Gay Marriage is Not Liberal Enough
The institution of marriage is not sufficient for some who seek a deeper bond. As Mike Huckabee, the Republican Governor of Arkansas and supporter of legal Covenant Marriages put it, “It is easier to get out of a marriage than a contract to buy a used car.”, most agree the divorce rate is too high. The institution of marriage is also not sufficiently flexible to handle others who ascribe to older traditional relationships such as "betrothal", nor other social commitments such as "engagement", "cohabitation", "dating", and yes, "gay marriage".
Our society is screaming out for a solution to this complex problem. But the solution need not be so complex. Donald Rumsfeld taught us that "When a particular problem is intractable, enlarge it", and it is generally good advice, especially in this instance.
The debate over marriage is about love and freedom on one side; and control and stability on the other, and both sides are right! One of the blessings of our modern era is that now there can be a middle ground which benefits both sides greatly. This middle ground is based on the rule of law and has its roots in the Bible.
There are many types of relationships between people of all types. In business we customize contracts for each relationship, but each contract starts with a boilerplate. The contracts can also be modified with addendums and amendments to keep them current. Modern contracting software can add standard language to these contracts with ease
We as a society have advanced our business relationships models and left our personal relationships behind. We could very easily have the institution of "Marriage" and the institution of "Gay Marriage", as well as all of the others, it is simply a matter of packaging the appropriate boilerplates to create legal standards for each of these relationships, and letting voters decide how each of them relate to the definitions we have imposed upon our government.
The other very important leg of this effort is the various religions which give meaning to these stages of our lives, commemorating them ceremonially, and exercising the power vested upon them by the States of our Union. Most of the older religions have many liturgical ceremonies for bonding which are not widely used. By creating the additional granularity in relationships, our religious guides may infuse each of these stages of commitment with the sacred love of the church. The research shows that such events do have an effect on the seriousness with which we make these commitments, enhancing stability, and compassion, as well as enhancing both control over the process and freedom within it.
It is only in this modern era that we also have the easily available technology in order to implement these mechanisms to such a degree. The need for custom commitments has outgrown the simple list of pre-nuptial agreement, marriage, covenant marriage, gay marriage, and divorce. And our society would welcome the opportunity to increase our involvement with the religious ceremonies celebrating the loves we share. What the advocates of gay marriage have missed, and why their effort is failing, is that they forgot to include the many people who also have their own ideas of what relationships should be added.
We all want to celebrate our love and togetherness with the blessings of our loved ones under the symbols we honor, whatever our relationship might be. So the problem with Gay Marriage is not that the concept is too liberal, just that it is not liberal enough to capture the imagination of all of us who seek to celebrate holy love. The problem with Marriage is not just one of gay rights, it is human rights.
Our society is screaming out for a solution to this complex problem. But the solution need not be so complex. Donald Rumsfeld taught us that "When a particular problem is intractable, enlarge it", and it is generally good advice, especially in this instance.
The debate over marriage is about love and freedom on one side; and control and stability on the other, and both sides are right! One of the blessings of our modern era is that now there can be a middle ground which benefits both sides greatly. This middle ground is based on the rule of law and has its roots in the Bible.
There are many types of relationships between people of all types. In business we customize contracts for each relationship, but each contract starts with a boilerplate. The contracts can also be modified with addendums and amendments to keep them current. Modern contracting software can add standard language to these contracts with ease
We as a society have advanced our business relationships models and left our personal relationships behind. We could very easily have the institution of "Marriage" and the institution of "Gay Marriage", as well as all of the others, it is simply a matter of packaging the appropriate boilerplates to create legal standards for each of these relationships, and letting voters decide how each of them relate to the definitions we have imposed upon our government.
The other very important leg of this effort is the various religions which give meaning to these stages of our lives, commemorating them ceremonially, and exercising the power vested upon them by the States of our Union. Most of the older religions have many liturgical ceremonies for bonding which are not widely used. By creating the additional granularity in relationships, our religious guides may infuse each of these stages of commitment with the sacred love of the church. The research shows that such events do have an effect on the seriousness with which we make these commitments, enhancing stability, and compassion, as well as enhancing both control over the process and freedom within it.
It is only in this modern era that we also have the easily available technology in order to implement these mechanisms to such a degree. The need for custom commitments has outgrown the simple list of pre-nuptial agreement, marriage, covenant marriage, gay marriage, and divorce. And our society would welcome the opportunity to increase our involvement with the religious ceremonies celebrating the loves we share. What the advocates of gay marriage have missed, and why their effort is failing, is that they forgot to include the many people who also have their own ideas of what relationships should be added.
We all want to celebrate our love and togetherness with the blessings of our loved ones under the symbols we honor, whatever our relationship might be. So the problem with Gay Marriage is not that the concept is too liberal, just that it is not liberal enough to capture the imagination of all of us who seek to celebrate holy love. The problem with Marriage is not just one of gay rights, it is human rights.
posted by joseph at 8:07:00 AM
34 Comments:
The debate over marriage is about love and freedom on one side; and control and stability on the other, and both sides are right! Hi ModDem -
I think the key challenge for gay rights proponants is to alleviate the paranoia of the so-called protectors of marriage.
Just like the battle for gender equality and racial equality have been fought and won in the past, eventually this homophobic fear will fade out of society and sexual orientation will not be grounds for legalized discrimination in this country.
This issue is solely about providing equal rights under the law regardless of sexual orientation.
Kris,
I'm am sorry you don't yet see the merit of this possibility.
Alleviating paranoia would be a wonderful circumstance, but it is probably too grand a goal for gay rights proponants to achieve swiftly. There are so many steps along the way. This step is just one of the many, and in any case I'd see that as outside the role of government.
I would also disagree that equality is the goal. People don't really want to be equal, they just want what they themselves want. Equality is both unachievable and a limiting metric. People are not equal and do not all desire the same thing, nor do we want them to all desire the same thing. What we all want is just a system that allows us to persue our own personal happiness.
