ilovefuzz.com

Seriously, I think we could resolve 99% of the fight over "gay marriage" if we could straighten out the fucking semantic bullshit.

Religious people seem to get bent out of shape over the word "marriage" because to them that is a spiritual agreement made with their deity and involving a church and a clergy member. And so it makes sense that if you only see marriage as a god thing, it would bother you that evil sinner gays want to partake. I get that.

But for the rest of us (gay and straight), marriage is a legal contract and legal classification conferred by a state government (and yes, it's an important commitment between two people). Sure, there is also a ceremony with family and friends (most of the time), but this is purely for cultural reasons and has no impact on the legal aspect of the marriage. There doesn't have to be a ceremony at all, and in some states its just a declaration of intent by the people getting married and a signature from a couple of witnesses. For fuck's sake, you can get a drive-through marriage in Nevada, and because all states have reciprocity of marriage, getting married at a drive through to someone you've known for an hour is just as legally valid as a wedding that happened in a church with God's express consent.

When I got married, I realized that legal side of it had absolutely nothing to do with the marriage ceremony (wedding) at all. The state (NJ for me) only cares that those getting married are consenting adults (of opposite sex, at the moment) and that some sort of authority figure signs off on it. In New Jersey, the wedding "officiant" can be: any clergy of any religion, ship captain, justice of the peace, federal judge, retired federal judge, judge of tax court, mayor, county clerk, and about 20 other things. You don't need a church, vows, a reception or any of that shit. It's just signing a few forms and paying the fee for a license. That's all it is, *legally* speaking. They don't ask if you believe in god or if you go to church or if you care about burning in hell forever.

Ergo,

Let's all recognize that there does not have to be a wedding of any kind in order for their to be a marriage. And even IF there had to be a wedding, it doesn't have to happen in a church or under the auspices of any religious institution or organization. I think what religious people (and/or bigots) don't like, when you really get down to it, is the prospect of a gay wedding. I think they must imagine that at a gay wedding, two guys are ass plowing each other on top of an altar and sitting under a big picture of Jesus.

Let's also all understand that a lot of churches are just not into the whole gay thing. They should have the right to deny anyone, for any reason, access to having a wedding at their church. Nor should they be required to recognize any marriage that they don't think is valid, whether gay or merely married by an internet minister (like me!). I don't see an issue with this, because churches are social organizations and they have no significance in any legal way. They can't stop anyone from getting insurance, or applying for a job, or getting a tax benefit, so who gives a shit if they don't recognize any given marriage? It's like some guy on the internet calling you an asshole. So what?

So, in summation, we *all* should stop focusing on the the connection between the legal aspects of marriage (the important part) and religious aspects of marriage ...because there isn't one. Gay supporters: leave the bible beaters alone and focus on the legal side of things. Religious people: nobody wants to force you to sit through a gay wedding, so just stick to your ceremonies and stop worrying about what other people are doing outside of your church. Nobody is telling you how to drink the blood of your savior, so step off.

Yeah, that ought to solve everything!

That's all obvious and straight forward.

That's why people won't buy it. People only like to support things that are
A. Illogical,
B. Hypocritical,
C. Needlessly convoluted, or
D. All of the above.

I saw part of a speech Obama gave where he referred to legal marriage as "Civil Marriage", which I thought was a pretty good term (even if the guy that said it doesn't himself support same-sex marriage).

Unfortunately, a lot of the opponents of gay marriage don't separate the law and religion. They firmly believe the United States was founded as, and should be treated as a Christian nation-- so, in their eyes, laws should reflect their beliefs.

Plus, they're even against Civil Unions, so it's really just that they hate gay people.

I don't think it's anything to do with the ceremony and everything to do with the fact that people are too easily offended and have been brought up to buy into fear and division.

McSpunckle wrote:Unfortunately, a lot of the opponents of gay marriage don't separate the law and religion. They firmly believe the United States was founded as, and should be treated as a Christian nation-- so, in their eyes, laws should reflect their beliefs.

Plus, they're even against Civil Unions, so it's really just that they hate gay people.

Yeppp.
They say they don't want marriage redefined (or the rights that go along with it), but really they just hate the gays.

you have to understand the mentality of a christian. gods law is law above all else. so if the state promotes sin then the state = satan. they see it no different than if the state legalized murder. they think that legalizing any form of sin is an effort to promote sin. it definitely increases sin so why is it so far fetched to say that it isn't promoting it. when you get in their heads you quickly see how they think they are being attacked and pushed off their land. the problem is that they are trained since birth not to think or question religion. I also think homophobia is so closely connected to religion because they tend not to have contact with openly gay people. all they can think about is anal rape and fecalphilia since they dont understand the desire to do something they imagine is uncomfortable and dirty.

culturejam wrote:In New Jersey, the wedding "officiant" can be: any clergy of any religion, SHIP CAPTAIN, justice of the peace, federal judge, retired federal judge, judge of tax court, mayor, county clerk, and about 20 other things.

mutmoo wrote:

culturejam wrote:In New Jersey, the wedding "officiant" can be: any clergy of any religion, SHIP CAPTAIN, justice of the peace, federal judge, retired federal judge, judge of tax court, mayor, county clerk, and about 20 other things.

I believe that, being that in the 1700's, sometimes the nearest person with legit power was a captain.

Gay marriage is a time-wasting debate, because both sides think their arguments are infallible. The religious believe marriage is union of a man and woman approved by God(s) and the pro-marriage believe it's a common human right, which I think is true.

Cynically, gays should be able to get married and divorced like heteros, I have seen so many failed marriages and shitty relationships now it just makes gays should make the same mistake, for equality.

McSpunckle wrote:I saw part of a speech Obama gave where he referred to legal marriage as "Civil Marriage", which I thought was a pretty good term (even if the guy that said it doesn't himself support same-sex marriage).

Civil Marriage is exactly what everybody who is married has that gives them all the legal benefits. The social marriage part is legally worthless. Sure, it gives you a warm feeling, but warm feelings don't give you power of attorney.

The problem, and this could be easily fixed by cool heads and logical thinking (yeah right), is that while all states recognize "regular" marriages, they don't all recognize each others' civil unions. So we'd have to come up with a universal legal term that encompasses all legal marriages, whether they are religious or secular.* It's simple, as I said, but surely lots of people (on both sides) will oppose it for various idiotic reasons.

*Actually, most religious folks I know have no problem with a secular marriage...as long as it's not a gay secular marriage.


I read that the reason the last couple of holdouts in NY finally agreed to vote for the gay marriage bill is because provisions were adding that indemnified churches from being sued for discrimination if they refused to marry a gay couple in their church. I thought that was a logical and reasonable compromise, and once you get that on the table, the only thing left is pure bigotry and hatred. So if you offer churches a legal "out" for telling gays to take a hike and you *still* can't get them to go along, then you know that it's not merely an issue of "watering down the spirituality of marriage".

can we just make all marriage illegal and call it a day?

Christopher wrote:can we just make all marriage illegal and call it a day?

It's slightly more complicated than that. Marriage is governed by the states, not the fed. So you can't just pass one law. You have to pass 50.

culturejam wrote:Religious people seem to get bent out of shape over the word "marriage" because to them that is a spiritual agreement made with their deity and involving a church and a clergy member.

And they are of course wrong, so the argument should stop right there. But like everything else with religious people, being wrong doesn't ever seem to matter. Marriage predates their religion (and their gods for that matter) by many millenia.

But If you could reason with religious people ...

Christopher wrote:can we just make all marriage illegal and call it a day?

should be this way--