Marriage Protection Amendment

I love how fired up the Debate section is today! It's downright inspiring

I was going to start a thread about the price of oil and whether W can be trusted to protect us from price gauging by Big Oil, but then I checked my e-mail and had a request from ActForChange to write to my state representatives and Senators, urging them not to “write discrimination into the state constitution” in the form of a Marriage Protection Amendment. I think we touched on this a bit with the polygamy thread, but I wanted to see what folks thought about an amendment in a state’s constitution protecting an ideal, as opposed to protecting people.

My thoughts: If anyone needs to be protected, it’s homosexuals who desire a union that affords them rights to which they’re entitled as citizens of the US and their state (in this case, PA). I cannot find a difference between denying gays the right to marry and denying a certain religion, race, or political party that same right, or the right to vote or own land... If we were to interpret the constitution as literally as some do, then only MEN were created equal. That’s pretty scary. I understand WHAT proponents of the amendment think they’re protecting, but WHO do they think they’re protecting? WHO does gay marriage hurt? Whose constitutional rights does gay marriage violate? Until somebody can satisfactorily answer that, such an amendment has no place in a constitution, IMHO.

[houseelf]

If anyone needs to be protected, it’s homosexuals who desire a union that affords them rights to which they’re entitled as citizens of the US and their state

I agree 110%. If for religious reasons, people are opposed to the term marriage in the context of a homosexual union, call it something else and get over the semantics. However, I can not believe that we deny people who willing to stand together as a family the basic guaranteed rights of a civil society. BTW, My hubby is Uber-republican par excellence and agrees with this premise.

Kelly

[Tenacious_D]

Being in an interracial marriage, I understand how hard it is to be commented about and sometimes even ignored as a couple (that's for another post). I just don't understand why people care who can and cannot get married and make a life together. What are people so afraid of? Love is love and people should be able to love and live with whomever they like. That's my 2 cents.

[DCJenn]

Seriously, my Uncle Russell has been with Uncle Mickey for 50 years. My cousin Cate has been with her partner for 4 years. My Uncle Tom (who is still fully closeted) has lived with his partner for going on 15 years now.

and my grandmother gets to manage Uncle Russell's death bed? My Uncle Mike has to manage his brother and daughter in the case of their untimely deaths? hmmmm, doesn't seem right that the teenagers who are married and procreating in the OTHER half of the family have more rights than my seriously responsible gainfully employed non-procreating gay relatives...

Jenn

[SueC]

I can't even stand the term they are using "protecting marriage"--what in the h*ll do they think gay people want to do with marriage? As far as I know, they just want the same recognition and rights that the rest of us have. I've read crazy arguments by Dobson that it will spiral into people wanting to marry animals, or have a union of 3 or 4 and I think that is just hogwash. I've said this before, but I don't think us heteros have really done much with the sanctity of marriage (look at the divorce and adultery rates), so I don't see gay people being allowed to marry as a threat. I think (or hope) that some day we'll look back at this time in history and be surprised that people were so close minded, as we once were when it came to civil rights for minorities or women.

[SuzySunshine]

I'll admit I'm a Catholic Republican and my thoughts are...

Don't use the word marriage. Marriage is a sacrament in many religions that do not beleive gay relationships are "possible" under the laws of their god. THAT is what I beleive truly has most people's panties in a wad. Use unions, use family unions, use anything like that but don't use the word marriage and I think a lot of people would eventually (it'll take a while) get over it.

I don't agree with the churches' teachings on several things, birth control and homosexuality being two of them but I think a lot of people would "let go" if they didn't use the word marriage.

JMO.

[Rapunzel]

Marriage is, by definition, a contract between a man and a woman. A contract between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not, by definition, marriage (based upon several thousand years of the definition) and, thus, needs to be termed something else. It's similar to deciding to name armies "civilization". While there might be similarities in the way that an army and a civilization function - they are not one and the same (based on several thousand years of their definitions).