What people want is to be able to do everything that they want to do, and so long as that is not incompatible with the goals of others, it should be permitted.
The difficulty is in how to achieve goal compatibility, and get "the straights" to buy in to the concept and join in its promotion. This is already occurring with "Covenant Marriage". All that remains is increasing its flexibility just a bit.
We don't want to change the beliefs of others so much as we want them to agree to let us have ours, so we would be best served by using our creativity to generate this flexibility in the system. If it helps them achieve their goals, and helps us achieve our goals, all of us benefit and it has already begun with "Covenant Marriage", by building on that, we all win. :)
What would be the differences in the legal rights and legal responsibilities between a "marriage" and a "gay marriage"? To gain equal rights under the law, or simply to gain freedom from discrimination under the law, there can be no difference in those rights and responsibilities. So, my point to you is that your plan is unnecessary. Maybe I'm missing something still (I know we had this conversation three months ago), but can you give me a specific example of a difference between the two?
Ann - you are wrong.
ho·mo·pho·bi·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-)
n.
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Tell me why you fear equal rights under the law for gays? What is the personal impact the legal recognition of gay marriage will have on you?
The definition is from Dictionary.com.
I only reach the "homophobic" conclusion after searching in vain for any possible REAL and negative impact that legal gay marriage can have on those not directly involved in one.
Kris and Ann,
It appears to me that you are both right, and proving my point that "equality" is not the ultimate goal. Marriage is defined as thus and so, Gay Marriage is defined as thus and so + (Women can marry women and Men can marry Men). They can be legally equivalent or not depending on the jurisdiction, giving it any legal status sets the stage for that debate. Currently it is a discussion about an imaginary legal entity not yet described by the law. But this isn't even the whole picture here. :)
The proposal includes the ritual (and legal) celebration of other phases and types of relationships. Relationships such as Covenant Marriage, Betrothal, living together, etc should also have a standard social model (already exists) and definition under the law, as well as religious ceremonies if religions deign to honor them. There could be as many definitions as there are types of relationships.
This gives it something for everyone.
• The churches benefit as they can have more ceremonies and enter into the lives of the faithful more closely.
• The state benefits as relationship stability is enhanced which may have benefits in such far flung areas as reduced domestic violence enforcement costs, better tracking for next of kin for probate, and a generally smoother societal environment.
• The people benefit as they have more freedom of association and choice, and the sanctity of "Marriage" itself is protected.
This is how we progress scientifically. We observe our world, we make distinctions between things that are different, and we describe their properties. Why have we have not yet done this effectively in our relationship models?
When something is distinguishable, it is an advancement to recognize that distinction. We make distinctions between the sexes routinely.
There should be no requirement for any religion to perform a ceremony for any type of union it does not support, that should be solely up to the religions. But religions that would support these unions would have the power vested in them by the several states of the union to enact them.
This can best be achieved legislatively so it may move slowly, but the movement has already begun with Covenant Marriage. Other types, including Gay Marriage should follow the model.
This ought not take a civil war to achieve, after all its primarily about our love of each other. :)
When I watch a relationship disintegrate, I imagine how it could have been saved by these mechanisms. When those in a relationship are responsible for maintaining the definition of that relationship, it promotes their awareness of that relationship. Too often it can degrade due to inattention to it.
ModDem - Do you have a definition of a "covenant marriage"? I've thought that was the term used for the special religious marriage ceremony, usually performed by a higher-ranking church officials, a step beyond the standard religious ceremony.
You are arguing that different relationship types are not equal. You are right. I am trying to make the point that gay marriage rights are ALL ABOUT extending the legal marriage contract to all who wish to abide by it.
Comparing marriage to co-habitating or to being engaged or to different types of relationships has nothing to do with the legal definition of a marriage under the laws of each state.
Can you give me an example of any legal right or responsibility that would be different between a "marriage" and a "gay marriage"?
Kris,
Thank you for the excellent questions which point out very well where this proposal is unclear or incomplete.
The Covenant Marriage to which I refer is the religious ceremony/legal process which is more difficult to get and more difficult to escape from via divorce available in Louisiana, Arizona, and Arkansas.
I see the legal development of this institution as creating a model whereby states can identify forms of relationships which they honor. It is one piece in the legal puzzle needed to achieve the same for same-sex marriages.
My reason for identifying additional forms of relationships beyond just same-sex marriage to include in this model is order to bundle the notion of same-sex marriage with relationship types that everyone would have some stake in supporting institutionally.
Same-sex marriage advocates currently have too little traction with the broad population of Americans. By attaching this institution to related institutions which everyone could support and which mirror the fabric of American phases of life, a larger population could see themselves buying in to the idea.
We as a people very much like to celebrate our love for each other. By creating more opportunity for such celebrations by distinguishing the phases of relationships using a flexible model, we serve many common goals that bridge the communities on both sides of this issue.
For myself, I do not see a distinction between the rights and responsibilities that should accrue with marriage and same-sex marriage, but this issue is ultimately best left up to the state legislatures. There easily may be important differences which I am overlooking.
The problem I am hoping to address is a fairly small one. It's the answer to the question posed by much of the straight population, "What's in it for us to allow gay marriage?"
Currently the answer is understandingly not compelling to them. However, when we add the prospect of additional church-related love celebration services, the potential of additional stability for relationships in general, and a legal framework that more closely matches American life in the 21st century, the balance shifts. This formula makes it everyone's problem, not just the problem of those who wish to marry someone of their own sex.
The religious right has shown the model for what gay rights activists have been attempting to achieve. The legal framework for the institution of Covenant Marriage is identical with that of same-sex marriage. By expanding that model to include a larger set of relationships and including same-sex marriage in that set, your goal of same-sex marriage can be achieved.
