you will have to be married twice. It works just fine in Germany.

[CmdrWilkens]

Why not define the religious wedding ceremonies as just that, religious ceremonies that have absolutely zero legal value. Have only civil marriages/civil unions recognized by law. You know, separation of church and state and all that. Of course that means those that are religious or want to have that “big white dress ceremony” you will have to be married twice. It works just fine in Germany.

Which is the core of what the article proposes. That is the state would no longer issue "marriage" certificates" but rather would issue some form of "civil union certificate" to any and all couples regardless of orientation. This would be the only legally recognized union and the churches can do whatever they want to the side. Moreover if folks want to call themselves "married" they certainly can but from a legal standpoint nobody is "married" anymore they are "joined in civil union" or some other such phrase. Its a bit of a steparound but I think it will fail more from the fact that bigots who don't want gays to enjoy marriage regardless of the name will accuse anyone promoting the idea of "destroying marriage" for straight couples.

[Vendetta]

Which is the core of what the article proposes. That is the state would no longer issue "marriage" certificates" but rather would issue some form of "civil union certificate" to any and all couples regardless of orientation. This would be the only legally recognized union and the churches can do whatever they want to the side.

At which point you might as well just drop the extra verbiage and call this new concept "marriage" anyway.

In the UK, marriage is legally completely a state institution which requires absolutely no religious involvement, just a legally appointed state witness (like the local registrar of births deaths and marraiges, but others can be licensed by the state to perform marriages), but the state also agrees to recognise marriages performed by religious organizations and grants them license to perform marriages. (there really is no reason apart from "seperate but different" bullshit that this hasn't been extended to homosexuals rather than civil partnerships).

[Darth Wong]

I'm not sure where you're getting cowardly from, but let the state issue civil unions, with all the rights and privileges we associate with marriage, let the two parties involved call it what they will, and involve any third party they wish (such as a religious institution), and it's the most logical (and fair) solution. This would actually open the door for homosexuals to get married far more cleanly by "lowering" traditional marriage to the same level.

This is neither logical or fair. It's the "solution" of a deluded imbecile, who honestly thinks that the church should be able to take exclusive ownership of an English word by declaring that the state should not be able to use it. Precisely why should the state endorse religious supremacism in this manner?

And what about people who are married in other countries and then come to America? Will they be barred from calling themselves "married"? Marriage is not a religious institution. The church declared it so, but that does not mean it is so.

Even hundreds of years ago when the church wielded far more power, they had no problem recognizing that married couples from the Far East and its pagan religions were legitimately married, without making the slightest inquiry into the question of what sort of marriage rituals (if any) were performed. This notion that the Judeo-Christian religion somehow owns marriage is the most incredibly arrogant and ethnocentric idea in public discourse today, and that's saying something.

[CaptJodan]

My thoughts on the matter are displayed here when debating with someone who was in support of something like this. http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8&t=132148

And I think Vendetta's right on this one. I don't think people are going to go around and say "they are civil unioned" when the single term "marriage" has sufficed as a descriptive term for what is being practiced. I suspect that either an equally shortened term would have to be devised for it to catch on, or most couples would just default back to the word "marriage".

[Darth Wong]

As I said, if the government says that it cannot use the word, then it is implicitly conceding to the church that the church owns marriage. Even if they are careful not to word any changes to the law thusly, the obvious implication will remain.

The history of America seems to be the history of religion quietly taking ownership of it, piece by piece. With "One Nation Under God" in the pledge, they took ownership of patriotism. With "In God We Trust", they took ownership of the money. They take one piece after another and bring it under their umbrella. And now they want marriage.

We need Patrick Stewart to bellow out "This far, no further!" in his characteristically stentorian tone.

[CaptJodan]

The thing is, I've heard this same argument (or something similar) just as much from some supporting the rights for gays to get some sort of governmental recognition. I know someone at work who is bisexual and feels that getting these rights are more important than who owns the word marriage, and I'd go so far as to say that this is that side's strongest argument.

