Portia and Ellen are the first couple I always think of when I hear someone screech that allowing teh gehs to marry will "ruin" marriage. In them, we have a loving, committed couple who do nothing but strengthen the idea of marriage. I want exactly what they have...just with a man.
Do you ever think Elisabeth Hasselbeck has those moments where she says something and then cringes with embarrassment as soon as the words leave her mouth? I know I have them all the time, and I almost never say anything half as stupid as the drivel she spews into the world on an hourly basis. I mean, I have stayed awake at nights DYING with SHAME over stupid shit I said three years ago to someone who probably doesn't even remember me, and yet she just bubble-heads around like she's awesome. I bet she's never laid in her bed beating herself up over anything she's said. Not once.
@whynotshesaid: See, that happens to you because you have a sense of self-awareness. Hassle-bla-blah-bleck is so blissfully unaware and comfy cozy in her own ignorance and judgement that she really doesn't have a clue- and she really could care less.
Oh, she is the tits. I adore her and her delightful wife equally. Sigh. They are a truly lovely couple-not that I know personally or anything, but they really do seem like they're made for eachother. Aw, love. And aw, the classy take-downs of peanut-brained idiots. How I do love thee both.
I don't understand the word argument. Portia put it very eloquently, but to reiterate and elaborate: How is an institution equal if different people under the same jurisdiction have to call it by a different name?
Aside from the obvious issue that was addressed her, what I don't understand is that if they're worried about the "sanctity" of marriage, then why aren't they up in arms about the fact that pretty much every straight couple is referred to as married, even if it is only legally (i.e., not in a church service of any type)?
But it is "the word" that causes all the trouble. People associated marriage with God and church, and that just freaks them out. All unions should be civil unions, because they are contracts with the state, not the church. See how I solved that?
@BAngieB: I like your idea, although like Portia if we lose the word it almost lets them win...not that the Christians or other religious groups are ever self righteous or competitive.
@BAngieB: But even if we legally changed the name of straight marriages, (which I don't see happening), we'd be mostly likely to still call them "marriages". I don't say my friends are "civil unioned". "Marriage" is a vague term in English that covers both civil and religious unions, perhaps like I sometimes say "car" even when I'm talking about a truck or a minivan. The important thing is, the latter is a motor vehicle that gets you from A to B, and the former is a commitment between two people making a life together. And I'm starting to ramble now, but realistically - I don't think most of the people who claim to be hung up on the language give a crap about the wording. They're just bigots using a different tactic.
@History Major: This country was founded on FREEDOM of religion - which includes freedom from the oppression of the religion of others being forced down our throats.
That and land stealin' white Europeans kicking the indigenous peoples off their lands so they could move in so they (land stealers) wouldn't be persecuted back home.
@BAngieB: Yeah but there is religious marriage and then there is legal marriage. Claims that religious marriage "came first" are not necessarily true as marriage pre-dates all modern religions and was most likely a social/legal contract a man and woman entered into for property reasons.
You're totally right that it's the word that freaks the fundie religious people out, but I don't know if I'm willing to abandon it to them because they make spurious claims that it "belonged" to them first. Why should we have to change our legal system and terminology to suit their bigotry?
Then again, if it will make them shut up, we might as well do it. But I don't think they're going to be ok with it whether we call it marriage, a union, a friendship circle, a rose or anything else. A word truly is just a word - and what they really hate is the what it represents.
@History Major : Yes, it was founded on Christians values, but until the Church has the power to legally marry/divorce people, it's arguments are moot as far as I am concerned.
@GreenEyedMedusa: And I don't think it's a win/lose issue surrounding the word. The word can suck it, because if all unions are just civil unions, they will be equal in the eyes of the law, which is what I care about.
totally agree. plus, unless you get that marriage license from your resident city hall, your religious ceremony alone won't make you "married" in the legal sense. conversely, you CAN be legally married without any religious involvement at all~~ a person can be married by a justice of the peace and never have to step foot in a chapel, temple, any house of religion.
the word marriage has totally been appropriated by religious fanatics. it drives me insane that they act as though they have ownership of the concept.
