…and this is a 
Oh, come on now
Category: Pointless polls
Posted on: June 8, 2008 11:57 AM, by PZ Myers
In a fluff story about George Takei (Sulu!) getting married to his partner of 21 years, WNBC takes the tacky step of including a poll asking, "Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?" Please. How ridiculous. When the cheesy news was full of Britney Spears or Angeline Jolie or the movie star of the moment planning their nuptials, did these sites run polls asking if these people should be married? When did it become legitimate "news" to question people's personal decisions about partnerships?
Comments
I'm still using the "set phaser to ...stunning" joke, it totally kills!
Posted by: Toddahhhh | June 8, 2008 12:01 PM
Now that the California Supreme Court has refused to stay its decision allowing same-sex marriages (a stay that several state attorneys general begged for), some county clerks in the state are trying to figure out how to evade their responsibilities. Ann Barnett in Kern County (where Bakersfield is) has decided she won't perform any civil ceremony marriages rather than allow gay couples to get married at her office. The Los Angeles Times is on the story:
http://tinyurl.com/5vkbt4
Posted by: Zeno | June 8, 2008 12:06 PM
The poll when I visited it:
Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?
Choice Votes Percentage of 20441 Votes
Yes. 8318 41%
They should be allowed to have civil unions. 2012 10%
No, they should not have formal partnerships. 10111 49%
I voted Yes, what business of mine is it that prevents making what already existed in fact, legal?
Posted by: Barklikeadog | June 8, 2008 12:06 PM
Rude, yes.
But the more stories about long-term, happy, ordinary, boring couple we get in - what I assume is - the mainstream press, the better.
Posted by: Sili | June 8, 2008 12:10 PM
congratulations to them both.
Posted by: alex | June 8, 2008 12:14 PM
Maybe I should say, what business of anyones, other than the people doing it, is it to make it legal or illegal? These folks can no more change who they are than a leopard can change his spots. Thank goodness we don't use squids or octupus (octupi?) for that statement.
A free and open society? It's what we should have but it appears we live in a free society for the socially acceptable. All the rest can stuff it. At least the 2 letting either marriage or civil unions exists outnumbers the nays.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | June 8, 2008 12:15 PM
Should anyone feel like voting in these polls, the "constitutional definition" and "amendment's importance" polls immediately underneath are also worth a prod (and are currently closer-run).
Posted by: Stephen | June 8, 2008 12:21 PM
Heterosexual marriage leads to divorce, spousal abuse, and child abuse, child abuse and more child abuse. It should be banned, or rigidly controlled by the proper authorities.
Posted by: Mooser, Bummertown | June 8, 2008 12:27 PM
Has anyone noticed that all religion based Constitutional amendments or proposed amendments remove individual rights rather than protecting them? Only one has been passed so far, let's keep it that way.
Posted by: bigjohn756 | June 8, 2008 12:30 PM
I thought the alternative that the US constitution should outlaw partnerships and anything like marriage, obviously including marriage itself, was interesting. So, then only the outlaws would have inlaws, eh?
Posted by: kai | June 8, 2008 12:33 PM
As far as heterosexual co-habitation and reproduction without any legal or religious sanctioning, the harm done is of such a magnitude that imprisonment may be the only solution which can protect society from its more determined perpetrators. What kind of a person produces children without even bothering to erect a financial and familial and legal framework in which they can be raised?
Not a nice one, that's for sure.
Posted by: Mooser, Bummertown | June 8, 2008 12:33 PM
To be honest I have always found the "constitutional" arguments on matters like this to rather miss the point. A constitution is there to serve the people, not there for the people to serve, and any constitution that gets in the way of same sex marriages is flawed. This is an issue I have with some Americans. They seem so keen on their constitution they fail to stop and ask if it is doing the job it should. It failed to stop slavery after all. Doing what is "constitutional" is not always the same thing as doing what is right.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 8, 2008 12:33 PM
Here we go.
Yes: 8523 (41%)
They should be allowed to have civil unions: 2015 (10%)
No, they should not have formal partnerships: 10113 (49%)
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 8, 2008 12:34 PM
I voted for option #2: they should be allowed to have civil unions.
Unsurprisingly, though, this option doesn't seem popular. When I looked, it was 41% for Yes, 49% for no formal partnerships, and 10% for civil unions.