Which is more ethically viable? Do we wait 50 years for gay marriage to make marriage equal for these types of partnerships, or does the LGBT movement accept full legal status in 10 years, then work on cutting out the separate but equal crap. Honestly, I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, equal civil rights benefits people now, while social rights (the right to be treated exactly the same and not looked at as separate) might come later, but it's still a net gain for those suffering now. On the other hand, it sinks of accepting what scraps of acceptance the general populace is willing to hand out to a people that should be grateful for that much, and should shut the hell up. It also means following a similar path to the civil rights movement, and I had the impression that such a movement wasn't something we look back on as being something that should have been necessary if the country had the moral fiber not to make separate but equal in the first place.

When do the ideals of a cause conflict with the practical and ethical nature of getting some relief now?

[General Zod]

The thing is, I've heard this same argument (or something similar) just as much from some supporting the rights for gays to get some sort of governmental recognition. I know someone at work who is bisexual and feels that getting these rights are more important than who owns the word marriage, and I'd go so far as to say that this is that side's strongest argument.

Which is more ethically viable? Do we wait 50 years for gay marriage to make marriage equal for these types of partnerships, or does the LGBT movement accept full legal status in 10 years, then work on cutting out the separate but equal crap. Honestly, I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, equal civil rights benefits people now, while social rights (the right to be treated exactly the same and not looked at as separate) might come later, but it's still a net gain for those suffering now. On the other hand, it sinks of accepting what scraps of acceptance the general populace is willing to hand out to a people that should be grateful for that much, and should shut the hell up. It also means following a similar path to the civil rights movement, and I had the impression that such a movement wasn't something we look back on as being something that should have been necessary if the country had the moral fiber not to make separate but equal in the first place.

When do the ideals of a cause conflict with the practical and ethical nature of getting some relief now?

It may be viable, but it's also retarded. If it's functionally the same as marriage, then why change the terminology at all? There's no point in doing so except to appease the bigots. I can't help but get the nagging feeling they'd still oppose this kind of movement simply out of spite or some irrational fear that the government's trying to take marriage away from them with backwards reasoning.

[Bounty]

In the UK, marriage is legally completely a state institution which requires absolutely no religious involvement, just a legally appointed state witness (like the local registrar of births deaths and marraiges, but others can be licensed by the state to perform marriages), but the state also agrees to recognise marriages performed by religious organizations and grants them license to perform marriages. (there really is no reason apart from "seperate but different" bullshit that this hasn't been extended to homosexuals rather than civil partnerships).

The first part of what you said is the most logical system. For most European countries a marriage is a civil procedure overseen by a representative of the mayor, and the couple is free to tack on whatever ceremony they want (be it religious or otherwise) after they are legally married. There's isn't even a need to grant any other institution to power to wed couples.

[Plekhanov]

The thing is, I've heard this same argument (or something similar) just as much from some supporting the rights for gays to get some sort of governmental recognition. I know someone at work who is bisexual and feels that getting these rights are more important than who owns the word marriage, and I'd go so far as to say that this is that side's strongest argument.

Which is more ethically viable? Do we wait 50 years for gay marriage to make marriage equal for these types of partnerships, or does the LGBT movement accept full legal status in 10 years, then work on cutting out the separate but equal crap. Honestly, I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, equal civil rights benefits people now, while social rights (the right to be treated exactly the same and not looked at as separate) might come later, but it's still a net gain for those suffering now. On the other hand, it sinks of accepting what scraps of acceptance the general populace is willing to hand out to a people that should be grateful for that much, and should shut the hell up. It also means following a similar path to the civil rights movement, and I had the impression that such a movement wasn't something we look back on as being something that should have been necessary if the country had the moral fiber not to make separate but equal in the first place.

When do the ideals of a cause conflict with the practical and ethical nature of getting some relief now?

That's something of a false dilemma, the only two choices here aren't (A) Campaign for gay marriage or (B) Surrender the term marriage completely to religion.

