An opinion on Gay Marriage Rights
Since I live in metropolitan San Francisco, I can’t throw a stick without hitting a “No on prop 8″ sign. With California’s shiny new constitutional amendment banning gay marriage I’ve been faced with a conundrum.
On one hand: “Marriage”, as a term, means very specific things to very specific people. Some of them are quite upset about it being co-opted by those of the same sex wishing to ratify and validate their union. While I don’t agree with these folks, being a real conservative means not telling other people what to do or how to live their lives.
On the other hand: the 14th amendment to the US Constitution is pretty clear on this subject:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Equal protection under the laws. That’s the tricky bit. If there’s one thing we learned from the civil rights movement is that separate but equal does not work. I would love to grant gay and lesbian couples “civil unions” and be done with the issue. Sadly, it’s simply not enough. We cannot grant some couples the right to marry while revoking it from others if we’re to follow the tenets of the 14th amendment. (We’ll leave the subjects of fairness and decency for another time.)
The Solution?
No state or government entity should issue “marriage” licenses at all. Instead, marriages for none, civil unions for all. It creates a system of equal protection under the law.
If religious organizations wish to protect their views on the sanctity of marriage, they may do so outside the realm of Government. If gay couples wish to marry and create a family, they may also do this outside the realm of Government. Governments are not moral entities…they are simply not equipped to tell us right from wrong. (I’m sure I’ll write at length about this subject at a later point)
I submit to you that the constitutional amendment should, if it were written by actual conservatives instead of obnoxious theocratic folks, have said something to the effect of “The State of California shall issue no licenses of marriage. Instead, all unions between men or woman shall be considered “Civil Unions” and be given equal standing under the law”
There, that wasn’t so hard now was it?
P.S. hello everyone… responses to your great comments can be found here …if you like what you read, subscribe to the RSS feed here
Very creative thinking. Good for you. If they want church and state fully separated, this will do it.
fiddlerpaul said this on November 12, 2008 at 05:20
You’re right about that. I agree whole-heartedly. I doubt you’ll get much support on this from either side of the debate, unfortunately.
Nathaniel White said this on November 12, 2008 at 05:21
Absolutely correct. I have always said that marriage is a religious construct, but governments need to develop a non-discriminatory framework to recognize a union of two individuals for legal, not religious, purposes.
ReasonandCompassion said this on November 12, 2008 at 05:27
If you are a conservative and I agree with you entirely… that makes ME a conservative. I feel dirty.
Sierra said this on November 12, 2008 at 05:42
As a conservative/libertarian and a straight man, I completely agree. Gay couples getting married do not diminish or have any impact in any way on my or anyone else’s marriage.
Dave said this on November 12, 2008 at 05:48
Quite well done, chap. Now convince the fifty states to go along and you’ll’ve done it!
g.m. palmer said this on November 12, 2008 at 05:57
Do you honestly think that straight supremacist organizations such as the Mormon church will allow for such a policy to be implemented?
I can already see the cries of “destroying the very fabric of our society”.
This is politically intractable.
Steve said this on November 12, 2008 at 06:02
I agree with you on the civil union answer to this difficult issue. However, as good as it may sound to say that we cannot legislate morality (or in your words the government is not equipped to tell us right from wrong) then how can it tell us that sex with a minor is “wrong.” I believe it is wrong and I’m guessing you do too. However, while it’s true that most of us in 2008 would agree that sex with a minor is wrong, and is therefore currently uncontested, as our society slips further and further morally in years to come (yes, that is my opinion based on our past and the nature of humanity) this issue and others will be challenged. I personally do not have a solution, I just thought I’d take your comment to its logical conclusion and see what you think.
Rita said this on November 12, 2008 at 06:07
Your solution seems fine, until one realizes that social conservatives will never go for it. Not only is it seen as immoral to acknowledge gay marriage, but also anything that even resembles marriage, such as civil unions.
Eric said this on November 12, 2008 at 06:12
Great idea! I’ve always thought that today’s version of marriage is just one of the many rituals that cultures have created over time, nothing more. And rituals have been changed and discontinued, so why should marriage be any different? My suggestion has always been to allow short-term marriages like 7 year or 10 year unions. That way, people could agree on a contract and have the option of renewal after the contract’s up. Of course, all the details would have to be sorted out first, so lawyers won’t have to worry about losing any business from these new contracts.
Just an idea…
Tracie said this on November 12, 2008 at 06:28
I’ve been advocating this for yeas now, but the idea has not received any traction. There are certainly problems with this. If you think there is a “moral” outrage now over gay marriage, just wait until you hear what the public has to say about “abolishing” marriage. I can imagine it now.
That said, I believe putting this idea out there changes the topography of the discussion. Civil Unions were HORRIBLE (according to some people) when Vermont first passed them. Now, they seem like a sensible solution. Maybe if someone in a leadership position were to seriously propose this people would change their views some and not be as opposed to same sex couples getting married.
Either way, it’s certainly worth talking about.
So you have an idea where this comment is coming from…I’m an attorney licensed in MA and VT, consider myself quite liberal on most issues, but also have a strong state’s rights bent. I practice law part time, at night, because I do not wish to work for a tradition firm. During the day I’m a developer and QA Manager for a small startup in the Boston area.
Adam Bellusci said this on November 12, 2008 at 06:33
I couldn’t agree more. It seems that the major worry that churches have over this is that they see what they consider to be a religious rite (marriage) being changed, so ultimately its semantics. Removing the word “marriage” from the legislation and making it entirely about the legal protections rather than the ceremony or commitment should defuse the issue, or at least reveal the religious right’s deeper bigotry and reduce support for gay marriage bans.
James said this on November 12, 2008 at 06:34
totally agree
john said this on November 12, 2008 at 06:35
word
tara said this on November 12, 2008 at 06:38
agreed. marriage implies religion or personal beliefs. the gov shouldn’t be dealing in marriage at all with separation of church and state clause. It’s been developed as a wedge issue to divide and conquer the voters. All it takes is a leader who has the courage and know how to implement what you are saying in this article and this will go through. People support equal rights by a vast majority. But people don’t want their religion messed with.
Matt K. said this on November 12, 2008 at 06:50
Absolutely brilliant.
Kyle said this on November 12, 2008 at 07:01
Common sense!
I like the bumpersticker phrase “Marriage for none. Civil Unions for all.” I actually think that this is a “meme” that could take off.
Tim said this on November 12, 2008 at 07:03
One step beyond that, a license by definition is governmental permission to do something that without said permission would illegal. Marriage is not illegal, thus there is no reason for a state to issue licenses for it.
Dan said this on November 12, 2008 at 07:06
That is exactly my (unpopular) opinion on the subject.
There are some details to work out because the law has had a few centuries to codify in special “marriage” rules and exceptions that may need to be revisited. You know, like not being forced to testify against your spouse, and immigration concepts like “family reunification.”
All of this starts us down the path of if and how we recognize polygamous unions and afford them realization of their due rights.
iconophobic said this on November 12, 2008 at 07:08
THANK YOU! Finally, a real conservative who doesn’t want the Government invading people’s lives.
Steve said this on November 12, 2008 at 07:08
[...] to marriage rights: Civil Unions for all, Marriages for none submitted by haseman to politics [link] [73 [...]
A real conservative’s solution to marriage rights: Civil Unions for all, Marriages for none - The WebZappr said this on November 12, 2008 at 07:21
I was just talking to a friend about this the other day. It would seem that the various state and federal governments within the US(I can only speak for the US atm) have really adopted the use of a religious term.
If the government(s) accepted unions from various religious institutions for the current use of “marriage”, and stopped using religious terms within their legalese, it would be a very different matter today.
my2cents said this on November 12, 2008 at 07:23
I wrote about this exact idea, several times. It’s been a sticking point with me for many years. Marriage is a religious institution, civil union is a state recognized license – and never the twain shall meet. You can get one without the other, or you can get both. One recognizes your “marriage” in the church or faith of your choosing, the other recognizes your “civil union” in the eyes of the government.
I honestly don’t understand why the idea is so unfathomable but it’s admirable that you’ve come to the same conclusion as this bleeding heart liberal. Spot on!
xadrian said this on November 12, 2008 at 07:27
Thanks for putting into such eloquent words what I’ve been trying to convey to my friends and family for months, perhaps even years. Nicely done.
Amy said this on November 12, 2008 at 07:27
I’m glad that other people are thinking the same way. I also came up with the same solution in my blog. I personally think this will solve majority of the debates happening currently.
Jang said this on November 12, 2008 at 07:38
I’ve been saying this for years. If marriage is a religious institution, that’s great! Keep it in the fucking church, and out of our laws. Everyone should be domestic partners, or single, or whatever the hell they want. But keep the religious crap out of the laws. It’s that simple, congrats on getting there!
eman said this on November 12, 2008 at 07:40
Exactly the position I’ve been advocating as well. I’m guessing this is one of those cases where it’s much too sensible and simple for it to ever work
Mayank said this on November 12, 2008 at 08:16
Well put.
I would like to address the comparison between sex with a minor and gay marriage. I have never heard of an argument that gay marring is harmful to gay people. The argument against gay marriage tends to be more along the lines of “we do not want to support there lifestyle”. There is no victim, or damage done in gays couples getting the same rights as married strait couples. On the other hand, there are fairly excepted viewpoints that sexualizing children is harmful to there development. I don’t know that this is a fact, but it makes sense to me to have laws to protect children from possible harm.
Nero said this on November 12, 2008 at 08:22
[...] leave a comment » http://littlecog.com/2008/11/12/an-opinion-on-gay-marriage-rights/ [...]
All unions are civil. « 21st Century Digital Boy said this on November 12, 2008 at 08:27
hear hear. Wonderfully put.
Caroline said this on November 12, 2008 at 08:33
I had this conversation yesterday. great job!
Albert said this on November 12, 2008 at 08:44
Personally, I think if two consenting adults want to be togeter then so be it. Who am I to judge. its their lives and they need to be happy.
jess
http://www.anolite.echoz.com
Jess Weilly said this on November 12, 2008 at 08:48
However, as good as it may sound to say that we cannot legislate morality (or in your words the government is not equipped to tell us right from wrong) then how can it tell us that sex with a minor is “wrong.”
Simple. Governance is a system of rights and privileges and rules of conduct for all members living in a society. Certain rights require a certain degree of mental competency since those rights carry responsibilities. Thus, said rights are only granted when certain conditions are met. At the moment, the right to consensual sex is granted to consenting *adults*, which the law defines as a certain age limit, because we wish to ensure that the parties involved are fully aware of the consequences of their actions.
Personally, a citizenship/maturity test to be declared an adult would be a better requirement IMO, and it would keep out the riff-raff without age-discrimination, but obviously that carries costs.
Sandro said this on November 12, 2008 at 09:03
I”ve been saying the same thing since this whole thing started (about the time of the 2000 vote)
I’ve also made numerous attempts to talk to both campaigns and tried to take it up the totem pole of politics to reach someone who can make a difference…
Thus far, no one has responded or even taken those ideas into consideration.
If there was more of us writing and more of us trying to come up with a solution that pleases most (gay and straight) maybe we could get somewhere but as of right now, I’ve felt like I’ve just been one voice and one opinion doing whatever I can and failing miserably.
Melissa said this on November 12, 2008 at 09:03
Welcome to the whacko far-left ultra-liberal side of the debate. How do I know this is the whacko, far-left, ultra-liberal side of the debate? Because this was the position taken by Howard Dean four years ago, and we all know he represents the whacko, far-left, ultra-liberal side of the Democratic party.
Brian Hurt said this on November 12, 2008 at 09:05
I’ve read this idea a lot, and it seems to be gaining some traction in the Bay Area. I’ve had a number of conversations on this topic with friends and have given it some very serious thought, and I’d like to share my perspective with you.
The problem here is that once you start trying to present the idea of striking marriage from all legal language to people who don’t already agree with you, it’s a tough sell, to put it mildly.
What you say: “Since the issue you seem to have is your perceived ’sanctity’ of marriage, let’s remove the offending language and let the state handle what we’ll call ‘civil unions’ and let marriage remain as a non-legal status between you and your church; you get to keep your sanctity and everyone’s happy.”
What they hear: “You won’t let gay folks get married? Fine, we’ll fix it so no one gets to be ‘married’ anymore. You can have the same separate-but-equal gruel you’ve doled out for the queer community. Now we’re all equal, comrades! You happy now? This is why we can’t have nice things!”