Some only notice the homosexual-suicide effect of homophobia, and not the gay-bashing and hate crimes it engenders. We can not rely upon the compassion of others to achieve a goal, we must also serve the desires of others. We can not convince by attacking, but we can convince by sweetening the deal to include more freedoms for everyone.
Thank you again for your generous input and questions. They are a great help in flushing out my description for this notion.
"Homophobia DOES NOT engender the gay-bashing and hate crimes.
Homophobia is the fear of being a homosexual," ...
"Fear OF homosexuals or rather intolerance of homosexuals arises from fears that homosexuality is contagious" ... "Understand things more. Then I'll listen."
Ann,
I understand that homophobia is fear of being (or becoming?) homosexual.
I see a relationship here between fear of becoming a homosexual via exposure to it (contagion) and the definition of homophobia used here, thus it seems that homophobia could engender hate crimes as I described if a perpetrator simply feels at risk of contracting it from exposure. I would not claim that all hate crimes committed against homosexuals are of this type, only that such a belief could or has engendered such crimes.
Perhaps your research shows that there is no relationship and that I am in error here?
You have kindly suggested that I study more to understand this better and so I intend to do so. If you would be so generous as to point my in the direction of a study which may correct this misunderstanding, I would greatly appreciate a link as my own searching has not produced it yet. Please help me to understand this point more clearly as I can see that it is very meaningful for you.
Is there a better word (other than "homophobia") that folks ought to use for the fearful or hateful mindset of people who are committing crimes against gay people because the victims are gay? If so I'll happily use it instead to promote clarity on the issue..
Otherwise I will have to live with the knowledge that you will not be listening on this issue and I do welcome your informed insight.
Ann,
Thank you for this very helpful explanation. Curing homophobia is not my goal with this proposal. (I am not convinced that this idea would be of any benefit for that in any case.)
My goal is to imagine a legal/societal structure that would benefit all stakeholders (or as many as possible) in the marriage issue, and if possible move closer toward creating broader acceptance of such a beneficial structure.
In living languages, words tend to mean what people want them to mean. For example, "Liberal" used to be a term Thomas Jefferson might use to describe himself. This is not so likely today. :)
"Heterosexism" appears to be a more descriptive word for the societal condition, and I thank you for introducing me to it. I tip my hat to you for that. :) I will attempt to use this word when appropriate in order to promote the distinction you have described here.
I believe you are also correct that the violence against homosexuals is primarily due to heterosexism rather than homophobia. Thank you for the correction, I concede the point.
Ann,
I read it all (and followed the links it offered too, good stuff) and I do like the term “sexual prejudice” as a broader and more inclusive descriptor of the narrower “heterosexism” which fairly accurately describes what I meant when I wrote “homophobia” above. “Sexual prejudice” might be overly broad for that use, though it certainly applies as well.
We agree that #4 of your list is as issue in this proposal, and perhaps an element of #3. It is essentially an issue of creating a model for the bundling (or unbundling) the various rights and responsibilities of diverse relationship forms, labeling them and generating standard documents which our courts can recognize, and enforce.
Marriage is a standard form of contract, recognized by all states, Covenant Marriage is recognized by three states, and same-sex marriage is (somewhat) recognized to various degrees by other states. Three forms of marriage partially implemented is a good start, but it does not approach the number of relationship types that our society currently contains, and for which we have use of standardized legal relationships.
Thank you again for helping with the nomenclature for this and providing some valuable links. I do not claim to be an expert on gay rights at all. I am just someone with means and an eagerness to looking for new or creative solutions to current societal conflicts.
Ann,
I agree that the term sexual prejudice is a better phrase to use than homophobia to identify the discrimination and bigotry of heterosexual society against gays. But you can probably also agree that using a definition from a 1973 study is probably not using the current most widely accepted knowledge base on the subject either. But sexual prejudice is fine.
So, I'm still wondering, since you have spoken out against allowing same sex marriages, what is the negative impact to you personally, or your children, or anyone you know, that such a law would have on you? I am only suggesting changing the language of the law to be "two persons" rather than " a man and a woman" that are allowed to file a marriage license. I live in Washington State, and that is the language in our law.
I don't expect this will solve hate crimes against gays. We still get news of occassional cross burnings, even here in a blue state. I just don't understand why all citizens are not allowed the same rights and responsibilities under the law.
1) statements of identifying your own orientation (which is really freedom of speech and not an issue legally)Why should anyone have to declare to the government their sexual orientation?
2) freedom of choice of a lifesyle (which is also a liberty covered by the constitution and not really an issue, is it?)Not true now. The federal government discriminates against same-sex relationships now. Since they are not able to legally marry under the law, "spouses" are not eligible for survivor benefits. They can not file joint tax returns, which also means that they are not liable for unpaid taxes owed by their partners. (That last bit really grinds me - I'm a credit manager in real life.)
3) the creation of laws that establish the contracts between peoples for dependency and cohabitation - which can be independent of verbiage regarding the individuals' sexual orientation and might include verbiage regarding pledges to be sexually faithful [...]to be an "open" relationship Ann. The marriage license I filed with the state did not define the vows I took. I think it is better to leave all these details the way they are now - up to the individuals. No need for any additional laws at all. Just one bill to legalize the change of the definition of marriage license applicants from "a man and a woman" to "two persons".
4) the creation of socially sanctioned "family" units that are openly recognized by the law. As I see it #4 is the issue at hand. There aren't currently social ways to prefix the names of couples of the same sex as there are with opposite sex couples.Sorry, but that's incorrect. There is a box on the marriage license application that asks is either or both parties wishes to change their legal name. There is no additional fee for this service. If one chooses to change their name at any time in their life other than during the three day application period for a marriage license, one may simply file a form with the county clerk and pay a fee to legally change their name anytime they want, to any name they want. I didn't take my husband's last name when I married but we were given the choice that he could change his name or we could just come up with some new name we liked.
