talking with Mom about the marriage equality fight...

[thoreau]

I had a long conversation with my Mom this morning about the election. First off - just two years ago - this conversation would not have happened. My Mom, due to 35 some odd years married to my Dad - - is extremely conservative politically. While my Dad was alive - politics was screaming match material. My Dad was very much a man of absolutes - that sort of "your with us or your against us" kind of position that makes me just so angry. But since my Dad's passing away - my Mom has started to form a more balanced (yet clearly conservative view) of the world and more importantly of politics. When I was involved in politics in Idaho - her position was always for my safety - and was always very careful not to discuss the issues - particularly when it came to gay rights. so - it was slowly and gently - that I asked to talk to her this morning about gay marriage. After we talked about the candlelight vigil, the march up Market on Thursday - the big protests all over the country yesterday,, and I talked her through the big louds sighs - (she hates confrontation more than anyone I know - and often will avoid it all costs - - )

This morning's conversation started off very gently - because a) I didn't want to gloat about Obama's victory too much - - and b) I was weary of getting in a debate on gay marriage. Surprisingly - my Mom took a very interesting point of view. She says that the word - marriage - is covered with too much religious dogma - and that gays wanting "marriage" was upsetting to her. (don't get your cockles up - read the whole post first) She said she believed that gay couples deserve the same civil rights that straight people have - but - she said that marriage as a "term" was too loaded - and that if federal legislation passed allowing for civil partnership - that she'd support that - but that asking people of her generation (65+) to accept the use of the term marriage between gay people was a very difficult step for her. I responded with the usual talking points - about "should couples who don't have children then not be married?" - and she responded that a straight couple without children - at least has the biological ability to have a child together - where a gay couple does not. (strictly speaking - not affording things like adoption, sperm/egg donation, etc.) and she was very matter of fact - that she would never support extended the 'term' marriage to gay people - but she believes that an extension of all civil rights that straight couples enjoy - should be extended to gay couples as a matter of whats right. She supported the position in the Chronicle (which apparently she read to see what was happening in my home city) - this article suggests "...This could be accomplished by limiting the state of California prospectively to the issuance of civil unions for all couples, rather than marriage licenses, leaving marriage, which in origin is predominantly a religious concept and not the real business of the state, to religion..."

So my Mom supports the idea (which I believe nudewoody was one of the first I read who agree) that the state should get out of the marriage business completely. and ONLY do civil unions for everyone. It was at times a tense conversation - but she really believes - that if they passed a civil unions bill at the federal level - that teh fight is hardly over - because even that recognition of gay couples by religious conservatives is going to be fought tooth and nail - but that she thinks if the collective american society can separate marriage and the civil union bestowing all of the civil rights (from taxes to estate planning to visitation, etc.) that she sees that as the fairest route of all.

It was a wonderful conversation - what do you think? if marriage as a civil legal term stopped being used - and marriages only happened in churches - but even straight couples in the eye of the government had "civil unions" for the legal/civil rights? If everyone got civil unions - does that seem like a just equal solution? and leave marriage and it's antiquated definition to religious groups?

Comments

[grizzlyzone.livejournal.com]

IMHO, as long as it's not called "marriage", it's "separate, but not equal".

And, I'm awfully sorry that "the church" has a hard time wrapping their head around the idea, but remember, they've come up with some pretty tall tales of their own they insist we accept as "gospel".

[audrabaudra.livejournal.com]

"The perfect is the enemy of the good." --Voltaire

If the civil union is legally the same as the marriage in all matters of the rights and privileges of people in a committed relationship, then why not let the religious have their way with their word? Let the Catholics do their little thing with giving a sacrifice to the Virgin Mary for fertility, and call that "marriage" if that's important to them. Let all the Xtians do their cannibalistic "body and blood" devouring, requiring that as part of the marriage ceremony. Whatever -- makes no difference to me. I don't want to do those things because their religious teachings are meaningless to me. Just so long as the rest of us get our way, with human/civil rights for all in the eyes of the law, who gives a stuff what the religious do or what they call it in the privacy of their church buildings?

I'm never going to accept religious superstition as my way of life, and they're never going to accept my secular humanistic perspective, but we don't have to think alike -- as long as we give each other room and the right to live, with equal rights in the eyes of the law.

[grizzlyzone.livejournal.com]

I've given a great deal of thought to your POV.

