I Guess I’m Not Allowed to Get Married?

If it’s a religious term, then it has no place as a government institution.

What does same sex marriage have to do with atheism???

I also wish we hadn’t chosen to make ‘marriage’ the government sanctioned term for those who wish to tie their lives together, when in fact *all* unions that are recognized by the state are by definition civil unions.

However, I don’t think one person has the right to define marriage for all religions, either, so while the gentleman may be accurate in describing how his religion/church/sect defines marriage, it’s clearly not within his rights to define it for all churches.

At least that gets your mom off your back.

You have it backwards, Courtney. Marriage has always been the term for government sanctioned familial unions. It was the Church that decided to make marriage a sacrament in the Middle Ages.

Marriage.

This is another case of Christians trying to claim what isn’t rightfully theirs. How anybody can, with a straight face, claim religious ownership of the word “marriage” and that nobody (especially them dastardly gays) should use it just boggles my mind.

I am opposed to same sex marriage. Marriage is a term that should only be used to define the religious union between one man and one woman.

Sounds like he chose his wording carefully–“Should.” He fully recognizes that it is not legally a religious union. If anyone calls him on his pathetic knowledge of law, he can simply point out that this is his personal feeling on the matter and he recognizes that marriage is a civil union seperate from the religious sacrament. And it’s a bit of red meat for the true believers–letting them know that if it were up to him, it would indeed be recognized by the state as more than a civil contract. In his world, I’m sure he would be perfectly satisfied with denying marriage to those who do not want to recognize it as a contract with his god.

Some years ago, I was in conversation with the head of Republicans Abroad in Tokyo, and he said much the same thing: that only Xians are truly married, and at best everyone else is in a civil union. When I pointed out that in Japan, that means almost no one is married, he agreed, then realised he was standing in a bar full of Japanese people and shut up quickly, but in vino veritas.

oh noes! atheiests are getting athe-married! civilization is teh doomed! now all the real married people will break up and get athe-married to atheist dogs and sheep and vacuum cleaners!

Marriage is a legal contract. Divorce proves that to be true.

Wow, so it’s wrong to have sex before marriage but now I can’t get married. All work and no play makes LGC a dull girl.

You know, if religious people are this @n@l, they should really not use any form of medication developed from science – the good Lord will touch you and heal you – FFS.

Marriage is a legal status and everyone in the United States is supposed to have equal treatment under the law.

If they want marriage to be a sacred and religious thing then they need to put everyone on a level playing field and give up all of the legal rights they have for being married as well.

Odds are they aren’t going to do that.

The funny thing is I don’t care if they say “I don’t accept gay marriage as legitimate” which they can keep on saying after gay marriage is legalized. Why should it bother them what the laws of man say? They can just keep on pretending that gay marriage isn’t real marriage and everybody’s happy.

@Ibis, your facts are off. The Roman empire kept track of civil marriages, but, after it fell, civil marriages went with it. The Church handled marriages from the fall of Rome until the late middle ages, when cities began to get back into the business of marriages. During the vast majority of the middle ages, with the exception of some nobles (because of the massive property interests and negotiations involved), you were considered married by the city or nation if you said you were. It was up to the church to try and invalidate any unapproved relationships, most cities did not get involved. There is actually a interesting case from medieval florence where the city recognized a gay marriage, under the auspices that it was none of the city’s business to say who and who was not married (the couple still had to pay the fine for sodomy though). Medieval scholar Helmut Puff (yes, that is his honest to goodness name) has a lot of interesting work on these topics, and I recommend it for those who want to know more about sexuality and gender in the middle ages.

Wow, so it’s wrong to have sex before marriage but now I can’t get married. All work and no play makes LGC a dull girl.

No worries! It’s not pre-marital sex if you don’t intend to get married… 😀

Think if I told Mr. Danz that I’m an atheist in an open marriage and have a girlfriend who lives in Albany, his head would explode?

This should save me money on my divorce.

Marriage in general is a crock anyway. Why do we NEED to marry? Why get the government involved in your relationship? I would think a few documents written up by a lawyer and a ceremony to your own liking should be ample “commitment”, if that is what is desired.

@Steve

Ill admit I am not totally up on the benefits attached to marriage, but is there some reason independent legal documents cannot provide the same or similar benefits?

“is there some reason independent legal documents cannot provide the same or similar benefits?”

Custody/adoption and immigration. There are probably other examples, but since the government regulates those, it’s impossible to make a legal document that secures either of those things without explicit government approval.