The problem is that so few people are willing to accept this middle-of-the-road compromise. Gay rights activists insist "no, it has to be called marriage, anything else is depriving us of our basic rights"; while religious fundamentalists get all hysterical and rant "civil unions will sneak gay marriage in through the back door, legitimise immoral behaviour, destroy the family etc." (I've seen all the latter arguments made on a Conservapedia debate page.)
Ultimately, I don't see why both camps - apart from a few extremists on both sides - can't get behind the principle of civil unions. Whether anyone likes it or not, homosexual relationships are perfectly legal and legitimate; so IMO cohabiting same-sex partners should be entitled to obtain the same practical rights, in terms of inheritance, benefits etc., as their married counterparts. I would extend it further and also allow cohabiting siblings, and other people in non-sexual relationships, to have civil unions. Why should any two people who live together be denied the practical legal benefits that attach to that status?
Ultimately, the whole root of the problem is that marriage has a dual meaning in American (and British) society. It's a secular civil contract conferring certain legal rights and status; and it's also, for many people, a religious sacrament. What we need to do is separate out the civil and religious concepts of "marriage". Gay couples ought to be entitled to all the practical benefits of a marriage under civil law, and so I am in favour of secular civil unions, conferring all the practical rights of a marriage, to be recognised under law.
Posted by: Walton | June 8, 2008 12:35 PM
One really has to wonder what the mindset is of the people who are voting that it is of critical importance to have same-sex marriage prohibited in the constitution. I can, with difficulty, place myself in the position of people opposed to same-sex marriage. For many of them the idea is rather new, and a bit threatening. But that prevention is critically important? How warped does one's mind have to be to think that?
Posted by: Stephen | June 8, 2008 12:38 PM
Mooser, I will assume you are being sarcastic.
Posted by: kai | June 8, 2008 12:40 PM
I remember some newspaper asking politicians whether heterosexuals should be allowed to marry (or was it about adopting kids? not sure). The question asked was simply so far from their mind that lots of conservatives misheard and said "no".
Posted by: Martin | June 8, 2008 12:42 PM
A constitutional ammendment to ban "anything like marriage"? I mean, I thought I was broad minded, but a ban on marriage seems a little radical -- talk about a scorched Earth approach to social engineering!
Posted by: j.t.delaney | June 8, 2008 12:43 PM
George Takei should be allowed to marry anyone he wants.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | June 8, 2008 12:46 PM
Stop posting these stupid polls.
Posted by: Alex | June 8, 2008 12:54 PM
Walton, I'd say it's because such an approach singles out same-sex couples as "different." Yes, they are different, but that difference is their own business a lot more than it is the business of the law, or of society.
Ultimately, this middle approach might be the one most likely to work. But I still don't think same-sex marriage advocates should AIM for it. I think they should go for full equal rights.
Once you let people label you as less than equal, and once that label gets nailed into law, all sorts of nasty things follow. We have plenty of historical precedent.
Posted by: Hank Fox | June 8, 2008 12:57 PM
Kind of a dumb poll, not least because you can vote as many times as you want.
Posted by: Divalent | June 8, 2008 12:58 PM
If same sex partnerships were legalized, I would seriously consider becoming the legal partner of my "brother from another mother." The legal benefits of such a partnership might be advantageous. I don't want to marry him (1] We're straight, 2] Even if I weren't, he's ugly, 3] He feels the same way about me). I just want the financial benefits of living with a man I love in a platonic nature. If any of that made sense, wow, cause I'm drunk.
Posted by: Ignorant Atheist | June 8, 2008 1:00 PM
correction: you can vote as much as you want, but apparently it doesn't count those extra votes.
Posted by: Divalent | June 8, 2008 1:01 PM
Walton wrote: ...marriage has a dual meaning in American (and British) society. It's a secular civil contract conferring certain legal rights and status; and it's also, for many people, a religious sacrament.
Many people have marriages without any religious involvement. Is anyone talking about forcing religions to perform same sex marriages? Why do you have a problem with secular same sex marriage?
Posted by: tomh | June 8, 2008 1:04 PM
"Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?"
Hmmm, good question. How about a compromise:
Yes, but only on odd or even days of months beginning with the letters J, F, M, A, S, O, N or D.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 8, 2008 1:04 PM
j.t.delaney (#18):
I had the same thought.