I'm guessing most people can agree on the sexual prejudice term, and since you no longer have to be worried about how to change names, does that mean that you can now support same sex marriages?
ModDemWe agree that #4 of your list is as issue in this proposal, and perhaps an element of #3. It is essentially an issue of creating a model for the bundling (or unbundling) the various rights and responsibilities of diverse relationship forms, labeling them and generating standard documents which our courts can recognize, and enforce.
Marriage is a standard form of contract, recognized by all states, Covenant Marriage is recognized by three states, and same-sex marriage is (somewhat) recognized to various degrees by other states. Three forms of marriage partially implemented is a good start, but it does not approach the number of relationship types that our society currently contains, and for which we have use of standardized legal relationships.I really think you are way over-thinking this solution. I understand you are driven by your desire to make this agreeable to ALL. But sexual prejudice will be as hard to erase as racism. That's why it is so important that are laws allow equal rights to this minority. You and I agree that gay rights have come a long way in the last 10 to 15 years. There is progress but it will be generations before this prejudice is really rare.
Churches already determine if they accept same sex marriages or not. Covenant marriages are available in many religions and in the 47 states where they are not defined as a separate type of marriage there is no restriction making them illegal or not binding under the same laws as all marriages. I don't see any need to invite the government into the other types of relationships you mention. The current issue is simply to extend the existing marriage law in all 50 states to apply to all citizens who wish the right to be married, legally.
Kris and Ann, thank you both for your time and generous contributions today. :) You both made such good points that it will take me some time to digest all of it.
1) statements of identifying your own orientation (which is really freedom of speech and not an issue legally) - Why should anyone have to declare to the government their sexual orientation?-Kris
My point is that people should be allowed to proclaim their orientation. Right now we have the "don't ask, don't tell" military rule. That seems to have maintained the old tradition of forcing people to keep it in the closet. People should be allowed to say that they are homosexual and not experience sexual prejudice ramifications.- Ann
This proposal was meant to solve both problems! :)
1a) Folks should not be required to declare their sexual orientation to the government.
1b) Folks should be allowed (encouraged?) to proclaim their orientation using the common language of today.
Problem 1a raises an issue of privacy among other factors. (If extremists were to desire to compile a list for discrimination purposes, they could do so easily using the public marriage registry. Racial information is typically optional on government forms for this reason with a "decline to state" option.) I see this concern weighing heavily and it is one of the reasons for the form of this proposal.
If implemented folks could select any of a large number of social contracts without a requirement for disclosure of sexual orientation. Disclosing to the state would be optional. The state legislatures could then handle this disclosure or non-disclosure in the manner they elect to do so, just as they would with all the other many elements of the social contract. Specific rights and responsibilities could accrue associated to any element as decided by the states and it would be clear which was applied to each element in every jurisdiction.
Problem 1b seems one of nomenclature, culture, literacy and language. (Ann please, would you clarify it if I missed on this?) Law requires language be precise and clear, and people should be free to use words to mean what they want them to mean.
I do not expect sexual prejudice to be solved any time soon. Perhaps this proposal may mitigate some of the aspects of prejudice which are harmful to our social fabric and those which are inherent in our laws governing social contracts today. I do expect that people will have conflicts over language and its use and misuse as long as there are people speaking.
Legislating definitions of language must be done from time to time in order to make use of terms of art. With this proposal, this would be one of those times where it is not necessary to do so. States could opt to do define “marriage” or “same-sex marriage” or any other definition, or no definitions at all and it would not matter much with regard to this proposal. Folks would still describe themselves in the way that they feel most comfortable.
For purposes of this proposal folks could select, sign and register “Social contract 13.b.21” and have a religious ceremony or party for “betrothal” or “open marriage” (or some other name), and the attendees need not know what social contract is used unless the folks entering the contract choose to reveal it. The choice is reserved for the people to whom it is important. “Social contract 13.b.21”would map to the set of rights and responsibilities the participants have selected for themselves.
KrisI understand you are driven by your desire to make this agreeable to ALL.Not all, just a majority. :)
I don't see any need to invite the government into the other types of relationships you mention.Agreed. Personally I would prefer it if this was all done by for profit non-governmental competitive registries. For today, however, we the people have asked our government to become involved in such matters. Perhaps in the future we can remove this set of tasks from government.
The government is also already involved in enforcing contracts and arbitrating contract disputes. I see this as no great leap. The government would not need to be deeply involved at all unless the social contract included rights which the government would be bound to convey such as matters of probate or social security benefits.
The current issue is simply to extend the existing marriage law in all 50 states to apply to all citizens who wish the right to be married, legally.I see that as a solution that voters are currently discarding and from which there is wide retreat. What would induce the straight male or female to vote for such a law? It could be perceived to cost more tax burden, upset church goers, and inflame a cultural battle where the outcome is uncertain and currently not very likely to yield a favorable result to those pursuing this goal.
If we seek progress in the law we should listen to the electorate and react according to its guidance. This requires flexibility and proposal is an attempt to crystallize an appropriate reaction to the voters of 2004. It is immature and needs much refinement and I am very grateful for your input to that end. I am not yet ready to abandon it in order to fall back to the simpler proposal which seems to be failing to gain broad support in this country at this time. I hope to explore it a bit further to see where it leads and whether there are requirements from majority stakeholders which it can or can not meet and modify it accordingly until it is either passable or hopelessly incoherent. :)
Ann, thank you for your organized and coherent thoughts on this matter.