Speaking as an agnostic, there’s nothing more I’d like to see than getting government out of the business of any and all other religious rites. However, that’s a hard row to hoe, and it will take many years to get to the point where that is conceivably possible. In the meantime, wouldn’t it be so much easier to come to a legal consensus through the courts for a definition of marriage that’s inclusive and consistent with the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution? My perception is that most folks in the queer community are less interested with redefining the standards or rights of the straight community than they are with having equal access to all the same rights and privileges. Getting government out of the marriage business would be fine, but until that point it seems like a better effort to just help the queer kids get married
Frank Jacobs said this on November 12, 2008 at 09:06
This is EXACTLY what I have been saying since this whole “Gay Marriage” non-issue hit the news, though I arrived at it from a slightly different angle. Here’s my take on this:
Marriage has two basic aspects–a spiritual connection through whatever church or spiritual group a couple prefers, and a legal contract.
Now, anyone can enter into a contract, even those who have not achieved the age of legal majority (they just cannot be held to any contract). So marriage should be left up to the church/spiritual group of which the marriage participants are members, and the contract aspect, or “civil union”, should be left to the government. In the end, it becomes another aspect of separation of church and state.
Cynthia said this on November 12, 2008 at 09:09
“My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word “marriage,” which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would’ve come up. I would’ve supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.”
-Barack Obama, 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007
mallio said this on November 12, 2008 at 09:09
In some countries, like Germany, this is actually how you get married. You go to the courthouse and perform the civil ceremony. That makes it legal. Then you’re free to go off to any church or whatever and perform whatever ceremony makes your religion happy. But it’s not necessary.
zydeco100 said this on November 12, 2008 at 09:11
I agree with what the author of the article says. But, it is not just a 14th amendment issue. The state is violating separation of the church and state. It is issuing a license on a religious sacrament (marriage). But what also needs to be said is equal rights for all (gay or not). What about reverse discrimination on single people? The gays are asking and getting rights that single people don’t have. A couple that is not married is not entitled to the same things as married people. Examples- tax breaks, company benefits, special discounts (on insurance) … So I say no special rights for any of these groups. Treat everyone the same.
Jose Perez said this on November 12, 2008 at 09:22
I am in agreement with the original author.
And with iconophobic above: ‘There are some details to work out because the law has had a few centuries to codify in special “marriage” rules and exceptions that may need to be revisited. You know, like not being forced to testify against your spouse, and immigration concepts like “family reunification.”
All of this starts us down the path of if and how we recognize polygamous unions and afford them realization of their due rights.’
And would extend this by saying that once you’ve accepted the idea of civil unions as a contract which conveys certain rights and responsibilites, there will be pressure to augment who can be parties to those contracts. You will soon run into resistance beyond “legalizing polygamy” to “legalizing” incest and other kinds of relationships that a lot of people will object to. I think we will eventually head in this direction, but I don’t think it will be easy.
fogtop said this on November 12, 2008 at 09:43
DISAGREE.
While it makes sense on its face, taking the word marriage out of government implicitly hands the debate over to those social conservatives that want to delegitimatize the term when it comes to homosexual couples. HERE, I have a BETTER idea. How about the state allows for MARRIAGE for everyone and if your bigoted church doesn’t want to recognize it, that’s fine. We won’t make them. That keeps the State out of Religion and Religion out of the State.
(And what about couples that want to inherit the term marriage and all the historical/societal weight that comes with it, but don’t want to be married in a church as they are not religious?)
MIKEH said this on November 12, 2008 at 09:43
This is the only logical solution to the issue, one I’ve been advocating for years, but I doubt anyone has the cajones to see it through, even the newly Democrat controlled government.
Milliner said this on November 12, 2008 at 09:44
Completely agree.
As a matter of fact I have two pieces of paper that represent my marriage. One is filed in a court house, the other is filed with the Catholic Church. In my father-in-laws view, a marriage outside the Catholic Church wouldn’t have been any better than a civil union. And, he’s right to an extent. If the tradition of marriage is something worth saving, then church’s ought to own it, and differentiate between what God has united v. what was united by a judge, JotP, or Elvis.
Let marriage be something for church’s to recognize, and every other union is simply civil.
Djyrn said this on November 12, 2008 at 09:57
Bravo! This is exactly the same conclusion I’ve reached. Let the theocrats out there have their definition of marriage as provided by their church, but in terms of the benefits that the government provides, simply make civil unions that have tax benefits, power of attorney, etc.
I agree though that social conservatives would never go for it. Sad.
Mike said this on November 12, 2008 at 09:59
There’s no issue of equality in the marriage debate whatsoever. Homosexuals have as much right to engage in heterosexual marriages as heterosexuals do. They have equal access to the institution but they do not have the right to modify the institution. Just like African American parents had the right to send their kids to the same schools as caucasian parents but not the right to demand that, for instance, they be allowed to go to school at night instead of day (unless they could get the majority to agree with them). Similarly, I don’t have a right” to drive my bike on the interstate, because it is in the nature of the institution to only allow motor vehicles. Now from a utilitarian perspective society may decide to extend the right of marriage to homosexual couples, polygamous and polyamorous groups, communes, etc., but this is no issue of rights. It is purely an argument over the the ideal structure for a social institution, which we can all admit is somewhat arbitrary to begin with.
Luke said this on November 12, 2008 at 10:08
As someone so far to the left I’m almost a Socialist, this plan is exactly what I’ve been telling anyone who would listen for years. Isn’t this what they do in Europe? Everyone gets a Civil Union, probably called marriage, and then go to the church, a completely different task, and have the religious ceremony, if they so choose?
kimwim said this on November 12, 2008 at 10:08
I was reading something earlier on reddit by someone who had a similar idea. I like the idea you laid out – It’s an interesting proposition. cheers.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/7clc1/keith_olbermann_moving_special_comment_on_prop_8/c06b0a7
anvilchor said this on November 12, 2008 at 10:10
There was an article in Reason in 2003 or 2004 that had a very similar take on this issue. I like the thought process but I’m not sure it would go over long term. I think instead we need to educate individuals that marriage does not have a universal definiation.
Utimatley, churches do not have to marry or recongize any marriage they don’t want to. I grew up Catholic & have a cousin who could not get married for the 2nd time in the church because the Catholic church didn’t recongize it as legitimate. No one would ever take that away from a church.
Racy said this on November 12, 2008 at 10:11
When I was living in that den of liberal socialism, The Netherlands, I was shocked to see a beautiful woman, and a dapper fellow coming out of the city hall into a Rolls. They had just been “united civilly”. Subsequently they were able to go to a church, or not, that was the right, but as far as the State was concerned, the matter was resolved.
It seems your proposal is in line with this precedent.
Steven said this on November 12, 2008 at 10:25
My home country of New Zealand approved a civil union law a few years ago that neatly sidesteps these issues, too, by extending the same rights to all couples who’ve been together for a minimum period: gay, straight, spinsters who’ve lived together for convenience without any kind of sexual relationship, brother and sister, whatever. No implications about the relationship, other than concluding that two people who live together for a while obviously care about each other in some way.
robert said this on November 12, 2008 at 10:27
I’ve been a proponent of this view for years, and I’m glad that I’m not alone in it. It isn’t an issue of sexuality or sin. In the eyes of secular law, there isn’t meant to be any difference. Well said!
Jared said this on November 12, 2008 at 11:02
Very good point, I’m adopting this as my own opinion on the matter
Chris said this on November 12, 2008 at 11:28
I personally believe this could be a perfectly agreeable solution. For reference, I’m a transgendered woman, deeply in love with another transwoman, which basically leaves us with the option of never marrying should we choose (as the laws exist where we live) or having to play legal games by having one of us legally alter our gender and the other skipping the process altogether. Not a particularly thrilling idea considering the necessity for paperwork to match one’s appearance in our society.
Personally, obviously I wish that marriage would exist was equally applicable. However, by removing the religious connotations from what is basically an agreement between two people, it’s a great solution. My partner and I would be free to garner the legal protections provided to straight couples, we wouldn’t have to sweat the details about gender, and we would be free to a marriage ceremony of our own choosing (personally, I’d love to have a ceremony just between the two of us, no one else involved…not possible considering the necessity of a religious figure to sign off on the documentation).
Not to mention, if we chose to ’sneak by’ legally and marry in the manner I described above…wouldn’t it diminish an event that, at least in our case, represents love and devotion, by having to have one of us labeled as a ‘husband’?
Kudos to you, I applaud your forward thinking. Proof that it doesn’t particularly matter about what a person’s political stance is, if they’re willing to listen to the other side just a bit.
Paige Aran said this on November 12, 2008 at 11:31
I really think this is where we will end up, although I fear out horizon might be 20+ years. That doesn’t mean we should stop doing anything, but rather that we need to continue to move in this direction.
The California supreme court, and my understand is all or most other courts that have considered this issue, really came down to the notion that the government shouldn’t be trying to maintain 2 separate institutions. The solution that is currently favored by the interested parties seems to be to call this marriage, but that seems to make the issue a religious one. The government clearly should not be involved in enforcing any sort of religious institutions.
While I do understand how some might make the argument that if the government completely divorces itself from legislating morality then taken to the limits it can’t make laws that say sex with minors is wrong, I think that argument is missing something.
-> The laws that protect minors are PROTECTIONS not prohibitions. <-
The concept that minors are not yet capable of fully defending themselves from the world and those who prey upon them is pretty universally accepted. Certainly there is debate about the definition of the status, but that aside, the key concept here is that minors are a group that require special protection in order to have a fair shot at life, and that is what statutory rape laws do.
Similarly, gays and lesbians are a minority group whose rights will be infringed by the majority if they are not protected, and that’s what “equal protection” laws are all about.
Tom said this on November 12, 2008 at 11:34
I’m so happy someone else has come to the same conclusion I have. And here’s how to get the religious community to go along with it (at least it’s worth a try):
Marriage is a sacrament. So are baptism, communion, etc. etc.
If you give the secular government the authority to restrict the rights of religious bodies to offer one sacrament, what’s to stop us from giving the government the authority to restrict other sacraments?
The separation of Church and State protects the faith community from the intrusion of government every bit as much as it protects the government from intrusion by religion.
If more religious leaders realized this, perhaps they would be more persuadable on these kinds of issues.
I hope.
Anyway, feel free to spread this idea around.
Fran Fruit said this on November 12, 2008 at 11:46
I said the same thing. Frankly, I am surprised this has never been argued in court in discrimination cases before.
Matthew1 said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:04
This has been exactly my feeling on the issue for a long time. Marriage should be purely cultural, not a governmental classification.
Ian said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:27
I’m glad somebody else has said this and has found people to listen. As a gay man living in San Diego, I’ve been saying a lot lately that we should just strike the word “marriage” from our laws, and make “civil union” licenses for everyone. Since the fight seems to be about the word marriage, let’s get rid of the word. I fully support that, as long as I’m treated equally under the law as anyone else.
JasonH said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:38
PS – I would love to see this as a ballot measure in the next election. Anyone know how to do that? I’d be willing to get involved.
JasonH said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:39
Just what I’ve thought since the whole kafuffle begin.
When my parents married in Hungary, in 1949, they went to city hall for the civil wedding, the one that affects your tax status, benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc. A day or two later they went to church for their religious wedding, the one that “united them in the sight of God”.
Tom said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:41
Ha! You are up against the infamous MARRIAGE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! They have lobbyists who look like beautiful virgin brides in massive, billowy chiffon wedding dresses, and they cry A LOT if they don’t get their way. BEAT THAT.
Seriously – I am a happily married het and I do think you’re right on the $$. I’d rather do without my meaningless legal status (I will love my wife of almost twenty years regardless, no more, no less than any gay couple) than deny ANYONE their legit legal standing and benefits thereof.
Brian in Seattle said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:49
[...] November 12, 2008 by Jessica I could live with this. [...]
On the subject of “gay marriage”… « Thoughts on life by mother&wife said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:50
That’s exactly how it works here in the US, too. (However, most people do the church/ceremony first then the legal document.) Regardless if you get married in a church or not, you still have to get the legal document from the local courthouse.
