Institutional bigotry?

Amos_Umwhat

I was working on my lawnmower a couple days ago, listening to the radio, FOX news radio, and they reported that Jerry Brown (Governor, CA) had signed into law wording that removes the words "Husband" and "Wife" from legal documents of marriage and changed the words to "Spouse", only.

Now, I don't really care much one way or the other about "gay-marriage". I don't care if two males or two females marry each other under the law, it's not my business. It's their contract.

But, I must say that it seems like a new form of institutional bigotry to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't it seem like men and women participating in the traditional marriage vows should be allowed to continue to be Husband and Wife, as it's been for thousands of years? Wasn't the idea of "gay-marriage" to allow those of other sexual orientation to participate in the social norms? Because this seems more like the idea was to fundamentally disrupt the norm.

Or, am I just overthinking this? I do that sometimes.

What do y'all think?
.

wwhwang

Not sure in this instance. One other possibility is that this governor might just be too PC for his own good. In Canada, gay marriage has been legal for a long time, but I still hear gay men and women call their significant other as husband or wife very frequently.

Ken_Light

Both over and under-thinking. Over in that I don't call my wife what it says on my marriage license. Under in that the real solution is for the government to get out of marriage entirely. If I want to be legally bound to someone I can be. I don't have to live with them, I don't have to sleep with them, I don't have to love them, and I don't have to throw a party to celebrate it. But I can, of course, if the other consents to it. If the government wants to limit that to one person, ok. But now that I'm legally bound to this person we share things like debts, incomes, insurance, and can make decisions for one another in times of medical emergency. End of story, end of drama.

raisindot

I don't think there's anything bigoted about it at all. It simply accommodates the legal status of gay couples by removing language (from legal documents, i.e., marriage licenses) that would otherwise discriminate against them (requiring one person to have to sign the role of "husband" and the other of "wife", for example). It doesn't require such "gender-neutral" language to be used in religious ceremonies, which often have different legal structures (i.e., marriage laws and rituals specific to that religion) that are entirely different than those of a state's legal status.

Personally, I would have had no problem applying for and signing a marriage license that mentioned only "spouses" rather than "husband and wife". It matters not a whit to me the wording a state uses to define that status of my wife and me, as long as such language isn't discriminatory (i.e., calling the man "master" and the wife "his b*tch") and that we both enjoy equal legal rights under my state's marriage laws. I know that my wife is my wife. Everyone who knows me that that my wife is my wife. It concerns me not if the state refers to me as "Spouse" and her as "Spouse".

Jetmech_63

Appease the minority and forsake the masses. It's kind of what i see as a culture shift in the US these days. Maybe a better way of putting it is institusting change so as not to offend a minority even though the greater mass feels otherwise. Examples:

The masses of CA voted against gay marriage, overturned.

Lets change the logo of the washington redskins because it might offend Native Americans.

Lets pull boxes of soap from shelves because the numbers "18" or "88" appear on them and could be construed as Adoplh Hitlers initials(to be fair this occured in germany, but by an american company) So now numbers are off limits? Should we ban 88, 14, 18 and 311?

Lets pull items of christian religious institution from not only public grounds but general public view(such as nativity scenes on private property getting shut down) so as not to offend those of other religions.

Lets allow muslim soldiers, sailors and marines be able to have beards and wear turbans in at all times in uniform(this happens...food for thought,what if that offends me?)

When was the last time you saw a "Christmas" sale?

I could go farther on....I agree with amos on a broader scope, not just gay marraige wording in and of itself but the whole culture shift as a whole.

The3Stogies

Husband and wife traditionally means man and woman, man being the (for lack of a better term) master. Bringing home the bacon and keeping the family safe, now may interpreted as making the money to feed and protect. But now some wives make more than their husbands. I work with 2 ladies that their husbands stay home.

Spouse is more defined as gender and head of household neutral, and is probably the easier way to legally settle cases, referring to alimony and children. With pre-nups and everything else you now have lawyers involved from the start.

Really it is up to you and your _____ as to how your marriage will be defined, not a piece of paper, a contract. Don't necessarily agree with the governor but can understand, after all it is California.

