Why Can't I Marry the One I Love?

[Dubya61]

Midtowner, a very well stated post. Thanks.

[Midtowner]

I cut and pasted it. All the credit to "Dave."

[Lord Helmet]

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

And this is why the SCOTUS will rule in favor of marriage equality (or in the very least, civil unions), and IMHO they will do it within my lifetime.

[Roadhawg]

Great post Mid

[shriekingviolet]

The LGBT community and its allies need to shift their rhetorical focus from how the country is oppressing LGBTs and denying them "rights" to why allowing them to marry will benefit the country as a whole.

I disagree. Of all of the influences that lead to a change in opinion on issues like gay rights, I've found that the development of real awareness of how the status quo is harmful to individual Americans to be be among the most moving and powerful. Especially since people who enjoy privileges that come with being straight are often largely blind to the extent of what's afforded to them because they're allowed to get married. There are many important legal privileges that are often incredibly difficult, sometimes even impossible, for gay couples to fully replicate that the rest of us take for granted. I think that's important information to share as it does move a lot of people who are either ambivalent about gay rights in general or just don't understand why it's unjust to drag our heels on this.

I don't know if anyone's seen the 2004 documentary Tying The Knot, but it's a great movie to show to people who don't see what the big deal is about being denied the right to marry your partner. One of the stories they feature is set here in Oklahoma, following Bristow area rancher Sam Beaumont as our court system took away the ranch he and his deceased husband had built together for 24 years. Those kind of stories are powerful, and they should have a prominent place in any equality movement.

I still am not following you. A civil union would be equal across the board.

But it's still separate, and there's little in American history that shows that "separate" ever provides for something truly equal. If you're straight and you get married by a justice of the peace your union is considered no different than the union of someone married by a priest, rabbi, minister, etc. No one calls for legal distinctions to be made so that those married by a church are set apart from those married by the state. If marriage already exists as a separate, stand alone entity from religious belief and practice with no need for additional distinction, what rationale is there for setting up a second separate system just to accommodate same sex couples? It's ridiculous. Individual religious traditions should not be able to set policy just because of their own beliefs about marriage. If you want to pass a law that explicitly protects Churches from discrimination lawsuits should they refuse to marry couples, that's fine. Largely redundant, but fine. But trying to set up a separate "civil marriage" category when the current legal framework already allows for such a thing is as stupid and insulting as all-white country clubs and other relics of segregation. I'd like to think we've grown enough as a country realize why that sort of thing is wrong.

[Pete]

But it's still separate, and there's little in American history that shows that "separate" ever provides for something truly equal. If you're straight and you get married by a justice of the peace your union is considered no different than the union of someone married by a priest, rabbi, minister, etc. No one calls for legal distinctions to be made so that those married by a church are set apart from those married by the state. If marriage already exists as a separate, stand alone entity from religious belief and practice with no need for additional distinction, what rationale is there for setting up a second separate system just to accommodate same sex couples? It's ridiculous. Individual religious traditions should not be able to set policy just because of their own beliefs about marriage. If you want to pass a law that explicitly protects Churches from discrimination lawsuits should they refuse to marry couples, that's fine. Largely redundant, but fine. But trying to set up a separate "civil marriage" category when the current legal framework already allows for such a thing is as stupid and insulting as all-white country clubs and other relics of segregation. I'd like to think we've grown enough as a country realize why that sort of thing is wrong.

Great post.

The problem with marriage is that initially and for the longest time, there was almost no distinction between the religious sacrament of marriage and the legal aspects. Marriage WAS a religious rite and it wasn't long ago that virtually everyone got married in a church, even if they weren't religious.

Therefore, it's no surprise that the only groups campaigning against gay marriage are religious in nature. They see marriage as a Christian bond, something pledged before God and since many of them also believe that homosexuality is a sin, the line is clearly drawn in their minds. And BTW, I don't see Jewish, Muslim or atheist groups bankrolling anti gay marriage legislation, so this really does seem to be a Christian issue.


When this country was founded, there should have been a distinction made between the religious sacrament of marriage and the legal contract of marriage. But because there wasn't these two concepts are completely intertwined in a way they shouldn't be, and that's the primary reason for this controversy.

[HewenttoJared]

But trying to set up a separate "civil marriage" category when the current legal framework already allows for such a thing is as stupid and insulting as all-white country clubs and other relics of segregation. I'd like to think we've grown enough as a country realize why that sort of thing is wrong.