Believe it or not, many non-religious and non-Christian couples in the US get married, too. So I don’t understand how the term marriage got taken over by US religious. Even in the Bible, polygamy was the norm for marriage in its origin/OT, does that Christians need to support polygamy over monogamy? Monogamy is a fairly new concept when used in the context of religious dogma.
How about if the Christian churches just come up with a new word, so we don’t need to go back and change all of the dictionaries to repurpose the word ‘marriage’ as a religious term. It would be near impossible to go back through all of the existing marriages (religious or non-religious, same-sex or not same-sex) and reclassify everyone as either a Civil Union or marriage. That’s just too much paperwork and legal turmoil.
Jim said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:55
I agree 100%, and have been suggesting this for a few months now. Are there any legal problems with this? If not, how do we set about getting this on the ballot?
-S
Simeon said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:55
I’ve been saying this for years.
danaofthebells said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:55
Fucking brilliant post. As a Centrist, I couldn’t agree with your statement on ‘true conservatives’ more. Bravo.
Scott S. said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:56
The federal government would need to get on board for this to work. According to http://lesbianlife.about.com//cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
“Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples”
There are many other benefits that occur at the state level and apply only to marriage. This is, in part, why proponents of gay marriage demand it must be a marriage (it’s easier to get a state to pass a ‘radical’ law then the federal government).
bobpaul said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:56
let’s just keep marriage for man/woman, and come up with new term for gays, like “joinnage”
c said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:57
No! You’re taking my right as a man to marry a woman!
Eric Moritz said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:57
I agree as well with what I read here. Ultimately, as others have noted, it’s about the reptile-brains of toxic belief addicts whose masks of piety are slipping off their psychopathic faces and who really wish to play the victim because people stand up for themselves against their hamfisted attempts to foist their addiction on the rest of us.
I feel like a minority within a minority within a minority here, though. I see there’s a need for some sort of collective intervention on these people who are deeply wounded by authoritarian religious structures that have hooked them as surely as a pusher gets someone on crack, as Hostess gets someone addicted to Twinkies, etc.
We can come up with rational solutions, but I have to say this is something to work toward once we deal with the fire in the basement. I look at Latter-Day pSychopaths and the Catho-Holics in this light, and this is NOT something we can control.
We can’t control it.
We didn’t cause their addictions.
We can’t cure them.
That is up to forces greater than ourselves. And maybe there are people out there who can approach this in a secular manner, but I understand that there is a real pull toward the spiritual that has gotten twisted by certain controlling factions who seem to get off on exploiting these deep fissures in the human consciousness.
Like addicts these are individuals who are BEYOND shaming. They BELIEVE they are RIGHT and not only that RIGHTCHUSSSSSssss (the reptile brain slinks out on that particular Jaysusssssss word!), and because of this we are decidedly
NOT
in the realm of reason. And while this idea (which I too have had–get the gummint outta marr’ge but unfortunately for the forces of reason, “this is what they did in godfersaken France — shudder!”) holds a lot of promise, I feel that it is something to hold in reserve. The whole issue in and of itself is ultimately about the attempt to divide people from each other, as it’s always been.
These people use Christian notions of Jesus, etc., DIAbolically as opposed to SYMbolically–they use it to divide rather than to unify. The logical end of this DIAbolism is ultimately the self-divided against itself. Perhaps that is where it starts? Perhaps this is their misguided attempt to force the outside world MATCh their inside world? I don’t know. But I’ve been pondering this for awhile.
I blogged my own responses about this too, though in my small gander through the responses I’ve read, I doubt my site would interest anyone as it arises from a gay-witch-”post-nation-state” “let’s relocalize now” point-of-view. Still, it was nice to see that a ‘Hawt” post was addressing something I have been athinking.
Blessings to all’s-y’all!
frostwolftfirerose said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:57
That’s a very interesting option that would be much more legally safe and sound and sane.
colombiancoffee said this on November 12, 2008 at 12:58
I think the State should definitely stick to the legal contract side and let the churches/etc deal with the ceremony side
colombiancoffee said this on November 12, 2008 at 13:00
P.S. Also, classifying all religions as the same is unfair to religions other than Christianity. I’m sure some other religions don’t care who gets married or might not even care about it either way. There’s probably even some Christian churches that don’t mind same-sex marriages either. So saying that marriage is pure religious is a disservice to other religions.
Jim said this on November 12, 2008 at 13:01
I’ve been saying this for years. In fact, this idea would actually solve the DOMA issue. Make marriage a symbolic union before God (isn’t it already), and civil unions a governmentally sanctioned contract (with all the legal ramifications). Change the tax and legal forms to show civil unions instead of marriage, and viola, problem solved. DOMA says states don’t have to recognize marriages from other states? No problem. It was a religous thing anyway, so states should care less. Just like states shouldn’t care if someone was baptised, circumsized, born again, or sold their soul to the devil.
B.E. said this on November 12, 2008 at 13:01
Wow. I was just proposing something similar in a conversation with my husband the other day. Did I mention I am a Liberal? *grin* It’s good to see this view from a Conservative. I am so sick of those two terms being bandied about as if they are somehow bad. Thank you for solidifying the point that we can have some similar thoughts on certain matters. Now to get the religious conservatives to keep their religious views out of government…
Franci said this on November 12, 2008 at 13:03
I couldn’t possibly agree more. It has the advantage of divorcing (ha ha) the religious sacrament of marriage from the civil institution. It moves away from the emotionally loaded term “marriage” and signifies that religious institutions should have absolute control over the marriages they perform and recognize — just as it is with baptism and ordination — AND that to allow maximum religious freedom over these matters it is necessary that they have no legal status whatever — again, like baptism.
Bravo.
mike said this on November 12, 2008 at 13:11
The funny thing about Marriage is that it was co-opted by the Church (the only church to exist at the time) during the medieval ages as a response to the collapse of a legalized and institutional Rome. The ’sacred’ acts of marriage only became ’sacramental’ later in history. The Catholic Church filled the power / legal void that was created during the ‘Middle Ages’. In my opinion to say that this issue is a religious one is absurd. Religions are notorious for adapting and expanding their views as civilizations advance. What this appears to me is a struggle of recognition and preservation. One side wants to preserve it’s views (including religious) and the other side wants recognition and equal rights. I say let the churches have their way with their own marriage systems and allows that states their own without having to legislate whether a religious institution can or cannot marry the couple they see fit.
Like in this blog, when the ‘no duh’ argument is brought forth, well, then you see what this battle is really about; it sure as hell isn’t about God.
weneedthisnow said this on November 12, 2008 at 13:12
Well…In reality, marriage is a legal contract. With this in mind, would the State step in to stop people from starting a business together? Or building a building? Or purchasing stock? In truth, the State has no right to keep people from entering into the contractual agreement we loosely call marriage. Now, with this in mind, I ask you…why are religious people (priests, preachers, rabbis) given the right to perform a marriage ceremony at all? Are they deemed able to pass judgment on the legality of a contract? Not so much. A marriage ceremony is really just a gathering of family and friends celebrating.
I do agree that the State should not issue licenses with a religious or moral agenda. So, getting the piece of paper makes two people married and repeating the words….not the party that goes on afterwards. Well..that makes sense. After all, isnt that how we swear in a President? With an oath. The party is after!
sexywhispers said this on November 12, 2008 at 13:13
It’s a good first step, and I’ve been advocating it for years. But I think the ultimate goal should be to put married and single people on the same footing legally. No tax breaks or penalties. No inheritance tax laws (or inheritance tax) that can be manipulated. Make arrangements for hospital visitation rights yourself. Make it so no one is compelled to testify against another. The immigrant issue is the only one in which the government has a reasonable case for interfering, but even that could be dealt with by sponsorship, the same way as it works with employment. Make marriage just another contract, divorce just the enacting of the termination clauses.
Dan D. said this on November 12, 2008 at 13:14
In Canada where I live, civil unions recognized under the various provincial Family Law Acts are not equivalent to marriage unions recognized under the federal Divorce Act. When gay marriage was worked into the Divorce Act this only perpetuated the inequal treatment of couples under the law. Your proposed solution is enticing yet what to do about the “couple” aspect which leaves out family unions of more than two people unrelated by blood? There has been a change in past decades of our perspectives of marriage to allows us to consider childless couples equal to fruitful couples. This is what paved the way to validate same sex unions. In practice there are many people in alternative lifestyle communities who share parenting, sex, social contract obligations and roofs. Here is where the complications of responsibility one person to another show where the difficulties are in legislating human relationships. So while I agree that while invalidating marriage laws may be better than amending them there are so very many other laws in respect of children, property and income sharing that also would need new definitions.
truemuse said this on November 12, 2008 at 13:17
[...] reading about this issue, I came across this article. Having a libertarian slant, the solution prescribed in that article reeks of brilliance to me. [...]
A Conservative Approach to a Progressive Problem | Unintelligent Design said this on November 12, 2008 at 13:18
Yes yes YES! New bumper sticker: “A Marriage is Between a Couple and Their Church”.
A few years back, I was in a car with one other atheist and 2 Christians for 90 minutes and this was our conversation. The Christians were very averse to homosexuals being permitted to “marry”. The believed it was a word reserved for the church. So, this is just a question of what words to use? OK, you can have “marriage” – there you go, it’s yours. But how about the only legally recognized union is a civil union? Marriage doesn’t go away, just the inequality regarding the privileges afforded the married. Our Christian friends agreed that this was a reasonable solution that they would be comfortable with.
My thoughts are that the majority of people who identify as Christian don’t actually want to take away rights from the homosexual, but they are sensitive about the word marriage.
Kris in Portland said this on November 12, 2008 at 13:19
i COMPLETELY agree!
An said this on November 12, 2008 at 13:20
The sad thing is just how Prop 8 was carried out. It was done by fear. All the lies about how voting no on prop 8 would allow gay marriage to be taught in school and you wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. I saw some of “the view” the day after the election, and the hosts on the show were arguing about how if prop 8 had not passed then pastures could be arrested for hate speech and such and dragged out of their own churches. The fact that a innocent morning show such as this could be seriously considering that argument is ridiculous. Its so obvious that that could not happen. It saddens me that the religious right went to such drastic measures to lie and scare people into actually thinking that there was any sort of debate to be had. Gays are people and the constitution clearly gives them the same rights. I am terribly dissapointed in the people of CA for being so ignorant and drinking in such blatant and illogical lies.
Brennen Duck said this on November 12, 2008 at 13:50
You are so right and echo what I have been saying for years. The government should not be in the business of legislating morality nor enforcing the canons of certain religions. Bottom line – there is no reason for marriage at all. People who belong together usually stay together, with or without paper. How about a tax break for long-term relationships (what my mother calls “shacking up”) ???
Michelle Bresnen said this on November 12, 2008 at 13:57
My husband and I had this discussion last night. He really challenged me to think about this and I am glad to be reading this today. It is a good idea, thinking of alternatives helps compromise. He pointed out the same thing, just because I don’t believe in gay marriage doesn’t mean I have the right to tell someone else that they can’t have that opportunity.
Cari said this on November 12, 2008 at 14:21
Well, Little Cog, you’re a little late with this suggestion. But maybe it would work.
What you need to do is get to work to repeal all the state constitutional amendments “defining” marriage as a union of one man and one woman, or prohibiting same sex marriage. Then you need to repeal the federal DOMA. Then you need to revise all the state and federal laws, regulations, and policies that refer to marriage. Then you need to pass laws requiring that civil unions must be recognized as marriages used to be recognized, and prohibiting insurance companies, hospitals, adoption agencies, etc., from discriminating against people because of have a civil union and not a marriage. This is all just off the top of my head, and probably barely scratches the surface of what would actually need to be done to convert the nation from a “marriage” legal standard to a “civil union” legal standard.
If you think all this might take an army of lawyers working day and night for decades, you’re probably right. There is a simpler way – leave our legal code intact, and just eliminate the requirement that a couple must be an opposite sex couple in order to be married – and voila! we have equality before the law, and all our mountains of legal code can remain intact. The churches could then each decide for itself what it wants to call the religious blessing that it adds to the legal relation of marriage, and could decide who it is willing to bestow that religious blessing on.