SleevePlz

Assuming that gay marriage becomes legal in CA at some point, this seems like a pretty obvious change to make. Not sure I would view it as the slippery slope that some others have. Also, doesn't everyone see the gay marriage debate as this generations Civil Rights Movement or Women's Suffrage? 50 years from now people are going to look back at this issue much the same way we currently look back on those two issues now.

blutattoo

Jetmech_63:

Appease the minority and forsake the masses. It's kind of what i see as a culture shift in the US these days. Maybe a better way of putting it is institusting change so as not to offend a minority even though the greater mass feels otherwise. Examples:

The masses of CA voted against gay marriage, overturned.

Lets change the logo of the washington redskins because it might offend Native Americans.

Lets pull boxes of soap from shelves because the numbers "18" or "88" appear on them and could be construed as Adoplh Hitlers initials(to be fair this occured in germany, but by an american company) So now numbers are off limits? Should we ban 88, 14, 18 and 311?

Lets pull items of christian religious institution from not only public grounds but general public view(such as nativity scenes on private property getting shut down) so as not to offend those of other religions.

Lets allow muslim soldiers, sailors and marines be able to have beards and wear turbans in at all times in uniform(this happens...food for thought,what if that offends me?)

When was the last time you saw a "Christmas" sale?

I could go farther on....I agree with amos on a broader scope, not just gay marraige wording in and of itself but the whole culture shift as a whole.

The term "redskin" is not the same as any of those others. It wouldn't be cool to have other racial epitaphs as nicknames not sure why people think it's cool for Washington to do so. I am Native or at least in part and the origin of the word goes back to my ancestors being murdered and scalped for money. That is a bit different than changing a form to say spouse instead of husband.

In regards to the original subject, times change. We either adjust our perceptions or we get frustrated. I wouldn't marry another dude, but who am I to say some other dudes can't get married.

Ken_Light

SleevePlz:

Assuming that gay marriage becomes legal in CA at some point, this seems like a pretty obvious change to make. Not sure I would view it as the slippery slope that some others have. Also, doesn't everyone see the gay marriage debate as this generations Civil Rights Movement or Women's Suffrage? 50 years from now people are going to look back at this issue much the same way we currently look back on those two issues now.

You mean with deep regret? I kid! I kid!

perkinke

The3Stogies:

Husband and wife traditionally means man and woman.

This is the key, I changed the forms for my jurisdiction a few weeks ago, and was happy to do so. My married gay friends do formally refer to each other as "husband" and my married l esbian friends do formally refer to each other as wife. However, none of my gay friends, except to rile the other up, refer to their spouse as "wife" nor do any of my l esbian friends refer to their spouse as "husband." Doesn't change identity of opposite sex couples one bit. In almost all legal documents, particularly divorce filings, I have seen in the past 10 years they say "spouse" anyway.

As for the "we voted to ban that!" Many states also voted to retain slavery, should we honor that? My state's original constitution prohibited freed slaves from moving here, which was voted on and approved by the people, should we go back to that? More recently, many states voted to uphold anti-miscegenation laws, should we return to that? Several states argued upholding consensual sodomy prohibition laws as "the will of the people," should I be jailed for getting a BJ from my consenting adult girlfriend?

Just because it was voted on doesn't make it right or even smart. The worst laws on our books were ones that came about through the referendum process.

Jetmech_63

I should stay out of NCR, you'd think I would have learned my lesson a long time ago. I apologize if I offended anyone, not my intent. I'm out...

perkinke

Jetmech_63:

I should stay out of NCR, you'd think I would have learned my lesson a long time ago. I apologize if I offended anyone, not my intent. I'm out...

Totally not offended, just disagree.

Ken_Light

Jetmech_63:

I should stay out of NCR, you'd think I would have learned my lesson a long time ago. I apologize if I offended anyone, not my intent. I'm out...

I'm deeply offended that you'd be offended by beards. I think that might merit a ban from here for all eternity, in fact. ;D

Jetmech_63

I love you guys:), it was a public apology in response to a PM, to the person who pm'd me, thanks for keeping it classy and off the main board.

Amos_Umwhat

Thanks for the responses, guys. The first two, Wayne and Ken, basically reiterated my own position, except that government can't keep out of a legal contract, or it wouldn't be a legal contract. I suppose that with the changing norms, the re-wording makes sense as a gender neutral term, equally applicable.