Now, if you want my personal opinion — and this is the Internet, so I'll assume you do — I'd like to see government out of the marriage business. Anybody who wants to get coupled, be they gay, straight, in love, in lust or seeking convenience, gets their certificate from the clerk. Everybody gets a "civil union". Solemnizing by the community of your choice, religious or otherwise, is a separate event with no legal weight.
Some people go further, at least in contemplating what the ideal state of affairs would be, if not in considering what the current goal of activism should be.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 8, 2008 1:07 PM
Me.
My spouse and I do not think it was the government's, churches' or anyone else's business what our relationship is. So we did not bother with any of the niceties you seem to think are so important. The results? A kid who:
So what kind of parent do you think I turned out to be?
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | June 8, 2008 1:07 PM
Blake,
I understand your point, but given that for many marriage/civil partnerships are an important moment in their lives I think there should be some way of giving it a bit more recognition than just getting a bit of paper. For some a religious ceremony may do it, but for those who are not religious, or those who the religious choose to discriminate against there may not be that option.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 8, 2008 1:17 PM
Civil unions for all. Let the government get out of the business of marriage in its incarnation as 'holy matrimony'.
Posted by: Elf Eye | June 8, 2008 1:18 PM
Ferrous Patella, I don't think the parents are everything. Even if you happened to be a bad parent, that doesn't mean your kids will be bad. For example, no matter who I had for parents, I would still be a bad child because I'm stupid.
Posted by: Alex | June 8, 2008 1:20 PM
The article's photos and initial-paragraph highlighting make it look like Takei is marrying Shatner. Yikes.
I have to agree with all those disagreeing with Walton. Granting civil unions but not marriage smacks of "separate but equal", which we all (ought to) know is not at all equal.
Posted by: Sengkelat | June 8, 2008 1:22 PM
Here's wishing nothing but happiness for Mr Takei and his spouse. He has always been a class act and a humane man, even though he faced internment as a child and anti-Asian and anti-gay bigotry. Although his role as Sulu was iconic, I personally think this is the best work of his career.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hgg_qsU-8E
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 8, 2008 1:22 PM
Walton,
Because I want to visit my wife in hospital, to be recognised as her next of kin, to list her on my tax forms, and to adopt her children; and to be able to access those and all other 'legal rights' without having to jump through special hoops to deal with people over and over again who don't want to view my civil union as the same as a marriage.
Because legal rights aren't always accessable on the ground floor and I don't want to have to argue and prove each time that I have rights that would be assumed under a different title.
Separate is not equal, and if what I have walks and quacks like a marriage, I'm damn well going to call it one.
Posted by: InnerBrat | June 8, 2008 1:36 PM
That is the greatest thing I have ever seen.
This news has made my morning. I didn't know that George Takei grew up in a Japanese American internment camp, and I knew only a bit about his work on a public transportation board, and his later activism for gay rights. What a great man!
Posted by: Christopher Petroni | June 8, 2008 1:39 PM
Oh, God, please no.
At the time of writing, the frivolous poll has 'No' in the lead at 48%, with "Yes" at 42% and "civil partnerships only" at 10%.
Is the US really that full of crackpot fundamentalists?
Posted by: Jonathan Rothwell | June 8, 2008 1:39 PM
I note that this poll does not track IP addresses or cookies -- you can vote as often as you like.
Posted by: BMurray | June 8, 2008 1:39 PM
Oh, and in case there's anyone out there who still doesn't think that the Roman Catholic church is a barbaric organisation, try this article (in Italian, I couldn't find an English version). If I read it correctly (and I found a Dutch page which confirms my reading) the church is refusing to allow a man to marry who had an accident which left him impotent.
Posted by: Stephen | June 8, 2008 1:41 PM
The comments on that article are frighteningly hateful.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | June 8, 2008 1:53 PM
Obviously I don't agree with that position, but at least it is consistent with their argument that the purpose of marriage is procreation.
The stunning lack of consistency in these arguments is what bothers me the most. I have had a vasectomy. If my wife were to die, would I be ineligible for marriage? Is a post-menopausal woman ineligible for marriage? Most anti-gay marriage people would not go that far, which just shows they are not thinking.