I know a lot of conservatives are now beginning to say go ahead and give the gays civil unions. I think the truth is, it is just now dawning on them that they have lost this battle – their movement to ban gay marriage is running out of steam, and the other side picking up support every year. It’s just a matter of time till the momentum stops rolling their way and starts going against them. The legal relationship is and always has been called “marriage”, and it will continue to be called “marriage”. Our constitution demands that it be available equally to all couples.
jiminix said this on November 12, 2008 at 14:28
Your thinking is skewed. There is no inequality. Everyone is free to marry. That definition is between one man and one woman. Sexual preference is not like being black. It is not a “civil rights” issue at all.
Joe said this on November 12, 2008 at 14:35
Who was it that said “I’m all for Gay Marriage, they have the same right to be miserable like the rest of us.” ?
I think the idea of having a marriage contract that lasts for a set amount of time would be the best for everyone. The divorce rate is what %50+ after five years? (Too lazy to Google it,) only the lawyers win in these cases. Arguing “Stay together for the Children,” just causes a lot more issues in the long run. If the couple was able to work things out, there wouldn’t be any need to stay together for the children.
What’s REALLY annoys me though, is that I honestly think that the divorce rate among Gay couples would be much lower. Based on my observations they tend to work harder to keep communication open and be more understanding in relationships then a lot of hetrosexual couples I know.
hamellr said this on November 12, 2008 at 15:58
Haha, civil unions for all. I love it!
Dan said this on November 12, 2008 at 16:03
While I disagree that any rights are being violated (being married isn’t a basic human right). I agree the government shouldn’t have anything to do with the word “marriage”. In fact, I would go on the campaign trail to get such legislation passed.
However, that’s not why I voted for Prop. 8. I voted for Prop. 8 because of the way the opponents of the prop went about arguing their case. They attempted to redefine a word “marriage”, they tried to redefine what basic human rights are (marriage has never been a basic human right) and they did so while calling all those who disagreed with them as “haters”. It is my my belief that no one should take kindly to any group being guilt and hate mongerers.
Eric Kemp said this on November 12, 2008 at 16:16
you mentioned that Government is not a moral entity, does this mean that the law-making should not be based on moral grounds?
anyway, i think marriage should be reserved for men and women, if gay and lesbians wants to be united? such policies and laws that allows them to unite them may be granted but calling it marriage, maybe not. besides, there are no laws that forbidding to same sex individuals to live together. certain issues can be arranged but not “marriage”.
perhaps defining a separate institution that allows such certain individuals to marry the same sex would be an alternative. like a moslems, polygamy is legal to them.point is, laws that only applies to certain group of people, bu not for everyone.
perhaps prohibiting marriage to gays and lesbians could be beneficial on their part, this would prevent problems on gay or lesbian divorce issues that may happen. lol
jack said this on November 12, 2008 at 16:18
i was gonna write on this. oh well. kudos
That One Guy.. said this on November 12, 2008 at 16:20
That’s almost exactly as I have been arguing this as well:
” … from the proposition 8 supporters I’ve heard the argument that marriage is defined by their religion and allowing gays to marry is redefining marriage for their religion and some proposition 8 supports don’t mind allowing civil unions for gays. OK, I can accept that. This brings about two very important concepts in my mind.
1) The problem being many religions define marriage differently. So then the state is then in a position to accept marriage as defined by one or many different religions. Which is correct? Also some religions such as Buddhism do not define marriage. Other religions allow polygamy such as Islam and fundamentalist Mormons. So this leaves the state in a difficult position as far as I am concerned.
2) So since different religions define marriage differently why not leave marriage as a religious ceremony only. The state perhaps should then no longer recognize marriages for civil and legal matters and instead only recognize civil unions. Then all couples gay or straight, for legal and civil matters would need to go through a civil union process to receive a civil union license. This would also allow gays to be married in a religious ceremony if they so choose, in a religion that does not have moral objections to homosexuality. They would then also need to apply for a civil union license from the state as any other couple would.
I believe this would protect the definition of marriage in religions that have moral objects to homosexuality, it would protect the state from various religious definitions of marriages by no longer recognizing marriage but only recognizing civil unions. This would also maintain the principle of separation of church and state.”
Tim Graf said this on November 12, 2008 at 16:28
At the other end of the political spectrum from you, I reached exactly the same conclusion. Hmmmm.
Al Pastor said this on November 12, 2008 at 17:10
I take issue with the language of “rights”, but I think I agree with the government making no legislation respecting marriage if we are to think of the issue in terms of “neutrality” and “equality”. If we further believe that marriage between a man and a woman is worth subsidizing, let us do that with sufficient evidence, and if we further believe that same-sex counterparts are worth subsidizing in the same way and to the same degree, let us also hold it to the same standard.
Now, Prop 8 has passed, but let me submit that more than a few thinking evangelical Christians who believe that sexual behaviour between people of the same sex is a sin do not view Prop 8 as a resounding victory.
Lue-Yee Tsang said this on November 12, 2008 at 17:47
No government should ever enforce morality on it’s people and this is exactly what is happening when these laws are passed. No matter whether you believe in this subject or not it is not the government’s role to enforce it.
darcZombie said this on November 12, 2008 at 17:56
I agree with our government not to legalize same sex marriage, this would defeat the very purpose of “marriage”.. though constitutionally state and Church/Religion are separated in terms of legislation i guess because most of us believe in Christianity that same sex marriage is eccentric.
dea8 said this on November 12, 2008 at 18:18
I think you’re on to something. What really bothers a lot of righties is the word “marriage” – makes them think a horde of gays will be storming their churches. I think we should do marriage like they do in France. There, everyone MUST be married in a civil ceremony. Those desiring a church service may do so, but only AFTER the civil union is completed. So, you have a marriage – civil union combo. It really could work. Civil unions for all and marriages for the churches.
kateskitchentable said this on November 12, 2008 at 18:22
Semantics.
nariposa said this on November 12, 2008 at 18:56
Oh, I like it. And I definitely agree with the observation on what being a true “conservative” means.
Claire said this on November 12, 2008 at 19:10
i didn’t read all of the above comments, but essentially (and i’m a flaming liberal but i really do think that this is someplace that all reasonable people on the political spectrum can come together) i think that marriage should be something that happens in a church, temple, mosque or synagogue. there should be no government legality associated with marriage. in other words, if your rabbi marries you, you can’t sign a legal agreement with her as an officiant that you’re married in the eyes of the state. religions should be free to ban or allow marriage as they want without government interference. separate from marriage should be civil unions. civil unions are done at the local courthouse, presided over by a judge/justice. these have nothing to do with god or religion but are a civil contract which confer state-recognized rights based on an agreement/union between two people (regardless of sex/gender).
this is the way that it’s done in much of the world already…what’s so hard about it?
amanda said this on November 12, 2008 at 19:10
If law was rational, it wouldn’t be hard to find legal solutions. But since rationality is distorted by interests, especially by capital protecting interests, las itself is very irrational.
I suggest to avoid any legal confirmation need for a partnership with your companion, gay or not, there is nothing in it for you, a bunch of potential obligations and nobody respects the law when it comes to loyalty.
SiteReviewer said this on November 12, 2008 at 19:12
This is absolutely the right path and would open a path for individuals to declare a union partner for whatever reason they wanted. They could then go off to their church of choice and be married if they saw fit.
pixels said this on November 12, 2008 at 19:22
There is an up-and-coming supreme court regarding the ten commandments being placed in public spaces. No, it is not a challenge to the right to do so, the challenge is by members of the summum religion who would also like their own stated religious principles to be permitted next to the ten commandments. An interesting point of division for conservatives/church-state-hegemon advocates. They argue for their civil rights to put religious documents in public spaces, then refuse to accept their own religion as a fact among the others as soon as the inherent, pluralism of their own arguments begins to take hold. Irony prevails. Tax payers bleed. A case worth watching.
Jesse said this on November 12, 2008 at 19:26
I couldn’t disagree more.
It is in the interest of the government do promote marriages of one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children. The family is the smallest form of government and arguably where most children learn to function as a part of a group larger than themselves. They learn to obey their parents. They learn to establish positive relationships among equals with their siblings. They learn how to resolve conflicts.
I think there is much more to marriage than how the government should treat it (or legislate it), but I for one will argue for the definition of marriage as one man, one woman (no exceptions).
MW
Marc Whitman said this on November 12, 2008 at 19:29
Civil Unions for everyone. That is where its going and it would seem neither side like it but it is truly the only solution.
If you want to call yourself married, go right ahead, but as far as the government is concerned, you are in a civil union.
Personally, I don’t have much of a problem calling everything marriage, but I do understand how some feel about the issue.
grownANDsexy said this on November 12, 2008 at 19:32
[...] when. And a matter of how, as fellow WordPress blogger, in “An Opinion on Gay Marriage Rights,” An Opinion on Gay Marriage Rights proposes that marriage become religious-issued, and civil unions remain in the political [...]
Prop 8: An Exclusive Practice in An Inclusive-Promising Nation « Mindful Construct said this on November 12, 2008 at 19:33
[...] france does this same sort of thing. people get married at the town hall in a civil affair. if they want a church wedding later [...]
I agree « Pixelated said this on November 12, 2008 at 19:33
I’ve not had chance to read the rest of the posts but at the end of the day, i think (hope?) anyone opposing gay/same-sex marriage and ultimately also adoption is fighting a losing battle. The long term trend in all these matters seems to be tolerance. Think how close the prop 8 vote would have been 5, 10, 20, 50 years ago (nowhere near) and hence how likely it is to be passed in the future
?
Silent Observer said this on November 12, 2008 at 19:35
Interesting. I’ve never thought about it in quite those terms before, though I have to say that something like what you wrote has been lurking in my mind.
I am a Christian, and very conservative. However, I’ve been stuck on this issue. I do believe that marriage is ordinated by God, but the question of government involvement in marriage has never crossed my mind.
I appreciate your thoughts on this. Civil unions for all, under the government, makes more sense than marriage.
faerylandmom said this on November 12, 2008 at 19:39
Hearing your suggestion is such a relief, because it really removes the controversy or any room for debate. Bottom line is the state can’t define marriage as being only between a man and a woman *without* being unconstitutional–so let the religions define it as such.
I linked your post one I just wrote on the same topic. http://mindfulconstruct.wordpress.com/ Thanks for the read and keep up the great writing!
Melissa said this on November 12, 2008 at 19:41
Gays should have the same benefits that are available to straights. If a state wants to call gay marriage something else to feel better about themselves, let them. Its the spirit of federalism. The details are left to the states.
As for the 14th Amendment, that needs to be repealed…repealed…100%…and make it now. It has gone beyond its original intent to be used as a tool by modern activist judges and a barrier to state’s rights.
purecommonsense said this on November 12, 2008 at 19:46
People need to speak out and speak up against Proposition 8 and idiots like protect marriage.com whi are heavily infiltrated by Mormons. Now what do THEY know about the sanctity of marriage anyhow?
http://jasminefrompakistan.wordpress.com/
jasminefrompakistan said this on November 12, 2008 at 19:49
Yeah, I came to this conclusion awhile back – I’m Roman Catholic and Conservative. Why do we need the government to recognize marriage? Civil Unions for all.
conger said this on November 12, 2008 at 20:02
This is pure semantics. Civil union statutes are generally identical to the state marriage statutes. Just the word is different. The definition of marriage is all important. Does the word actually mean something or is the definition completely arbitrary.
frangelo said this on November 12, 2008 at 20:12
While I agree with your position (it’s one I have been supporting for some time now), I remain worried.
Let me be clear about a couple of things first. I support gay marriage and the firm separation of church and state.
I do worry that a move like this would be seen by the religiously inclined as the removal from the state infrastructure of a longstanding institution with roots in America’s religious history at the fault of the homosexual demographic. It’s like when one kid doesn’t want to share a toy, so the teacher takes the toy away so nobody has it, who does the kid blame?
I worry that the people guarding the “sacred definition” of marriage are that childish. I am concerned about actions that may inspire or increase hatred to a group that gets enough of it.
Furthermore, do you think that a group of people who are this concerned about defending a term in the lawbooks (who, I should point out, are probably tired of political pedantics and dancings with words) will sit quietly as their sacred institution is renamed? I think that will be tantamount to removing it for some people, and that will only incite unrest.
Simon said this on November 12, 2008 at 20:14
Great blog post. I enjoy a fresh perspective. I agree that having the state determine what marriage is is like the state telling me whether my girlfriend and I are going steady. It’s for two people to decide the level of their commitment and whether God has any part in it.
