My version of the "marriage is love" meme

[pne]

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Comments

[damned-colonial.livejournal.com]

Fair enough.

[entirelysonja.livejournal.com]

I have a few questions about your views, which I hope you will answer.

Do you differentiate between the secular and religious aspects of marriage?

Do you object to the state granting same-sex couples the same kinds of legal benefits that are granted to opposite-sex couples?

Would you object if the state no longer performed marriage ceremonies for any couples, instead granting "civil unions" or some such, and leaving the concept of marriage entirely for the churches?

(That last is my preferred solution to this entire dilemma -- I believe that "marriage" is most appropriately viewed as a religious concept, while I also believe that the state has an interest in recognizing family units for various reasons.)

[damned-colonial.livejournal.com]

Also: http://www.livejournal.com/users/insomnia/382539.html

[marikochan.livejournal.com]

I of course agree that you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not trying to persuade you otherwise -- just to explain why I'm so passionate on the issue. =)

I suppose I don't support same-sex marriage per se; it's an easy thing to say, but really, I support equality of rights for same-sex and different-sex couples. Marriage as a religious concept doesn't bother me at all, with the caveat that if it is, I won't get married: I'm not religious. In the US, however, marriage isn't simply a religious concept; it's recognized by the state. Tax benefits are among the things granted to married couples by the state; others are visitation rights in the hospital (a partner to whom one is not married, regardless of the partner's sex, is not considered a member of one's family and not allowed to visit in the hospital, regardless of one's wishes or the seriousness of the injury) and automatic inheritance: a spouse automatically inherits all of a dead spouse's belongings (barring prenuptial agreements and so forth) without having to pay estate taxes -- something an unmarried partner is unable to do.

Perhaps marriage ought to be strictly a religious thing; the point is, it's not, and because the state authorizes different-sex marriages but not same-sex unions, the rights of different couples are not equal. I think it's very unlikely that our government here is going to stop legally recognizing any kind of unions. To some degree, there is a good reason to have a separation between a long-standing relationship and a possibly short-term one: you might not want the person you dated last week to be able to visit you in the hospital if you're in an accident, but you certainly want someone you're living with on the long-term -- no matter what the sex or your religious views -- to be able to do so. I think the ability to say to your friends and family, but also to the state, "Look at us: we're committed to each other" need not be a religious thing, and it's also something I think should be allowed to everyone, religious beliefs notwithstanding.

That said, if "marriages" stayed religious and the previously mentioned rights (and others I'm not thinking of) were granted to any couple who wished to apply for them on a legal basis in the form of civil unions, I'd be more than happy.

That was a bit longer than I meant it to be; sorry. Anyway, that's what I think on the issue. =)

[jpallan.livejournal.com]

Like many others, I object to any kind of protectionism given to heterosexual couples over homosexual ones. If the state wants to pull entirely out of the marriage issue and only offer civil unions or domestic partnership licenses, and you can get married on your own religiously if you're so inclined (as in France, where everyone has the legal ceremony and about 60%-odd go on to the religious ceremony), that's totally fine.

If a select religious group wants to only offer marriage to opposite-sex couples, that's fine. They can take the heat, and they're an independent organization and allowed to think and do what they want.

But I object to discriminating in any way against consenting adults in love.

:shrug:

[rahaeli.livejournal.com]

All right, now that I'm not frothing at the mouth and seeing red anymore (and please understand, I do not mean to attack your personal beliefs here -- or rather, I do mean to attack your beliefs, but not in an antagonistic fashion, and I absolutely do not intend to attack you) --

I am sick and tired of straight people telling me that I am a second class citizen because I love someone who happens to be wearing the same skin I wear. I am sick and tired of people using their religious beliefs to justify bigotry and hatred. I am sick and tired of legislated discrimination.

As many others have pointed out in the comments so far, marriage is not just a religious institution, nor is it simply a personal one; it is a legalized and state-sanctioned form of combining households and estates. Marriage is not simply "we will live together and love each other". Marriage confers a number of benefits, from tax-related to insurance-related to other financial details.

