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

[quietdanmn.livejournal.com]

What a great conversation this must have been!

I completely agree with the perspective that your Mom is talking about. Marriage is a very loaded term, and is truly best left up to the church. However, civil partnership/civil union is a better generic term that can/should apply to everyone on the governmental level. The rights and responsibilities are ones granted by governments, not by the church.

While I understand that desire to call it 'marriage', the vast majority of the population doesn't equate that the issues are separate between church and state. They consider it all wrong because they approach it more from the traditional view, which relates to the church.

Hopefully, other fair-minded people will also pursue this approach. It may be the best hope of progress.

[daddytodd.livejournal.com]

I'm sold on the idea, but it will never sell to the religious, who are convinced that the gummint is endorsing their breeding by recognizing -- and subsidizing -- their marriage. They'll never give up that Special Right.

[throbbin.livejournal.com]

That's a great idea. I was espousing that several years ago, but how on earth do you get people into the "no more civil marriage" process started? It seems like the perfect counter to the religious right is to lose the term in the legal code. I'm sure they'll find some other reason to try and counter it, but it will be a little harder to look like it's not discrimination.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

Despite her misgivings about Obama winning the election - she thinks leadership on the issue will come from him. in a big moment - like a state of the union speech. somewhere where nobody in the room can be seen to "boo" civil rights equality. she says if anyone can convince the american people it's time to change and open up - it's Obama. She says "he's hard to say no to...."

[dr-scott.livejournal.com]

That would be a terrific exercise in leadership. I wouldn't hold my breath, since I suspect he's being advised to avoid making Clinton's mistakes.

Around the country I'd guess 60% oppose equal "marriage" rights while only 50% oppose equal "civil unions." I think it makes great sense to have a variety of different civil union contracts made easy by the State's offering them, change the thousands of references to married couples in the laws to apply to civil unions, and let the word marriage go to be used as desired by anyone who wants to. It's that or wait another decade for more traditionalists to die.

[pectopah.livejournal.com]

Your mother has come to a place that many folks in Vermont came to a long time ago--civil unions for everyone, marriage for those who wish to have a religious ceremony independent of state involvement. However, there are some in Vermont that feel that civil unions are separate-but-equal and that unless marriage is abolished as state-sanctioned activity, there is no point in having the civil unions-for-everyone discussion. This is part of (not entirely) reason only 100 people showed up to yesterday's Vermont protest. Many of folks that want Vermont to upgrade to marriage for all feel that having protests hurts their cause (unfortunately, anecdotally, they seem to be right). What is also interesting in Vermont's debate is that there is a clear gender divide: men generally feel that civil unions are good and we should move toward them for everyone; women, who are leading this fight, feel that marriage is the only answer. There is also a palpable sense that Vermont, which was a queer civil rights leader not so long ago, has fallen behind.

Meanwhile, here in Quebec, civil unions are available to anyone, as is marriage. Ric and I, who have a Vermont CU and also had a commitment ceremony, are common-law spouses.

A different light

[blt4success66.livejournal.com]

My brother and his 2nd wife were married in a civil ceremony. It wasn't in a church and there wasn't even a pastor involved. It was weird (only because I'm used to church weddings).

For practical purposes, it was (and continues to be) a civil union. His wife has two boys from previous relationships and Shawn didn't want kids.

It works for them. It is a civil union, not a marriage.

I agree with your mom wholeheartedly, but it's a concept that wouldn't fly with the majority...for now.

Re: A different light

[madknits.livejournal.com]

Legally, even though no religious functionary was involved, it is considered a marriage, with the same rights and privileges that you have in your marriage. That cannot be said for gay civil unions, as in New Jersey, where companies like UPS have said they will not extend health benefits to (gay) couples who are civily unionised because it is not marriage.

Re: A different light

[blt4success66.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, I guess I should have continued the thought...for me (and not for the state I live in) they would be identified as a civil union.

Increasingly the word "marriage" to me is a religious ceremony. If the churches really wanted to be a stickler about it, then the government should force every couple to be married in a church, but they can't. If a couple goes to the courthouse, gets a license, it should be recognized like a marriage but without the religious overtones of a "holy union".