There are numerous other options such as (C) in the short term campaign for 'civil unions' or some such term for homosexuals which gives them the same legal rights as homosexuals then once that's achieved and the world fails to end push for gay marriage.

So far as I can tell the proposal mentioned in the OP has no upside over option (C) and a huge downside of surrendering a term and institution which isn't religious in origin and which huge numbers of non-religious people consider to be important completely over to religion.

[Vendetta]

The first part of what you said is the most logical system. For most European countries a marriage is a civil procedure overseen by a representative of the mayor, and the couple is free to tack on whatever ceremony they want (be it religious or otherwise) after they are legally married. There's isn't even a need to grant any other institution to power to wed couples.

However, the marriage first, religious ceremony seperately and afterwards, increases cost to the couple seeking marriage without real cause. Since the system already allows for persons to apply for the license required to perform marriages (ie. be recognised by the state as a legal witness for the state to the marriage), then it is simple enough for churches to follow that application process for their clergy, and be able to perform ceremonies as well as fulfilling the legal requirements for marriage at the same time.

The legal process is still followed in exactly the same way as it would be for a marriage in a registry office.

[Bounty]

However, the marriage first, religious ceremony seperately and afterwards, increases cost to the couple seeking marriage without real cause.

A marginal increase. And the church would no longer be burdened with having to arrange the paperwork. It's not an extra cost, just a shifted one.

[Plekhanov]

However, the marriage first, religious ceremony seperately and afterwards, increases cost to the couple seeking marriage without real cause.

A marginal increase. And the church would no longer be burdened with having to arrange the paperwork. It's not an extra cost, just a shifted one.

It's a significant extra cost as you've got to hire two venues instead of one and two people to officiate instead of one and neither of those come cheap.

Organising a wedding and getting people from the wedding to the reception is enough trouble as it is, adding an extra and wholly unnecessary step into the proceedings will just make things worse.

Also going through your vows twice just seems to diminish the significance of making them.

[Bounty]

Also going through your vows twice just seems to diminish the significance of making them.

There's a standardised set at the public ceremony that you just reply "yes" to, the ones in the religious ceremony don't have to be identical. besides, how do vows become less significant if you say them twice?

You're right about the venues, though. In practice it's doable; I just think it's neater to keep marriage limited to just the public ceremony, no alternatives. I suppose it works better in England since you have a state religion anyway.

[Plekhanov]

There's a standardised set at the public ceremony that you just reply "yes" to, the ones in the religious ceremony don't have to be identical. besides, how do vows become less significant if you say them twice?

Because the significance is obviously diluted by having more than one ceremony. When my wife and I said our vows it was of huge significance for us and our friends and family, any repeat performance in an hours time would have just seemed silly by comparison. Which is why we didn't opt for a humanist ceremony as that would have been a bolted on additional ceremony of the kind you seem to be advocating..

You're right about the venues, though. In practice it's doable;

Of course 'it's doable' lots of things are 'doable' that doesn't mean that they're anything like as easy as you initially suggested or in any way a good idea.

I just think it's neater to keep marriage limited to just the public ceremony, no alternatives. I suppose it works better in England since you have a state religion anyway.

You can get married by religious bodies other than the CofE, personally I'd like to see this extended to non-religious bodies such as the Humanist Society as well so that people can have a single ceremony which meets the legal requirements whilst including the symbolism of their choice.

[CaptJodan]

There are numerous other options such as (C) in the short term campaign for 'civil unions' or some such term for homosexuals which gives them the same legal rights as homosexuals then once that's achieved and the world fails to end push for gay marriage.

I'm not disputing that, and if my tone sounded that way, I apologize. Like I said, my issue is with dealing again with separate-but-equal in a different context. SBE was overturned after a period of time, too, but we're talking about going through that process again. Option C doesn't address this except to say that the fight will continue, and at least in the short term, will probably sound like nagging from a select minority that is just unhappy with whatever is given out by the masses.