I'd especially like to thank Jetmech for his contribution, for voicing the underlying slippery-slope fear that I suppose was nagging at me. If we're not able to voice these fears, thereby confronting them in an open discussion, I don't see how progress can be made. Too often today even the hint of political incorrectness is shouted down, suppressed if you will. Sort of the point of this thread that the new political correctness tends to become a new form of bigotry when people aren't allowed to express their thoughts. It's as though we're all expected to only make perfect statements, in sync, even as the ground below is changing. Which it always will do.

Thanks for the discussion, guys.

Ken_Light

Amos Umwhat:

Thanks for the responses, guys. The first two, Wayne and Ken, basically reiterated my own position, except that government can't keep out of a legal contract, or it wouldn't be a legal contract. I suppose that with the changing norms, the re-wording makes sense as a gender neutral term, equally applicable.

I'd especially like to thank Jetmech for his contribution, for voicing the underlying slippery-slope fear that I suppose was nagging at me. If we're not able to voice these fears, thereby confronting them in an open discussion, I don't see how progress can be made. Too often today even the hint of political incorrectness is shouted down, suppressed if you will. Sort of the point of this thread that the new political correctness tends to become a new form of bigotry when people aren't allowed to express their thoughts. It's as though we're all expected to only make perfect statements, in sync, even as the ground below is changing. Which it always will do.

Thanks for the discussion, guys.

Marriage is not a legal contract, it is a religious rite. It's a promise between two people before their chosen deity. In most cases it's a promise also to procreate and raise children in the service of that deity. There is nothing legal about it. Governments, ours included, got lazy in the search for some method of legally joining two people and have hijacked it and shoe-horned it into a legal contract. But now we see the trouble with that laziness: it just doesn't work in all cases. There are people who claim others cannot bind in the eyes of their deity. And perhaps they cannot, and shouldn't, but that's up to religious people to decide, not the government (and certainly not me).

So the government needs to come up with something else, and I'd prefer it not be dependent on silly inanities like who those people live with, sleep with, and what genders they happen to be. We don't worry about those things when corporations are formed, why should we worry about them in this particular legal contract?

raisindot

Ken Light:

Marriage is not a legal contract, it is a religious rite. It's a promise between two people before their chosen deity. In most cases it's a promise also to procreate and raise children in the service of that deity. There is nothing legal about it. Governments, ours included, got lazy in the search for some method of legally joining two people and have hijacked it and shoe-horned it into a legal contract. But now we see the trouble with that laziness: it just doesn't work in all cases. There are people who claim others cannot bind in the eyes of their deity. And perhaps they cannot, and shouldn't, but that's up to religious people to decide, not the government (and certainly not me).

So the government needs to come up with something else, and I'd prefer it not be dependent on silly inanities like who those people live with, sleep with, and what genders they happen to be. We don't worry about those things when corporations are formed, why should we worry about them in this particular legal contract?

I don't know about your religion, but in mine marriage IS a legal contract that can be signed either with or without religious rituals. In this tradition, the contract is signed in a private ceremony with only a few witnesses present (and the cleric whose signature makes it official). The ceremony itself is just window dressing; the contract is what seals the marriage vows, not the ceremony. And, by the way, there's nothing in MY contract that says anything about procreation.

And thousands of couples get married in civil ceremonies (the old courthouse marriage) either because they're of separate religions, they don't want to have to fork over money for a cleric to marry them, or they simply don't feel the need to have an institution dictate to them their marital obligations. The need for marriage contract issued by state is necessary, BECAUSE of the religious diversity of America and the need to protect the rights of both parties (particularly the woman). For example, in one religion the marital contract might give the husband total power over the woman and forbid her from divorcing him or owning or inheriting property (as is the case in countries where Sharia law rules). A state marriage contract overrules these religious restrictions, and thank goodness it does.

Amos_Umwhat

Ken Light:

If I want to be legally bound to someone I can be. I don't have to live with them, I don't have to sleep with them, I don't have to love them, and I don't have to throw a party to celebrate it. But I can, of course, if the other consents to it. If the government wants to limit that to one person, ok. But now that I'm legally bound to this person we share things like debts, incomes, insurance, and can make decisions for one another in times of medical emergency.

Definition #1

Amos_Umwhat

Ken Light:

Marriage is not a legal contract, it is a religious rite. It's a promise between two people before their chosen deity. In most cases it's a promise also to procreate and raise children in the service of that deity. There is nothing legal about it.