And the word "sanctity" keeps coming up. Do they really want the legislature deciding what to "sanctify?" Would they like a court to order a conservative Catholic priest to perform a marriage for a divorced couple?
The best solution is to let the legal and civil parts of marriage be governed by the law, and the imaginary- er, spiritual, parts be governed by the various churches. If your witch doctor won't perform the ceremony, find another shaman.
Posted by: BaldApe | June 8, 2008 1:55 PM
I agree with Walton on this one. The sooner we get behind the principle if civil unions or partnerships the better. Of course it's going to take time to change attitudes but look at it this way: if religions no longer have sole authority to sanction such partnerships, it's one way to help prise loose the grip they have on society.
By all means let couples get married if they want and if the church agrees but it should be in addition to, not a replacement for, a civil union.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | June 8, 2008 2:00 PM
"No, they should not have formal partnerships. 10111 49%"
Well of course not, because then we wouldn't be able to sneer at them for being "promiscuous".
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 8, 2008 2:00 PM
Good, since every claim with a absolute is false.
So, what would you say is the number one factor in how kids turn out?Posted by: Ferrous Patella | June 8, 2008 2:03 PM
53% for Marriage + Civil Unions.
Posted by: Moses | June 8, 2008 2:05 PM
"Civil unions" are just segregation for gay people. It's the back entrance to marriage with a little sign by it that says "homosexuals only."
Contrary to what various religions claim, marriage has never been a primarily religious thing. It's always been a legal, political, and economic arrangement. The "authority" of religion over marriage is no more legitimate than any other authority they claim based on their imaginary friend(s). They made it up just like they make up everything else. Giving them "marriage" in favor of calling everything "civil unions" is giving them something they do not deserve and a false appearance of legitimacy. I'd rather we call all the contracts marriage and roll our eyes when churches start whining "it's not fair" like little children. You don't get to have a say in things just cause you say you do.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | June 8, 2008 2:10 PM
Walton, you are aware that there are gay people who (a) are Christian and (b) attend Christian churches, aren't you?
Why should pastors who are willing to perform marriages between same-sex partners, in denominations which do not rule out such marriages, be prohibited from doing so by the government?
Even people who think (ignoring specific statements to the contrary) that the founding fathers did not include jews, muslims, and atheists in "religious freedom" understand that the first amendment was supposed to prohibit government from enshrining doctrinal differences among churches in secular law.
How is this not a doctrinal difference among churches?
Posted by: Jim Flannery | June 8, 2008 2:20 PM
ZOMGZWTFBBQROFL =snort= MAO!11!!!!! =coff= I'm =gasp= dying! Gimme some =choke= oxygen! Call =wheeze= 911! =turns blue, passes out=
She's not breathing...I can't find a pulse...CLEAR! =zap=
must not...go...towards the...light...
...still no pulse...crank it up to 300...CLEAR! =zap=
Oh hi - what'd I miss?
You're right - this is the most insanely great, deadly hilarious Takei performance ever. If I could, I would have given it 6 stars.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 8, 2008 2:20 PM
The troglodytes are still winning. (BTW, I am in favour of troglodytes being able to marry whomsoever they please.) The poll does allow you to vote often....
Posted by: Lancelot Gobbo | June 8, 2008 2:31 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | June 8, 2008 2:33 PM
"must not...go...towards the...light...
...still no pulse...crank it up to 300...CLEAR! =zap="
SHE'S DEAD, JIM!
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 8, 2008 2:35 PM
I don't understand how this argues against the point I was trying to make.
The people against whom the religious have chosen to discriminate have already lost options. In the interests of fairness, then, shouldn't we ensure that the status which brings secular benefits be granted by a secular institution? "Civil Unions for All" isn't a battle cry for eliminating whatever marriage ceremonies people want to perform, just the recognition that those ceremonies provide the extra meaning and memories on top of the civil benefits.
It's not the government's business to make every wedding a magical moment. That job belongs to the happy couple, their families, their friends, their DJ and so forth.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 8, 2008 2:43 PM
Ian H Spedding FCD @ 41 "Of course it's going to take time to change attitudes... [snip] By all means let couples get married if they want and if the church agrees but it should be in addition to, not a replacement for, a civil union."