I realize it won't happen but there needs to be a better way to make this all work.

Re: A different light

[madknits.livejournal.com]

For me, a marriage does not have to have ANY religious connexions at all. If two people have a civil marriage with a JP, then it's still a marriage. I do not want to see religious groups have a stranglehold on that vocabulary, nor do I wish to grant them that much power. We live in a secular state. If people want to live in a religious state, they can move to the UK, or to Italy, or to Iran or to Israel, or to Saudi Arabia, where there are official state religions.

[pagerbear.livejournal.com]

Oops! Commented in wrong place!

[pagerbear.livejournal.com]

I've heard this viewpoint espoused for a long time--even before the context of marriage equality for G/L/B/T folk was widespread. I knew an Episcopal priest who thought he, as a clergyman, had no business acting on the part of the state when he performed a wedding ceremony. He saw his role as solely a religious one.

And we know in many, if not most, western countries, the religious and civil cermeonies are completely separate. But "That's the way they do it in Europe!" hasn't really been a very popular argument in recent years. I hope that will change with an administration that values learning and culture.

Re: A different light

[blt4success66.livejournal.com]

...and out of respect for you, and until we can meet face to face, I'm going to leave it at that. While we can agree that the separation of church and state is the intended goal of the founding fathers, it's been poorly executed.

Re: A different light

[madknits.livejournal.com]

Which doesn't mean that we don't stop working on it in order to form a more perfect Union.

Civil, or otherwise.

Re: A different light

[blt4success66.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

[inbhirnis.livejournal.com]

It is the logical solution, captain... ;-) In fact, before we went off on the march yesterday, we talked about that very idea - the state grants everyone 'civil union licenses' or whatever you want to call them, and then, if you want to, you can go and get married at whatever church you want. But legally, the only document that has weight in terms of benefits, taxation, rights, divorce laws, etc, would be the civil union license.

It's quite a big deal that your mother has moved from a highly conservative position to the one she now holds. It's a sign that we will win, ultimately.

[cuyahogarvr.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with your mother... and at the risk of being non-PC, it's a matter of semantics.
First, strip all religious personages' power to perform any Civil Ceremony. Henceforth, their role should be purely religious. (Just like registering a birth with a birth certificate, NOT a baptismal certificate - one is civil, the other is religious.)
Then, require all couples (triads???)that want to be united to appear before a Justice of the Peace for a Civil Union. All rights, priveleges and responsibilities would be based on this Civil Union.
IF a couple wants to have a religious "Matrimony" ceremony performed, then it's up to them to find a church and a congregation that will recognize their sacrament, but, this would not impact the status or equality of any Civil Union not blessed by a church.

[eric-mathgeek.livejournal.com]

I would agree *except* of course it'll never happen. Straight people would say that it is giving away some of *their* rights.

And aside from that -- marriage is *not* religious is origin. It is, in origin, a financial/business transaction. Parents gave dowries to the groom to take their daughter. And, of course, one man could have many wives. (This was not invented by the Mormons.) Religion had nothing to do with it.

[balanceinchaos.livejournal.com]

My wife and I have discussed several times that if the state were to change from marriage licenses to civil unions, we would go down to the court house to register our civil union. We believe our marriage is between "us", where as the civil union is what is necessary for society/government to recognize our rights.

[bear-left.livejournal.com]

I've preferred this approach for some time, and I'm not convinced by the "it'll never happen in America" argument. For everyone assuming Americans' conservatism, that skips over the fact that there are multiple American conservativisms. As opposed to those moral conservatives who want to repress anything pro-lgbt, libertarian conservatives, who want less government, and want the government out of personal affairs, are natural allies in building the political coalition to make this happen.

[pulsecub.livejournal.com]

Richard, the problem with that argument is "marriage" predates any organized religion, and was created as a means of property transference and continuation. Religion has co-opted the institution of "marriage," much like they've co-opted everything else for their own purposes/gain.