Definition #2

Ken_Light

Amos Umwhat:

Ken Light:

Marriage is not a legal contract, it is a religious rite. It's a promise between two people before their chosen deity. In most cases it's a promise also to procreate and raise children in the service of that deity. There is nothing legal about it.

Definition #2

Right, that's my point, they need to move definition # 2 somewhere else in the dictionary. Because otherwise religious people and the government get too many panties in a bunch confounding the two, thinking that changing one has any impact on the other.

Amos_Umwhat

The dichotomy between definitions #1 & #2 above is at the heart of the whole matter.

Definition 1 describes the civil union, 2 describes the spiritual. Thinking about my original question and misgivings, I guess I have an objection to the civil union aspect potentially dictating acceptance and adherence to ideals that are often held in abhorrence under the spiritual contract. As Raisindot points out, there does need to be a coherent levelling force that provides a general definition for society at large, since the "spiritual" marriage may involve very different rules and privileges under various religions.

In my original question the only business of the state of California is presumably the civil union, the contract. Perkinke's points made perfect sense in that context, and I have no objection after consideration to that language.

My only concern would be the slippery-slope projection under which the state might begin mandating that particular sects or denominations would be required by law to perform a ceremony antithetical to their own cultural norms. A real fear? Maybe, maybe not. Stranger things have happened.

When all of this was under discussion a few years ago, I thought George Bush had the right answer with the Civil Union, recognized by the state, because that's what matters as regards rights and privileges under law. So then, why the push to insist on the term "Marriage"? As Ken points out, rightly I think, that is indeed a religious context. This brings us back to Jetmechs point, the suppression of the majority opinion to appease a minority element. Sometimes this is necessary, I suppose. For me this is a good example, regarding the civil union "marriage" contract between same-sex couples. That's their business. If this is to become a new norm, then gender neutral language in the civil documents makes sense.

Still, I'm wary of those who would condemn or suppress the speech of those who question the changes. "I'm offended" is not a valid and cogent argument, whether it is I who am offended, or someone offended by my question.

jgibv

From the Oxford Dictionary:
marriage
noun
1: The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.


That union can be recognized by multiple entities - including the state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community or peers.


If you want to look at the "traditional" idea of "Christian" marriage though, then yes, it includes a religious celebration between a "husband and wife". It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state.
And modern day "traditional Christian" marriage has 2 parts: the civil union and also the religious union.

Amos Umwhat:

But, I must say that it seems like a new form of institutional bigotry to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't it seem like men and women participating in the traditional marriage vows should be allowed to continue to be Husband and Wife, as it's been for thousands of years?

The state and church still allow traditional marriage vows.
AFAIK the use of "husband" and "wife" hasn't been outlawed and no one's being thrown in jail for saying those words.

Amos Umwhat:

Wasn't the idea of "gay-marriage" to allow those of other sexual orientation to participate in the social norms? Because this seems more like the idea was to fundamentally disrupt the norm.

I strongly disagree with you here.
This seems like a good way to include same-sex couples and allow them to participate in the "social norms" and receive the same benefits of having a marriage contract with the state as heterosexual couples.

Amos Umwhat:

Or, am I just overthinking this? I do that sometimes.

Gotta have something to keep your brain chugging along.
;-)


I will also say that I do not think the government should be involved in marriage, civil unions, etc.

But, since they are, and marriage is "the legally or formally recognized union of ... two people ... as partners in a relationship" then it should be open to all consenting adults whether it be husband & wife, husband & husband, or wife & wife.

jgibv

I can't address your whole previous post in one reply, but I will address the part that stuck out to me the most.....

Amos Umwhat:

When all of this was under discussion a few years ago, I thought George Bush had the right answer with the Civil Union, recognized by the state, because that's what matters as regards rights and privileges under law.

I agree to some extent here, Amos.
What's recognized by the state is what matters regarding rights and privileges under law .... no doubt about that.

Amos Umwhat:

So then, why the push to insist on the term "Marriage"?

Are you talking about using the term marriage in general? Or applying it to same-sex couples.

During early Christianity, marriage was thought of primarily as a private matter. Over time religious customs developed and there became a uniformity to the marriage ceremony.