Its not attitudes that you have to change. Its thousands of laws that use the legal terms marriage and spouse. In nine days I will be getting married. That will give me legal standing that my domestic partnership/civil union has not. (Or our marriage in Canada which does not qualify for protection under 'full faith and credit' since contrary to some American's beliefs, Canada is not the 51st state.)
The only way possible to make it fair from a laws and rights perspective is to either stop making LGBT people second class citizens or do away with the legal concept and state of marriage. Which will likely happen a week before the heat death of the universe.
Posted by: NickG | June 8, 2008 2:47 PM
NickG:
Congratulations!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 8, 2008 2:48 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any poll... I've tried in 3 different browsers now (Firefox, Opera, Seamonkey), but it's just not there. o.o
Posted by: Muffin | June 8, 2008 3:01 PM
Muffin,
The poll should be in a list of several polls under Will Shatner's face. It says: Surveys: Allow gay marriage
:)
Posted by: Serena | June 8, 2008 3:07 PM
Ultimately, I don't see why both camps - apart from a few extremists on both sides - can't get behind the principle of civil unions
Here's why. Because you're creating a separate institution specifically to keep gay people out of marriage. You're maintaining heterosexual supremacy through a privileging of straight relationships over gay ones, and segregating gay people into a separate institution. Of course, though, we should settle for the crumbs that heterosexual supremacists like yourself are willing to throw our way.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 8, 2008 3:08 PM
I heard about Mr. Takei's engagement on NPR a couple weeks ago, and it made me very happy. Then, coolest of the cool, I got to show him around my workplace last Tuesday. (I'm the one with bad posture in the back.)
I got to say "congratulations" right to him! Yay! I'm betting with Ed Brayton: 20 years from now we'll all look back on this time and wonder what we could have been thinking not allowing same-sex marriage.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | June 8, 2008 3:11 PM
Jim Flannery:
I don't see anybody asking for that, including Walton. I think he proposes civil marriage (and renaming it to civil union) as the only legally recognized process. That wouldn't prohibit any pastors from performing ceremonies, they are just legally irrelevant. As they should be.
Posted by: AndreasB | June 8, 2008 3:19 PM
Walton: "Ultimately, I don't see why both camps - apart from a few extremists on both sides - can't get behind the principle of civil unions"
For the same reason that 'trans-racial-unions' was not an acceptable substitute for inter-racial marriage. Separate is never equal.
But then I ask you the converse question: why can't both camps get behind the principle of equal rights for all. Its not about having buttsecks in your church, honey. Its about my partner being able to visit me in the hospital and being more than the legal equivalent of a stranger to me. Its having society recognize that my love for him is no different and no less valuable than your love for a woman.
Posted by: NickG | June 8, 2008 3:19 PM
Devil's (or, on this blog, should I say "theist's") advocate:
Well, George Takei is pretty much a very minor celebrity that it seems the who purpose of discuss him at all in celebrity puff pieces is the novelty that he is openly gay. I personally feel that it's a bit disgusting and disturbingly backwards that in 2008 a celebrity being openly gay is a "novelty". However, were Takei straight and getting married to some gal we never heard of, I'm pretty sure he is such a minor celebrity the fluffy tabloids wouldn't bother at all with reporting it. And as gay marriages are somewhat a controversial issue (although, again I find it a bit disgusting and distrubingly backwards that it is a controversial issue) the whole purpose of this fluff piece that a minor celebrity is getting married is solely based on the supposed novelty (yawn) and supposed controversy (who the fuck cares and leave this poor guys alone) of gay marriage. Hence the news value of the article justifies the subject of the poll.
And of devil's/theist's advocate.
Gad, I'm disgusted that "No" is ahead at 47%!!!! I can take some small comfort that Yes (43%) and Unions (9%) together beat no at a disgustingly slim lead of 52% to 47%. Revoltingly small.
I actually get tired of the "gay marriage" argument presented as a right to have gay relationships recognized. Maybe I'm a cynic but I figure nobody on the planet need to get married to have their love "recognized" and that marriage in no way makes a relationship "real". And, call me a grouch, but I'm sick and tired of being expected to jump up and down and piss my pants in exitement when I hear that someone is getting married. Sure, it's nice and fine and weddings sometimes serve good food but *sheesh*, put it in perspective. It's not as if the couple just earned a degree or got a new job; it's just an effin' wedding.