However, I must say that I’m not totally on board with your idea of erasing the word marriage from the books. At this point the most acceptable path of least resistance–and thus the one we should take–is to simply extend marriage to gays and lesbians and be done with it.
Tom said this on November 12, 2008 at 20:15
jasminefrompakistan,
I consider your anti-Mormon remarks to be hate speech.
dispensatormysteriorumdei said this on November 12, 2008 at 20:16
[...] Posted by conger under Uncategorized | Tags: Gay Marriage, Government, Marriage | Little Cog has a great post about [...]
…Common Sense « The AM Journal said this on November 12, 2008 at 20:18
interesting and i like this proposition.
cherbie said this on November 12, 2008 at 20:19
[...] Posted on November 12, 2008 by conger Little Cog has a great post about [...]
Common Sense? « Think Tankers said this on November 12, 2008 at 20:21
wow, I haven’t heard anything this truly brilliant on this particular topic. I agree that my definition of marriage is different than some, but I do not believe that the government has the right to control marriage.
Thank you for addressing this and sharing your thoughts.
sarahlynae said this on November 12, 2008 at 20:29
I’ve been saying the same thing around here – civil unions for all and leave ceremonies of marriage within religions.
It solves the legal problem – everyone has the same rights.
Chi said this on November 12, 2008 at 20:29
This is a tough issue I think. Either side can claim a major beef if the other gets their way. If you vote yes, the other side says they are being discriminated against. If you vote no, the other side will say that you are requiring me to be tolerant while not being tolerant yourself.
While your proposal sounds great – and apparently appeals to pretty much everyone that has responded above – I have one issue: Why do we need to turn our backs on hundreds of years of custom in this country by saying “Bye bye” to marriage? No, marriage isn’t some backwards notion like slavery or Jim Crow laws.
By the way, it is very disappointing when people feel compelled to call each other names and ignorantly belittle opponents. Doing so is ironically hypocritical. If Mormons referred to supporters of Prop 8 using some disparaging remark or libelous term, people would be up in arms even while doing exactly that.
jdw2000 said this on November 12, 2008 at 20:30
Very interesting I totally agree with your view.
sobored123 said this on November 12, 2008 at 20:30
interesting theory. Ive wrote about this “separate but equal” paradigm before, and it is truly sad that equal rights for any sector of the population are up for interpretation and debate. bottom line is separate but equal is not equal- otherwise it wouldn’t need to be separate.
I understand that as you put it, marriage means certain things to certain people, and that it is a tricky thing for the government to define that, but think of it this way:
What if people decided that marriage was between 1 white man and 1 white woman? Sure, its their interpretation and maybe even its what their faith says- but would we stand for this? We did until the civil rights movement struck down miscongenation laws.
The very idea of defending the right of the religious establishment to define who can and can’t marry misses the point. The government cannot permit discrimination, and thats what this is plain and simple.
I propose that my solution is even simpler: define marriage as between two consenting human beings (an age requirement is another issue)
As you pointed out- our constitution already prohibits discrimination- that we have to even think of new ways to achieve this ideal is disappointing..
douglaskev said this on November 12, 2008 at 20:35
Disagree, on principle. Wholeheartedly. Proposing this type of solution doesn’t resolve the issue at the heart of the matter, which is who has a right to be married. Simon’s comment about how this type of logic can be interpreted as “well, we want the gays to be able to play, but not with marriage–so let’s call em ‘civil unions,’” inevitably raises the question: why don’t gays have the right to be married? Is marriage, as Marc Whitman so bigotedly put it, the “[union] of one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children”? Ignoring the absurd assumption that two men or two women cannot raise a child, or cannot do it as “well” as a man and a woman (I challenge him or anyone to city any sort of unbiased evidence that would support such an ignorant claim) AND his contention that gov’t has a vested interest in mandating as much (an even more outlandish claim IMPOSSIBLE to back up with anything save personal opinion), what person or institution can lay claim to being the sole adjudicator of what constitutes marriage? Is it not a universal institution found in all major religions and advanced societies?
I personally do not desire to be married as it appears to me that–apart from the tax break–all it adds to a relationship is extra pressure and the ominous possibility of a painful and potentially expensive divorce in the future. But I cannot disagree that it is a custom or practice that serves to unify the individuals within it in recognition of a special and extraordinary bond they feel they share. As such, its value can hardly be disputed, and its utility appears self-evident both to the individuals themselves and to their society as a whole. But to say that certain types of people are excluded from participating based on theological doctrine seems to me to be not only unjustifiable, but to be sullying the very institution itself. How transcendent and beautiful can it possibly be when it is only the providence of some and not all? Do not the things we experience as divine in large part owe their divinity to the possibility that all human beings may participate in their experience?
abstract366 said this on November 12, 2008 at 20:50
i like your solution. marriages are so overrated anyway.
Linh said this on November 12, 2008 at 21:01
[...] http://littlecog.com/2008/11/12/an-opinion-on-gay-marriage-rights/ [...]
Interesting read … « Hippylostintime’s Weblog said this on November 12, 2008 at 21:08
Your post is intriguing, I must say. But let’s not forget that this government is “For the people, by the people”. Frankly, it pisses me off to have to vote again on something that we all voted on before. What the hell is the point of taking a vote if the few in charge overturn it anyway? Aren’t we supposed to have a say? There are other propositions that end up passing that I don’t agree with but do you see me whining about it? Lame.
I agree with the guy who said that the thinking is skewed. Being gay/lesbian/bisexual is not like being black and so it’s not a civil rights issue at all. I also agree with the Marc who stated that it’s the best place for children. Lots of studies have been done that prove that the traditional family structure is the best place for children emotionally, physically, and mentally and is a major predictor of future success in being a functional part of society.
carly said this on November 12, 2008 at 21:16
This is the one passionate issue that is starting to illicit intelligent dialog on an issue instead of just reaction. Your comments are one of the best examples of real, dispassionate THOUGHT on such an emotional issue. Thank you. For the best passionate view on the subject that I have seen, see Keith Olbermann’s passionate commentary:
rharder said this on November 12, 2008 at 21:19
Here is a link to some images that I captured during the first rally/protest of Proposition 8 in New York City:
http://bittenbyazebra.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/prop-h8-child-brides-yes-gay-marriage-no/
bittenbyazebra said this on November 12, 2008 at 21:20
I’ve been fighting Christian conservatives on this for two weeks. Your blog post was the best written piece I’ve seen on the subject. Thank you so much for sharing.
Rob Gokee said this on November 12, 2008 at 21:39
There goes health care for the wife and the kids.
The terms gay and marriage don’t belong in the same sentence because they are completely unrelated. Period. End of discussion. Props to the voters in California.
Matt said this on November 12, 2008 at 21:39
THANK YOU!! I’ve been arguing the same thing for years!
David said this on November 12, 2008 at 21:41
RE: Matt said this on November 12, 2008 at 9:39 pm…
“The terms gay and marriage don’t belong in the same sentence because they are completely unrelated.”
——————————–
Sorry, Matt, you are 100% wrong. Webster’s defines marriage as noted here below. Please take note especially of def 1a(2), as well as def (3):
Main Entry: mar·riage
Function: noun
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage. b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union (i.e. the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross)
little cog’s thesis is 100% correct and logical…a breath of fresh air! And the 14th Amendment is CRYSTAL CLEAR as posted above (sorry…but it’s so good I have to post it again as well):
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Gay or not, they are persons and due equal treatment and rights. There was a time when blacks could not legally marry each other, then blacks to whites…People like Matt said the same thing about rectifying those wrongs back then. They need to get over their insecure righteous indignation and listen to logic, common sense and basic humanity.
Do unto others as you would have others do to you.
Live and Let Live.
An ye hurt none, do as ye will.
Anyone who hasn’t seen Olbermann speak on this issue…without yelling, I might add!…I posted on this issue on my blog yesterday: http://dysmindseye.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/thats-not-all-i-have-to-say-about-thatbut-its-a-start/
Blessings from Seattle…
Dyanne said this on November 12, 2008 at 22:12
Oh…and since I now seem to be agreeing with a self-proclaimed conservative…does that mean my mother will listen to me about religon and politics now? Oh…thought not. Oh well.
But it’s nice to know that some of the bridges are not totally burned out and we Liberals can talk with some Conservatives about such a volital issue. Nice. Very. I’m tired of all the hate/fear-mongering. Let some healing begin.
*crossing fingers*
Blessings from Seattle…
Dyanne said this on November 12, 2008 at 22:15
Good post. I find it so very odd that the religious right is willing to give the rights as long as they don’t have to give the word. Nobody owns words! Give me the rights in a civil union, and I’ll use the word anyway. Already do. So does my wife. Perhaps the real question is how easily we seem to allow a religious movement to co-opt what has been a civil institution since the beginning of our country.
Deb said this on November 12, 2008 at 22:18
this is a really refreshing way to look at the issue.
ajr46 said this on November 12, 2008 at 22:22
Gay men and women make up about 3% of the population.
If they get married, how are the other 97% of marriages going to be under threat?
That’s something that I never understood but it stands at the heart of gay marriage opponents’ message. They claim that if Adam and Steve next door get married, that means that somehow, their marriages will not be null and void at worst or cheapened at best. That’s homophobia and when fears rule one’s judgment, the results are irrational.
The groups who crusade against gay marriage or unions of any sort can call themselves conservatives, but the proper sociological term for them is authoritarians.
gfish said this on November 12, 2008 at 22:49
In my opinion, we have scientific reasons why homosexuality is dangerous for individuals and for a society as well. Opposite sex always attract each other by nature. As human-being by nature wants a change, he/she likes change and new experiments to get excitement. This excitement is not long lasting and it cannot provide self satisfaction that a human’s soul wants.
I think, laws of western world should not conflict with the nature. Otherwise, we should prepare for new and strange social & psychological diseases; already we are facing them in our society.
Religion plays an important role for the betterment of society. It is matter of thought, why religions of the world do not allow homosexuality. There is no example of any religion in the history who had permitted people to sex having same sex.
Thank you!!!
altafhk said this on November 12, 2008 at 22:57
So very much with you, and I do defy the few posters who’ve responded to defend Proposition 8 to produce evidence that children unilaterally do better in “Traditional” family structures than non-traditional ones –an abusive father and disinterested mother fall under the rubric of a “traditional” household, but surely no one would argue children would do better under these circumstances (or one of the hundreds of imaginable variants) than in a loving, two-parent home where both parents happen to be of the same gender.
Oh, wait. Arkansas.
A better question might be to ask: what constitutes a traditional family, anymore?
I can name exactly one family of my acquaintance who fits the “traditional” family model. Everyone else is a blend of steps and extended and halfs and quarters and adopted and all-but-adopted family members. It’s inevitable, when so many of the marriages in this country end in divorce.
Personally, I’m the daughter of two-time divorcees –both parents. If defenders of Proposition 8 would like to argue that they are preserving a social institution that benefits children and helps them to grow up more “normally” –let’s not even approach a discussion of normalcy, pros and cons and definitions– then it would seem that no one save single-marriage, never-divorced, conventionally religious middle- and upper-class US citizens have a legitimate right to raise children in this country.
I certainly wouldn’t put it past the socially conservative right to make such an assertion –the real pity is that they can’t conceive of parents like mine, both of whom are tremendous people, and who did not need the structure of a traditional marriage to make their children feel loved, sheltered, or safe. The worse pity is that they would deny children in need access to a safe and happy home of their own –because the fact is, Christian values or not, very few “traditional” households are willing to open their doors to accommodate the thousands of children that still need homes, who are in our adoption system and may make it to their majority without the advantages ANY family might provide.
sempronia said this on November 12, 2008 at 22:58
Very well said.
ChrissyOne said this on November 12, 2008 at 23:06
This is more or less the same solution I came up with back in my LJ days (no clue where that post is now). Good to see liberals like me and conservatives like thee *do* have some common ground!
It *is* the most Constitutional fix, yes, and I think already implied in the 14th Amendment (which I hadn’t thought to reference before). Simple legislation would turn the trick; I can’t foresee the SCOTUS overturning it… although Scalia’s inevitable foaming-at-the-mouth dissent (see Romer v Evans) would be entertaining to read.
The Rev Dr Sherwood Forrester said this on November 12, 2008 at 23:17
A “civil union” is a legal fiction created for political compromise. It is another fiction to assert that civil union is a more fundamental legal entity than marriage. Civil unions are legally identical to marriage. Only the name is different.