The gay rights community is disrespectful of the English language. They want to change the word "phobia" to mean anything that a person execrates. Phobia is a term with a specific meaning to the psychology community - let's keep it that way. Phobias are not things to mock, taunt, or humiliate other people with - gay rights advocates fail to acknowledge that.I imagine that some homosexuals may have a higher degree of fear generally, as a result of the effects of sexual prejudice, so there may be some "psychological projection" for those. I'll not condemn an entire community of gay rights advocates for the words of some of its members who may be justifiably fearful. Other than that, I agree. :)
I am hopeful that this proposal can avoid unnecessary changes in language and it is designed with this concern in mind.
I do not believe that changing the definition of the word marriage to be a basic goal of the gay rights community, but instead a tactic that is both successful at promoting their memes and at the same time destructive of of the memes of others. I do not see this linguistic conflict as necessary to the basic goals of the gay rights community, though admittedly some gay rights advocates might. I imagine this conflict may be more easily dropped once their basic goals are reached. If the proposal gains traction, the war over the words need not be the battleground of this conflict.
AnnI believe you understand what I am after and we agree on the major issues. I believe there is tremendous value in extending visibility and accountability into the expectations we put on our relationships. I believe it can assist in forming honest relationships based on trust and understanding. I especially like your ideas of extending it to the level of agreed upon vacation/quality time etc. It increases the value without greatly increasing the challenge to implement it. :)
I'll also add a built in ability to renegotiate as needed (and the consequences for doing so!) Folks can then define their core values and communicate their needs within a relationship, as it suits them to do so.
gay rights advocacy as a direct assault on churches
This battle is joined on both sides. Religions are also attacking homosexuals worldwide on a daily basis, and most often the religions tend to win these conflicts. I see the action-reaction as mutually destructive. Recently I’ve noticed this in Sweden and this in Canada and this in the US.
once their [same-sex partnerships] basic goals are reached....
As I see it, they already are. Herein lies the conflict, (and the crux of why I engaged in this particular dialog). Conflict often begets opportunity for those who can resolve it to mutual benefit. I am deciding whether it is a good idea for me to do so, and if so whether there are others that wish to engage in this, or whether waiting and watching this conflict any longer will make that decision more clear to me.
Gay rights advocates believe these goals are not reached for many reasons. The cost of going to lawyers and getting custom agreements is too high or too inconvenient or it does not adequately suit the needs of the individual.
Each of these reasons are each primarily problems of practicality which I can solve using technology available to me. The "market" for the solution to these problems alone may or may not be large enough for me to undertake the effort to deliver on what this proposal promises. It depends only on how many people want it and whether any are willing to pay something for what it offers. It may be worth it to do for myself, (and so I am doing it for myself and my loved ones), but doing it for others can incur liabilities and risks which would need to be balanced.
I am curious if by opening the "market" for this to all types of individuals if it would receive a broader acceptance by fulfilling exactly the sorts of requirements your last post mentioned (thank you for that!).
that same-sex unions is also too broad
Agreed, the point is to provide granularity, as customized as possible without creating confusion. The technology allows the sort of arraignment that could be easily done at home online or if needed, at counseling sessions or workshops.
If law requires language to be precise and clear, then a person can't necessarily describe themselves in the way that they feel most comfortable, can they?Another great question and I am happy that the answer is yes. :) How the law describes us is necessarily how we might describe ourselves. The legal records may show that I have one or many "social contracts" of unspecified type, one of which may be my marriage contract. The opacity into these contracts is entirely controllable by those who have entered into them. The only exceptions to this are where the government is already involved in the social contract, such as heritance, custody, etc.
(An ancillary goal is to reduce the cost to the public treasure of family law adjudications.)
Essentially, family values are for everyone, and folks should be able to decide for their own families what those values may be when they opt in. Then agree upon them and have whichever relationship such an agreement allows. The framework for this can then interface to government at all the necessary levels to provide an easy to use process for anyone seeking the rights which should accrue to their relationship.
ModDem-
Good luck with this project. The arguements offered by Ann should make it obvious just how difficult it will be to find any compromise at all on this issue.
I have not insulted the protectors of current marriage laws with my arguments, except to suggest that the only reason I can see that they oppose same sex marriage is out of some illogical fear or bias/prejudice. Ann's statements as to her reasons for opposing same-sex marriage range from 'gays are disrepectful of the English language', 'next it will be legalized pedophilia', suggesting that 'gays are anti-heterosexual', or 'that heterosexual couples are more valuable to society because they volunteer in schools', and finally, 'just because she says so'. Oh yeah, and all sorts of stuff about fear of rape and homosexuality being a learned behavior 90% of the time.
Possibly just increasing the dialog on this issue will bring some people to understand that there is no reason to fear allowing gays the same marriage rights under the law, but more likely it will require the next generation to come of age and bring their more open sexual identity into the political arena.
AnnThank you for your continued engagement on this. I very much appreciate your input, vision and questions.
Churches have long established that their interpretation of the Bible is that homosexual behavior is not to be condoned. This is their first amendment right.I'd maintain that churches have the right to condone or forbid any behavior for their adherents. I believe this should be preserved. No church should be required to sanctify a relationship they do not condone. Also churches should not interfere in the relationships of those who do not adhere to the church.
All the arguments I've seen to justify state sanctioned homosexual partnerships could be expanded to communities of families that desire the practice of pedophilia.So long as relationships are conscious collaborations for the health and well-being of all those involved. Once a relationship meets this criterion, it ought be beyond the reach of church or government and belong to those engaged in it. Pedophilia can not meet this test, while homosexual relations often do.
We likely disagree as to homosexuality itself being wrong or harmful; I would not claim to be competent to judge it so. I imagine that it is as sacred as any relationship but for its abandonment by the churches. I am open to counter arguments on that point and have heard many which are not compelling for me, so I do not expect my position to change on the matter. A statistical correlation with pedophilia may be the joint effect of another cause, or the causation may be more complex than studies reveal. I do not claim to be an expert on the matter, only to be an incompetent judge of it.