Also, prior to the Protestant Reformation, the church handled the recording of marriage and setting the "rules" for ceremonies, etc. However during the Reformation those roles were passed off to the state.


I think getting rid of the term "marriage" all together, in a civil context, would best suit us today.
Having all state-recognized unions be called "civil unions" (or choose whatever term you want) would be the best solution IMO.

But I think that solution would probably have the same Fox News correspondents upset, maybe even more so than just changing the terms to "spouse".

Amos Umwhat:

For me this is a good example, regarding the civil union "marriage" contract between same-sex couples. That's their business. If this is to become a new norm, then gender neutral language in the civil documents makes sense.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but this seems along the lines of "separate but equal".
An extreme comparison? Yes, undoubtedly. I am not trying to start an arguement of "gay rights" vs "civil rights" but I think it helps get my point across.

I don't care what it's called....but why can't all relationships fall under the same definition for a civil marriage contract. That's what you said it's all about anyways, to gain the same rights and privileges under law.

raisindot

Amos, the problem with the "civil union" idea is that it doesn't necessarily afford partners the same rights as a "marriage." For example, if I want to rollover my 401k plan assets to my IRA , I have to have the signed consent of my wife (specified as "spouse" on an IRA benefciary form) and this has to be notarized by a notary public, because in most states a spouse is considered the legal beneficiary of such a plan unless he or she authorized the beneficiary to be changed. A civil union doesn't necessarily provide the same level of legal protection that a marriage license does, which is why gay peoples are fighting for the right to be treated as married people from a legal standpoint

I don't think changing "husband" and "wife" to "spouse" on a form in any way indicates a slipper slope where the state mandates what language or customs churches use in their own religious rituals regarding marriage. And I certainly don't want religious institutions dictating to me what a "legal" marriage is or how the state should define it. Until the late 20th century, a large number of states prohibited interracial marriages--a perfect example of religious and cultural biases interfering with the rights of the people. And when federal laws prohibited such discrimination, and state laws were changed to allow interracial marriages, many religious institutions objected to the idea of the state imposing its "politically correct" views on religious institutions. Plenty of religious institutions still believe this today. But I don't believe that legalizing interracial marriage necessarily prohibits pastors at churches, synagogues or mosques from refusing to marrying people of different races, creeds or religions. And certainly the legalization of gay marriage hasn't in any way prohibited said religious institutions from refusing to perform same-sex marriages. And such laws are highly unlikely to ever pass, even in the most liberal states. If they tried, the opposition to such efforts would make opposition to gun control seem like a tea party (note: traditional, lower-case-letterl meaning, not political movement meaning) by comparison.

Ken_Light

raisindot:

Ken Light:

Marriage is not a legal contract, it is a religious rite. It's a promise between two people before their chosen deity. In most cases it's a promise also to procreate and raise children in the service of that deity. There is nothing legal about it. Governments, ours included, got lazy in the search for some method of legally joining two people and have hijacked it and shoe-horned it into a legal contract. But now we see the trouble with that laziness: it just doesn't work in all cases. There are people who claim others cannot bind in the eyes of their deity. And perhaps they cannot, and shouldn't, but that's up to religious people to decide, not the government (and certainly not me).

So the government needs to come up with something else, and I'd prefer it not be dependent on silly inanities like who those people live with, sleep with, and what genders they happen to be. We don't worry about those things when corporations are formed, why should we worry about them in this particular legal contract?

I don't know about your religion, but in mine marriage IS a legal contract that can be signed either with or without religious rituals. In this tradition, the contract is signed in a private ceremony with only a few witnesses present (and the cleric whose signature makes it official). The ceremony itself is just window dressing; the contract is what seals the marriage vows, not the ceremony. And, by the way, there's nothing in MY contract that says anything about procreation.

And thousands of couples get married in civil ceremonies (the old courthouse marriage) either because they're of separate religions, they don't want to have to fork over money for a cleric to marry them, or they simply don't feel the need to have an institution dictate to them their marital obligations. The need for marriage contract issued by state is necessary, BECAUSE of the religious diversity of America and the need to protect the rights of both parties (particularly the woman). For example, in one religion the marital contract might give the husband total power over the woman and forbid her from divorcing him or owning or inheriting property (as is the case in countries where Sharia law rules). A state marriage contract overrules these religious restrictions, and thank goodness it does.