I will not accept anything less than legalized "marriage" for GLBT citizens in the U.S. It is no less than we are entitled to.

[bearbarry.livejournal.com]

As far as the state is concerned, a marriage license is just one of many forms of incorporation that implies a contract has been created between two individuals. The contract has specific performance requirements stipulated for both parties along with provisions for dissolving the contract should one or both parties choose to do so. This contract can not be consecrated, made sacred or sanctified in any way by the state. That would be a direct violation of the establishment clause of the U.S. constitution. Only your own faith can do that. How you choose to signify this contract or whether you choose to signify it beyond signing the paper is your choice as a couple. As far as the state is concerned, as long as you have the license signed and notarized, you are legally married. The fact that this contract has traditionally been formed between two individuals of the opposite sex has been the legal norm because the rights of same sex couples have never been defined by the state in any real way. That is now beginning to happen, and the laws as they have traditionally existed are no longer adequate to address the changing needs and desires of our evolving democracy.
We can as a society call this legal contract whatever we choose, but the bottom-line is that a marriage license is simply a legal contract that grants rights and obliges responsibilities to those who enter into it. People, both gay and straight, need to accept this definition. Just like they had to accept no-fault divorce and interracial marriages. It's the right thing to do.

[abqdan.livejournal.com]

I have supported for years the proposition that all couples would enter into a government (state and federal) sanctioned civil union, and that marriage would be left to the churches. But I wonder if your mother would be comfortable with that in fact? What this means is that every law would be changed to remove the words husband, wife, spouse, married, marriage, replacing them with non-gender specific terms and the words 'civil union'.

What's more, getting married could not happen at city hall anymore. And getting married in a church would give you NO legal rights - you would still need to get a civil partnership license from the state if you wanted legal protections and rights.

I think once traditionalist understand that, they will not support such a move. They'll argue that THEIR marriages should legally protect them, while WE should only have the civil union option - back to 'separate yet equal'.

New Zealand - A Model?

[audrabaudra.livejournal.com]

In New Zealand, only straight people can get "married" -- hang on, though, this is right in line with what you're talking about...

but ANYONE can get a "civil union." Gay, lesbian, transgendered, straight but secular, secular but whatever--civil unions are open to anyone who wants to pronounce themselves as a legal, committed relationship.

All of the paperwork down the registry office is the same. It's called Marriage/Civil Union Form C2343243 or whatever. Both relationships are equal in the eyes of the law. There is no difference between them whatsoever. That paperwork, registered properly by someone legally permitted to do so, is what makes the ceremony a binding, legal contract. Therefore, getting married in a church by a person who is legally permitted to file the last piece of paper is the same as getting married by the ocean by a person who files that last piece of paper, too.

To be wholly semantically correct, Ross and I just had a civil union because it was a secular ceremony without any reference made to the dying man-god or the big baddie in the sky, it was held in a secular venue, and it was performed by a celebrant, not a pastor or priest. "Got married" is the shorthand way to say what we did, but we also "got united."

NZ did that with civil unions to keep the religious crackpots happy, but it is purely a matter of semantics. I doubt that the evangelical, fundamentalist crackpots in the States would be as easily appeased, but it's definitely a legal move that should be considered.

[gorkabear.livejournal.com]

Hum

That's exactly what happens in France already - although France has no gay marriage.

YOu must get married at the city hall and then you can have your union sanctioned by the religion of your choice, or not.

HOWEVER. They still define marriage only between a man and a woman.

In the case of Spain, it's little like there, although only the catholic church has the right to make their cerimony also legal - not, of course, for same-sex spouses

The civil union vs matrimony debate here was harsh as well. But our Prime Minister found the easy solution: why creating a word for something that already exists? Let's just open it for everybody

[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]

Where on the globe are you? I'm in New Zealand and did the civil union with my partner on 7 November 08, so I've just been looking through the laws here, thinking of the situation in the States.

[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?