Well said.

[shriekingviolet]

And BTW, I don't see Jewish, Muslim or atheist groups bankrolling anti gay marriage legislation, so this really does seem to be a Christian issue.

At least in terms of Islam, I suspect Christian dominance in the movement against marriage equality has more to do with demographics and friction between American Christians and Muslims than theology. *There is only*one Muslim-majority nation in the world (Albania) where there has been any serious proposals to make gay marriage legal, compared to the many Muslim-majority nations where just being gay can get you thrown into jail or executed.

Jewish culture does seem to be more open to the possibility of LGBT equality. Public polling of the attitudes of American Jews on the subject show much higher support for gay marriage than any other group polled apart from atheists. The state of Israel also is more progressive on the subject of gay marriage than the US. Gay marriages are not performed there (mostly because marriages and divorced are handled by religious authorities rather than by the state), but they do recognize gay common law marriages and gay marriages performed elsewhere.

[mugofbeer]

But it's still separate, and there's little in American history that shows that "separate" ever provides for something truly equal. If you're straight and you get married by a justice of the peace your union is considered no different than the union of someone married by a priest, rabbi, minister, etc. No one calls for legal distinctions to be made so that those married by a church are set apart from those married by the state. If marriage already exists as a separate, stand alone entity from religious belief and practice with no need for additional distinction, what rationale is there for setting up a second separate system just to accommodate same sex couples?

When think about this possibility, I don't think of it as a system that would be a separate system for same-sex couples but a system for non-religious marriage resulting in a "Civil Union" (or some such legal term). What might change is that when one gets married in a church, the result is the exact same "Civil Union" in legal terms. If those who are married in a church want to call it a marriage then call it a marriage. The legal term is what is recorded in the law.

It's ridiculous. Individual religious traditions should not be able to set policy just because of their own beliefs about marriage. If you want to pass a law that explicitly protects Churches from discrimination lawsuits should they refuse to marry couples, that's fine. Largely redundant, but fine. But trying to set up a separate "civil marriage" category when the current legal framework already allows for such a thing is as stupid and insulting as all-white country clubs and other relics of segregation. I'd like to think we've grown enough as a country realize why that sort of thing is wrong.

You forget that this country's laws were based on religious beliefs. As the years have gone by, we have gradually separated our laws from specific credit to religion. The problem is that it's nearly to the point where we MUST pass a specific law protecting religious organizations from discrimination because even under Obamacare, religious organizations are being forced to pay for medical insurance that requires abortion be included - obviously a very clear violation of morals to many religious organizations. I can see very easily that someone would be inclined to sue a Minister, Priest or Rabbie because he/she refuses to "marry" someone in a religious ceremony.

The fact that tens of millions of American's are against gay marriage is based on their interpretation of religious edict. You can't argue away this belief by callnig them names or trying to equate the subject with racial discrimination. To them, it's a totally different train of thought. You might as well tell them Jesus didn't die on the cross.

[shriekingviolet]

You forget that this country's laws were based on religious beliefs. As the years have gone by, we have gradually separated our laws from specific credit to religion. The problem is that it's nearly to the point where we MUST pass a specific law protecting religious organizations from discrimination because even under Obamacare, religious organizations are being forced to pay for medical insurance that requires abortion be included - obviously a very clear violation of morals to many religious organizations. I can see very easily that someone would be inclined to sue a Minister, Priest or Rabbie because he/she refuses to "marry" someone in a religious ceremony.

The fact that tens of millions of American's are against gay marriage is based on their interpretation of religious edict. You can't argue away this belief by callnig them names or trying to equate the subject with racial discrimination. To them, it's a totally different train of thought. You might as well tell them Jesus didn't die on the cross.

Our laws had many sources, only one of them being religious norms of the time. To claim that our laws are religiously based is to ignore the rich fabric of inspiration the founders drew from when the drafted the Constitution and the later Federalist papers, like the Constitution of the Iroquois League (which has far more in common with our law than the Bible) or the Magna Carta. And it's not time that has separated God from the law. Many (though obviously not all) of the framers were distancing themselves from faith-based construction themselves, as was common among the educated class during the Age of Enlightenment. There's very little reference to religion in any of our founding documents. It's basically just the first amendment, a prohibition against religious qualifications for office found in Article VI and a very vague reference to a "the creator" in the Declaration of Independence. If our laws in the beginning were as based in faith as some would have us believe, there wouldn't be such obvious, conscious avoidance of using religious language or Biblical reference in our framework. And we wouldn't have waited until the 1950s to add God to our national anthem or to our national motto. "In God We Trust" wasn't even printed on our currency until after the Civil War.

