Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Spain has recently passed legislation allowing gay marriage and Pope Palpatine I has felt a tremor in the force. He spoke out in Spain on the horrors of allowing gays to marry. But first, some ridiculous hyperbole from one of his underlings:
Madrid's Plaza de Colon and surrounding areas were host to people from throughout the country to hear speakers, including Pope Benedict XVI, condemn the Spanish government, led by Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, for its 2005 affirmation of marriage rights for same-sex couples and easing of the divorce process."These atheist, irreligious governments want to make us believe that our life has no meaning," said event organizer and Catholic activist Kiko Arguello, "and that isn't true."
Okay Kiko - may I call you Kiko? - perhaps it's just me, but there seems to be something missing in your argument. Like, you know, the actual argument, the connection between allowing gays to get married and your life having no meaning. I don't see even the most remote connection between the premise and the conclusion. You might as well have said that they "want to make us believe that banana splits are good for the value of the yuan." I'll take non sequiturs for $1000, Alex.
Not to be outdone, the Pope himself shuffled up to the podium in his Prada shows and let loose with his own breathless overreactions:
According to the Pope, such measures threaten the "traditional family," and therefore, humanity. During the Sunday Angelus prayer, the Pope said that the family is based on "the indissoluble union of man and woman," and "the place in which human life is sheltered and protected from its beginning until its natural end.""It is worthwhile to work for the family and marriage," he continued, via live video link, "because it is worthwhile to work for the human being, the most precious being created by God."
Unless, of course, that most precious being happens to be gay; if they're gay, they're a dirty sinner. The irony, of course, is that it is the Pope and his allies who are working against the family and marriage here and upholding policies that harm human beings. Like every other clueless bigot in the world, the Pope still has yet to explain how allowing gays to get married threatens non-gay families and marriages.
Comments
[sarcastic]Com'on Ed, you use the wrong definition of a family. The only correct definition of the True Christian Familyâ„¢ (TCF) is a combination of a man, a woman, and children. So, by definition, those pseudo families that you refer to are NOT a TCF. Is that so difficult to understand? [/sarcastic]
Posted by: Kim | January 2, 2008 10:08 AM
Heh, heh! They said Plaza de Colon! [/Beavis]
Posted by: Coragyps | January 2, 2008 10:13 AM
Plus, don't forget Spain also "eased" divorce.
But yeah, that "sanctity of marriage" trope is pretty old and weak.
Posted by: The Ridger | January 2, 2008 10:13 AM
Arguello's comment is particularly worrying because, for him to have got that statement from this speech, it implies that he thinks persecuting other people is what gives life meaning. It's not a dirty job that someone has to do, it's not a necessary evil, it's something that gives pleasure and meaning to life in and of itself. I bet he thinks it's a human right too. For him, of course.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | January 2, 2008 10:16 AM
Doesn't Kiko mean meat?
There has never been a 'traditional' family. It's a myth.
Secondly it's very clear from observing humans in all cultures throughout all societies that the indissoluble union dissolves quite often and often for the better.
The Pope and the RCC are essentially irrevelant other than as noise makers but even then they should look out their own windows once in awhile.
Posted by: GH | January 2, 2008 10:16 AM
The funny thing is, where does Mr. Ratzinger think gay and lesbian people come from - Mars? My parents were married for nearly 35 years when my mother died, her parents were together for about 40 years when her father died, and my Dad's parents were married for 55 years before his father died; all of these were first marriages. My only sibling, my sister, just celebrated her 15th annivesary, again in her and her husband's first marriage. Like a ton of other gay people, I am the product of the very traditional family the Bishop of Rome is allegedly trying to protect.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | January 2, 2008 10:29 AM
What's worse, this event takes place just a few months away from the elections and is mainly a public stunt to gain support for the conservative party (PP).
The Catholic Church went there to intrude in local politics and spent (again - there was a similar event just before the 2005 law passed) lots of money in organizing protests instead of putting it to good (humanitarian?) use.
Posted by: Gheesh | January 2, 2008 10:31 AM
I end up performing a significant number of weddings for people who are/were RC, and are now divorced. These people do not want to go through the hops it takes to get an annulment (they also -if they have kids-don't like the idea that the marriage never existed). GH is right that marriages often do dissolve-and sometimes that is for the better. (Cases like abuse, serial infidelity, alcoholism). When I counsel previously married couples, I ask point blank what made the first marriage end. And then we work together-the couple and I-to discover ways they can learn from the past to not repeat the same mistakes they made the first time. (Few divorces are purely 100% one person's fault).
The issue that many Protestant churches is wrestling with right now is how do you define a gay marriage? The Bible is pretty clear that a marriage is between a man and a woman. "The two shall become one." As one who is for committed gay unions--I'm still not sure how best we define those unions. But the Pope certainly isn't helping things!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | January 2, 2008 10:36 AM
Instead of Kiko, you might want to call Ratzi "Nazi Feigling" which is what he was. Nazi is obvious. Feigling means coward.