To me it's all about the rights and privaleges of being straight being available to gays. Straight folks have the right/privalege of marrying a person they can have the type of sex they enjoy and by doing so can entitle themselves to owning communal property, declaring each other next of kin, get tax breaks, and several other legal goodies. Those privaleges we take for granted for straight people and the sexual partners with whom they can have the type of sex they enjoy should be available to gay people and the sexual partners with whom they can have the type of sex they enjoy. C'est tout.
47% No. *sheesh* Homophobes....
Posted by: woozy | June 8, 2008 3:27 PM
"I don't understand how this argues against the point I was trying to make."
Blake, Well in the UK civil partnerships are carried out by Registrars, who also carry out civil weddings. There is a short ceremony where vows are exchanged, and the guests are asked to witness the declarations. To many people such a ceremony is important, and replacing it with a bit of paper you just go along and sign is not the same.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 8, 2008 3:28 PM
Alex - #20:
I don't know, perhaps we should rephrase that into a polling-type question and take a um...poll?
Posted by: MJ | June 8, 2008 3:31 PM
Less than 700 votes to pull ahead of the Bad Guys (who appear to be asleep at the wheel - they've been stuck at 10,116 for quite a while).
#50 Longtime Lurker: I guess I should have seen (or maybe smelled) that one coming. :-)
#52 NickG: Congratulations!
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 8, 2008 3:31 PM
InnerBrat and NickG have the right of it. Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend has chronicled numerous ways in which "civil unions" just don't cut it. For example, this story by guest blogger Dagon:
My husband and I thought we had all the bases covered. We had wills, living wills, powers of attorney, and we were Domestic Partners. As of July 1, 2003, in California, we had almost all the rights and responsibilities of legally married spouses.
On a rainy afternoon on January 27, 2008, my beloved husband died in our home in rural northern California. All our legal documents, all the laws of the State of California suddenly counted for nothing, nada, zilch to the Deputy Sheriff / Coroner standing in my living room. According to him, in our county only blood relatives and married spouses counted as next of kin. He intended to pack up all of my husband's possessions and ship them immediately to my brother-in-law in New York state. ...
"Separate but equal" never is. And, in the words of the last half-decent Canadian Prime-Minister, you can't cherry-pick rights.
Posted by: Interrobang | June 8, 2008 3:53 PM
"Separate but equal" never is.
Damn us radical leftist queers for insisting on full equality.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 8, 2008 3:56 PM
"I guess I should have seen (or maybe smelled) that one coming. :-)"
It had to be said.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 8, 2008 4:04 PM
To be fair, we were the ones asleep at the wheel for quite a while, as the article dates from June 3.
Posted by: Stephen | June 8, 2008 4:06 PM
"Separate but equal" never is.
Exactly. I have to admit that I used to think that was a solution to it until I was made to stop and think why. WHY is it any different? Why should there be any separation at all? Please point to One. Single. Thing. that would be different between "civil unions" the way they're pushed and "marriage". If it's supposed to be the same, then why not make it the same? The absolute only reason to have "civil unions" is to pander to people who want to make them mean LESS than a marriage. That's unconscionable. I also don't agree with the idea of changing the name of everything to civil unions - again, that's saying that somehow it is less than marriage, because the only reason to change the legal title is because suddenly gays are involved. Sure, have your own "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious marriage" in the church if you want, but "marriage" as defined by the state already has a meaning and there is no reason to change that meaning just because the country recognizes that the two people involved may have similar body parts.
Posted by: Carlie | June 8, 2008 4:06 PM
Matt, Blake;
I've often thought the same thing as Blake. Matt, here in the united states if you file joint returns you are legally married even if you never bothered to have any ceramony. Legally you are not supposed to file a joint return unless you had a legal marriage first but if you get away with it, a joint return is considered proof of marriage and you are in.
Blakes point is that the legality and slip of paper ought to be the legality of the rights of "coupleship". A ceremony of marriage may be important and may be the definition of "marriage" to the tradition minded, and a legal marriage cerimony should be automatic qualification of "coupleship permit" but that is in now way in contradiction with the issuing of "coupleship permits". A gay couple can have whatever ceremony they wish to perform and a bigot or fundimental church can dismiss it as not being a marriage all they wish. However, a "coupleship permit" would allow the gay (or straight) couple whether "married" or not the legalities of "coupleship".
