Marriage or Civil Union?
While skimming the news this morning, I ran across a post on the Blade Blog alerting to a speech Mike Huckabee intended to give on his stance on various civil rights issues, including gay rights. The post itself didn’t really hold my interest; a comment by a “jeri” to the post, however, did.
jeri . on 1/25/08 5:52 AM:
the use of the term “gay marriage” is representative of a “slave mentality; it fails to recognize gay individuals as valid citizens. civil unions for gays is equivalent to a “gay marriage”. support for this concept actually demeans the GLBT population. think in the term EQUALITY. GLBT citizens are in every way equal - they pay taxes, they serve in the military, they raise families, they contribute to society. we deserve real equality, not only symbolic equality – and by definition would include marriage equality. if you don’t think in terms that demand full equality, you are supporting the proposition that you somehow do not deserve it. personally, I don’t want to validate the arguments of those want to “keep us down.”
Jeri actually elucidates a few thoughts I’ve lingered on, albeit not very clearly and using some unnecessary extremist language; saying that calling it “gay marriage” is a slave mentality is like me saying that because I’m whatever fraction African-American that Louisiana requires to grandfather me into being legally black, I’m going to renounce my slave name and run around calling myself Panther Abimbola. It’s just a little too extreme; there are times when the struggle for gay rights can be compared to the struggle for African-American rights, but this isn’t the right way to do it.
I admit that I’m less inclined to think about gay marriage as a critical issue, even though I applaud when another state legalizes it or another legislator takes a stand in the battle for that particular right - and I have been tempted to snag a willing partner and slag off to tie the knot just out of sheer spite, even if spitting in the faces of the conservative right is rather akin to spitting in the wind when saddling myself with an infuriating ball and chain (or two balls and a…nevermind). I don’t think about it often because I’m not the marrying type, and like any selfish human being I’m less interested in something that doesn’t have a personal impact on me. I can barely even cohabitate with another human being without inviting wholesale slaughter; the idea of allowing a piece of paper to lock me in stone-set oath for the rest of my life just makes my skin crawl. I will happily spend the rest of my life with a man, love and remain faithful to him - but I don’t want to feel trapped into it by the letter of the law, captured by my own honor that forces me to adhere to a vow.
The problem with marriage in my eyes, however, is that it’s part of the letter of the law in the first place. I know you’re sick of listening to me beat my favorite dead horse about the separation of church and state, but it’s the particular lack of separation that lets me agree in a rather offhand fashion with jeri - even if I approach the issue from a different perspective and hopefully explain myself a bit more clearly. Marriage is a religious institution, and it’s on religious grounds that our most vocal opponents protest our right to marry, claiming that it’s a sin in the eyes of their God, their faith, and their dead puppy Jake.
Because marriage is a religious institution, it should have no status in the eyes of the federal government beyond the same acknowledgments and occasional exemptions granted to other religious acts and institutions; that would be true equality. Remove the legal power of anything strictly defined as marriage, and one removes much of the obstacle to gay marriage. Most of us aren’t asking for recognition by any faith - or if we are, that’s another battle to be fought on a different field. Most of us are asking for recognition by the state and its governing powers.
So make marriage no longer an issue of the state, for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Institute civil unions for all, as the primary method of conjoining one’s home, resources, and taxable value. Make the strictly-defined act of “marriage” wholly religious, a choice undertaken by those who wish to follow that path, but not one that determines whether or not they’re granted legal status as unified partners. This country was founded by people fighting for freedom of religion. Freedom of religion includes freedom not to be governed by religion, and yet in many aspects of the law, we are. We are governed by shifting faith-based ideals of what a legal union should be, thus removing the very freedom that our forefathers fought for and demeaning not only the gay population, but the American population as a whole.
Jeri says that we shouldn’t call it “gay marriage”, not if we want to be equal. I say that we shouldn’t call it “marriage” at all. This isn’t a case of “separate but equal”, further invalidating the point made about a slave mentality. This is a case of separating what makes us inequal, so that religion will not prevent a unified public governed under a fair and binding law.
A LiveJournal friend that I read rather often, Vivian, is fond of saying “Keep your God off my body.”
I say, “Keep your God off my love.”
Obligatory but useless tags. Taggity taggity tag tag tag. Whee, look at me, I’m tagging. Wait, doesn’t urban dictionary say that “tagging” is…er. Nevermind. No. No, I’m very much not tagging.
Listen to DR Streaming Radio
January 25th, 2008 at 9:29 am
I’ve always been a proponent of the secular-marriage approach. Every county in the United States treats a civil union the same as a church wedding in regards to licensing and documentation. Doesn’t matter if you get married in a synagogue or the 24-hour drive thru in Vegas, you still have the same license requirements set out by that state or county.