My reasoning is "colored water fountains". There used to be those who said, "You know, we have water fountains for the whites and water fountains for the coloreds. They're the same you know. The only difference is the sign above them."

When you have two of the "same thing", one for Group A and one for Group B, they're rarely never the same.

If they were, why would you need two?

[audrabaudra.livejournal.com]

The water fountains were a symbol of an entire legal system--the Jim Crow laws--that was apartheid. When an entire caste of people is not allowed to enter into the same public buildings as the dominant caste, sit in the same seats as the dominant caste on public transportation, and so on, "separate, but equal" is a joke--agreed.

But that legal situation isn't analogous to the legal situation facing the GLBT community when it comes to legal, committed relationships. Thanks to slow, but positive change over the past 30-odd years, people cannot be discriminated against for sexual orientation/affectional preference in many areas of public life. Civil unions/marriage is the last big hurdle, but an important one because it entails legal rights of a spouse to insurance, inheritance, being recognized as family in medical settings, and so on.

Let me challenge you this way: I'm Straight Woman, you're Gay Man. In our respective relationships, we've all decided to get married on 1 Dec. You and I find ourselves at the registry office or county courthouse, etc., at the same time. We each fill out a form: on mine, the "marriage" box gets ticked; on yours, the "civil union" box gets ticked. The forms are the same in every other respect. A week later, we go pick up our licenses; again, they are the same in every respect, except for the box that's ticked.

I get married by a celebrant in a garden.

You get united by a celebrant on the beach.

We both have beautiful ceremonies, with friends and family celebrating with us. When it's all over, each of us and our respective partners are in a legally recognized, formally committed relationship. All four of us have the same rights and privileges within and through that relationship.

How are we "separate, but equal?"

[grizzlyzone.livejournal.com]

If it's the same, why does it have to be different? And, in this case, I'm referring to the nomenclature.

Quite frankly, I see this as one religious group making decisions for people who aren't members of that religious group.

Roman Catholics or Mormons or whomever can dictate the rules for their own religious flock. But, when it comes to dictating the rules for my life (note, no quotes, italics, underlines or boldface), I draw the line.

[audrabaudra.livejournal.com]

grizzlyzone: If it's the same, why does it have to be different? And, in this case, I'm referring to the nomenclature.

audrabaudra: Let them have their nomenclature and their ideas about "holy matrimony." If we're going to be philosophically fair, then we have to make room in the tent for their ideas. Are they making the decisions for us? Well, in a way. But they'll see it otherwise. If we get our way by getting legally recognized, committed relationships for the GLBT community, the Religious Right is going to say that *we're* forcing *our* viewpoint on them.

That's why it's going to take compromise on both sides to make the dream into a reality. Karl Rove (Oooooh, just one bullet...) and his ilk hijacked this discussion semantically from the beginning. If we're going to get control of the debate, we have to take the language back and recast our ideal of human rights for everyone tolerable to folks like Bob's mom.

That's where compromise comes in. We let them have their ideal when it comes to calling straight relationships "marriages," and we succeed in making real our ideal for the gay community.

But what is that ideal? -- maybe that's where you and I aren't seeing eye-to-eye. To me, the ideal is 1) the basic human right of deciding to whom one will commit oneself, if one so chooses; 2) all legal privileges and rights stemming from being in a committed relationship, including marital tax breaks, inheritance, next-of-kin standing in medical situations, family health benefits and insurance, etc. One's legal status with a life partner is the main bone of contention to me about the way gays are treated. One of my (many) younger brothers is gay, and he just went through a difficult divorce. He and his partner owned a house together--without getting into the details, suffice to say that it was only the fair-mindedness of his soon-to-be-ex-partner and the willingness of a bank employee to sort things out with the refinancing and giving my brother his investment back that allowed him to not lose his shirt.

Civil union/marriage would solve those questions of legal standing, and once those kinds of things are solved--like racially integrating the military post-WWII, then integrating society to get rid of those "colored water fountains"--anything can become possible. But it has to be done in steps, and the dominant culture has to feel as if it's gotten something or retained something--it's the greedy nature of the beast.

[grizzlyzone.livejournal.com]

With all due respect.

[grizzlyzone.livejournal.com]

Of course, we could always refer to it as "same-sex CIVIL marriage.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

okay everyone lets remain civil :) no italics and bold, thank you! :)