I read the cost of a lawyer for gays to create a contract was $200.That would be great, but my lawyer costs more than that for a half hour of time even without a document! Even so, I propose to reduce that cost by several factors of 10 with this project. The cost of a relationship should be the commitment of the people involved in it and not their access to quality affordable legal counsel.
Is it OK for Ward Churchill to call himself an American Indian? Folks can call themselves cumquats if they like, when we lie, we should expect that we will be called on it by our peers.
Language is largely democratic whether we like it or not. Words will always mean what the people who use them want them to mean. For what its worth, I believe that the word “marriage” will likely mean what it means today for the foreseeable future, and if this proposal achieves any success, it may more easily remain so.
The reason the definition of “marriage” is at issue for advocates of gay rights is primarily to preserve their privacy. If their relationships are public record, and their sexual orientation is public record, they are a more easily targeted minority, and they have good reason to personally fear for that. Changing the definition of marriage would accomplish this goal for them. I respect that need for privacy and hope to adequately serve it with this proposal, thereby obviating any necessity to attack the definition of marriage to accomplish the privacy goal of gay rights advocates.
Children should be protected shouldn’t they? Yes they should be protected as appropriate for their age and maturity. This concern is basic to my plan as well.
Kris,Thank you for your very kind wishes! :) I want to make clear that I do not hope to make or gain any compromises at all. I just hope to fulfill some basic requirements which both you and Ann have been helpful in flushing out. Thank you for continuing in this dialog.
In fact, I do not even hope to convince people to abandon any of their prejudices, only to mute the effect of them on those whom they may harm. What I do hope to accomplish is to protect the innocent, and also to expose those who abuse power in their relationships by offering a low cost, easily used, mediating tool with very practical outputs useful for gaining the rights and responsibilities which are currently only gained at great expense for those in gay or non-traditional relationships. Other outputs could be domestic violence restraining orders, child custody negotiations, and just about anything in the domain of “family law”.
I agree that this dialog may be useful to expand understanding and relax some fears, and I am happy if it does that, but a more prevailing concern would be to provide a means to more easily achieve the responsibilities and rights of relationships for those who can not easily obtain them today such as folks in same-sex relationships. I concur that the folks who oppose it may have many reasons they feel motivates them to do so, the mechanism I propose is meant to effectively shield them from the elements they claim to find reprehensible without limiting the freedom of those who wish to engage in these social contracts. Its use would also afford them the same benefits and gets them to “buy-in” to a mutual solution.
It also solves some of the problems of the “odd” cases such as might occur when a man and a woman are married and one of them has a sex change operation and they wish to remain married.
Again I want to encourage your participation at any level you feel comfortable doing so. Thank you again for your kind comments.
I think that homosexuality itself neither wrong nor harmful.Ann, you can type any statement you want, but every argument you offer contradicts the statement you made above. When you can make that statement without all the exceptions you mention, then it might be true. Now it may be how you wish to see yourself, but it is not accurate.
You clearly don't know any parents of homosexual children, or any homosexuals for that matter, or you would not insult their parents with unfounded accusations of abuse. You've made a lot of offensive comments but this is one of the worst.
Your arguments cross far into the realm of fantasy. Marriage to dead people is not just over the horizon.
Using your statistic that only 65% of sexual orientation hate crimes are committed against homosexual men DOES NOT mean that the other 35% is committed against heterosexuals. It means that 35% is committed against homosexual women. If it is not committed against a homosexual, then it does not fit the legal definition of a 'sexual orientation' hate crime. Do your research.
Your explanation of why tax benefits for married heterosexuals exist also has no basis in truth. Tax rates between single and married categories are meant to be as equal as possible. Sometimes there is a marriage penalty. Sometimes there is a marriage benefit. There is not some grand scheme to create a married society through taxation. I brought up filing a joint tax return because of the legal liabilities of debt created by marriage under the law. Married people are treated as a jointly liable entity whereas unmarried people are not.
Your experience going door to door has nothing to do with the couple you questioned being gay, assuming they even were. Come to my door wanting to talk about a school bond issue and I won't be inviting you in either.
Ann, you are desperate in your attempts to make your bigotry excusable. It is not.
If I said that to you, you'd call me a heterophobic!You make no sense at all. What does not wanting to chat about a school bond with some neighbor I don't know have to do with anything? The only bias that indicates is that I'm not interested in discussing my politics with some stranger who knocks on my door. For you to extrapolate that these women had some heterosexual prejudice is unfounded.
On your other point, what you call orientation fraud against heterosexuals IS NOT a hate crime. That homosexuals discover or admit their orientation while in a heterosexual relationship is sad for all involved, but it does not fit the definition or the intent of a hate crime.
Ann, it is clear that you feel victimized by the impact other's marital tragedy had on you. At least I understand now why you are so biased. I wish you luck in your emotional development and hope that one day you can view the events you describe from a more accepting and sympathetic perspective. Good luck with that.
What I sense in you is a lack of tolerance for people who want to maintain a centuries old tradition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Ann, through all of your concerns and bias, I still do not think you were able to come up with a single impact to heterosexual marriages that would support NOT expanding the meaning of marriage to include same-sex partners. Call them civil unions, whatever. They just want the same rights that everyone else has.
Sadly, there are many people out there with your "just because its tradition" reason. The next generation, who have been exposed to the idea of tolerence for gay rights in public schools for the last 5 to 10 years, will provide the support from the heterosexual community that is needed to finally end this discrimination. We're just not there yet.
"Same-sex partners fear having their relationship known, and therefore they want to be able to hide behind a shield - one that uses the word 'marriage' to have others regard them as most likely being a heterosexual couple."I do not believe it is a fear of knowledge, but of what some may do with that knowledge. I believe this fear is justified and serious and not to be dismissed.
Further I also disagree that marriage is a necessarily public thing, in the sense that it need not be made knowable to all for it to be. There is inherent risk in any loss of privacy in the same way that one's address is a matter of public record, but one would not want preditors to know where the offspring are kept.
