While I consider Proposition 8 a step in the right direction, it does not go nearly far enough. Why should we stop at only banning gay marriage? We live in an allegedly secular nation with separation of church and state yet our government gives tax breaks and benefits to couples who take part in a religious ceremony. That sounds decidedly unconstitutional to me yet according to the Supreme Courts of 29 states, it is only unconstitutional for gays to marry. What gives?
I realize religious conservatives will balk at my argument but hear me out. I am not suggesting President Obama send out SWAT teams to remove your wedding bands by force. No one is going to stop you from clinging to your rings just like no one has ever stopped you from clinging to your guns and your religion. You can keep all of them; you just give up the unfair advantages you have over singles in the tax code.
Although this action will be unpopular at first, we must remember that what is right is not always popular. Abraham Lincoln's issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation cost his Republican Party 28 House seats in the 1862 Congressional elections. What do we remember today, those lost elections or Lincoln's heroism?
Barack Obama could go down in history as another Lincoln if only he had the courage to uphold the Constitution as written.
A 2005 NFI poll found that only a third of U.S. marriages could be deemed successful and that marital satisfaction declined during each successive 5 year interval of alleged wedded bliss.
Answer me this: Are you as happy today as you were when you first became intimate with your spouse?
I envy the few who can honestly answer this question in the affirmative. For the rest, the banning of marriage act would serve as a do-over of sorts, and all without the messy work of putting a divorce attorney on retainer.
Happy couples can of course stay together but those who suffered in silence until now could get a second shot at happiness. It is a win-win for all involved.
And that is why it will never happen.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Tom Cordle
David Cox
C.K. Dexter Haven
Nick Leshi
Norwonk
Adrian Nothnagle
Salon.com
Comments
Yes. Of course, life is a lot more complicated now than it was when I was 19, and happiness takes many different forms, but marrying my husband is a decision I don't regret, and I would do it over again without hesitation.
But, you can go ahead and ban all the other ones. ;-)
And never mind gay marriage; wait til the gay divorces get going! Ay, ay, ay.
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=137708
You are on the right track, sir. The marriage bond is not legal, or religious, but symbolic. This is
not downgrading symbolc things, for we live ina symbolic universe,
but to praise them, raise them to their full former glory, for
there is some glory in a couple of
considerable intimacy gettin g along & being...happy?
Jim.rated
So I agree. Legal civil partnerships for any pair of people -- even, say, a pair of old retiree siblings living together -- and leave marriage out of it. If you still want your arrangement done before god, that's your business, and you can do that on your own at a church.
Verbal Remedy: You posted that a week before I got here so I didn't realize we were on the same wavelength.
You've got me laughing (even though your points are legit). What are you thinking - that man should treat his fellow man with equity and fairness? Without marriage there wouldn't be any affairs, and then half the media would be out of business, and all those lawyers would go broke, and the preachers would have to stick to liquor sin sermons, and the Republicans would have to find a new cause for existence, and the wedding chapels in Vegas, and oh my...this is complicated.
Rated
One is the spiritual or religious component. Anyone without benefit of the state can enter into a marriage arrangement. You can write your own code or boundaries of what that marriage is. It's between you and your spouse or your religious group. There are many religious groups that do not even consider the state when entering into marriage. Gays can marry or polygamist or three people and a goat for that matter can say they are married.
The second component is the social contract. Most societies have some form of social contract called marriage. As with all contracts it has its benefits and restrictions. This social contract has changed over the years, but has continued to have one constant heterosexual theme.
Why marriage? It is simple society has found that when the social contract of marriage is functioning the society at large is healthier and more stable. It protects the rights of the women and men and especial children. It allows for transferring of wealth, responsibility for the care of future generations. When this social contract breaks down the society breaks down.
The question is who dictates what the benefits and restriction of the social contract of marriage are? The individual or the society that must live with the bounds of the contract? Even gay marriage as it is framed now is restrictive. In the framework of the public debate the idea of marriage is monogamous. So who decides. In states that allow for gay marriage it has been decided by a small group who may not represent the wishes of the people. In states that have put the issue to the society, all including California have decided the definition of marriage includes only heterosexual monogamous couples. Marriage historically has been what it is today, and maybe if the founders of the country foresaw gay marriage they may have made previsions for or against it. As it stands right now there is no direct constitutional clause and therefor the issue is left to the states.