[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! :)

[gorkabear.livejournal.com]

Spain. A traditionally catholic country where, for once, the laws were thought simple and efficient. For once (I bitch a lot about my country too)

[tigerbeard.livejournal.com]

What you've described is essentially the UK system. My straight, Hindu marriage is not considered a legally binding contract which meant that the day before the Hindu ceremony we had a civil one (although we celebrate the religious one as our anniversary).

I believe this extends to all religions in the UK. The only difference being that a Christian minister is also considered a registrar so when he issues the license at a Christian service the civil paperwork is effectively done at the same time.

The net result is that the UK has the concept of a Civil Marriage - i.e. a secular, legal contract between a man and a woman which effectively defines their marriage under law. Because of this it was possible to extend exactly the same rights to same sex couples without getting religion involved.

[cuboz.livejournal.com]

Your Mum is a smart, SMART woman.

Seeing a lot of these posts, and understanding he American legal system (sort of) through them, I see that de-facto relationships are not recognised in many, MANY States, and in some where they are, the legal entitlements and privileges are not the same as "married" couples. So I can understand why the cause for Gay Rights HAS been for "marriage".

Here, a lot of people have said they DON'T want "marriage" per se, because it really is a religious ceremony and in reality, how many straight couples who get married in churches have set FOOT in those churches as a sign of their faith?

So, Civil Unions here in Australia, with full recognition of legal rights and entitlements is where the argument is heading - and I'm all for it!

*hugs*

[bruinwi.livejournal.com]

I can live with this reasoning, and can even get around the separate but (un?)equal status of civil union vs. marriage.

So, assuming that the recent amendment barring same-sex marriage and anything resembling marriage between same-sex partners, is overturned, there is still one possible hurdle to clear in the state of Wisconsin: They don't recognize Common Law marriage in this state.

Maybe it's just a matter of filing the paperwork and seeing a judge, but if Straight people who have lived together for 10+ years aren't recognized as a couple, LGBT folk aren't likely to be, either. In this case, there would be a valid arguement of equality under the law.

Re: New Zealand - A Model?

[bukephalus.livejournal.com]

*Sigh.* Sometimes I really envy you your place of residence.

Go New Zealand!

[bukephalus.livejournal.com]

I agree with those who said it's a good idea but not gonna happen.

What's more important here is that you and your mom were able to have this in-depth conversation without the rancor of your father's ghost interfering.

[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?"

Re: New Zealand - A Model?

[audrabaudra.livejournal.com]

It's interesting to find out through this conversation that Spain has marriage for everyone, as gorkabear points out just below. Thinking stereotypically, I wouldn't expect a staunch Roman Catholic country to go for it in such a level-headed, simple, and efficient (to borrow gorkabear's words) way!

And the UK has civil unions. So does Oz. So does France...I see a pattern emerging, and the end is the same as it is when it comes to healthcare in the States: the US, while claiming to be "land of the free, home of the brave," is light years behind many, MANY countries when it comes to taking care of its citizens and their rights.

Re: New Zealand - A Model?

[audrabaudra.livejournal.com]

By the way, you're welcome to visit us any time. Use our house as a base and go exploring. Let me know when to pick you up at the airport to get you started :-)

Re: New Zealand - A Model?

[bukephalus.livejournal.com]

And to the list of desirables that include marriage and health care, you can also add Europe's more relaxed attitude toward nudity. And probably a dozen other things. But I suspect we've already highjacked this thread in enough directions already. (grin)

Re: New Zealand - A Model?

[bukephalus.livejournal.com]

What a great offer! I better start a "Saving for New Zealand" piggy bank.

[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.

[audrabaudra.livejournal.com]

Haven't you got civil unions already in Aussie? (G'day, neighbour.)

Re: New Zealand - A Model?

[audrabaudra.livejournal.com]

You're on! Come over in your winter/our summer. We're here from Sept-May.

[grizzlyzone.livejournal.com]

With all due respect.

[cuboz.livejournal.com]

No!

Can you BELIEVE it!!? Even South AFRICA recognises gay relationships!

Thankfully, I still have my New Zealand citizenship and passport, so if I REALLY want to get "married", I probably can....

(I'm originally from Paraparaumu - small town boy! LOL)