Posted by: raj | January 2, 2008 10:37 AM
Rev. AJB-
I don't think I've ever said this before, but I'm glad you found this blog and that you participate in the discussion. It's refreshing to hear the perspective of a clergyman with your view on things. One thing I've tried to make clear many times over the years is that when I criticize the agenda of the religious right I am not bashing Christianity as a whole and I think it's really important for the more reasonable elements of Christianity to stand up and be heard.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 2, 2008 11:06 AM
For the truth about gay marriage, anyways in America, check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
The truth will set you free...
Posted by: Charlotte | January 2, 2008 11:11 AM
Thats a good track record but my question is simply why would it matter if they where first or second or third. 35 years with one person is quite impressive.
Posted by: JimC | January 2, 2008 11:14 AM
It may not be anyone's 'fault'. Think of all the relationships one has in their lifetimes. Family, friends, etc. Some last some don't. It's not always a flaw or error that ends anything.
I second Ed's comment about your participation here Rev. AJB!
Posted by: GH | January 2, 2008 11:16 AM
Rev. AJB,
This is exactly the problem that arises when the church expects the government to carry out and enforce its rituals and sacraments. If marriage were entirely a private matter, then religious organizations could decide for themselves what religious services to perform without that being complicated by a legal connection.
There are three issues being conflated here: the legal household-establishment contract, the public stamp of approval for sexual relations between the two people involved, and a sacred contract before the religious group and God. The only one of these that should be of government concern is the legal household-establishment contract.
While I very strongly support laws protecting children and non-competent adults from sexual relationships they are not capable of entering into freely, government involvement much beyond that point is nowadays mostly in support of certain religious standards. Many right-wing and/or conservative and/or evangelical religious people want the government contract denied because they disapprove of same-sex couples having sexual relations. Your solution of unions allows the public acceptance of the sex relationships but has the practical effect of still denying some legal benefits, as no civic unions in the US carry all the legal benefits and recognitions of marriage.
Furthermore, as there are some Christian groups who see no problem with marriage, not just union, for gay couples, what's happening here is that government is enforcing on everyone the private religious beliefs, not just of Christianity, but of certain subdivisions of Christianity.
As a fellow Christian, but one who disagrees with your interpretation of Biblical rejection of gay marriage, I ask that you please consider the value of supporting the government's involvement only in the confirming and overseeing of legal household-establishment contracts with all the present legal benefits of marriage for any two competent adults who wish to enter into such a contract (with no requirement or expectation of romantic interest between the people involved), thus removing marriage (as traditionally conceived by organized religion as a union of body, mind, and spirit) entirely from the government sphere.
It's the reasonable business of the government to handle household-establishment contracts. It is not reasonable for the government to be applying religion-based tests of who can or cannot enter into those contracts.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 2, 2008 12:28 PM
I don't know why churches have to get involved at all. To my knowledge, every marriage in western industrialized countries requires civil paperwork effectively contracts, linking the two individuals, primarily economically. That same right should not be denied to any two people. If the Catholic church, simply for example, is against gay marriage, then the Catholic church doesn't have to marry two dudes. But if the Episcopal church down the way is willing to do it, then the Catholic church can effectively shut the fuck up.
And no, I'm not advocating civil unions, creating a ridiculous sub-category doesn't solve anything, it's like having "separate but equal" schools, it's a crock. My point is that all unions, are civil, the religious aspect can be part of it if that is what you and your spouse want, but if Elvis is performing ceremonies, the "sanctity of marriage," is long gone already.
Posted by: dogmeatib | January 2, 2008 12:32 PM
Your understanding of the history of the marriage contract is partial here. It started as a civil contract and has been coopted throught the centuries by religion. It is rightful that it remains in the hands of civil government. The resulting confusion that would result from unnecessarily changing this simple idea would only bring the chaos religion so often brings to whatever sphere it enters.
That religion adds supernatural ideas to the marriage contract is neither here nor there in the discussion. Your free to do that if you wish. But at the end of the day, no marriage contract means no marriage.
The discussion is only being had because of the superstitious nature of the American population and the propanganda spewed at them using it as the backbone.
The issue isn't a problem with marriage, it's a problem with the small minds of people who seek to limit a very effective mechanism thats already in place.
There is no problem with US marriage contracts. None. The problem comes when people wish to limit access to them. I for one refuse to change the ages old marriage contract to accomadate some clueless superstitous goofs who can't accept others don't see the world as they do.
That would just placate the goofs and I'm old enough not to think placating stupidity is a good idea.
Whose business is it then? Church goverment? Your trading one apple for a worm infested one.
It seems you want to take the problem created by the superstitous and then after causing the problem turn it over to them? If I'm reading that correctly.
I really don't see a case to be made for gay marriage using the bible. But then again you can justify just about anything with it so perhaps.
Posted by: GH | January 2, 2008 12:48 PM
What dogmeat said.
Posted by: GH | January 2, 2008 12:49 PM
You're totally right JimC, but my point was that my parents, grandparents and sister were/are all in the exact type of relationship the Roman Catholic church (in which I was raised) promotes as the only healthy alternative for humanity. But those very families also produce people like me, who are just as much part of the family as those who follow the traditional path. We are not trying to minimize, reduce or eliminate traditional marriage/family; we are trying to expand the ideal to encompass more people.