@truckasaurus: Yep - I have several pairs of atheist-type friends who refer to themselves as "married" and NOBODY chimes in with, "actually it's a 'civil union' because it wasn't in a church!"
It's just bigots making excuses because they don't want to look in the mirror and face the fact that they actually are wrong, and are bigots.
@BAngieB: i totally agree. Civil unions should be contracts with the government, and marriage can be just a religious symbol/contract/whatever. no one will tell churches who they can and cannot marry, but any two adults can enter into a civil union.
@BAngieB: Agreed. Also I think this is an excellent case for the separation of church (or all religion) and state in these recent decisions. It is quite evident that they are religiously motivate and therefore unconstitutional.
@BAngieB: It is the word that causes to problems you are right. The difficulty is that the definition of 'marriage' is not actually the religious definition that marriage equality opponents are to be holding on to.
There is a very informative article by Jacob T Levy called "Sexual Orientation, exit and refuge" (which is more about society creating a safe environment for gay and lesbian members of minority communities) it has a simple quote that debunks all the rubbish spouted by organisations like The National Organization for Marriage: "The religious meaning of the word marriage is treated as constraining its permissible legal meaning. But civil marriage has long been desacralized in most western states." Meaning the religious conitations have already been removed from the word marriage so the need to respect religious laws in reference to marriage is has already gone.
Equality of Language is as important in this case as equality in law. Calling a legal marriage between two people of the same gender a 'civil union' (like here in the UK) or any other word but marriage is saying it is less than hetrosexual marriage.
*sorry it's a bit long a ramble-y, wrote an essay on this subject for university last year*
12/04/09
12/04/09
Bravo, Portia.
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
Aside from the obvious issue that was addressed her, what I don't understand is that if they're worried about the "sanctity" of marriage, then why aren't they up in arms about the fact that pretty much every straight couple is referred to as married, even if it is only legally (i.e., not in a church service of any type)?
12/04/09
12/04/09
To Elizabeth: chi chaw, chi chaw, chi chaw!
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
Bravo, Portia!
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
That and land stealin' white Europeans kicking the indigenous peoples off their lands so they could move in so they (land stealers) wouldn't be persecuted back home.
Sick, innit?
12/04/09
You're totally right that it's the word that freaks the fundie religious people out, but I don't know if I'm willing to abandon it to them because they make spurious claims that it "belonged" to them first. Why should we have to change our legal system and terminology to suit their bigotry?
Then again, if it will make them shut up, we might as well do it. But I don't think they're going to be ok with it whether we call it marriage, a union, a friendship circle, a rose or anything else. A word truly is just a word - and what they really hate is the what it represents.
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
totally agree. plus, unless you get that marriage license from your resident city hall, your religious ceremony alone won't make you "married" in the legal sense. conversely, you CAN be legally married without any religious involvement at all~~ a person can be married by a justice of the peace and never have to step foot in a chapel, temple, any house of religion.
the word marriage has totally been appropriated by religious fanatics. it drives me insane that they act as though they have ownership of the concept.
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
It's just bigots making excuses because they don't want to look in the mirror and face the fact that they actually are wrong, and are bigots.
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
There is a very informative article by Jacob T Levy called "Sexual Orientation, exit and refuge" (which is more about society creating a safe environment for gay and lesbian members of minority communities) it has a simple quote that debunks all the rubbish spouted by organisations like The National Organization for Marriage: "The religious meaning of the word marriage is treated as constraining its permissible legal meaning. But civil marriage has long been desacralized in most western states." Meaning the religious conitations have already been removed from the word marriage so the need to respect religious laws in reference to marriage is has already gone.
Equality of Language is as important in this case as equality in law. Calling a legal marriage between two people of the same gender a 'civil union' (like here in the UK) or any other word but marriage is saying it is less than hetrosexual marriage.
*sorry it's a bit long a ramble-y, wrote an essay on this subject for university last year*
12/04/09
12/04/09