Usually, argument number one for me is the tax breaks given to a “married” couple. They give a break when you get that piece of paper, so why not open it up to larger groups. I feel that even roommates should have the tax break. It should be that people who combine the income of a household to cohabitate and share expenses should get the same benefits. Be they roommates, domestic partners (gay or straight), or even just siblings sharing an apartment.
If you don’t take the religious component out of marriage, you need to stop giving them a protected tax status and favorable treatment in legal proceedings (i.e., death benefits, health benefits, inheritance, child custody, etc.)
January 25th, 2008 at 10:35 am
This is the reason why in Belgium (and I think most west-Eu countries) don’t recognise a church wedding, and it’s illegal to marry for the church before you are wed in city hall. (so a marriage here is city hall in the early morning, optionally church around 11, reception at 2, dinner at 6 and party at 8 xD) I support the system because it counts for everyone regardless of sex or faith.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Panther sounds silly, but Abimbola is cute =P
Hehehe.
If you are too specific, they just don’t listen since it takes time to explain. If you don’t explain exactly what you want, they just assume whatever is more convenient in order to dismiss you. There’s no need to find an accepting religion if there’s no need to get married under the blessings of certified member of whatever clergy*. So, there’s no need change the term “marriage” into something less religious. There’s nothing religious about it anyway(imo).
It’s all just a poor excuse for a clever way to dismiss same-sex civil unions. (imo)
* I mean, there isn’t, right?
January 25th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
*taps on shoulder* TAG! You’re IT!!! *runs away squeaaling*
…….Sorry I just couldn’t resist
It’s really NOT that hard to separate Church and State…really. There should be no more lingering doubts. Ideally, in this day and age, those who want to marry should have the right to, regardless of gender…
Can’t teach an old dog new tricks at times though…*le sigh*
Peace, love and chocolate chip cookie dough!
ME
January 25th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
You know, I like your argument. I was always sort of in agreement with Jeri up there, but taking the idea of marriage out of civil unions, and keeping it just with religious institutions, makes much more sense. I’d never really thought of it that way, just that as long as religion defined marriage, the government would be bound by that definition. Thank you for a new thought to chew.
January 26th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Lux: Even though Abimbola is a real African name, I just keep seeing “bimbo”.
Amanda: ‘welcome. Hope it doesn’t give you indigestion.
…I honestly didn’t have anything to say here. I’m just testing WordPress, really, as supposedly our Akismet problems are fixed and I want to find out for sure.
Edit: …hells yes. “Patched”, my ass. I bet they just took the proxy IP crap off the squid server.
January 26th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I was trying to resist, but…”Eww, you got God all over my love…”
Sorry.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:45 am
~flat look~ Darlin’, your lips are dripping Velveeta again.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:52 am
*wipes off?*
I wonder if Chuck Norris has a cure for that…
January 28th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
yo adrien! LOL i am glad that my post got your attention. slave mentality does not necessarily refer to people of color. (”A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him” - Ezra Pound) i suppose i am a little radical and maybe even incoherent. blame it on passion. sorry! in any event, when i state that civil unions aren’t equal, i am talking about civil unions that aren’t recognized as full marriage - a civil marriage that does not necessarily have any religious affiliation. there are so many benefits associated with marriage that many never use them or just take them for granted. immigration benefits, social security benefits, pension benefits, company spousal benefits, insurance benefits. the bureaucracies behind the scenes often refuse to legally recognize “civil unions”. it gets more complicated when a company or organization is headquartered in a state that doesn’t recognize civil unions. the terms “marriage”, spouse, husband, and wife are used in hundreds of legal decisions. the courts do not hold the terms “civil union” or ‘domestic partner” to carry any weight as a legal precedent. there are none. marriage equality is essential to gain these protections. i do not oppose the passage of legislation that enable same-sex civil unions, but you must realize that it remains second class to marriage - and also serves to relegate the GLBT as second class citizens. if you are interested in the subject, i highly recommend evan wolfson’s “why marriage matters”. IMHO, the guy is a civil rights hero. and brilliant. and cute. and married. LOL and gay. be well…
January 29th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
[...] As always, I want to plug a fellow 451 Press Blogger. Today I’m plugging Darkside Rainbow, an extremely real look at LGBT life. Did You Enjoy this Post? Subscribe to Inked Talk. It’s Free! [...]
February 1st, 2008 at 7:33 am
[...] one-question quiz. by Adrian Hutchinson With everyone and their grandmothers getting their panties in a wad over whether or not gay marriage (or even civil unions) should be allowed, it’s always [...]
February 18th, 2008 at 1:02 am
[...] I go, you may remember that I mentioned a LiveJournal friend, Vivian, whose slogan is “Keep Your God Off My Body.” Well, now she’s got a CafePress store where you can get the logo on a T-shirt; she’s [...]
November 12th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
21yn0xyyz4ztyxna