In fact, we are trying to continue the evolution of marriage that has been going on for centuries. As late as the 1980s I was being taught that the very Protestant marriages performed by Rev AJB were not valid, because all Protestants are heretics and their relationships are not blessed by God. Of course, many other denominations (e.g., Mormons) promote the same beliefs about their marriage rites, vis-a-vis other religions. But no one argues that forcing Catholics or Mormons to recognize, legally, marriages their churches condemn spiritually, is in any way destructive to those religions, or to society as a whole.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | January 2, 2008 12:50 PM
Thanks, Ed! Y'all make me think. Sometimes I may not like what I read, but then that forces me to look at why I may be uncomfortable with a posting.
CPT_Doom, I end up with many Catholics at my doorstep because ELCA Lutherans are seen as "Catholic light." The words and rituals sound and look much the same. And trust me, the sentiment ran much the same way about those "dreaded" CAtholics; although my parents raised me differently. (Obviously, because I married a Catholic girl in a Catholic church. That priest is an awesome guy-but that's a different story;-)
As a Christian leader, I am well aware that states will ultimately decide what unions between same sex couples will be called. What church bodies/denominations are wrestling with is what we will do to honor those unions in the eyes of God (if anything).
And as far as "fault" goes in divorce-true, couples do grow apart. Relationships change. But I have yet to meet a divorced person who doesn't feel some slight twinge of fault in their life. What I strive to do when I counsel couples is to say, "Okay something made this marriage not work." I was a history minor in college and remember well that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I just want people to be well-informed that their history will shape their current relationship; intentional or not.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | January 2, 2008 1:19 PM
GH,
I've said nothing at all about the history of the marriage contract. My comment refers only to a traditional Christian concept of the sacred nature of the marital union. Also, the history of the mariage contract, basically a method of shifting ownership of a female from her male relatives to a husband with exclusive sexual privileges awarded so as to establish patriarchial control of heirs, is irrelevant to my argument.
I'm not sure what the "it" is here, but if you mean the control of women, then, no, it isn't rightful. If you mean household establishment issues, with explicit agreements about financial (and other) responsibility for children in the household, shared property, inheritance rights, the right to visit one another in hospitals or prisons, the right to make medical decisions, etc., then you and I are in agreement. I'd like household-establishment contracts to be first a federal matter, with states providing supporting laws for such issues as state income taxes.
I wish that were so. But it continues to be true in my state, if not in yours, that marriage laws are specifically designed to reflect certain conservative Christian views.
There is one extremely serious problem with marriage laws. US marriage contracts forbid access by an elderly sister and brother, a single mother and her adult physically-disabled and dependant daughter, two hetereosexual war-veteran widows with dependant children, and many, many, many other people who need the protection of a shared household-establishment contract to provide financial, physical, and psychological security for themselves, security now too often provided by taxpayers.
If all organized religion and all religious beliefs disappeared from the earth tomorrow, my view on the government and marriage would not change at all, because there would still be people (you perhaps? I hope not) who insist that household-establishment contracts be confined to people with an assumed, real, or potential romantic interest in each other.
Indeed, I have found in general that religious people are often far more open than some non-religious people to the idea off widening these household contracts to include all competent adults.
Why would you want the government household contracts and their enormous financial, physical, and psychological benefits denied to some people merely because they haven't located anyone with a romantic interest in them?
This is what the marriage laws implicitly say to people: Nobody wants you sexually? Then no household-establishment benefits for you and another person in the same position! Pretty poor reason, it seems to me.
If you're interested, you might try this site. But again, I brought that up only because RevAJB appeared to express religious concerns. If you are not interested in the religious issues, then ignore them. My argument remains the same.
Marriage as defined and handled in the US today is limited to those who can legally have sexual relations, and by accepting marriage a couple is publically stamped as having romantic interests in each other. If you truly want the legal benefits of marriage extended, then that part of marriage must go.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 2, 2008 1:31 PM
"This is what the marriage laws implicitly say to people: Nobody wants you sexually? Then no household-establishment benefits for you and another person in the same position! Pretty poor reason, it seems to me."
I couldn't agree more that it's a poor reason. But I was of the impression that this wasn't just America, but a larger problem than that. Am I mistaken? It would be nice if I am.
Posted by: jba | January 2, 2008 1:42 PM
This is not a flaw of marriage. A single mother and her daughter are not applicable under the marriage law. You want something to address these scenarios fine. But don't say it's a flaw of marriage when marriage isn't ment to address these situations.
I don't see them as the same thing. Marriage should be confined to a certain life situation and another device for what you are discussing. I don't see the direct connection there.
That is not what it says at all. If a mother and daughter want similiar protections have a different law. But conflating this scenario as a flaw of marriage seems rather odd.
I disagree. I simply don't see it as the job of that particular contract to encompass every household and life scenario.
And I don't find the arguments on the bible pro-gay marriage side compelling. But like I said the bible can be used to justify just about anything.