Suedomsa, every single time gay (or other “undesirable”) marriage comes up in one of Hemant’s posts, some commenter like yourself always states the same thing: “Why do people even want to get married? Why not just draw up some legal documents” Then I–and others–always have to patiently explain, point by point, exactly why you’re wrong and/or ignorant. (By the way, thanks for taking up the mantle earlier, Steve.) So for future reference, as long as you’re willing to “admit I am not totally up on the benefits attached to marriage,” please refrain from speaking on the matter until you are more educated about it. So, for what feels like the umteenth time, here is my response to a statement such as yours:

It’s a very common misconception that gay couples, if we go through the proper legal channels, can ensure that, should some emergency situation arise, we have some say-so over how our injured or ill partner is treated, should s/he not be in a position to communicate her or his will. The people I’ve mentioned–and others, as I’ve read of many similar cases–did everything they were supposed to, thinking the law would protect them. Unfortunately, all it takes is one bigoted asshole to undo many hours (and often, many thousands of dollars’ worth) of careful planning.

To use one example, do you have any idea how difficult it can be for same-sex partners to get not only respect, but even basic human decency from healthcare providers and their gatekeepers in emergency situations? There are two very well-documented examples, one in red-state Florida and another in liberal California (please note that the URLs to both stories which I originally provided are now broken), in which lesbians were denied access to their partners, and in BOTH cases all of the supposedly sufficient legal documents were in order. In the Florida example, the ill partner actually died, and her partner was never even permitted to be by her side. Nor were their adopted children. Yes, it’s unbelievable but true. (The surviving partner later sued the hospital, only to have the case dismissed: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2009/09/court-dismisses-suit-by-lesbian-who-couldnt-see-dying-partner-at-miamis-jackson-memorial-hospital.html

Now my question to you is simple: Do you honestly think either of these situations would have happened had they involved heterosexual couples? We all know very well that there would be no legal basis for a hospital employee to refuse to let a husband visit his dying or critically ill wife, all other things being equal. Further, who would be so heartless as to try? And failing that, even if someone did indeed try, the hospital wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of having the lawsuit dismissed. So why are we gays at the mercy of everyone else? This is truly tyranny of the majority.

And I haven’t even begun to discuss the issue of property and inheritance rights, which at present are in no way any more in our favor than are hospital visitation rights. For an example that is heartrending and that should be infuriating to any fair-minded individual, read this: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-brokeback_05tsw.ART.State.Edition2.3e898b0.html

The simple fact of the matter is that these protections must be codified, and the only way to do that in a thorough, comprehensive manner is through the granting of marriage rights to same-sex couples. No less will do. The current pastiche of incompatible state-by-state laws does not suffice.
So while it may be some peripheral non-issue for you, marriage rights for gay couples are far from trivial to us. Unfortunately, it’s you–and the straight majority you evidently represent–who too often (and unconstitutionally so) get to thoughtlessly dismiss us and our concerns at the voting booth while we are left to deal with the very real, sometimes devastating, consequences. You’ll have to excuse my tone, but I’m just sick to death of having to reiterate this crap. Please, commenters–no more with the “gay-people-can-have-all-the-same-rights as straights” crap. Do some research.

Thanks, AxeGrrl! And by the way, although I think I’ve told you before, I LOVE your avatar! (That’s my favorite scene in Freeway.)

I figured it was just a matter of time before the religious would find others to kick out of their exclusive marriage club.

Another well known case is Charlene Strong. Her wife sustained fatal injuries in a flood. She was first turned away by the hospital. Then the funeral home treated her as a stranger too and didn’t allow her to make any decisions herself. Her case and testimony was essential to pass the domestic partnership legislation in Washington.

http://formywife.info/index.php

Grimalkin, I’m all for preventing the I’m really drunk, let’s get married stupidity. (I doubt they usually wind up as depicted in sitcoms.) But a year’s separation before a divorce? Shudder.

And why so long? That’s a long time to be stuck in a marriage one desperately wants out of and downright cruel in the case of an abusive relationship. Is there any outcry to change that? There really should be.

I’m frankly of the opinion no one should be held in a marriage by force, that all it should take is an I want out, I’m filing for divorce then get to court and decide the custody of children and division of property, etc.

NY just passed no fault divorce and I was cheering it. I still don’t understand why groups like NOW fought it so hard. How is it feminist to force some dude to remain married to you because he doesn’t have a “valid” reason not to be? He doesn’t want to be married to you. Reason enough. Put on your big girl pants and deal.

I still don’t understand why groups like NOW fought it so hard.

Wow. I had no idea that a group like NOW would EVER be opposed to no-fault divorce laws.

Grimalkin

I think that the idea was to space our the decision to get married from the marriage itself, to prevent “hey, I’m really drunk! Wanna get hitched?” marriages.

I think that this comes from the Anglican tradition of posting the banns of marriage. This is a public announcement in the parish so that anyone who has an objection has time to come forth and present it.

I’d like to think that it was to allow people to think over their decision but sadly I think that it comes from tradition instead.