My version of the "marriage is love" meme

[pne]

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Comments

[lovewithnoface.livejournal.com]

It is mainly legally where the problems come in. In some states a single person is allowed to adopt children, but a gay couple is not. (OK this scenario is totally taken from a law and order case but that's irrelevant). There are two women who have been in a long relationship. The one with the higher income adopts, because she is more likely to get approved for adoption. The child lives with both mothers for 7 years, until the two parents split. Now, if gay couples were allowed to adopt, both parents would get visitation rights. But, the woman who adopted shuts the other mother out of their daughters life. The daughter spent 7 years of her life with both mothers, and loved visiting her "other mother's" parents. She had a family, grand parents, two mothers, and she loved her family. But one mother had the legal right to shut every other person who loved the daughter and had helped raise the daughter out of the daughter's life.

In "normal relationships" one parent does not have the legal right to shut the other daughter out. What if the woman who adopted died? The daughter would go to social services, not to the woman who had raised her and loved her; not to the family she loved.

What happens when one partner in a commited gay relationship gets in a car accident and needs an immediate member of the family to sign. The person who has loved and lived with that person for 15, 20 years can't sign. And if they can't contact someone else, the person dies.

In America, there are enormous legal remifications of marriage, and most of them are very important. And then there's the other matter of why these people aren't allowed to be "married" or "legally joined." George Bush believes that gay relationships are immoral because of his religious beliefs and he is forcing his religious beliefs onto the society as a whole. You may not approve of gay marriage, and your religion doesn't have to approve it, but I've yet to see someone offer a good reason for why gay marriage should be illegal. Not a religious reason, because religion isn't supposed to have anything to do with our laws, just a good reason why the American people are safter, better off if gay marriage is forbidden.

I completely understand your image of marriage, and your personal and religious beliefs on the subject. But no is really contesting those. Marriage isn't just religious, it's legal. And I want to know why we are denying part of the population legal benefits, just because it goes against many people's religious morals. Because it's not about religion.

[pne.livejournal.com]

In America, there are enormous legal remifications of marriage, and most of them are very important. And then there's the other matter of why these people aren't allowed to be "married" or "legally joined." George Bush believes that gay relationships are immoral because of his religious beliefs and he is forcing his religious beliefs onto the society as a whole. You may not approve of gay marriage, and your religion doesn't have to approve it, but I've yet to see someone offer a good reason for why gay marriage should be illegal. Not a religious reason, because religion isn't supposed to have anything to do with our laws, just a good reason why the American people are safter, better off if gay marriage is forbidden.

I completely understand your image of marriage, and your personal and religious beliefs on the subject. But no is really contesting those. Marriage isn't just religious, it's legal. And I want to know why we are denying part of the population legal benefits, just because it goes against many people's religious morals. Because it's not about religion.

Thank you for posting this, especially those two paragraphs.

Thinking about it, I suppose that while I think that same-sex marriage is immoral, I'm not sure whether it's the job of the state to enforce those morals.

It would probably be easier to think about if the two roles (religious and legal) were separate.

But while I'm still not sure on what my position about a legal union would be, I'd say it's certainly less strict than my position on a religious union.

Again, thanks for putting it the way you did.

[pne.livejournal.com]

But while I'm still not sure on what my position about a legal union would be, I'd say it's certainly less strict than my position on a religious union.

Not because I feel differently about the union, but because I feel it need not necessarily be legislated to the same standards.

Re:

[thedward.livejournal.com]

It is however, technically necessary in the United States, due to the 14th ammendment to our constitution. This is the same ammendment that was used to strike down the laws that prevented people of different races from marrying.

14th Amendment

[pne.livejournal.com]

Which bit of it makes what necessary?

I presume you're referring to this?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Re: 14th Amendment

[thedward.livejournal.com]

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It was unsuccessfully argued that since anyone could get married, that that offered equal protection, even if the state could restrict who they could marry. That didn't hold up in court for the anti-miscegenation laws that said a black person couldn't marry a white person.

[lovewithnoface.livejournal.com]

Your welcome. I think the thing that infuriates me the most is that no one is making that distinction. Even people who favour legal union never explain the difference. People can have their own religious beliefs to hell in back (unless they kill people because of them) but when that influences the law it's gone too far.

And we still teach elementary, middle, and high school students about the "seperation of church and state." And while that sounds nice, it's nowhere in our actual laws and isn't in all of our reality either.

Stupid dry drunk president bush. Did I mention that I also hate president's who use their presidency as a personal religious campaign? And who embaress us in front of the world. People don't even need a reason to laugh at Americans anymore.

/me wonders if she could put Bush in the TV and bring the West Wing to life.....

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could stick people you didn't like in the TV? Kinda like Karl and Melissa's moldy bedroom....

[lovewithnoface.livejournal.com]

Ok, so I was going through my e-mail, looking for another e-mail of yours and found this.

And you replied to yourself, saying

"But while I'm still not sure on what my position about a legal union would be, I'd say it's certainly less strict than my position on a religious union.

Not because I feel differently about the union, but because I feel it need not necessarily be legislated to the same standards."

Which I probably never saw because, well, erm, it's your journal, only you got notified.

And it's years later, but I wanted to say this.

In America anyway, they are separated.

All those people who just go to the courthouse to get married by a Justice of the Peace nd get married, well, they're married in the eyes of the state. Some religions will accept that as a valid marriage, some won't. And, lots of same sex couples for instance can be married by their religious whatever, but the state doesn't recognize it.

And, last I checked, Bush wasn't the Pope, or any kind of religious leader whatsoever, so he isn't the one making decisions on whether or not various sects of various religions will recognize same sex marriage.

Hmm....I am still wound up. Maybe I should post my own...