The Good Rev:
There is some truth in what you say, especially about learning from your mistakes. I think your premise at the start though may be wrong. The 'something' that makes a marriage not work may simply have been a poor decision from the get go. What happens later is a natural progression from the fact they shouldn't have been there in the first place. The marriage didn't 'work' because it never could work.
Likewise I'm sure you know of a multitude of people who remain married despite themselves. Is that marriage 'working' because it still exists? Thats what I mean that when you ask why it didn't work it may not be the best question.
A better may be what did you do well and what didn't you do so well in that marriage?
Agreed.
Posted by: GH | January 2, 2008 2:01 PM
GH,
Exactly what I was proposing. We need a federal law that provides for household-establishment contracts without regard for romantic issues. Non-romantically involved couples could use that law to set up supportive homes, and I expect that many romantically involved couples would use that law also in order more effectively to keep the government's nose out of their bedrooms. As you earlier expressed concern for those excluded by the current marriage laws, I hope we'll have your active support in passing such a household-establishment contract law.
Of course, such a household-establishment law would cover every legal issue now covered by marriage law, so the laws would in fact be pretty much identical except for the explicit/implicit stamp of approval for sexual relations between the couple and regulations concerns those relations. Now, it seems wasteful to me to continue to have a separate marriage law for no purpose except to say, in effect, go at it with the government's blessing. That's always seemed to me to be pretty undignified.
Surely, the decision to have sex or not (while not violating the laws protecting children and those incompetent to protect themselves) should be a personal and private matter. However, if some people want what will eventually be the equivalent of a household-establishment contract with the addendum of a public announcement of hormonal involvement, I suppose it really doesn't matter that much, so long as it is indeed a separate law/contract so as not to contaminate household-establishment contracts with irrelevant issues.
It's extremely likely to be true, however, that as long as the government has any laws in reference to anything it refers to by the word "marriage" that some religious group or other will continue to attempt to get something added (usually a restriction) to reflect a specific religious view.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 2, 2008 2:26 PM
Julia-
On some of this we agree but I still think your conflating 'legal sex' and marriage.
They are. No one cares if you have sex or not. You can marry and have sex, or marry and not have sex. You can remain unmarried and have sex or unmarried and not have sex.
I agree with this statement. But thats also why I think the government should retain it.
Posted by: GH | January 2, 2008 2:48 PM
Does Spain have box turtles?
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | January 2, 2008 3:14 PM
GH,
While marriage is not necessarily a requirement for sex, it is always in effect a license for sex. That is why you cannot marry your son or daughter. So yes, marriage is a household-establishment contract with the addition of legally permitted sexual privileges. This is so clear that it has been a considerable struggle even to establish the legal possibility of rape between married people.
A young man came by today to inspect my house for termites because I have a legal contract with his company. At no point did we pledge to love or cherish each other, and there is absolutely no public expectation that we had, or would like to have sex with each other. Also, though he is not a relative of mine, I could have exactly the same contract were he my son. All very different from marriage.
To the contrary. A refusal to have sex can be used in some situations by one party as a reason for obtaining a divorce (the cancellation of the marriage contract), even if the other party objects to the divorce.
It just isn't reasonable for someone to claim that sexual relations, and government permission for it, doesn't operate as a central element in marriage.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 2, 2008 3:17 PM
Refusal to have sex is also one of the grounds for an annulment in the Catholic Church. If it can be "proven" that sex didn't happen in the marriage, the marriage never existed.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | January 2, 2008 3:57 PM
I think these are two seperate arguments. No one would deny that sex is a component of marriages. However that is different from arguing the government has a role in granting it as permissible or not. There are many sexless marriages(to hear my friends talk most,lol)
Likewise when someone refuses to have sex they are violating the agreement made between the two of them that the state endorsed. It doesn't so much have to do with the sex as much as contract violation. It could be any number of other things as well.
I don't think we are far apart on this issue just see it through a different lense. We'd probably vote the same way.:-)
Yes, that is different from marriage. Should it not be?
Yes Rev but we are talking about reality here not the bloviations of alleged virgins in funny outfits. The marriage existed the minute your name and hers went on the paper along with a 3rd party to verify the same. Superstitious beliefs don't matter here.
Posted by: GH | January 2, 2008 4:25 PM
No, Kiko, some of us want you understand that your pointless ravings have no meaning beyond feeding your delusions about the great sky fairy. The rest, I don't speak for. But neither do you.
Posted by: Moses | January 2, 2008 4:44 PM
You know, Ed, if you're going to make the Star Wars joke, the least you can do is capitalize "the Force" to make it work properly, he said pedantically.
Posted by: Calton Bolick | January 2, 2008 6:39 PM
Damn, a good marriage abolishing discussion and I have been working all day. But I'm going to bet we're still good for my two cents. Glad to run into GH again though, it's been a while.
I disagree. I simply don't see it as the job of that particular contract to encompass every household and life scenario.
But when the various domestic partnerships being discussed are looking for exactly the same rights and legal securities, why should it require fifty different sorts of contracts. This is exactly the reason I advocate for the abolition of marriage as a civil institution, to be replaced by a single contract that provides the legal security and rights currently provided by marriage.