It is one thing to believe in the rule of law, it is quite another to rely upon it for personal protection. I would not call this a lie, I would call it privacy.
Because of this I would not claim that gay rights advocates need be anti-religion when it is equally likely that they are simply defending their own. From this I see the conflict over the term marriage as only necessary due to the lack of a mechanism for "unlisted" marriages. Since such unlisted marriages are of little or no use to a majority, they would not pass a vote. It is from reasoning to this conclusion (and a few others) that the proposition arose.
I think there should be substantial penalties for homosexuals who falsely present themselves in a traditional marriage and later (after the children are procreated) make known their secret life.I agree. However, this is not unique to homosexuals. Hetersexuals have also been known to lead "secret lives" which have a very similarly injurious effect. It may just be more noticable when it happens in the manner you have described.
This proposal will deal with each of these circumstances. For example, one could agree with one's partner on the consequences for such behaivor in advance and have it recorded and made binding by force of law through a simple process. Furthermore, one could agree to expose all relationships recorded in the system with one's partner, and this would then be verifiable to that partner, yet still private from others.
Creating these social incentives to use the system (or competing and compatible interconnected systems) is an element of the engine I expect to drive its success and adoption.
Thank you for continuing to engage in this discussion.
"A rational person would have more to fear from the private aspects of a homosexual commitment, than of making public the fact that they are in a homosexual commitment."I understand the statistical probabilities based on historical data could reasonably lead one to this conclusion.
Consider that the risks of spousal abuse are necessarily accepted by anyone entering a relationship they have chosen for themselves. Documenting the penalties for such behavior in a personalized social contract, may ultimately serve to deter some of it. Certainly the tool will allow a more swift execution of the remediation when it does not deter it via automated DMRO document processing. This should assist gay and straight relationships of all types where a domicile is shared.
Consider also that the risks of predatory sexual prejudice are not easily measured by statistics based on historical data in our society simply because there is currently no public record of same sex couples. Creating an institution of a governmental “Gay Marriage” distinct from that of “Marriage” would create such a public record. In any case the statistical risk is not as material to the market as the perceived risk. For conflict resolution to last, it is not enough that people are safe, they must also feel safe, or the conflict will be perpetuated due to fear, irrespective of the “rationality” of that feeling.
Furthermore, there is no assurance that once homosexuals are easily identified using records in the public domain that there will not be some segment of society that uses this new information for nefarious purposes. The current anonymity and privacy is protective in a way that is not preserved with a public registry of same sex unions. This requires me to do it as a private enterprise with privacy-preserving links to the government, where necessary. Even if we were discussing this proposition 50 years from now and had data on crimes perpetuated based on such data in the public record, the pendulum of social acceptance might still swing back against them some day, or extremists outside our culture with easy access to this data could use it against them. Whether these concerns are considered rational by those who do not share them in is not material to those who would bear them. I perceive this caution as a driving factor for them for the conflict (and it becomes an unnecessary one using the technological model I propose).
I wouldn't belabor this point, except to show how the proposal is intended to ameliorate some of the risks of both anti-religious behavior perpetrated by homosexuals (whether or not any such behavior exists, it is the perception by some that it does), and anti-homosexual behavior perpetuated by some religions (same qualifier). The point is that there is conflict by one group against the other, using our governments as the weapons and this costs something for all of us. This conflict is mutually destructive and partially fueled by this potentially unnecessary problem. If I am wrong about this, then I am over-estimated the market for what I propose. From focus group discussions I have held, I believe I am not wrong regarding this concern as held in the gay community.
I believe that the goal of a more harmonious and civil society can be fostered by technological tools for personal relationship management, which can be enforced by rule of law when necessary. In assessing the extent these tools can be supported by a market for them in the private sector, this appears as one of the strong market drivers for the gay community. It will be critical to the success of the endeavor to address the market of that community as it is currently expected to make up a disproportionately large segment of the users, and employees, as compared to its representation in the general population.
Marriage is and always has been a matter of public disclosure.
Not so much. Many people become legally married and only later have a religious ceremony to commemorate it, others do so completely privately and do not ever record it in government documents to preserve privacy. Also, marriage relationships are not the only type I hope to serve with this technology. The garden variety of partnerships will include both those meant for public disclosure and private ones.
I do agree that the point of the marriage ceremony is to publicly proclaim our love in our community and make binding vows under the symbols we hold most dear. Until now there has never been a public record of same-sex unions. It is a new threat as perceived by the gay community and I believe this is the primary (perhaps sole) practical reason for the use of the term “married” rather than some other separate but equal institution recorded in state documents which easily distinguishes them apart. I do not hope to address the cultural battle over the word marriage with this project other than to reduce this practical motivator for what the religious community perceives as an attack. The meaning of the word marriage will continue to be defined by those who use it, however I will expect to see a reduction in its use (misuse?) due to the removal of this practical concern from the gay community. One less reason for the conflict ought to reduce it.
There are some people who have simply jumped on the bandwagon because they want to marginalize religion. There are some that want something for gays. Regardless of their motivation, the debate is clearly one that diminishes the religious aspects of marriage and thus it is anti-religion.Agreed, by dividing these two groups and by satisfying “those that just want something for gays” with the technology, the others have no bandwagon to ride upon. It is my love for gay people and for religious people and for technologists and for private enterprise, and for fostering stable productive relationships which reduce unnecessary conflict in our society that motivates me in this endeavor.
the homosexuals are not held accountable for fear of claims of discrimination. The heterosexuals who cheat are. The penalties for entering marriage when one is married are fairly substantial.Accountability will be increased for everyone to an equal level in this plan. I believe that the gay rights community would also like more accountability for its members and does not enjoy those who hide behind their sexual orientation to escape accountability.