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. Of course, in our current environment such legalization is ludicrous. But, with the right precedents set, in a decade or two it wouldn't be viewed quite as ludicrously (just as precedent has been set in the last couple of decades for so many to stop believing that the current complete destruction and reinvention of the term "marriage" would be ludicrous).

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.

I'm sure some of you are tempted, after reading my dispassionate views, to label me as somehow "bad", "evil", or some other emotionally-driven judgement. But, before you do so be prepared to confront the evidence supporting my arguments (be warned you'll actually have to read ). And, beware - I DO cut and paste the facts.

[Auspicious]

Rapunzel wrote:

Marriage is, by definition, a contract between a man and a woman. A contract between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not, by definition, marriage (based upon several thousand years of the definition) and, thus, needs to be termed something else. It's similar to deciding to name armies "civilization". While there might be similarities in the way that an army and a civilization function - they are not one and the same (based on several thousand years of their definitions).

But the essence of marriage has changed many times from era to era and from culture to culture. It's not like it's always been the same contract and now suddenly we're trying to mess with something ancient. Whether you'll marry for love, whether you'll choose your own spouse or your parents will choose for you, who will pay whom (brideprice, dowry), whether your wife will be your property, how many wives you can have, whether you're allowed to kidnap your bride, whether you're allowed to beat her--marriage has been redefined over and over. Deciding your spouse can be the same sex isn't that big a stretch. My marriage has a lot more in common with the nice gay couple down the block than it does with all the perfectly legal arranged marriages in this country, for example.

[spotty_dog]

All in all, I don't know that calling same-gender sexual relationships "marriage" will make much difference in our current environment...

Just to clarify, same *gender* marriage is already legal in many cases for transsexual and some transgendered people. For example a male to female pre-op transsexual would have feminine gender but would be legally of male sex and could marry a genetic female of feminine gender if she so desired. Or two people of opposite sex both identifying with a third gender could marry.

It's same *sex* marriage that's an issue.

I agree with Cheri, nobody's asking any religious group to change the definition of their sacrament or otherwise sacred religious union. It's an excellent argument for creating a legal union with a different name. However for fairness, I would say that the same name would have to be applied to all couples -- I think I could accept renouncing my marriage in favor of being "unioned" to my husband.

However, for whatever reason, I'm still more comfortable with simply adjusting the words involved with the legal union and making marriage a contract between two *people*. Probably for reasons similar to those Julie brings up.

[Auspicious]

My marriage has a lot more in common with the nice gay couple down the block than it does with all the perfectly legal arranged marriages in this country, for example.

This sounds harsher than I intended toward arranged marriages. Arranged marriage is definitely not something I'd want for myself or loved ones, but I don't think it's automatically an unhappy thing. My husband knew at least two women in grad school who had arranged marriages, and one was happy with it and one wasn't.

[Vanquisher]

Oh please with the semantics of it all! Marriage, legal union, whatever. Either you believe that same sex couple deserve to have equal right to marriage or you don't.

I DO!

My marriage no more fits in with the tenants of religion than does a same sex couple, and by that "definition," I would not be considered married either, for I do not recognize God or any part of religion in my marriage whatsoever.

I want same sex couples to be afforded equal rights and protection under the laws of this country with all of the rights that a legal marriage grants, including health care decisions, death benefits, and adoption of children!

Classifying same sex couples by a different word does little in the way of bringing about equitable circumstances. Lets do away with the archaic thinking and allow marriage to be between two people. Religion should not factor into it.

[Rapunzel]

Rapunzel wrote:

Marriage is, by definition, a contract between a man and a woman. A contract between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not, by definition, marriage (based upon several thousand years of the definition) and, thus, needs to be termed something else. It's similar to deciding to name armies "civilization". While there might be similarities in the way that an army and a civilization function - they are not one and the same (based on several thousand years of their definitions).