The interface with religion and religionists desire to restrict marriage to certain segments of the population, is merely another issue that the abolition of marriage as a civil institution would resolve. It is by no means the end of the discussion, as it is far from the only reason for going there.
There are any number of domestic partnerships that would benefit from a civil union. There is simply no reason that it should be far more complicated for someone to get the legal issues resolved, simply because the partners are in a platonic relationship. Nor should it be necessary to call such a union a marriage.
Then there are those who just object to the title of marriage, though their relationship is much like any marriage.
I just don't really see the problem with calling ones relationship, whatever one wants, while allowing any domestic partnership to enjoy the legal benefits and security that currently only marriage or a shit-ton of paperwork provides.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 2, 2008 8:56 PM
...the family is based on "the indissoluble union of one man and one woman."
Since when does a husband and wife alone (considering the context in which he made this remark, I'm assuming that the pope used the word "union" as synonymous with "marriage") consitute a "family?" A family involves children.
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 2, 2008 9:05 PM
GH, referring to my contract with a termite-protection company,
It should not be.
Marriage is a legal contract that is useful to society because it provides protective and supportive agreements that help people be able to take care of themselves and their children with less reliance on public subsidy. Useful legal contracts should not depend on or require loving, cherishing, warm fuzzies, or the licensing of sexual relationships, nor should they be limited to those whom the law permits to have sex.
Both romance and sacred vows can be a part of a domestic relationship for anyone who legally chooses them, but it should not be government that provides the confirming rituals.
Household-establishment contracts from government, sacred marriage vows from the church, and romantic marriage from whatever/whoever wants to provide the celebration.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 2, 2008 10:54 PM
"Like every other clueless bigot in the world, the Pope still has yet to explain how allowing gays to get married threatens non-gay families and marriages."
The fact that he's a clueless bigot probably has something to do with the lack of an explanation. After all, you don't need to explain things to your sheep if they think your doing God's will. Their puny minds can't possibly comprehend why God doesn't want two people who happen to be of the same sex to marry.
Posted by: Alex | January 2, 2008 11:37 PM
Then why not just grant gays the right to marry and be done with it. Why scrap a perfectly good idea to replace it with the same idea?
But they are not married. You can have a relationship and not be married. This is really simple. It's a contract that a relationship is a part of among other aspects.
You can call your relationship whatever you want. Who says otherwise? But you cannot be married without a contract. This is just simple realism.
I assure you julia if you want to marry someone you don't love and don't want to have sex with you still can. Hell you can even marry someone you hate. I am content that in this regard the government does a more than adequate job and their is little need to change it.
That being said in scenarios like you listed above a different form of contract would be useful but as I said I think your placing the blame on marriage when it really needs to be elsewhere.
Why not? The government is just a group of people. You and me actually. Your ok with another group of people doing it. All the government asks is your signature, some words showing consent, and a 3rd party to witness.
Not to much to ask for such a powerful document. In fact it's precious little.
Posted by: GH | January 3, 2008 12:27 AM
As an evangelical Christian (with a liberatarian streak) I say that the State should get out of the marriage business. I am not a lawyer so I dont pretend to know all the legal issues at hand. But there must be a way to remove the government from the equation.
Posted by: Cheddar | January 3, 2008 12:43 AM
I find it interesting religious folks think the state should stay out of the marriage business when the civil aspect has always been the mainstay of it all in one form or the other. Religions have so many stances on this issue to make it moot.
Anyway I'm out for awhile. As always it's been enjoyable.
Posted by: GH | January 3, 2008 1:00 AM
His Irrelvancy said, referring to the family: "the place in which human life is sheltered and protected from its beginning until its natural end."
That's unless of course you were unlucky enough to be a Catholic and attended a parish in which your friendly neighborood Father liked to diddle with your children's private parts...not to mention that this has unleashed untold suffering on many families.
And this institution which still has the audacity to literally pontificate on all sorts of moral issues, has still yet to really deal with this awful issue. It honestly beats me how anybody can still be part of this unholy institution called the Catholic church. Disgusting.
Posted by: timcol | January 3, 2008 1:48 AM
How about this situation.
A disabled veteran dies, his partner of many years applies for a "War Widows' Pension". Having provided all the doccumentation etc. the government grants the pension, then discovering that the person applying is man, revokes the pension forcing him to pay back the amount disbursed.
It really happened. The Government used the pathetic excuse that he wasn't a "widow" since he was not female. He is appealing this through the courts.
Marriage is a contract between two people that carries certain responsiblities and rights. Denying same sex couples from marrying prevents them having a huge range of rights that married hetrosexuals take for granted. Plus it implies that homosexuals are inferior and abnormal beings.
"All men are created equal" - sheesh - the arguements of the rabid "Christian" Right are the same used to deny civil rights to blacks.
Posted by: DingoJack | January 3, 2008 3:07 AM
And while you are at it, please ask them also to explain how secularism is destroying democracy (said at the same time). This by the same church that supported Franco, by the way.
The good news is that the conservative party (PP) has already said it has no intentions of rolling back the gay marriage law. It is rumored here they wanted to enact it themselves but didn't dare.