Marriage is not a creation of the state any more than a creation of religion. It arises from the fact that there are men and women. Period. The state involved itself in an already existing institution of marriage because protecting and encouraging the most fundamental unit of society is good for the state. Religion involved itself in the already existing institution of marriage because the institution is considered by it to be sacred.
The fact is there would be no institution of marriage to fight over if the human race was not comprised partly of men and partly of women who together make babies. There would be no reason for the state to bundle rights, privileges and obligations for couples were this not true.
Shuffling two words around is part of a political compromise that is based on eliminating hard feelings at the expense of rationality. You are basically broadening the institution of marriage and then pretending not to do it. You give the rights and privileges away to those who want them and take the name away from those who want to protect the institution.
I appreciate the civil rights argument, but it comes down to this: we simply disregard the reality of marriage because there is a sector of society that feels left out. Equal protection: I get it. But that is only an argument if we disregard the fundamental reality that was true at the dawn of our race and is true now.
frangelo said this on November 12, 2008 at 23:58
The problem is that “civil union”, or rather “state registered domestic partnership” should never have been created. That’s the “separate but equal” status. Marriage is the recognition of an interpersonal relationship — where two individuals enter into a contract, acknowledged by the state, that entitles them to certain kinds of rights under the law — the right to be responsible for and to each other; the right to file taxes jointly; the rights of inheritance; the right to belong and care for each other. Whether or not such a union is “sanctified” by a religious authority is, and has never been, relevant to the state. And in California, you can perform a marriage ceremony if you’re a priest, a minister, a rabbi, ordained by any “religious” denomination, a judge (even retired or resigned), a medicine man, or deputized for the day, under various regulations. The state is responsible merely for registering the marriage; and thereby vesting married folks with the legal rights and obligations of marriage under the law. That’s part of that idea of “separation of church and state”, which this country, with its thousands of very different “churches”, was founded on.
So, although you get props for proposing a solution, the easiest solution is just to let state-sanctioned marriage alone, and don’t tell people “what to do or how to live their lives”. I’m divorced — but I still believe in love, commitment and responsibility for another person, and having that acknowledged; and in the same way that laws should be race and gender-neutral, they shouldn’t be about sexual orientation, either. I mean, c’mon — how are you supposed to get married if you’re a hermaphrodite (and there are many more hermaphrodites than you think), or transgender? To do this “man and woman” business, you really ought to provide full medical records. Too darn confusing, and not my business, or anyone’s other than the two adults involved. If you’re willing to take marriage on — congratulations, bless you, and good luck.
saramistbixian said this on November 13, 2008 at 00:23
You have an excellent idea. Traditional marriage is a religious institution with a contractual aspect. The state is the proper agency to oversee and regulate contractual matters. Contract law is the sole reason for the state to involve itself in the living arrangements of citizens. Classifying all person to person partnerships civil unions should not be objectionable to anyone. Those wishing for a traditional religious marriage may have it. The religious ceremony does not change the contractual aspect of joint arrangements between two people. Under your proposal any two people who want to can form a partnership, civil union, and have exactly the same rights of any other pair bonded couple. The additional sanctification of a religious ceremony to mark the occasion is then an internal church issue beyond state review or oversight.
pj said this on November 13, 2008 at 00:32
Hello,
Of course I do agree with what you said, marriage is a very personal affair and it concerns only the two people who will marry, it’s none of the others’ business and specially not the government od the religious… It’s so absurd whenyou think about it at least…
Leila said this on November 13, 2008 at 00:45
This gay marriage really banned in Malaysia. For me this people are really six. Burn in hell.
haritz said this on November 13, 2008 at 00:46
Very compelling argument, and quite the response… but well.. as i once heard a comic state… “us straight guys have to go through the hell and torture of marriage… it’s only right to allow gay fold enjoy the same punishment…” I can’t remember how it went exactly.. but something along those lines… whatever
Love is love, let them have it… last time i checked, government and religion were kind of seperate.. and well.. should be as such… Marriage.. civil unions… ah I dunno… I feel like my heads going to explode… Husband and Wife, Husband and Husband, Wife and Wife…. let them do there thing.. and focus on real issues, like war, peace, famine, the economy… ok.. I’m ranting.. I’m done
Johnny D said this on November 13, 2008 at 01:01
Wow, that was easy! There’s no way something that sensible could ever be accepted by the majority, but I think you have thought amazing thoughts. Thank you. Really, thank you.
Sole Sister said this on November 13, 2008 at 01:07
wow, a thought provoking post and responses which I need to dip into further.
My partner and I had a Civil ceremony in the UK this year and saw it as the ‘legal’ state recognised aspect of our union, giving us equal rights in the eyes of the law as married couples.
We then had a seperate ‘handfasting’ ceremony to celebrate the union which was wonderful.
tfootitt said this on November 13, 2008 at 01:16
Bravo!
sjsmart said this on November 13, 2008 at 01:27
Well one fundamental of marriage is that is something that brings about lawful procreation basically its a lawful moral way of a man and woman living together. The marrriage in it self creates rights for the husband and wife without the “government” having to spell it out.
Any union that does could not possibly fulfil this objective of procreation can not possibly be a marriage. They can be protected under the banner of “civil unions”.
majnun said this on November 13, 2008 at 01:45
WOW! Great thinking! Some people are so hot and bothered over this. There are many Christian religions that will marry Gay couples. I don’t suppose many Conservatives have thought of that. What are we supposed to think when a state decides one religion is right about marriage (that it should be between and a man and woman) and the other religions that marry two men or two women are wrong?? I understand some people think this isn’t about religion, but it IS. And the state is taking sides! And the state isn’t supposed to do that!
Also– Usually laws are designed to protect people from harm. I’d like to ask what ‘harm’ Proposition Eight protects us from? Gay people who want to marry? Who does it hurt? How? If the state is concerned about good or bad marriages, maybe they should disallow marriages between two 18 year olds? Or how about marriages where there’s more than a 20 year age difference? I just don’t see how the state is protecting me by disallowing two gay people who are already living together from getting married. It’s unconstitutional on so many levels, and will NOT hold.
kim said this on November 13, 2008 at 02:24
Marriage: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
Gay or Lesbian hardly fits this definition.
Are we ALL subject to change our dictionary/terminology over EVERY special interest whim?
This term has been around since the beginning of time.
Frankly as a native Californian (67 years) I am getting a little frayed over the popular vote being set aside or overturned by some slick lawyer or special interest group.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows this has NOTHING to do with civil rights (since it is pointless to fight over something you already have) this is a tantrum thrown by individuals because a term does not pertain to them NOW OR EVER.
Perhaps a solution is to create a new term for Gay and Lesbian. How about Pairage?
No doubt this solution will not work since the true bent of this movement is to force THEIR will on EVERYONE no matter what.
clinicalthinker said this on November 13, 2008 at 02:35
Hey frangleo…
“Marriage” did not exsist at the dawn of our race…we “shacked up”, yes, but there was no concrete permenance to such shacking-ups.
Not until religion was brought into it, with the oaths and ritual, did it start to resemble what we think of as marriage now. And by “religion” I do mean the most rudimentary theology of the first religions which were usually nature based.
I’t important to realise the reality we already have in the US when it comes to “marriage”. When two people get married nowadays, the have to sign a document…a legal paper issued by the government…to close the deal. Whether or not you like the idea of govmnt interferance with your private life, this is a FACT. You can say all the oaths you want in front of whatever priest/rev/rabbi you want, but with out the signed document filed at your local county courthouse, the two persons are not “legally married”, and therefore no rights of next of kin, custody rights…etc. This govnmt doc obviously makes it a civil union, even though the document usually says “Licence of Marriage” or some such hogwash to appease the masses.
I agree with those that say we should have civil unions for all…and those that want to have a religious ceremony as well, well good for them. I must point out that, for this to be feasible, ALL civil unions would need to insure that both partners have all normal rights of next of kin, custody for children, tax considerations, healthcare proxy…etc.
Okay…I’ve now given what I think has added up to about my $10 worth…so I’ll say good night (or morning, whereever you’re reading this).
Blessings from Seattle…
Dyanne said this on November 13, 2008 at 03:28
Great idea, and elegant. And the added benefit is that it will bring to light the not-so-latent, and also not so relevant anymore, ways the society is organized around marriage (the paradigmatic heteronormative patriarchal patrimonial institution). So it makes clear that this brouhaha about gay marriage is about fear that one of these days someone/s might actually smash the heteronormative patrimonial patriarchy.
Ha_Qohelet said this on November 13, 2008 at 03:28
I can’t help but wonder what our “Founding Fathers” would have thought about this debate!
macmurphy66 said this on November 13, 2008 at 03:35
I agree with your opinion completely. “Marriage” is a religious term, and as such, the government should have nothing to do with it. Marriage should be through the church, civil unions through the government. I believe social conservatives would eventually come around to it — I certainly have. If they are conservatives as they claim, they will agree that the government should not be dictating such things.
God Bless
Lady A. Byron said this on November 13, 2008 at 03:39
i disagree with marriage-period! anywayz, “marriage” should be left in the religious realm with its religious rules and “civil unions” created for the government realm, or legal realm. better yet, it should be terminated-at least from the legal world.
searching4will said this on November 13, 2008 at 04:09
I think the idea of “No state or government entity should issue “marriage” licenses at all. Instead, marriages for none, civil unions for all. It creates a system of equal protection under the law.” should apply not just in the US but for other places as well. Definitely hard to comprehend, especially for those in the Islamic country, even the Asian countries.
chumpman said this on November 13, 2008 at 04:21
Thank you for saying this!
i hold the same belief. Marriage is something that should be left up to the church and not government. If the government wants to go that far then they have to be fair. This exact situation is what happened in Norway (or maybe Sweden, whatever) and from what i’ve read it worked with great results.
john armstrong said this on November 13, 2008 at 04:50
Ahh, to live in an ideal world… I appreciate your viewpoint on this, and despite my east coast ways, I’ve put my support behind those opposed to No.8 in CA. The relationship between Church and State is a tricky path, at best, and untangling the mess of legal rights that accompany “marriage” would be quite the feat. Do you think we could do it? One can only hope.
sarah said this on November 13, 2008 at 04:53
I’ve actually been advocating this very idea for years now. Glad to see it starting to catch on.
Josh McDonald said this on November 13, 2008 at 04:58
Very well said. On a number of occasions, this very idea has been shared amongst family and friends as we continue the conversation around the meaning of “marriage equality.” A “marriage license” should have nothing to do with recognizing or denying any marriage.
However, unfortunately, the lawmakers have not come up with a similar solution as far as a I can see. So, for now, we are forced to work with what we have. There are dozens of rights and privileges that are afforded to married couples on a state level…and over 1,000 benefits that same-sex couples are missing out on. Visit my blog post at
http://youheardithear.wordpress.com for a more complete list.
I think that, when most people talk about “special rights” that same-sex people seek, fear that their children will be forced to read books about young children with tow mommies/daddies, or argue that they don’t want their churches forced to performing same-sex weddings, they miss the point.
I am not asking for anyone change their religious views on marriage. I’m simply urging each person to consider social equality, versus discrimination.
I agree: Civil Unions for All. The whole idea of marriage is really a sacrament of the holy church, and should be completely separated from state laws. A church that disapproves may continue to refuse to perform such a marriage.
themacdoodle said this on November 13, 2008 at 05:01
In my blog the same thread today!!
http://frivolo.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/come-diventare-frocio/
umbelieveble….
frivolo said this on November 13, 2008 at 05:08
I’ve been saying that this was the solution for years, and I’m a democratic socialist! See! The left and the right can agree on things!
jaynova said this on November 13, 2008 at 05:36
Most European nations do it the way you suggest. They have a more critical appreciation for the dangers of theocracy, having endured centuries of religious warfare.
lichanos said this on November 13, 2008 at 05:48
“Governments are not moral entities..” The problem with this statement is that a government is not and inanimate object making decisions for itself. Governments are made up of people. I feel that the morality or immorality of a government is determined by this factor.
Son of Bill Brasky said this on November 13, 2008 at 06:06
One of the problems with the whole arguement is that we are trying to change an instution that was not created by man but by God himself. It was God that brought one man and one woman together. It was God that began marriage and it was God that defined marriage in that way.