I can understand the frustration of the gay community, but if they wish to be included into the social contract their battle is changing the minds of society who for the time being do not consider gay marriage OK.
P.S. Devin, 70-73% (depending on the people group) of first marriages do not end in divorce. The majority of divorces are second and third marriages which skew the overall statistic. Saying 50% all marriages fail is not an accurate picture of the state of marriage.
Marriage overall ends in divorce over 50% of the time. Second or fifth or twentieth doesn't matter, a marriage is a marriage and they end quite often in divorce.
aphrabehn: You have inspired my next post. I was shocked when an ex-gf told me birth control cost $70 a month. If the govt. subsidized birth control, that would almost put an end to the abortion issue.
Jeanette D.: I envy your happiness.
Havlin: Thanks. I will delve more into my thoughts on religion in later posts.
Non Vivant: Exactly. Religious rituals should have no legal baring in a country w/ separation of church and state.
Silkstone: I like your idea. I once read on AOL that a third of engaged people want to back out of their marriages but there is so much stigma attached to cold feet that they take the plunge anyways. Here is a link about the cold feet phenomenon:
http://manolobrides.com/2008/10/22/when-your-feet-are-cold/
I'll try to answer the rest later.
Soap Box Amy: You and your husband remind me of Paul and Linda McCartney. The only time the two ever slept apart was when the Japanese jailed Paul for a week for marijuana possession.
Obama spoke at Notre Dame a couple weeks ago and I was filming anti-abortion protesters for a documentary. I overheard this conversation about gay marriage.
Protester #1
"So, what will come after gay marriage?"
Protester #2
"What?"
Protester #1
"What do you think will come after?" "Tri-marriage?"
Protester #2
"Tri-marriage?"
Protester #1
"Yeah, marriage between two guys and a woman."
Protester #2 looks on smirking.
Protester #
"Marriage between two girls and a guy. You know it's going to happen."
So, for those few anti-abortionists fearing that the government will sanction all forms of free love and free living, let's just be done with all the politics and ban all government licensed marriages like you say.
Rated.
I wrote a different take on the issue if you're interested:
http://open.salon.com/blog/maria_stuart/2009/04/04/gay_marriage_hits_the_heartland
Society does not dictate what goes on in the bedroom. If gay marriage was just about sex there would be no discussion. Gays are having sex now in their bedroom without any social or legal restrictions. The contract of marriage as it pertains to society does effect society and therefor society has a vested interest in the institution. So who who should decided society who has to share the burden of the individuals choice or the individual that demands certain benefits from society.
The legal social contract has nothing to do with the religious aspect at all. Gays, straights or polygamist can enter into a commitment of marriage without the social contract and many do. I have two gay cosines who had religious ceremonies and are married.
As for a marriage is a marriage, fact is 70-73% of all first marriages succeed or at least do not end in divorce. If you have 10 couples and 7 to 7.3 of them do not divorce that is a pretty good average. The fact the other 3 are having multiple marriages and divorces does not have the same social impact. Plus, many second and third marriages are happening between the same group of already divorced couples. For example between myself and my wife there are 8 siblings of the 8 all have been divorced except for wife and me. Of those who remarried all married divorced partners as well. Plus all their exes have done the same. Others may have different experiences, but statistically most divorced adults remarry divorced adults. And second marriages have a even higher failure rate than first marriages. I am not passing judgement it is just the way it is.
Personally I do not care if gays get married. I think there should be a religious exemption because some have a heart felt belief that homosexuality is a sin and therefore exclude them from marrying within their faith. But, if society decides to allow the social contract of marriage between gays, I am not going to loose any sleep over it and see no threat to my marriage. The biggest part is personal commitment without that all you have is a piece of paper.