Posted by: aracne | January 3, 2008 3:37 AM
B16 is a wonderful man. JP2 had enough PR abilities to cover up the backwardness of his ideology. With B16, we have it all in the open.
Posted by: Roman | January 3, 2008 5:10 AM
GH -
Then why not just grant gays the right to marry and be done with it. Why scrap a perfectly good idea to replace it with the same idea?
Because it's not just about gays. And it's not about scrapping a perfectly good idea. It's about scrapping the outmoded notion that it is the states business at all, the nature of a relationship between consenting adults, as a requirement for simple and legally secure domestic partnership.
But they are not married. You can have a relationship and not be married. This is really simple.
Which is exactly my point. No, we are not married. Nor do we particularly want to be. Neither however, do we feel that this should in any way, shape or form prohibit us from the legal security that currently only marriage or a ton of complicated, exhaustive paper-work. The only simple, reasonable way to get the security, is to enter into an institution neither of us is particularly comfortable with.
Then there is a large and growing segment of the population who are living in platonic domestic partnerships. They do many of the same things as married couples, including accruing property together. Currently the only way for them to acquire any of those rights are again, either live a fiction and get married (unless, like the probable majority of such partnerships, they are of the same sex) or a whole lot of paperwork. And that assuming that one can actually get contractual rights across the board.
So I guess the ultimate issue is that marriage is not a "good" idea, nor is what we are calling to replace it with actually the same. While it would encompass the same rights, it would not be the same institution. There would be no expectation or implication as to the nature of the relationship. There would be no need to live a lie. There would be no government intrusion into the nature of the relationship.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 3, 2008 9:54 AM
We will have to agree to disagree. I do not feel it is outmoded at all.
So you want marriage without marriage. If it is the same rights it has the same government involvement. Same contractual and governmental stipulations. No difference at all in reality so why mess with the current model.
What government intrusion are you having? As a married man I don't particuarlly feel the governments breathe on my neck. But as I said I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Posted by: GH | January 3, 2008 10:38 AM
I guess I'm on a different track from everyone else, but when anyone (especially the pope) insists there's a "traditional family" and it's the one that the biblical god demands, I just have to wonder. . .this is the same bible, right, that has families made up of a man and any number of permutations of wives, slaves, concubines, and widowed sisters-in-law, right? If the traditional family that we see in the bible is the right one, then our legal definition (and the current popular Christian one) is way off. If the traditional family is the one that's currently being defended by the religious, then the bible is wrong. Just sayin', you know. . .
Posted by: Alison | January 3, 2008 10:43 PM
Alison-As a religious leader, trust me that thought has not passed me by. One of my favorite kid malaprops is that: "King David had many wives; he also had many porcupines!"
By the time the New Testament rolled around, the norm for Christians was to have one wife. That's where the "standard" comes from.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | January 3, 2008 11:19 PM
Which would make that standard culturally defined, rather than biblically or divinely. You'd think that then updating the definition to fit today's culture would be okay.
Posted by: Skemono | January 4, 2008 12:36 AM
Which would make that standard culturally defined, rather than biblically or divinely. You'd think that then updating the definition to fit today's culture would be okay.
Do not expect a priest to admit that religion is a social construct.
Posted by: Roman | January 4, 2008 3:49 AM
By the time the New Testament rolled around, the norm for Christians was to have one wife. That's where the "standard" comes from
That was a Greek/Roman tradition that long predated Christianity.
Posted by: raj | January 4, 2008 9:06 AM
One at a time would be more accurate and their was still plenty of multiples at that time.
Posted by: JimC | January 4, 2008 9:26 AM
JimC | January 4, 2008 9:26 AM
Same as now.
Posted by: raj | January 4, 2008 10:35 AM
But, Roman, Rev AJb just did. And on that note, Rev, I'll also say that I'm glad you're here. Obviously, we have opposing mindsets on the existence of God and thus there are always certain things we will disagree on but I am impressed with your posts and how well thought out they are. You are always respectful of nonbelievers even when you obviously disagree and that has earned you respect in return.
As for household establishment contracts? I don't know. I think this could open up a whole can of worms, especially when you think of all the complications incurred in a divorce. When we talk of marriage in this context, we are talking about the legal, not the religious aspects. I think some legal marriage is necessary and should be extended to same sex couples but if you're talking to other than romantic interests, it could get real complicated real fast.
For instance, how about roommates? There's enough fighting between roommates in courts as it is without making it as complicated as a legal marriage. Same goes for couples who choose not to marry. The whole reason to choose not to marry is to keep it from being legally binding, to be able to walk away without any greater complications than would exist between platonic roommates (i.e., breaking the lease, who's responsible for damage to the apartment, etc.) If you have a household contract, you might as well have a marriage license so what's the point?
If you're talking other familial relationships -- such as I currently have and am planning on leaving -- wherein I live with my daughter and grandson, again, what would be the point? The only benefit for me in doing so would be greater rights than normally accrued to grandparents but a lawyer has already told me the amount of involvement in rearing the child matters in grandparent rights. So, please explain, why such contracts would be of any value.
Posted by: Donna | January 4, 2008 12:02 PM
But, Roman, Rev AJb just did.