I think only the fundamentalist minority (but vocally obnoxious and *very* politically powerful minority) actually think the legalities that come with being married are the institution of marriage and that granting the legalities that come with being married to gay couples affects "the institution of marriage".
I figure if the not so fundamentalist but traditionalist want to view the gay couple next door and their exchange of vow cerimony which the fundamentalist church would not recognize as marriage as not being a marriage, that's fine with me as long as the gay couple can get the "couple permit". Likewise if the gay couple wish to view the cerimony as indeed a marriage that's fine to.
Maybe it is just calling a dog's tail a leg but think if arguing the social and civil aspects are going to fail to be resolved and/or will whip up an intolerant backlash and/or will stymie and get nowhere, then I say forget about the social and civil aspects; let's go straight to point which is the legal rights only.
Posted by: woozy | June 8, 2008 4:24 PM
I do not support a constitutional amendment banning further adoptions on the part of Angelina Jolie. I think the states should decide individually whether Britney Spears should be allowed to marry.
Posted by: tguy | June 8, 2008 4:35 PM
MJ:
Currently, in that poll, "Yes" is leading "No", 2386 to 12.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 8, 2008 4:36 PM
Matt,
I understand your point, but given that for many marriage/civil partnerships are an important moment in their lives I think there should be some way of giving it a bit more recognition than just getting a bit of paper.
I guess I don't see why "giving it a bit more recognition" should be a legal *right* for straight people.
The whole idea of "more recognition" seems to be a pretty arbitrary and vague concept and solely in the social and civil arena rather than the legal.
Usually I figure semantically seperating the social and civil from the legal to be misleading semantics, but it really seems like the gay marriage oppenents strongest argument is that one can't/shouldn't legislate social entities. So I figure let society fight it out about "more recognition". If the homosexual bigot doesn't think the gay couples relationship is a marriage, I care no more than I care if churches a century didn't think civilly married couples were "married in the eyes of god". As long as they have the same legal rights as the other couple society be damned what it thinks.
Hmm, my great-grandparents converted to unitarianism simply because it was the only church that would perform an inter-faith marriage. Quaint, wasn't it?
Posted by: woozy | June 8, 2008 4:37 PM
Matt Penfold (#61):
Well, if a couple wants to exchange their vows at the registrar's office, I think that's fine. More power to them! What I don't like is having a ceremony officiated by a random religious figure giving any extra legal rights. By extension, being obligated to exchange vows at the registrar's office is a little silly.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 8, 2008 4:45 PM
I have to agree with everyone disagreeing with Walton. Our Constitution guarantees that *ALL* men are created equal. Not white men. Not straight men. *ALL* men. That means that *ALL* men deserve the same rights under the law. You don't get to take a right, change the name and pretend it's something else, that's not how reality works.
Whether religion wants to stake a claim on the word "marriage" or not is irrelevant, we live in a SECULAR society where there is a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE and what religion wants is wholly irrelevant. We happen to have a secular governmental marriage system and under the law, gays must be permitted to be married. The California Supreme Court could figure it out, why are the rest of these morons so closed-minded?
Oh yeah... they're got that stupid religious mind virus.
Posted by: Cephus | June 8, 2008 4:49 PM
Woozy,
Well in the UK everyone is assessed for tax on an individual basis, and it makes no difference wheed or not. In fact the idea of "joint" returns seems rather odd to me, although that is how they used to be done here.
When I referred to more recognition I was not referring to any form of religious ceremony. I was simply saying that for many, if not most, people involved in a marriage or civil partnership it is an important undertaking, and often one they want to involve more than just signing a bit of paper. That would seem to put on a par with taking out a bank loan or something. Given than many people in the UK are not religious, and that for people who have been divorced, or are in a same-sex relationship, a religious ceremony may well not be possible, it strikes me that it is not unreasonable for the state to offer a ceremony with a degree of solemnity.