The fact that tens of millions of American's are against gay marriage is based on their interpretation of religious edict. You can't argue away this belief by callnig them names or trying to equate the subject with racial discrimination. To them, it's a totally different train of thought. You might as well tell them Jesus didn't die on the cross.

But that's the thing. I don't have to argue with them on that point. This issue is not about whether or not theological doctrine regarding homosexuality is valid, it's over whether such beliefs should be allowed to shape the lives of everyone who doesn't share them. Catholicism believes the use of birth control is a serious sin, yet it's legal. We still employ the death penalty even though many believe that execution violates God's commandment not to murder. Alcohol is sold in mass quantities despite its prohibition in many faiths. Clearly we don't let dogma write policy for us, so why here? There are growing number of faith communities who embrace the idea of marrying gay couples. If the movement against gay marriage is really about respecting the beliefs of some, why should their beliefs be prioritized over them?

Marriage doesn't belong to any one faith tradition. The institution predates every faith still practiced on the planet, and as such, does not belong to any one set of beliefs. It makes no sense to let it be controlled on a secular/federal level by belief. Especially not when the number of people who reject such teachings are increasing at an astonishingly rapid pace, even from within the religions that so adamantly oppose same sex marriage.

[Midtowner]

You forget that this country's laws were based on religious beliefs. As the years have gone by, we have gradually separated our laws from specific credit to religion. The problem is that it's nearly to the point where we MUST pass a specific law protecting religious organizations from discrimination because even under Obamacare, religious organizations are being forced to pay for medical insurance that requires abortion be included - obviously a very clear violation of morals to many religious organizations. I can see very easily that someone would be inclined to sue a Minister, Priest or Rabbie because he/she refuses to "marry" someone in a religious ceremony.

Abortion, huh? Google the Hyde Amendment.

That said, how silly is that? Religion oppresses. It is not oppressed anywhere.

The fact that tens of millions of American's are against gay marriage is based on their interpretation of religious edict. You can't argue away this belief by callnig them names or trying to equate the subject with racial discrimination. To them, it's a totally different train of thought. You might as well tell them Jesus didn't die on the cross.

This isn't a Christian nation. If they don't believe in gay marriage, they don't have to marry someone of the same gender.

[PennyQuilts]

But it's still separate, and there's little in American history that shows that "separate" ever provides for something truly equal.

You misunderstand - I meant civil unions for all.

[Double Edge]

You misunderstand - I meant civil unions for all.

Practically speaking, how's that work, the government no longer recognizes existing marriages and we move forward with all interested couples applying for a civil union? That will never fly. Nor will grandfathering existing marriages and setting new rules for everyone else. I expect the SCOTUS will decide it and will effectively give same sex marriage the same footing.

[RadicalModerate]

In the scheme of billions of years, I don't see how it is going to hurt anything. And since by allowing two men or women to get married doesn't limit my freedoms or rights, I don't see why we care this much about it.

Belief system or not, it just doesn't make sense this is a polarizing issue. Kiss and make up and if you want a paper that says you can share insurance, okay?

Live and let live a little?

Frankly, I pretty much believe in the last part of the quote.
However, regarding "the scheme of billions of years", and determining whether homosexuality is "natural" or not, why is it that:

XX + XY = XX or XY (sometimes with slight variations involving extra X's or Y's)
while
XX + XX = 0
XY + XY = 0

On the other hand, perhaps this is "nature's" solution to overpopulation. In which case it may be a good thing.
Too bad that many cultures around the globe that are in the 1xy + 1xx = 8 xy xx etc. mode are less enthusiatic about the concept.

[RadicalModerate]

Practically speaking, how's that work, the government no longer recognizes existing marriages and we move forward with all interested couples applying for a civil union? That will never fly. Nor will grandfathering existing marriages and setting new rules for everyone else. I expect the SCOTUS will decide it and will effectively give same sex marriage the same footing.

I agree DE . . . All of that would be more difficult to accomplish than requiring folks to present an ID in order to vote.

[wallbreaker]

Practically speaking, how's that work, the government no longer recognizes existing marriages and we move forward with all interested couples applying for a civil union? That will never fly. Nor will grandfathering existing marriages and setting new rules for everyone else. I expect the SCOTUS will decide it and will effectively give same sex marriage the same footing.