That means that he betrayed his religion. You can't have it both ways at the same time ;-)
Posted by: Roman | January 4, 2008 12:22 PM
Donna,
An elderly sister and brother wanting to set up a legal household together cannot get married. The point is that marriage is limited only to those the law permits to have sexual relations together. And that marriage is an implicit public announcement of a romantic relationship between the two people.
Also, marriage laws in many states are still tied to male dominance issues. When my husband told me he didn't love me and announced his intention to treat me as his unpaid housekeeper, I took my two children and moved close to relatives (his and mine) who could help provide them care and emotional support. Though I went to marriage counseling and repeatedly attempted to save the marriage, he refused. So what about property taxes on the house he lived in and the house I lived in? I paid a rate fifty percent higher than his because state law said the family home is wherever the husband chooses to reside and any residence of the wife, regardless of reason, is just a vacation home, subject to higher taxes.
So yes, we need to fix all the left-over sexist issues in marriage law. But some people may not want to wait for that. This is an argument for abolishing marriage after creating household-establishment law: a fresh start with clean household contracts untainted by leftover sexism.
Personally, I'm happy for the tainted marriage laws to remain as long as there are any people who want to keep struggling to get them all straightened out and who value government validation of their personal romantic feelings.
And yes, roommates sometimes fight. And with household-establishment contracts, people living together would have much clearer laws directing what happens when they split up. People who are merely roommates have by definition not established a household together in which each person has extensive legal rights and obligations to the other.
For essentially all the same reasons that marriage is of social value. People who are married may get tax breaks. People who are married get to make medical decisions for each other. They get inheritance rights. When one dies, the other has an extremely strong claim on custody of all children. If one person comes to the shared household with two children and one with three, they don't fall afoul of zoning laws that limit the number of unrelated people in a household. People who marry become relatives even if they weren't before, and have all the legal advantages of that. Two elderly people who can't manage separately, or financially as mere roommates, can provide for themselves instead of depending so much on taxpayers.
All those benefits should not be restricted only to the romantically involved and those permitted by law to have sex.
If two women meet as widows of men killed in Iraq, and want to support each other in setting up a household together, with all the legal protections of marriage, in most states they cannot do that. Otherwise, in certain states, they must present themselves for marriage or a civil union, thus implicitly declaring a romantic interest they do not have in each other.
Donna, it's really very simple: If you agree that marriage provides benefits that stabilize and provide psychological and financial support to two people (with or without children), then why would you want to deny all that to two people merely because they have no romantic interest in each other and may even be forbidden by law to have a sexual relationship?
Posted by: JuliaL | January 4, 2008 12:58 PM
One other thought:
I hope you do not assume that your lawyer's comment means that you will necessarily continue to have rights to visit that child if your daughter decides against it. As if you're thinking you're certainly going to retain any right to have a part in decisions affecting the child's health, welfare, and education - well, I would encourage you to consult that lawyer again, and ask exactly what laws, as opposed to a judge's discretion and the lawyer's optimistic belief in his own abilities, assure that you will have such rights in the future.
And even if you do not personally think that you would benefit from a household-establishment contract, I hope that when the time comes you would support such a law for the sake of those who would benefit from it.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 4, 2008 1:03 PM
Re "marriage contracts"
Consider reading Robert A Heinlein's book The Puppet Masters. He deals with marriage contracts, which are limited term contracts that are registered with the government and renewable, in that book. It's from the 1950s, so the idea isn't new.
Posted by: raj | January 4, 2008 1:57 PM
I can think of a whole lot of reasons not to marry beyond these aspects. I don't think they are the primary reasons people do not marry, the main reasons lie on the emotional side.
But that is neither here nor there in this discussion.
I toss my hat to the retaining marriage as it stands side as if a brother and sister wish to establish a household or two widows it's a matter of choice.Perhaps society should work to assist these folks if they need help but I don't see the answer in household contracts. Marriage contracts essentially establish new family ties. A brother and sister already have those. Two widows that set up house, well, honestly I'm not sure the government has to accomadate every possible life scenario.
Posted by: JimC | January 4, 2008 2:33 PM
JimC,
No, a brother and sister don't have automatic inheritance rights the way a husband and wife do. They would have to provide evidence of being the closest living relative in order to make medical decisions for each other, and may not be able to do it even then. They don't have the same tax breaks as married couples, even if they each have children in the household.
The issue is really just the opposite of the way you have phrased it here. It has nothing to do with accommodating some particular life scenario; it has to do with simplifying the law by getting rid of unnecessary exclusion. What the government has to do is not arbitrarily exclude some people from rights and benefits to which other people have access.
And just what is the basis for excluding these two widows? In some states, it is the fact they are both female. In other states, it is the fact that they do not wish to be in a romantic relationship and do not wish to be publicly identified as being in such a relationship.
As for the brother and sister, why are they excluded from a large array of benefits? Why, just because they have the same parents.
