Marriage Protection Amendment

Marriage is "a contract between a man and a woman" by the definition some choose to go by. According to dictionary.com it is also:

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
5. A wedding.
6. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).

I don't think that removing the term "marriage" would help unwad those panties though ... although I am more than happy to be part of a union instead. I think the religious right has too much wrapped up in keeping those 'sinners' in their place. Otherwise it would truly not be an issue. I agree with Sue that this should be viewed in the same light as interracial marriages. Once upon a time we forbid those, based on nothing else than fear and hatred -- allowing people of different races to marry hurt no one, nor will allowing same sex couples to marry.

All in all, I don't know that calling same-gender sexual relationships "marriage" will make much difference in our current environment because the facts are that these sexual relationships overwhelmingly disintegrate after a very short time period (even briefer than for non-married male and female sexual relationships). There will be the brief anecdotal story like Jenn's - but the overwhelming proof is that these relationships are incredibly transient AND, at least for male-male sexual relationships - usually physically abusive.

As for these statements - I'd love to see data on this that did NOT come from a study funded by a religious organization. Statements like that are what continues to breed fear and hate mongering towards the gay population.

[SuzySunshine]

I agree there are a lot of marriages out there that are not based in a church and that is fine - I'm just saying with the big conservative base that this country has, politicians will have a hard time getting past even the phrase marriage whether that is religious to all or not.

[SueC]

As far as Sue believing that changing the definition of marriage will affect more than just same-gender transactions - we have already seen a mild push for polygamous marriages. And, that push will become increasingly stronger over the years. To deny the reality that one enormous - monumental even - change will affect an entire society is short-sighted. I know that NAMBLA has also been pushing for the legalization of "relationships" of a sexual nature between adults and children for a few years.

So are you saying that gay unions will in fact cause polygamy to become more prevalent? Other than going back to the argument in another thread over whether changing one part of the definition can be done exclusively without changing the other, how can you possibly make that leap. If it's a linguistic argument, then the law just needs to reflect that we are still in fact talking about two humans (not three, not a human and a dog). If, on the other hand, you are indicating that once we give the gays the right to marry, they will suddenly want to marry in groups, then I don't see how you can possibly jump to that conclusion. It's been my experience that gay people also possess the same emotions that I do that would make it impossible for me to ever enter into a polygamous marriage. Why would my neighbor not feel as jealous and enraged as I would if his partner were to bring home a third party to join in the fun. To indicate that simply by virtue of being gay, they are any different in any other capacity is close-minded and ignorant.

[DCJenn]

OK, maybe I only know upstanding members of the gay community but...

I have had plenty more 'casual' relationships then just about any of my gay friends or relatives. (yes I was a hussy before becoming a hussey)

Off the top of my head, not including my relatives as listed before:

former co-worker: 20 years, one daughter
realtor: 5 years, no kids- they can't decide if they want to adopt or have one the old-fashioned lesbian way (sperm donor)
realtor: no one right now, bad break-up, no kids
neighbor in SA: 25+ years, no kids
neighbor in DC: at least 4 years, no kids
member of Congress for whom my cousin worked: 10+ years, no kids.

Have some of them had flings, short-term relationships, one-night stands, bad break-ups, sobbing, flailing, hysteria. Yup, and so has every single straight person who has dated more than one person in their life...at least that I know.

So, whether it's semantics or not, I believe that those people should be afforded the same rights as any other legal union. Now, as people have pointed out, many religions consider marriage a sacrament and a union between a man and a woman. Great. Fine.

However, just because I've been happily married to a man for six years, I'm no poster child for marriage- and to assume that I am is ridiculous. I would never claim to represent 'married people' and I don't think that 'protecting' marriage is doing anyone a service. People will get married, people will get divorced, people will cheat, people will abuse and be abused. Personally, I'm more concerned about the fact that we're ruining the environment more than that we're 'ruining' marriage.

Jenn

the facts are that these sexual relationships overwhelmingly disintegrate after a very short time period (even briefer than for non-married male and female sexual relationships). There will be the brief anecdotal story like Jenn's - but the overwhelming proof is that these relationships are incredibly transient AND, at least for male-male sexual relationships - usually physically abusive.

Arguments using such "facts" have to be sought out and found from very specific sources. I've read statistically unbiased studies and have friends and neighbors that prove the contrary. Dismissing successful gay relationships as "anecdotal" to try to strengthen your argument just doesn't work. The "overwhelming proof" is that half of all hetero marriages end up in divorce, the REAL threat to marriage. Why is nothing being done to prevent that?

Another thought/theory... homosexuals were somewhat excluded in the sexual revolution of the 60s/70s and the nature of SOME gay relationships may reflect that they are just now having their revolution as the nature of their affections become more widely accepted - like premarital sex became more widely accepted during the sexual revolution. Similarly, not all hetero relationships during that period were transient, abusive, experimental, etc... because not every hetero person participated. Once the "drunk" of acceptance wears off, I predict the prevalence of extreme behavior, and consequently the argument, will change. If anything, it can easily be argued that instances of promiscuity among homosexuals now are NATURAL, as it is mirroring the pattern of a largely hetero movement.

I’m less concerned with semantics or the church accepting same-sex marriage/unions. My expectations for organized religion (of which you can chose among many or opt out of entirely) to be progressive are far lower than my expectations of the government (which is your gov't by defalut of the country where you live and you cannot opt out of) to protect people who are doing others no harm. I see nothing wrong with two consenting adults entering into a binding contract of marriage. Could this eventually lead to the legalization of polygamy, bestiality and statutory rape? I think the argument is weak, at best. In an age of sex vs. gender, each with its own definition and neither being truly finite (gender reassignment), the terms have been blurred. Numbers are still numbers by definition. We’re still only talking about 2 adults; it's much more widely accepted that children and animals don’t have a voice and need laws to protect them. [/i]

[SueC]

I would question those "facts" as well. We live in a neighborhood which is probably 1/4 to 1/3 gay and for the 8 years I have lived here the homes occupied by gay couples have remained virtually unchanged. I haven't seen evidence of multiple partners, these people are in long-term, committed relationships. We have a park nearby that is notorious for homosexual activity, and most of the people sneaking around in bushes engaging in risky sexual activity are found to be people living lives as heterosexuals. Kind of makes me wonder how healthy it is to squelch a person's homosexual tendencies....