I do agree that the point of the marriage ceremony is to publicly proclaim our love in our community and make binding vows under the symbols we hold most dear. Until now there has never been a public record of same-sex unions. It is a new threat as perceived by the gay community and I believe this is the primary (perhaps sole) practical reason for the use of the term “married” rather than some other separate but equal institution recorded in state documents which easily distinguishes them apart.ModDem - this is a good point. My suggestion on this is that the term "marriage" be reserved for religion and that the term "civil union" or whatever, be the non-gender specific term assigned to the civil law that acknowledges the legal entity and assigns the rights of a "married couple". I don't think the gay community is attached to terminology.
So, my marriage would really be a civil union only since I was not married in a religious ceremony. From others I've talked to that also were not married under the umbrella of a religion, the term civil union is fine with them too. The problem is that even giving up the term marriage, people like Ann will still feel threatened by the concept of same-sex marriage.
So you agree with changing the legal term to be "civil union" instead of "marriage"?
Just so I'm really clear, are you saying that you have no problem with a "civil union" that allowed for same-sex couples? That works for me. And it takes a lot of work off of ModDem's desk. Lets start a campaign that takes the word "marriage" out of any civil/legal context and let that term mean a religious ceremony or a religious union.
Just change the name at the top of the form from "marriage license application" to "civil union application" and remove the gender restrictions in the language of the current law.
I've been saying I am married for quite a while now so it might take me a bit to always remember that I am "civil-unioned" instead, but I'll keep trying.
It is my understanding that homosexual couples can currently create such an agreement with a lawyer.Well that's not exactly true. Yes, you can pay a lawyer to draw up an agreement that defines a relationship. But it can not convey benefits that the government defines as being only provided to "married spouses". So, paying a lawyer to draft a contract and signing it is NOT AT ALL equivalent to a "civil union license" (formerly known as a marriage license) issued by the government.
Keeping the "marriage" word and "holy matrimony" for the specific case of a man+woman...Yep, marriage would just be the religious part of it. They would file the same "civil union" license as same-sex couples with the courthouse. The government doesn't need to know if there was a religious marriage ceremony or not. Same as now, the form just needs to be signed by a designated religious officiant or judge.
All these private contracts you both refer to is fine if you want to bother with all that stuff, but the civil government side of this should be minimal, straightforward, and fair.
Specifically, what are those? Excellent question, Ann. I was looking for an official state website yesterday (in case this came up) but couldn't find a good summary page. Most of the detail is scattered throughout the various codes. If I have time tomorrow I'll look to see if I can provide an official webite link listing the rights and responsibilities that are conveyed to the "married(civilly-unioned)" entity. In general, they are such things as community property and probate laws, the right to act on behalf of a disabled spouse, various federal benefits such as survivor benfits, even bankruptcy rules. It also includes responsibilities such as joint and several liability for all debts incurred while married.
Just all the same stuff you and I both with our husbands have as "civilly unioned" folks under the law.
That's all this issue is about. So, if we change the government part of this to be "civil unions" and forever strike the word "marriage" from the government dictionary, can you support the same-sex civil union issue?
You can still have your own boutique contract that could further define legal requirements of the marriage* in a contract that, if ever needed, could be used in a divorce or other legal issue, just as pre-nuptual agreements are used today. That contract would really just replace that document. People would not be required to have one, but could choose from ModDem's templates if wanted.
Sorry Ann. Wrong, and in two different ways. One, those rights are only conveyable from the state or federal government. A person is NOT able to draft a contract that states that social security survivor benefits are to be paid, nor can you draft a contract that states that your unmarried to partner does not have to meet inheritance rules for non-spouses, nor is community property created by any party other than the state. Second, there is a summary of these rights available in my state. I was handed a small pamphlet with these rights explained when I got my marriage license. I'm looking to find that same document online.
Was this pamphlet on marriage rights and civil unions the one you were seeking? This one is from the Human Rights Campaign. I've seen others though.
Henry Hyde (R - IL) posed the same question Ann wrote, but as a member of the House of Representatives he asked the General Accounting Office to provide an answer in 1996. At the time the GAO found 1049 federal rights and responsibilities conferred by marriage in the US Federal Civil Code and wrote them out in those 75 pages. Each of the states confer additional ones through their code, as do many counties, and cities. I have seen other lists ranging from 1400 rights to 11 of the more important. With the DOMA marriage and spouse are proscribed terms referring to opposite sex unions of one man and one woman.
Many of these are rights contractable, many are not currently. Some apply only for the "married" or "spouse", others use terms such as "survivors" "relative" "family" and "household" and could thus be applied to some of the other garden variety of relationships. Currently there is not an authorized independant and private registry. This is the market I initially hope to address.
Hey ModDem.
That wasn't the one I was looking for, but the pamphlet at your first link is an excellent summary of federal rights AND in addressing many of the concerns Ann raises. I had forgotten about the eligibility for the FMLA issue.
I haven't read all 75 pages yet on the second link but it looks like an excellent summary of relevant laws.
Thanks for finding those.
I did find the document I was looking for but it didn't really provide the detail I thought it did (its been 12 years since I last saw this pamphlet) but here's the link anyway. Ann - I am very anxious to hear your comments about the first link. I think it addresses many of your concerns.
Moddem and Kris,
Yes they do answer a lot of questions but I only got to look at them very briefly. I'll try to post you a response tonight. I didn't want to appear rude, so I'm just letting you know "I'm listening to you."
On a side note, I'm not going to post to Iraq the Model anymore because the bloggers are too aggressive and nasty - Lee and Neon have set a time and date for a fight and even driving directions. That's too much. When it's just words that's one thing, but when they threaten violence and shooting at eachother - that's going to far. I tell my kids to walk away when people act or state things like that so I'm going to do that also.
I've blogged another blog at cyber_pirate with some information about the earthquake in Iran.
-Ann
Post a Comment
<< Home