Blake,
Well it is possible to get through the civil ceremony pretty quickly, and just requires an official, the couple (or their proxies) and two witnesses. It is not that much different from swearing an oath.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 8, 2008 5:17 PM
Here's why. Because you're creating a separate institution specifically to keep gay people out of marriage. You're maintaining heterosexual supremacy through a privileging of straight relationships over gay ones, and segregating gay people into a separate institution. Of course, though, we should settle for the crumbs that heterosexual supremacists like yourself are willing to throw our way.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 8, 2008 3:08 PM
MaJeff, I support gay marriage not just civil unions. Everyone has the right. Period. This heterosexual will give you the whole cake. The crumbs are for the birds.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | June 8, 2008 5:31 PM
thanks, barklikeadog.
I'm surprised at how the ground has shifted over the past 15 years. However, I also get annoyed as shit that saying, "We should be treated as fully equal citizens" is a controversial statement and makes one a crazed radical. I can be fairly radical at times (for example,I think marriage should be less valuable, and the social benefits privatized through it should be more widely available, which makes me something of a radical in these times.) Simply to say, "I should be treated fully equally" as outside the pale, though? Gimme a break.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 8, 2008 6:01 PM
Well now that the Civil War is over, we have the problem of what to do with the all the slaves. There's a perfectly sensible compromise that everyone except for a few extremists on both sides ought to agree with. We should free the slaves and give them the same legal rights as white folk, but not call them "citizens." They should be perfectly happy with the term "rights-bearing resident."
Posted by: plum grenville | June 8, 2008 6:17 PM
Interrobang, my condolences... words chip and shatter under the weight of it...
I was "lucky." When my Sweet Heart died in our home in 2003, we had all of the paperwork in order -- it took weeks to set up -- and it was still luck that, except for the coroner's office, officials were at least sympathetic to the extent that the law allowed them to be. (Getting the death certificate was another story...) I was "lucky" that his family did not try to turn me out of the home we had built. I know of so many other men and women who were not so lucky...
We were together only seven years, and had planned to grow old together. We were together for richer and poorer, in sickness and in health, loving and cherishing each other, and forsaking all others until death did us part.
I want someone to explain to me how what we had was anything less than a marriage. I want someone to explain to me *precisely* how ours threatens theirs...
Before he died, I was perfectly OK with the idea of civil unions, and am old enough to have seen even that as a victory. I thought the "marriage activists" were pushing too far too fast, and was willing to accept being told we were "less." (Growing up being told one is the worst thing possible can make one doubt one's self-worth...) Now I know that it is hideous that we should accept less, that we should continue to kiss a hand that would beat us.
If I may be so bold as to paraphrase Sojourner Truth: "And ain't we a couple?"
To our supporters: thanks! To our opponents: get over it...
Posted by: bgbaysjr | June 8, 2008 6:34 PM
My opinion:
Homosexual couples should be allowed to have civil unions.
Heterosexual couples should be allowed to have civil unions.
Homosexual couples should be allowed to have marriages.
Heterosexual couples should be allowed to have marriages.
Civil unions and marriage should carry exactly the same legal weight, and come with all the same implicit responsibilities and rights.
Marriage should be, essentially, a civil union with the religious-based "cherry" of your choice on top, and function chiefly as an endogamous sorting-device for people holding compatible religious belief, and who think that that sort of thing matters.
Posted by: cicely | June 8, 2008 7:00 PM
cicely @ #80:
In so far as they are exactly equal in the eyes of the law, and, eventually, society: works for me!
We started out in Hawai'i and ended up in Arizona, and were here for the gay marriage battle in '98, I think it was... the Governor at the time floated the idea of "the state provides domestic partnerships for all, and the church marries who it will." Didn't go over so well at the time, but with familiarity an idea can gain acceptance.
For what it is worth -- and dragging this all back to the original topic -- I take great comfort in the fact that we have reached the point where so much of the Big Story about Takei's marriage is not that he is marrying a *guy*, but who he is and isn't inviting!
Posted by: bgbaysjr | June 8, 2008 7:19 PM
For what it is worth -- and dragging this all back to the original topic -- I take great comfort in the fact that we have reached the point where so much of the Big Story about Takei's marriage is not that he is marrying a *guy*, but who he is and isn't inviting!
I'm teaching a summer class called, "Mass Media and Queer America." We're currently working on issues of celebrity, outing, etc. For this paper, I've asked them to look at mass media coverage of preparations for a celebrity wedding. Can't wait to see what they find.
It's a pretty fun time to be teaching this class.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 8, 2008 7:26 PM