Tying household-establishment contracts to sexual relations was historically a way to limit the rights of women and provide patriarchial control over children and property. The time for such stuff is gone. We need to provide household-establishment contracts for people without require to their sexual relationship.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 4, 2008 3:56 PM
raj,
We aren't really talking about marriage contracts; we're talking about household-establishment contracts. Using them would extend the legal, financial, and psychological benefits of marriage to those who are presently excluded for no reason other than the fact that they don't wish to be, or are not legally entitled to be, identified as romantic partner.
These contracts, by being available to all competent adults, would also provide benefits to those presently excluded because of the mostly religion-based struggle over the meaning of the word "marriage."
A small effort in law writing would create a huge positive result without hurting anyone.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 4, 2008 4:03 PM
JimC -
Two widows that set up house, well, honestly I'm not sure the government has to accomadate every possible life scenario.
Why not? I know two single moms who, pooling their resources, managed to buy a house and drastically increase both families quality of life. They are hetero women who have chosen to avoid the dating and marriage game, in favor of raising their respective kids.
So these are two women, who are accruing property together, raising their kids together - i.e. they have a fully functional domestic partnership. In the quest to legally secure their relationship, to each other and each other's kids, they spent more than three thousand dollars (money that could have been better spent on their family) in attorney's fees and court costs, to get all the paperwork filed.
There is little difference in the legal ramifications of all that paperwork, than would come through the cost of a marriage license. What little difference there is, is that they are not legally family, so in spite of the fact that they have signed forms for power of attorney and the right to make healthcare decisions, the actual family of either women could fairly easily override the decision made by one partner, on behalf of the other. In their case this isn't a problem, but for many people in similar circumstances it would be.
For example, I have the same paperwork filed, giving me power of attorney and the right to make healthcare decisions, for a friend who is HIV positive. Unfortunately, if his family were aware of a major healthcare issue, they could override some decisions that I might make for him. And they would definitely try, in spite of the long estrangement he has had from his fundy family.
While I accept that there will always be some limitations, such limitations should be very loose. If two (or even a few) people choose to exist in a domestic partnership and especially if they choose to accrue property together, raise their kids together, they deserve nothing less than the same legal security that currently only married couples enjoy.
There is simply no reason to create many contracts that provide the same essential benefits, nor is there any reason to force people who are not in a relationship that they wish to equate with marriage, to call it such. And there is absolutely no reason to restrict marriage rights, to those who have a romantic interest in each other.
GH -
What government intrusion are you having?
The intrusion of having to accept an institution that I don't believe fits my relationship to enjoy the legal security marriage provides. It is no one's business but mine and my family's, what our relationship is all about.
Marriage is (at least for the vast majority of people who get married) more than just the contract. It certainly implies, yes, even makes claims about the nature of the relationships that fall under that heading. Guess what, if we were to abolish marriage as the civil standard, people would still get married. Only then, it would be a very definite statement about the nature of the relationship, not just something a couple does to garner certain rights.
Donna -
So, please explain, why such contracts would be of any value.
One of the rights the single mom's I described above have delineated, is the custodial continuity, in the event that one of them dies. They are currently working their way through the process of adopting each other's kids to ensure this all works for the best. But in some states, this adoption would not be allowed.
And as JuliL said, the gp rights are not a guarantee. It is very much up to the whim of the judge involved.
Another issue is property rights. A friend from my church, lives in her deceased parent's house. She has lived with them since her husband died, leaving her and her special needs son to fend for themselves. While her folks left her brother a modest inheritance, they left her with the bulk of their assets, including the house, so she could continue to care for her child. All of the liquid assets were in a trust, intended to help the boy for the rest of his life, there is nothing the brother can do to get it. The house however, was not part of the trust and the brother is going to court to attempt to force her to sell it and split the profit, or force her to "buy" the stake he hopes to achieve in court. Had there been some way for her and her mom to enter into a civil union, it would have diverted the whole messy affair, with the state recognizing that there was a larger dynamic to the relationship between mother and daughter/grandson, that existed with the son.
There are a great many reasons for such domestic partnership contracts. These are just a few of them. Ultimately, what it boils down to, is we have people getting married every day, just to achieve those rights. They aren't marrying for love or even a romantic interest in their partner - they are marrying to achieve the legal benefits and security. Abolishing marriage as a civil institution and making it into a personal choice, could only be good for marriage as an institution.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 4, 2008 4:06 PM
JuliaL -
Thank you for disseminating my views with far more eloquence than I can muster at the moment.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 4, 2008 4:09 PM
DuWayne,
I do think that household-establishment contracts that offer the range of legal protections provided now only by marriage (while specifically offering no sanctioning for a sexual relationship) can help some people, hurt no people, and violate no one's religious beliefs.
Maybe it's time to go further with this idea: a website, some simple brochures, writing to key people in government. I'm going to begin to give some thought as to how to accomplish those.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 4, 2008 4:47 PM
JuliaL | January 4, 2008 4:03
Perhaps you can fill me in on the details, because I don't see much difference.
Posted by: raj | January 5, 2008 3:12 PM
raj -
Read mine and JuliaL's comments on this post, the details are all there. Seriously, if you don't see the difference or the use for it from the comments we have already made, your reading comprehension isn't likely to improve because we reword it one more time.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 5, 2008 9:08 PM