Gay marriage vs. civil ceremony?

KristenNC · #1 07-30-2001, 12:33 PM

I'm curious about something - a specific issue about "gay rights" (which I think is as much a misnomer as "women's rights" - because what it all boils down to is simply equal rights.)

If you agree that gay couples should have the same legal rights as married couples expect - what ceremony should gay couples celebrate?

Marriage?

Civil partnership?

Something else altogether?

vemartin · #2 07-30-2001, 02:33 PM

Civil Partnership!

KateTPZ · #3 07-30-2001, 03:11 PM

I like the idea of a legal partnership - not just for gay couples but for any couple. Marriage, in my mind, should be a religious relationship - although marriage certainly results in a legal partnership. A committed couple, regardless of their sexes, should have rights like those of a married couple. (There should also be similar responsibilities.)

erik_kosberg · #4 07-30-2001, 03:14 PM

Who am I to tell them what they should do? Whatever ceremony they feel most comfortable with.

Quote:

If you agree that gay couples should have the same legal rights as married couples expect - what ceremony should gay couples celebrate?

**hadassahchana**[$] · #5 07-30-2001, 04:27 PM

What Erik said- but I feel very strongly that marriage, legally recognized as it already is for hetero couples, really ought to be an option for those who want it.

I have been reading a lot about the Marriage Protection Act. This worries me, because it seems likely to be voted into law in many states. Even if you have a religious objection to homosexuality, should you be able to control what others do based on your own religious beliefs?

Cindy

**drmomentum**[$] · #6 07-30-2001, 04:56 PM

Basically agreeing here with what I am reading. I don't feel the need to tell couples what sort of a union they can have. I do recognize that some arrangements will appease those who want to tell gay couples what kind of an arrangement they can have, but I suppose it's up to them to decide whether they will put up with that.

"Marriage" has become a general term anyhoe, meaing the coming together of two things. So I think it is perfectly appropriate for marriage to be used legally. But if I were a gay couple, I probably would be happy with any compromise that geve me the same rights, even if it weren't called marriage.

-JP

(P.S. Could I possibly fit any more typos in this message? I thinkn ot.)

eplovejoy · #7 07-30-2001, 05:52 PM

As long as gay men and lesbians bear the same responsibilities of citizenship (paying taxes, serving on juries and in the military *), there is no justification for denying us any of the privileges of citizens.

This includes marriage, if we choose. It is absurd that I can marry a woman this afternoon and have the marriage recognized immediately in all 50 states, but that to marry legally I have to go Denmark or Norway and then not have my homeland recognize it.

Laws against gay marriages are codified discrimination, just as were laws against miscegenation.

* Well, almost.

**drmomentum**[$] · #8 07-30-2001, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eplovejoy
there is no justification for denying us any of the privileges of citizens.

How about if a little voice in my head tells me it's OK? Or a talking fish?

Ok, wait, wait, I'll think of something... What if I just don't like homosexuals, or feel squeamish about or don't approve of homosexual sex - isn't it OK then for me to discriminate against them?

Damn - I was pretty sure I picked that one up from high school. I know, a book - how about a book? No? Not even if it's really old? Huh.

Boy, I'm drawing a blank here.

-JP

poseidon · #9 07-30-2001, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eplovejoy
As long as gay men and lesbians bear the same responsibilities of citizenship (paying taxes, serving on juries and in the military *), there is no justification for denying us any of the privileges of citizens.

This includes marriage, if we choose. It is absurd that I can marry a woman this afternoon and have the marriage recognized immediately in all 50 states, but that to marry legally I have to go Denmark or Norway and then not have my homeland recognize it.

Laws against gay marriages are codified discrimination, just as were laws against miscegenation.

* Well, almost.

Um, can't you get married in Vermont and Hawaii, or did that not ever go through? Many communities also have registered partnerships of some sort for people who aren't/can't get married. Denver has such a registry, so do some other communties around Colorado.

erik_kosberg · #10 07-30-2001, 06:46 PM

I think that it didn’t happen in Hawaii (did it fall a vote or two short?), but civil commitment unions (not explicitly called marriage) are now valid in Vermont. I think that this has thrown the Vermont Republican party into a tizzie and they’ve vowed to rescind it if they win the next election there but I somehow doubt that a conservative platform could get a majority of the votes there. Jeffords was about as conservative a Republican as could be elected in Vermont so I doubt that the law will be overturned thanks to a groundswell of support for conservative candidates. But they’re only recognized by Vermont — because of DOMA, other states are free to ignore the legality of commitment unions.

KristenNC · #11 07-30-2001, 06:54 PM

I guess that's my point, though as Erik pointed out earlier, I didn't phrase it very well. (The 'should' word rears its ugly head.) In California, many of my brothers friends voted against prop 87 (I think it was #87) allowing gay 'marriage' simply because they felt that marriage was, by definition, for male-female couples and that gay couples should have their own word.

I didn't get the argument, of course, but it certainly seemed to be a major issue in California. Which I thought was why Vermont and other states talked about a "civil partnership" rather than a wedding.

I guess I simply don't understand the argument over calling a gay union a marriage or a civil committment or a joining or whatever. Most of the gay couples I know use the term "partner" - though I know a few who use husband or wife (thereby confusing innocent bystanders a bit, but hey.)

Personally, I don't really care what it is called as long as the end result is the same. I just want to understand the argument.

poseidon · #12 07-30-2001, 07:59 PM

Just FYI, the Colorado Constitution states that a marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman (so as to also not allow polygamy). So, at least here, it would require a constitutional amendment for this state to accept anything other than a typical marriage as valid. Anything else would be deemed unconstitutional if I understand the workings of law.