I agree too.

Pre 1923, the whole idea of the government doing only civil unions may have made sense. But since the government became involved in issuing marriage licenses, marriage ceased to be a religious agreement, and became a civil/legal agreement. Only the government can legally license a couple for marrage. So, by any definition, marriage in the US IS a civil union. The religious ceremony involved by some folks is a seperate affair, and not required to be legally in a government recognized marrage.

So to take what PQ wants from another direction... why can't religious people stay out of it? Marriage for almost 100 years has been government controlled. You want something special for the religious side? Go for it. Get your civilly licensed and legal marriage certificate from the government, and then feel free to go get a special "religious" marriage certificate from your church.

I renewed my wedding vows earlier this year (15 years in) and did it in a traditional celtic handfasting ceremony. Amazing how I didn't feel that same sex marriages interfered in my fairly religious ceremony.

[Midtowner]

Amazing how I didn't feel that same sex marriages interfered in my fairly religious ceremony.

It's because they're illegal.

--duh.

[wallbreaker]

It's because they're illegal.

--duh.

There are quite a few legally married same sex couples in Oklahoma. It's legal in 5 states, and all states must recognize the marriages. Hasn't effected my marriage at all though. Maybe my marriage is a little more solid than those who are panicking about same sex marriages?

Of course, I haven't been divorced multiple times, which seems to be a requisite to be an expert on "family values".

[Fantastic]

I renewed my wedding vows earlier this year (15 years in) and did it in a traditional celtic handfasting ceremony. Amazing how I didn't feel that same sex marriages interfered in my fairly religious ceremony.

Hasn't effected my marriage at all though. Maybe my marriage is a little more solid than those who are panicking about same sex marriages?

Of course, I haven't been divorced multiple times, which seems to be a requisite to be an expert on "family values".

good points

[Midtowner]

It's legal in 5 states, and all states must recognize the marriages.

Pursuant to DOMA, states generally don't recognize homosexual marriages conducted in other states and there's no current precedent saying they have to. The issue is unresolved though.

[RadicalModerate]

Without the intervention of the techno-god Pyrex there would be no issue in connection with homosexual marriage.
(thinking long term, of course) . . .
And the non-issue would resolve itself.
(right?)

You want to see unresolved issues involving, "Why Can't I Marry the One I Love"?
Watch "Shakespeare in Love".

[Double Edge]

I agree too.

Pre 1923, the whole idea of the government doing only civil unions may have made sense. But since the government became involved in issuing marriage licenses, marriage ceased to be a religious agreement, and became a civil/legal agreement. Only the government can legally license a couple for marrage. So, by any definition, marriage in the US IS a civil union. The religious ceremony involved by some folks is a seperate affair, and not required to be legally in a government recognized marrage.

So to take what PQ wants from another direction... why can't religious people stay out of it? Marriage for almost 100 years has been government controlled. You want something special for the religious side? Go for it. Get your civilly licensed and legal marriage certificate from the government, and then feel free to go get a special "religious" marriage certificate from your church.

Spot on.

I renewed my wedding vows earlier this year (15 years in) and did it in a traditional celtic handfasting ceremony. Amazing how I didn't feel that same sex marriages interfered in my fairly religious ceremony.

I participated in one of those once. Universal Life Church minister lead it and made it a legal marriage. It seemed more genuine to me than the traditional weddings I've attended too.

[PennyQuilts]

So to take what PQ wants from another direction... why can't religious people stay out of it? Marriage for almost 100 years has been government controlled. You want something special for the religious side? Go for it. Get your civilly licensed and legal marriage certificate from the government, and then feel free to go get a special "religious" marriage certificate from your church.

I renewed my wedding vows earlier this year (15 years in) and did it in a traditional celtic handfasting ceremony. Amazing how I didn't feel that same sex marriages interfered in my fairly religious ceremony.

Actually, this is exactly what I've been saying. And congratulations on your wedding vows renewal. Always brings a smile to see a happy couple.

[Double Edge]

Right, except as I said more likely than not it will eventually extend to same sex couples and will continue to be called "marriage" not something new like "civil union." The only thing new or different will be a SCOTUS decision.

[ljbab728]

You have to admit that this is funny no matter which side of the issue you are on.

Saturday Night Live - New Xanax - Video - NBC.com