By man changing the defintion then we are saying we are the authority in our lives and not God.
Since God created man, then God has every right to instruct man on how to live.
To me what is sad in the issue is twice now in Calf. the people have voted not to have gay marriage and you have a few on the courts that are going to overturn the voice of the people.
How are the majority of people who do not want to see this happen, who have voted for this not to happen twice, how are they protected under the law?
Why does our vote even matter, if the courts are going to set policies instead of interpret law?
Are we even a democracy anymore?
http://www.leepeoples.wordpress.com
leepeoples said this on November 13, 2008 at 06:29
Morality. Institution of Marriage. Civil Union.
As a Christian, I am not in favor of civil unions or gay marriage. I believe that we, as humans, were encrypted with morals and values and to venture from that path (as has been done) creates the moral issues that we wrestle with. God’s law, the one I support, and intend to live my life in accordance with, has already provided for marriage to be between one man and one woman.
Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on the first amendment issue. The issue of the “wall of separation between church and state” is a complex one, and depending on what you want to see, you can find arguments to support your position. All that proves is that for as many opinions as there are on the issue, there is support for those opinions.
It is my right to raise my children free from condemnation for their religious beliefs, but not at the expense of causing another to conform to them, or them to another belief. But I also believe that this government has an obligation to me, as a Christian, to protect me and my family from such things as promiscuity, and the sexual indiscretion of others. Therefore, to legislate issues such as marriage and age of consent, and to define those things clearly is the task of the ELECTED government-and in so doing, allowing the wisdom of the people to prevail.
lori said this on November 13, 2008 at 07:02
Need I say more? That is very clearly developed. Thank you.
http://thesecondtolastword.wordpress.com
rubten said this on November 13, 2008 at 07:40
I think what you’ve written was thoughtful and well put. As a gay man I’ve struggled with the marriage vs. civil union issue. Do we fight for everyone recieving marriage (which we should all be entitled do) or let the church keep the term marriage and advocated civil unions provided by the government for all hetero and homosexual couples. By not providing gay marriage to us we end up being classified. It tells people that we are not good enough, or not “moral” enough, or “religious” enough to be married. It also makes it okay to continue marginalizing homosexuals. If the government provided only civil unions to all heter and homosexual couples what do we say to the gays that have a deep faith and want to be married in a church? I feel that we are all, hetero and homosexual couples, entitled to a marriage and not just a civil union.
Again thanks for your post it was done beautifully and I’m pleased that you thought about the issue.
Also, in response to lori (who is right above my post). I would like to point out your circular reasoning in your third paragragh. While you state that you would like to “raise [your] children free from condemnation for their religious beliefs, but not at the expense of causing another to conform to them, or them to another,” just below that you advocate a definition of marriage. That definition you say should be provided by the government officials. The thing is I bet those government officials that you support define marriage in a way that would make us gay men and women conform to your religious beliefs. Just because someone is an ELECTED official that doesn’t make them the judge and jury on what is and isn’t moral. Just because you think it’s moral doesn’t make it right.
As for leepeoples (whose comment is right above lori’s) I would just like to sayt that while the people of California did vote to support prop 8 you can’t have a majority vote to take away the rights of another group. They are not voting on issues such as taxes, or road construction where majority voting is fine…Californian’s voted on civil rights and equality. A majority of people voted to take away peoples rights. Now that to me seems unfair and unconstitutional. It is good that we have “those few on the courts” that realize what is going on and are working to perserve our rights. I mean how would you feel if we had a majority and voted to take away your right to worship? That hardly seems fair that you wouldn’t be allowed the RIGHT to worship right?
sammy25 said this on November 13, 2008 at 08:04
Legally, I think your 14th Amendment argument fails. Every person in California has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no violation unless, being gay is like being black, and is an immutible part of a person that is permanent and unchanging. Is it? The evidence would suggest not exactly. With some individuals having a seemingly wide variety of sexual proclivities and those, in some instances not being fixed (think of the famous people you know of who have had gay relationships, and then straight ones, and then gay ones again) it is hard to make the analogy that being gay is like being black. Now, if you could prove a genetic link between a person’s DNA and being gay, then you might have a stronger argument. However, with abortion on demand and prenatal genetic testing, you would open up a whole other can of worms.
dknights said this on November 13, 2008 at 08:06
Well said!
But I must take exception to what leepeoples said when he stated, “How are the majority of people who do not want to see this happen, who have voted for this not to happen twice, how are they protected under the law?” I’m sorry, but what protection are you looking for? And in response to what Lori stated, the government does not have that obligation and the inference that only gays and lesbians are promiscuous or have sexual indiscretions is wrong when I can think of plenty of heterosexuals (particularly elected officials who preach “family values”) who are promiscuous or have had sexual indiscretions. In response to MacMurphy, the founding fathers probably would have reacted the same way as they did when someone suggested eliminating slavery. Slavery wasn’t lifted until almost 80 years later (when the founding fathers were already 6 feet under) and the ban on slavery still wasn’t supported by all when legislated.
Steven said this on November 13, 2008 at 08:30
How hilarious to have such an argumement about the human ethics of Homosexuality, just prove’s no one’s read the Bible at all, and that include’s the Church!
$ine33 said this on November 13, 2008 at 08:56
[...] letting it kind of stew in mind a little and I came to the same conclusion this guy over at The Little Cog did. There should be no marriage licenses for anyone… civil unions for all. I don’t [...]
marriage for none… civil unions for all « a UU Deist in Texas said this on November 13, 2008 at 09:26
Yes, I agree. Finally, someone who thinks like me! I have been telling everyone that civil unions are the way to go. You did a great job of wording it together to make sense! We need to get congress involved, and get this show on the road. Equal rights for all, not just a select few!
srhagerman said this on November 13, 2008 at 09:37
“If they want church and state fully separated”
Fully? Why does the phrase “a little bit pregnant come to mind”? heh
The government and the rest of the church-y control-freak people need to get over themselves…get over the lie that they are in any way superior to anyone in the big scheme of things.
Why do they care? The majority of “normnal” marriages are a sham anyway — more about sex, money and convenience than love. No? And the divorce rate is what now?
Protect us from promiscuity? lol Shouldn’t self-respect, self-esteem (love of self), and love between partners, and teaching one’s children the same do that?? By the way, it’s a fact that legalized prostitution keeps us safer than criminalizing it. Research it. Our church-y laws are actually harming us greatly.
How ’bout we grow up, tend to our own lives, let others tend to theirs, stop our irresponsible dependence on Daddy Government. And realize the sheer ignorance of blending church and state, overhaul OUR government to reflect laws that allow true FREEDOM.
It would be quite simple. Anything goes unless it TRULY harms others — and that doesn’t include hurting church-y people’s feelings. We should have FULL RULE of our bodies. In fact, that should be a given, a no-brainer. An absolute HUMAN RIGHT to OWN our OWN bodies.
Let the People decide who they wish to love and commit their lives to, or “marry,” regardless of what body parts they tend to want to intermingle. Straight or gay, it’s an animalistic thing we do. So what really needs to happen is for church-y people to stop being ashamed of sex in general (especially their own). That shame brings self-loathing and then they put upon others their fearful religious laws.
Either we all have freedom or no one has it. The unreasonable control of government, seeded by the above-mentioned self-loathing will lead to nothing but our own self-destruction. THIS is what has brought our world to where it is now. “Let my people go.”
Dove
Dove said this on November 13, 2008 at 10:44
[...] http://littlecog.com/2008/11/12/an-opinion-on-gay-marriage-rights/ [...]
Gay Marriage: From a conservative’s POV « Grits For You said this on November 13, 2008 at 11:33
You’ve completely missed the point of why the state recognizes marriages.
ANyone can get marries to anybody, or as many people they like, any time.
But the state, and certain groups [churches, temples etc] have their own standards for recognizing a marriage.
For the state, what matters is “what interest does the state have in recognizing, promoting, facilitating this relationship?” The state has an interest in promoting and protecting male-female monogamous relationships. It has no interest in doing the same for swingers, 2 women, 3 women etc etc.
P.S. Any American who is not already legally married already has the right to get married right now.
Akira said this on November 13, 2008 at 11:34
The “Gay Marriage” movement = an attempt to force people to recognize something that most people have no interest in.
Akira said this on November 13, 2008 at 11:37
Right on! This is how they handle it in some European countries and I wish we did the same here. Let the states grant civil rights and the churches can then choose whether or not to allow marriage ceremonies between two consenting adults.
Brian said this on November 13, 2008 at 11:44
[...] government to me. And Little Cog made a fabulous point in this article about how there should be “Marriage for none, Civil Unions for all” and I completely agree with that [...]
Ok Forget Prop 8, Let’s Talk About Arkansas « rheality.check said this on November 13, 2008 at 11:54
I’m not sure if the “Equal Protection” clause is the way to go here. First of all, everyone can get married, albeit with some restrictions. For example, you can’t marry your sister, mother, brother, father, or someone of the same sex. If the 14th Amendment is successfully argued here wouldn’t logic dictate that these restrictions would be unconstitutional as well?
Secondly, wouldn’t other areas where government issues licenses, permits, contracts, etc. be affected? What about grants and the like to minorities? Isn’t that the same; “You can’t receive this (permit/license/contract) because you are not the specified (race/sex/sexual orientation)”
I’m not saying that if homosexuals are allowed to marry then people will be marrying their family pet or favorite appliance. I just believe that if you go down this particular road it could open whole other can of worms.
jstevenmoore said this on November 13, 2008 at 11:57
As a somewhat-conservative Christian, I love the idea. I think being married according to God’s standards is all that matters. Whether I’m married according to my state is irrelevant to me. Legally, call it a civil union; spritually, call it a marriage.
That’s some great forward-thinking (although I agree with some other comments that folks may fight this concept harder than the idea of gay marriage).
Cory Jones said this on November 13, 2008 at 12:25
As far as the government is concerned, “marriage” is a contract between two people vowing to commit emotionally and financially. Unless that would result in harm to others and as long as those people are legally responsible for their actions (sane, of legal age, etc.), it should not matter if they’re straight or gay. In other words, they are all civil unions. Whether or not an organized religion recognizes those civil unions as “marriages” is not the government’s concern.
Any couple, straight or gay, who is willing to legally commit to each other should have the same rights. Period. Anything less should not be aceeptable to anyone truly concerned about equal rights.
Me? Straight and married to the same woman for more than 25 years
mbryner said this on November 13, 2008 at 12:32
Fact is if Gay people can have Civil Unions, I can Guarantee you right now my German Shepard will want one too.
Noah Tourjee said this on November 13, 2008 at 12:54
“the church-y control-freak people need to get over themselves…”
This is not particularly constructive language. Religious people have a valid point of view, while you may not agree with them, please at least be respectful while you’re here.
LittleCog said this on November 13, 2008 at 13:21
How does gay marriage affect anyone else’s marriage? Instead of trying to stop gay people from getting married, how about people focus on trying to stop the 50% of heterosexual couples who get married from getting divorced.
I am laughing out loud at people who say bring up the Bible as the reason gay people shouldn’t get married. What’s funny is they throw around these so called “anti-gay” passages but ignore the others not too far away that says don’t eat shrimp, don’t get pierced and don’t wear a garment with two different clothes.
Why is it that some straight people are so hung up on the SEX part of homosexual, I mean it’s like you can’t get past that word. Comments like if homosexuals get married then what else? I can’t believe people can even part their lips to compare two consenting adults who love each other to sex with animals, pedophiles and other craziness. That just shows their thought process…sad.
The problem with leepeoples post is that if we let the majority tell everyone else what to do and how to live, blacks would still be slaves and women would still be 2nd class citizens. As far as I can check in history, it was never the majority who most needed protection under the law.
As for lori…I am a Christian too AND I am a lesbian. This is the way God made me and whether or not I ever get married, this will be who I am. I can be celibate for the rest of my life and guess what, I will still be a lesbian. If you want to protect your children from sexual promiscuity as you say, then you need to turn your fight against the sexual permissions of the straight community. How ill-informed you seem to even suggest that gay people are going around screwing the world and straights are totally monogamous… no offense, but have you been outside or turned on a TV lately? I think the porn industry is run by, uh, straight men. If you want to fight sexual promiscuity, that could be a starting point.