As it stands now, I have no legal rights. If my girlfriend -- soon to be my wife, in our eyes and God's eyes even if not in the law's eyes, and yes, we belong to a church that believes that same-sex marriage is a blessing, not a sin -- were to fall critically ill, I would not be permitted to see her in the hospital. If one of us were to obtain health insurance through a job, the other would not necessarily be permitted to share that insurance -- and if we were, it would be taxed as "imputed income", resulting in a heavy tax penalty. If one of us were to die, the beneficiary of the insurance would be taxed nearly twice as heavily as if we were a heterosexual partnership, and that's even assuming that it was allowed to stand, as the family of the deceased is permitted to challenge the deceased's will (and, in cases of same-sex partnerships, frequently win, leaving the surviving partner with nothing).

I know that you're not living in the US, so you might not be familiar with all of the aspects of "marriage" as a state-sponsored institution, not just a social institution. I'd like to ask you to read this essay (http://www.livejournal.com/users/ladysisyphus/98113.html), reprinted by my girlfriend from a fellow student of hers. It describes why the fight for gay marriage is so important, from someone who's been there and lived it. This post (http://www.livejournal.com/users/mrmoonpants/87749.html) contains a less emotional analysis of the situation. I have a friend, a man who had been in a partnership with another man for nearly ten years, whose partner was killed suddenly and unexpectedly last year. He is now homeless, because his partner's family did not approve of their son's "lifestyle", challenged their son's will, and won, obtaining the house that my friend and his partner had bought together.

I support a religion's right to define "marriage" any way it wants. Against gay marriage? Don't have one. If your church -- or anyone's church -- thinks that gay marriage is a sin, they don't have to perform them; there are plenty of churches that will and do. But I will not accept being told that I have fewer legal rights than, say, my baby sister, just because one of us is engaged to a boy and one of us is engaged to a girl.

You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion regarding this, and I support your opinion and cheer loudly for your right to air it in public fora. The world would be boring if we all thought alike. But when opinion reaches the level of legislated discrimination, ruining people's lives in the name of an ideal that did not even exist before approximately 200 years ago, it is wrong and it is evil and it must be stopped.

[pauraque]

The thing is that (in the US, at least), there's already a difference between religious marriage and secular marriage. As I understand it, Catholics can't be remarried by the church after they're divorced. However, a Catholic man and woman who have been divorced can still be legally married under US law. Do you oppose that?

[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.

[jordik.livejournal.com]

I hear ya.

[thedward.livejournal.com]

Actually, according to Merriam-Webster:

Now, if you want to use the word in a way inconsistent with what is now standard English usage, that is certainly your perogative, but it can come across as being kind of hateful, so you may want to be aware you might get some negative responses.

[christine.livejournal.com]

I don't really have much to say aside from what I said above, in response to Rah's comments, but I did want to point out one thing...

From skimming your replies to various comments questioning your beliefs, I noticed quite a number of comments to the effect of "I haven't given that much thought", "I'm not sure", things that are downright out of context in the United States (I realize of course, that you're not in the States, however, considering that this is all stemming from the possible federal legislation against gay marriages, it's something that you may have wanted to take into consideration), lots of questions on your part (actually a good thing... at least you're interested in being knowledgable), etc etc etc...

These comments lead me to one conclusion. To be extremely blunt, it's good that you aren't in charge of a country. (Which is to say, just as harshly, but as less of a hyperbole, perhaps you should concern yourself with the details before you go posting what you know to be controversial statements that are going to get all people all worked up).

That said, you're entitled to your opinion. However, in the context of the meme that has been going around, which clearly refered to the legal aspect of same sex marriages, you probably should have been able to back up your opinion without reverting to religion, for fear of sounding like good ol' george dubya bush.

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

Well, Philip, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

But I disagree with you with all of my heart, and I'm sad to see that you hold such an opinion.

[sovereigna.livejournal.com]

I hope you don't mind if I do the same thing in my journal. I totally agree with you.

[fraught.livejournal.com]

You have no idea how badly it hurts me to see this. Yes, you are fully entitled to your opinion, but in my opinion you are wrong and your view is discriminatory and unjust.

I'm saddened to say I have just lost quite a bit of respect for you.