I think the reason a higher percentage of second marriages fail is there are additional stresses not found in the first because of blended families. Also, since divorce is not unfamiliar it is easier for some to leave a marriage the second time. I know many second marriages that have been highly successful and actual lasted longer than the first. Some people do learn from their mistakes. And I have seen my fair share of in-name-only, lifeless, loveless marriages. I give them props for commitment, but feel so sad for those who never find happiness in their relationships. I was attending a marriage counseling workshop and one of the most interesting statistics was 80% of all divorces are one sided. Meaning only one member wants the divorce. What can you do if your partner wants out. Yet, both partners are given the stigma of being divorces.
I am a sort of actions speak louder than words kind of guy. My father was a "good Catholic" who would not grant a divorce to my mother, but he had no problem with alcoholism and cheating. Until the day he died he blamed my mother for the marriage breakup, but his actions told the real story.
There is no requirement in the US to have a religious ceremony- in fact the opposite is true - the state grants religious institutions the right to officiate a marriage but the legal licenses come from the state.
You can have an entirely secular wedding. You are required to get a state license but not have a religiously officiated wedding.
Few of the religious precepts that go along with marriage - banning adultery, divorce, etc. are part of the civic code. You may not be able to receive communion after your divorce - the state does not give a crap.
Marriage laws and the rights that go along with getting married are not about controlling sex and fertility – as they are on the religious side – they are about inheritance rights and having rights that go along with being acknowledged as family (making medical decisions and the like.)
Now certainly things are a bit muddled – in part because the civil institution was originally controlled by the religious institutions (that were as concerned with sex as property rights) but those are largely separated out now. You could say that the backlash from religious institutions is a last spasm of angst over the loss of power and a weak attempt to exert influence over the state. But in the end they would doubtless fail as they did with divorce and adultery and all of the other confines they sought to impose on the civil institution.
The easiest solution as I see it is civil unions for everyone from the state. If you want to have a big old church wedding whether you are gay or straight that is your business. (Which is effectively what we have it is just a matter of wording really) But the state shouldn’t uphold discrimination in contracts because of a person’s gender or sexual orientation. Call it a marriage license, call it a civil union to scrub out the religious significance – I don’t care – just make it open to any adult who is willing to enter a committed relationship and call each other family and enjoy the rights and protections (and ditch the tax breaks for all I care) that family is afforded under the law in order to protect and care for each other.
And Oreo Blizzards? Don't you DARE take Oreo Blizzard name in vain!
There is some truth to what you say. One of the reasons we put off making hard decisions is because of the unknown. This is true with marriage as well as divorce. I do not have any statistics and someone in the field may know better, but it seems people are getting divorced at an earlier age than 20 years ago. It's easier for a young couple without children, careers and mortgages to call it quits. It is also easier to remarry because that is also no longer an unknown as well. I wonder what the percentage of divorced without children category are effecting the overall divorce rate now.
The good news is 2nd marriages that survive 5 years have a better survival rate than first marriages. Some people do grow and learn from their past experiences. Pain is a great motivator to change those who have gone through the pain of a divorce I think are more in tune to what needs to happen in a second marriage to make it last. Plus, maturity (not age) makes for better relationships.
As insane as that seems to us now, so one day will the marriage inequality facing gays and lesbians seem equally insane. I don't even worry about it anymore; it's not something that might happen, it's cultural evolution in progress, and it cannot be stopped.
this post is offensive to that reality. lincoln's emancipation proclamation increased the liberty and equality of all; it didn't eliminate what the liberated and the free valued, it expanded it.
that difference is important to me.
We are taking something away from a group of people. We are saying "this is ok for these people over here, but not those people over there."
That is called discrimination.
I don't care if you think we should get rid of all the drinking fountains. That is a nice sentiment. Drinking fountains are pretty nasty.
That's not the point. The point is, everyone should be allowed to drink from the fountain.
People who "don't know how they feel about gay marriage" need to seriously grow up. Let's be real for a moment. Discrimination is disgusting. Always has been, and always will be. We look back at racism with shame. We will look back at this with shame, as well.
Shame on you.