*Right now, the general public's basic attitude is probably something along the lines of "why are the religious right making such a stink about a single word". If option C is adopted, that same sentiment would probably be shifted towards why the LGBT movement is whining about a simple word when they already have all the rights needed for a proper marriage.

*=This is not meant to be an in depth argument of everyone, or even a good one. The general laymen don't think too deeply on this issue, and I have found don't like it when you confront them with facts that make them think deeper than their shallow perceptions. This is only meant to display how the general populace would perceive to be, not in any way a good argument.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Why do the vows have to be verbally given twice? Why can't the entire federal/legal aspect of it be nothing more than a simple contract-signing with a government witness who quickly explains and/or shows the paperwork with the tax and other benefits you get from marriage, and then devote the *entire* public ceremony to whatever religious/civil/whatever institution you want afterwards? There's no need to hold/pay for two 'ceremonies' if the legal portion of the marriage doesn't even need a ceremony to be legal, and the only other argument against it relies wholly on the symbolic effect of any ceremony.

[CaptJodan]

It may be viable, but it's also retarded. If it's functionally the same as marriage, then why change the terminology at all? There's no point in doing so except to appease the bigots.

And I fundamentally agree with this. I just have to question the worth in the possibility in delaying rights to citizens in order to get the whole pie verses doing it one step at a time (even if that step requires a sort of Separate But Equal new term bullshit).

The one thing I think that overturns that feeling is that I think, in some states, we're closer to gay marriage than we are to coming up with a satisfying term that means "exactly the same rights just not necessarily religious recognition". The fact that some places have taken it upon themselves to offer the full pie means that demanding and fighting for it now almost seems more effective.

It seems that one of the keys of the battle is making people understand that the term "marriage" isn't a religious-only term and never has been, and that "traditional marriage" isn't even what people practice today. Having the general public understand this (however hard that might be to accomplish) would, I hope, display the hypocrisy of this particular right-wing movement.

[Plekhanov]

I'm not disputing that, and if my tone sounded that way, I apologize. Like I said, my issue is with dealing again with separate-but-equal in a different context. SBE was overturned after a period of time, too, but we're talking about going through that process again. Option C doesn't address this except to say that the fight will continue, and at least in the short term, will probably sound like nagging from a select minority that is just unhappy with whatever is given out by the masses.

That simply isn't true. In your previous post you stated that 'I know someone at work who is bisexual and feels that getting these rights are more important than who owns the word marriage' option C directly addresses exactly those concerns by setting aside 'who owns the word marriage' and focussing entirely upon legal rights, leaving the fight over this emotive word for later.

Besides where's the equality in surrendering marriage to religious bigots? This proposal doesn't remove inequality but increase it as the irreligious far outnumber homosexuals.

*Right now, the general public's basic attitude is probably something along the lines of "why are the religious right making such a stink about a single word". If option C is adopted, that same sentiment would probably be shifted towards why the LGBT movement is whining about a simple word when they already have all the rights needed for a proper marriage.

Evidence to back up these claims please.

*=This is not meant to be an in depth argument of everyone, or even a good one. The general laymen don't think too deeply on this issue, and I have found don't like it when you confront them with facts that make them think deeper than their shallow perceptions. This is only meant to display how the general populace would perceive to be, not in any way a good argument.

And this 'general layman' of yours is going to be in favour of completely scrapping civil marriage is he? Are you confident he's not going to see this all as an attempt by homosexuals to undermine marriage altogether, you know like the fundies say they're trying to?

You seem to be working on the assumption that scrapping civil marriage all together will be a popular move and help the campaign for equality for homosexuals, what are you grounds for this assumption? On what grounds do you claim that surrendering marriage to the religious is a more politically viable strategy that going for civil unions? It's not as if social conservatives only oppose rights for homosexuals when it comes to marriage now is it? A substantial portion of marriages in the US are secular, do you really think the people who go for them are going to be happy about being denied that option?