Why is it I never hear of priests or pastors refusing to perform second, third of fourth marriages? I thought divorce and remarriage is a sin? Oh yes, that’s right…since the majority does it, it must be OK…
It is frustrating to see that we can be so progressive but yet so ignorant at the same time.
tami said this on November 13, 2008 at 13:25
There is only one problem with ‘gay marriage.’It does not exist. Marriage is exactly what you and I know it is. One man and one woman.
It isn’t a matter of rights. Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. One man may marry one woman.
You can’t re-define an institution.
Bob Hanks
http://www.bobhanks.wordpress.com
bobhanks said this on November 13, 2008 at 13:27
On the flip side comments like: “Fact is if Gay people can have Civil Unions, I can Guarantee you right now my German Shepard will want one too.” are not only unrelated, but they’re demeaning. Suggesting that legalizing gay marriage will make it ok for people to marry dogs is disrespectful. I’m not saying gay marriage is wrong or right, I’m just saying it should be outside the purview of the state.
I’m happy to give you guys a place to debate this issue, I only ask that everyone be respectful.
LittleCog said this on November 13, 2008 at 13:33
If you don’t want gay marriage, don’t have one.
Slavery was also an institution, and not only have we redefined it for the good of society, but we destroyed it.
tami said this on November 13, 2008 at 13:36
amateurpol.wordpress.com
While the post is interesting, its defect is what it leaves out. The whole issue with marriage is that the relationship concerns a number of legal rights which require governmental action to enforce. An example might be that spouse A is hospitalized and his/her spouse wants access to visit in ICU but only ‘family’ is permitted. Absent a definition of marriage (and irrspective who has, if anyone has, issued a license for the marriage) how will the hospital know that spouse B is married to spouse A. It all revolves around what makes two people ’spouses’ for purposes of a variety of legal issues, access to hospital rooms, making medical decisions, inheriting, status of a couple for adoption purposes, etc. And the ’status’ of being married must be defined as a matter of law regardless of who, if anyone, issues a license.
As for “equal protection”, the long held rule is that a state may classify, so long as the persons are not members of a so-called suspect class, if there is a “rational basis” for the classification. Hense, minors can’t drink alcohol, you have to be 21 to gamble, you have to retire at age 70, etc. However, if the classification is a ’suspect class’ such as gender, race or religion, a state may only discriminate if there is a “compelling interest”. As a result, a state can provide separate rest rooms for men and women, permit kosher food requirements in public food outlets, etc.
As to Prop 8, the question is which test applies, “rational basis” or “compelling interest”. In order to answer this we need to look at the classification. Since the prohibition bars both men and women from marrying people of the same sex, it is not likely to be viewed as gender based discrimination and therefore only the rational basis test would apply. Given the current make up of the Supreme Court, I can’t see a holding that preservation of traditional marriage is not rational!
If you want to strike down Prop 8, get someone married in Massachusetts or Connecticutt to try to enforce marital rights in California under the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution.
amateurpol said this on November 13, 2008 at 14:11
Very astute post. I agree completely.
theoriginaljames said this on November 13, 2008 at 14:12
Where do we draw the line? Are we saying then that polygamy should also be legal? Are we going to grants special rights to pedifiles and rapist too to make sure our politically correct agenda is fair and un-bias. The social values in the US is detrimentally deteriorated. Marriage use to have value and prestige. Now you can go through a drive through to get married and divorced. We’ve been so desesitized to the coruption of our social values that nothing is values and sacred. Maybe in the next 10 -20 years we will deteriorate to the point where a human will be allowed to marry thier pet. Being politically correct doesn’t mean socially responsible.
Barack said this on November 13, 2008 at 14:32
What’s the point of voting anymore… if people will try to overturn it anyway? Way to go Arnold!
gennoah said this on November 13, 2008 at 15:27
Re: “How does gay marriage affect anyone else’s marriage?”
- How does sibling marriage affect anyone else’s marriage?
- How does polygamy affect anyone else’s marriage?
- How does parent + adult child marriage affect anyone else’s marriage?
Akira said this on November 13, 2008 at 15:37
[...] An opinion on Gay Marriage Rights Since I live in metropolitan San Francisco, I can’t throw a stick wouthout hitting a “No on prop 8″ [...] [...]
Top Posts « WordPress.com said this on November 13, 2008 at 16:03
Dyanne on November 13, 2008 at 3:28 am
The point of my argument is that there would be no legal or religious institution of marriage if it were not for the differentiation of the sexes and the need to stabilize and support the family unit in the interests of the common good.
To assume that heterosexual nature of marriage has been imposed on society for thousands of years purely out of prejudice seems to be based on an emotional argument that marriage is an equality status symbol that has no real historical meaning. In other words, its a rationalization.
frangelo said this on November 13, 2008 at 16:36
Re: “How does gay marriage affect anyone else’s marriage?”
- How does sibling marriage affect anyone else’s marriage?
- How does polygamy affect anyone else’s marriage?
- How does parent + adult child marriage affect anyone else’s marriage?
The above post speaks volumes for the person asking the question. Your underlying notion is that gay people are immoral, but following your own flawed logic, so was Sarah and Abraham, not only were they brother and sister but Abraham also had multiple wives. I never heard Abraham called immoral in Sunday School…interesting.
tami said this on November 13, 2008 at 16:38
[...] 13, 2008 by brain http://littlecog.com/2008/11/12/an-opinion-on-gay-marriage-rights/ The [...]
More gay marriage news « Lady with a Hat said this on November 13, 2008 at 17:09
I wholeheartedly support this idea and have written virtually the same thing on my own blog! Great minds think alike!
graciad said this on November 13, 2008 at 21:26
nice post
Tabbie said this on November 13, 2008 at 21:28
In the interest of “equal time,” an interested article written by Thomas Sowell on this subject arguing the opposite.
Thomas Sowell
Ben Wheat said this on November 14, 2008 at 08:50
Seems like the article linked above agrees with my premise:
“Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else’s business. Now they are asserting a right to other people’s approval, which is wholly different. “
LittleCog said this on November 14, 2008 at 11:59
“There is no example of any religion in the history [sic] who had permitted people to sex having same sex.”
Ancient Greece.
Ancient Rome.
Ancient Egypt.
Sumeria.
Ancient Arabia.
“As human-being [soc] by nature wants a change, he/she likes change and new experiments to get excitement. This excitement is not long lasting and it cannot provide self satisfaction that a human’s soul wants.”
This explains why there are people who are exclusively homosexual since puberty well into old age. They’re just experimenting for some excitement trying to settle down with life partners and adopt kids to create families. It’s the exact same thing as a drunken co-ed kissing and feeling up someone of the same sex once upon a time at a frat party…
gfish said this on November 14, 2008 at 13:39
Sammy25: ” It tells people that we are not good enough, or not “moral” enough, or “religious” enough to be married.”
I disagree it does not tell “people” any of that (apparently that is your own perception and opinion and you have every right to it). What it does do is remind people that unless one of the gay partners had a sex change they do not fit the term (and maybe not even then) “marriage” the union between man and woman.
Your argument falls off the rails when you suggest it is a “civil right” to be married. I am not a great scholar of the Bill of Rights but I do not recall marriage being mentioned. If you are trying to argue “the pursuit of happiness”? … are you trying to tell me you are not happy with the relationship itself? A paper is the key? If you want a ceremony “jump over a broom”. If your argument “FOR” is really about equal treatment to what “het couples” get .. work for a better “civil union” and it would pass with flying colors immediately.
Stephen: “How are the majority of people who do not want to see this happen, who have voted for this not to happen twice, how are they protected under the law?” I’m sorry, but what protection are you looking for?
Plain and simple how about YOUR VOTE to mean something?
clinicalthinker said this on November 14, 2008 at 21:46
I’m late to the party, so I doubt that anyone will read my “brilliant” comment. I am very much in agreement with you.
I am a strong believer in separation of church and state. I am not a Christian, but Roger Williams is my (Protestant) “sain.”
I think “marriage” should be a religious affair. Any church should be able to marry or refuse to marry anybody. It should have no legal standing.
Consenting non-incestuous human adults (regardless of sex) should be allowed to form civil unions.
Interestingly, my daughter and her female partner (both like me not religious believers) are in a similar space on this question.
modestypress said this on November 16, 2008 at 14:14
By its very definition, marriage (a union of a man and a woman), is an under inclusive legal term for use in a society that strives to ensure due process and equal protection to all similarly situated persons under the law. The term civil union most accurately describes the socio/political construct of a state sanctioned union. It is all inclusive in that it can pertain to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Going forward, the concept of “marriage” would no longer be legally operative and could thus safely retain its physiological and biological and/or traditional ecclesiastical and/or spiritual meanings including the union of man and woman during
coitus and/or in holy matrimony. Marriage would be a non-legal status and event defined by the couple and/or their religious and/or spiritual affiliation. This will comply with the concepts
of freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and public policy considerations.
StayWoke said this on November 17, 2008 at 01:30
[...] didn’t really think anyone else agreed with me about gay marriage and gay rights until I saw this article about a week later that pretty much echoed my thoughts on the [...]
inphiltrate nonfiction » Real Conservatism said this on November 19, 2008 at 12:27
[...] “An Opinion on Gay Marriage Rights”, a short blog entry published by a self-described conservative. I wholeheartedly agree with his statement that “being a real conservative means not telling other people what to do or how to live their lives”, and I further believe that his proposed solution is one of the best I’ve read. [...]
Koerber, On The Issues » Blog Archive » Follow-up: Relationships and marriage said this on November 30, 2008 at 10:38
So we, people who are interested in the opposite sex (the way God intended–and you can’t deny this because THIS is the only way to re-create the cycle of life) and have been practicing a traditional ceremonial union of love for hundreds of years are supposed to give all that up and instead call it a “civil union” so that gay people can feel better about themselves being gay and don’t have to feel discriminated against? Um, no. I agree that homosexual couples derseve all the rights of married couples as far as tax benefits and such go. But using the term “marriage” is not a right. It is a privilege. A privilege given to a man and woman who are truly in love with each other and agree to be together as one for the rest of their lives. You cannot seperate religion from state no matter how hard you try because this nation was BUILT on religion. In addition, I absolutely hate it when people compare gay rights to the civil rights movement of African Americans. It is not the same thing. At all. Not even close. Why aren’t the trials and tribulations of homosexuals ever compared to that of the Jews during the Holocaust or to the injustices committed against the Native Americans when the Europeans first began to enter the North American land? Comparing what homosexuals have to go through with what African Americans had to and still have to go through is an easy way out and will never win an argument with me. Homosexuals were not torn from their land, raped and used as slaves for hundreds of years. I’m not belittling their (homosexuals) struggle, but it is not the same as the racial struggle and should not be compared as such.
Aaron said this on December 18, 2008 at 05:50
Aaron,
No one is asking you to give up anything. Just separate civil unions from marriage. If a couple – gay or straight – wants legal recognition of their relationship, they get a civil union license instead of a marriage license. If they then want to have religious recognition of their civil union, they have a marriage ceremony (with or without religious connotations). It’s simple really and doesn’t take away from or deny rights to anyone.
I disagree with what you say about the tribulations of homosexuals. A quick study of history will show that we were tortured and murdered right alongside the Jews in Nazi Germany (research the pink triangle symbol), burned at the stake during the witch trials in Salem, and are still being denied some of the basic human rights that blacks enjoy on a daily basis. Most of us don’t even have legal protection against employer discrimination.
And if you’re still convinced that gays have no right to compare their civil rights struggle to that of blacks, look no further than the recent presidential election. Do you seriously believe an openly gay man would have stood a chance at winning the highest office in the land?
Brian said this on December 18, 2008 at 23:41
If that’s how Webster’s defines marriage then maybe I should boycott their dictionary.
Matt said this on December 19, 2008 at 16:38
[...] a matter of if, but a matter of when. And a matter of how, as fellow WordPress blogger, in “An Opinion on Gay Marriage Rights,” proposes that marriage become religious-issued, and civil unions remain in the political [...]
Prop 8: An Exclusive Practice in An Inclusive-Promising Nation said this on December 29, 2008 at 11:23
[...] A Real Conservative’s Solution to Marriage Equality. [...]
Required Reading… « The Little Cog said this on January 26, 2009 at 09:21
[...] Always thought this was a good idea. Who’s up for knocking on doors? [...]
Not a bad idea… « The Little Cog said this on March 15, 2009 at 12:34