But the essence of marriage has changed many times from era to era and from culture to culture. It's not like it's always been the same contract and now suddenly we're trying to mess with something ancient. Whether you'll marry for love, whether you'll choose your own spouse or your parents will choose for you, who will pay whom (brideprice, dowry), whether your wife will be your property, how many wives you can have, whether you're allowed to kidnap your bride, whether you're allowed to beat her--marriage has been redefined over and over.

It has always meant a contract between a man and woman. The terms of the contract alter according to culture - but universally across time and culture it is, by definition, a contract between a man and woman. It's essence has never changed.

[Rapunzel]

My marriage no more fits in with the tenants of religion than does a same sex couple, and by that "definition," I would not be considered married either, for I do not recognize God or any part of religion in my marriage whatsoever.

This isn't about a religious definition - it's about the universally accepted institution of marriage over time and culture - it's one of the few institutions that has remained fairly static over both time and culture throughout human history in its basic definition of a contract between a man and woman.

I want same sex couples to be afforded equal rights and protection under the laws of this country with all of the rights that a legal marriage grants, including health care decisions, death benefits, and adoption of children!

People not in a marriage (regardless of their genders) all have the same rights and protections. If a person wants health care decision making power, life insurance benefits and to adopt (single persons can and do adopt) they can - without a marriage contract. It requires other legal avenues - but non-married persons are not barred from any of these things with the proper legal documents.

[Vanquisher]

I'll admit I'm a Catholic Republican and my thoughts are...

Don't use the word marriage. Marriage is a sacrament in many religions that do not beleive gay relationships are "possible" under the laws of their god. THAT is what I beleive truly has most people's panties in a wad. Use unions, use family unions, use anything like that but don't use the word marriage and I think a lot of people would eventually (it'll take a while) get over it.

I don't agree with the churches' teachings on several things, birth control and homosexuality being two of them but I think a lot of people would "let go" if they didn't use the word marriage.

I was commenting on this regarding the religion-marriage connection. Yes, that is part of the debate.

Further,

People not in a marriage (regardless of their genders) all have the same rights and protections. If a person wants health care decision making power, life insurance benefits and to adopt (single persons can and do adopt) they can - without a marriage contract. It requires other legal avenues - but non-married persons are not barred from any of these things with the proper legal documents.

That is completely false, and I don't know where you are getting that. People who are not in a marriage do NOT have all the same rights and protections. Not all states (unless I am mistaken) allow single parents to adopt and further of those that do, if they know you are in a same sex relationship, you are not allowed to adopt. Health care decision making power goes in order to Spouse, kids, etc. "Partner" is not in there. It is NOT equal. If I have to have the forsight to get legal documents for power of attorney and life insurance that is not equal.

[Rapunzel]

[quote:e1d5d]People not in a marriage (regardless of their genders) all have the same rights and protections. If a person wants health care decision making power, life insurance benefits and to adopt (single persons can and do adopt) they can - without a marriage contract. It requires other legal avenues - but non-married persons are not barred from any of these things with the proper legal documents.

That is completely false, and I don't know where you are getting that. People who are not in a marriage do NOT have all the same rights and protections. Not all states (unless I am mistaken) allow single parents to adopt and further of those that do, if they know you are in a same sex relationship, you are not allowed to adopt. Health care decision making power goes in order to Spouse, kids, etc. "Partner" is not in there. It is NOT equal. If I have to have the forsight to get legal documents for power of attorney and life insurance that is not equal.[/quote:e1d5d]

Well, then if the issue is that persons not in a marriage desire to adopt then they need to lobby for legislation in their states to make it legal to do so. Marriage is a red herring in that instance.

Health care decision making power can be given to another person with the proper legal paperwork. If you have to have documentation then it is perfectly legal - a married couple has to have documentation to do those things as well (ie a marriage contract). What you are arguing is that, rather than getting one type of documentation, they should have another type which would necessitate a radical redefinition of the historically and culturally stable defintion of marriage.

It's not about having a legal document vs. not having one. It's about having one type of legal document vs. another.