[Plekhanov]

Why do the vows have to be verbally given twice? Why can't the entire federal/legal aspect of it be nothing more than a simple contract-signing with a government witness who quickly explains and/or shows the paperwork with the tax and other benefits you get from marriage, and then devote the *entire* public ceremony to whatever religious/civil/whatever institution you want afterwards? There's no need to hold/pay for two 'ceremonies' if the legal portion of the marriage doesn't even need a ceremony to be legal, and the only other argument against it relies wholly on the symbolic effect of any ceremony.

You really think people will be happy to reduce something as bound up with emotion as marriage to a coldly business like signing of a contract? Do you really think people want to do that hidden away from their friends and family?

I don't know what marriages are like where you come from but in the UK signing the signing the register is such a important public part of the marriage ceremony in the UK that a break is habitually put in the proceedings for people to take photographs of the couple and witnesses sign the register and then pose with it. Being chosen as a witness is seen as a significant honour and the next best thing to being best man or maid of honour.

Besides you are still wrong as you still have to pay for two venues and two officiants even if for some reason people are happy to do away with all the symbolism at the actual marriage.

[CaptJodan]

I don't think you've comprehended a word I've said. Certainly not my position.

Like I said, my issue is with dealing again with separate-but-equal in a different context. SBE was overturned after a period of time, too, but we're talking about going through that process again. Option C doesn't address this except to say that the fight will continue, and at least in the short term, will probably sound like nagging from a select minority that is just unhappy with whatever is given out by the masses.

That simply isn't true. In your previous post you stated that 'I know someone at work who is bisexual and feels that getting these rights are more important than who owns the word marriage' option C directly addresses exactly those concerns by setting aside 'who owns the word marriage' and focussing entirely upon legal rights, leaving the fight over this emotive word for later.

Read the bolded part carefully. Yes, option C allows for a mindless middle compromise, but it still leaves shit undone, and forces gays into a Separate But Equal situation, which option C does not address, but in fact creates. I don't know how to make that point any clearer.

Besides where's the equality in surrendering marriage to religious bigots? This proposal doesn't remove inequality but increase it as the irreligious far outnumber homosexuals.

My core proposal is to have gay marriage, to call it marriage, and to be done with the whole affair. The only moral quandary I have with my own position is whether or not option C is where most of the effort should be placed, or whether the LGBT community should focus on the end goal. I don't support "surrendering marriage to religious bigots", but it seems to me that's what option C does in the short term.

Evidence to back up these claims please.

Anecdotal, and I know the value of that here. Nevertheless, it's the type of argument I've heard parroted, true or not, by those considered to be disinterested parties. Don't mistake that argument for the religious bigots, we're talking about mindless-middle people here.

And this 'general layman' of yours is going to be in favour of completely scrapping civil marriage is he? Are you confident he's not going to see this all as an attempt by homosexuals to undermine marriage altogether, you know like the fundies say they're trying to?

I...just don't understand where you're coming from here. I didn't ever suggest scrapping civil marriage, in fact I'm more interested with the ideas bouncing around here about marriage being a civil agreement, to be followed by your ceremony of choice. Of course, that's not popular with you either, but I'm willing to see what ideas are posted about how that could work.

You seem to be working on the assumption that scrapping civil marriage all together will be a popular move and help the campaign for equality for homosexuals, what are you grounds for this assumption?

No such assumption exists.

On what grounds do you claim that surrendering marriage to the religious is a more politically viable strategy that going for civil unions? It's not as if social conservatives only oppose rights for homosexuals when it comes to marriage now is it?

Not advocating the surrender of marriage to the religious. One more time. My own struggle between your option C and my option A which is marriage for:
heterosexual couples
homosexual couples
religious couples
secular couples

And which, your option C or my option A is more politically viable and socially responsible to those affected.

A substantial portion of marriages in the US are secular, do you really think the people who go for them are going to be happy about being denied that option?

Hence my preference for option A. No new terms need apply.