I'm agnostic, I wasn't married under any religion. I did have a ceremony for friends and family to make vows to my wife and then got legally bound to her by signing a contract and then threw a killer party afterwards to celebrate it. I made no promises to a god though.

I don't know about your country, but in mine church and state are separate, and the law is part of the state. Therefore nothing sanctified by any religion can influence any matters of the state, so a marriage in any religion is not a legal contract in the United States of America. A vast majority of people get married both religiously and legally at the same time and so it gets confusing. But those laws and rights you're talking about come from the legal marriage, something I think should be simply renamed to avoid confusion and debate. Clearly any two people should be able to get legally 'married' (please insert new word in the quotes). They should have all rights and responsibilities we've come to associate with legal 'marriage.' But we have no business asking where they live and who they have sex with. It's simply not relevant.

raisindot

Ken Light:

raisindot:

Ken Light:

Marriage is not a legal contract, it is a religious rite. It's a promise between two people before their chosen deity. In most cases it's a promise also to procreate and raise children in the service of that deity. There is nothing legal about it. Governments, ours included, got lazy in the search for some method of legally joining two people and have hijacked it and shoe-horned it into a legal contract. But now we see the trouble with that laziness: it just doesn't work in all cases. There are people who claim others cannot bind in the eyes of their deity. And perhaps they cannot, and shouldn't, but that's up to religious people to decide, not the government (and certainly not me).

So the government needs to come up with something else, and I'd prefer it not be dependent on silly inanities like who those people live with, sleep with, and what genders they happen to be. We don't worry about those things when corporations are formed, why should we worry about them in this particular legal contract?

I don't know about your religion, but in mine marriage IS a legal contract that can be signed either with or without religious rituals. In this tradition, the contract is signed in a private ceremony with only a few witnesses present (and the cleric whose signature makes it official). The ceremony itself is just window dressing; the contract is what seals the marriage vows, not the ceremony. And, by the way, there's nothing in MY contract that says anything about procreation.

And thousands of couples get married in civil ceremonies (the old courthouse marriage) either because they're of separate religions, they don't want to have to fork over money for a cleric to marry them, or they simply don't feel the need to have an institution dictate to them their marital obligations. The need for marriage contract issued by state is necessary, BECAUSE of the religious diversity of America and the need to protect the rights of both parties (particularly the woman). For example, in one religion the marital contract might give the husband total power over the woman and forbid her from divorcing him or owning or inheriting property (as is the case in countries where Sharia law rules). A state marriage contract overrules these religious restrictions, and thank goodness it does.

I'm agnostic, I wasn't married under any religion. I did have a ceremony for friends and family to make vows to my wife and then got legally bound to her by signing a contract and then threw a killer party afterwards to celebrate it. I made no promises to a god though.

I don't know about your country, but in mine church and state are separate, and the law is part of the state. Therefore nothing sanctified by any religion can influence any matters of the state, so a marriage in any religion is not a legal contract in the United States of America. A vast majority of people get married both religiously and legally at the same time and so it gets confusing. But those laws and rights you're talking about come from the legal marriage, something I think should be simply renamed to avoid confusion and debate. Clearly any two people should be able to get legally 'married' (please insert new word in the quotes). They should have all rights and responsibilities we've come to associate with legal 'marriage.' But we have no business asking where they live and who they have sex with. It's simply not relevant.

Amazing as it may seem, I think we're both in agreement here. I don't think that any marriage carried out through a religious ceremony would be recognized as "legal" in any state (or in the country) without a corresponding "registration" of that marriage with a state through the use of marriage license. Personally, I don't care, from a state's legal point of view, whether you call it a "civil union," a "marriage" a "consensual personal legal partnership" or anything else as long as whatever the entity is it provides both parties with equal rights in terms of divorce, inheritance, ownership, raising of children, or anything else.

Funny personal story to illustrate this point. When my wife and I were married back in the Cretaceous era, before the wedding ceremony itself we both signed a "ketubah," which is a traditional Jewish wedding contract. Our rabbi signed it as the "clerical authority" or whatever, The language is archaic and in Hebrew and no one really knows what it means but its legally binding from a Jewish standpoint, i.e., in the eyes of Jews it legitimizes our marriages, ensures that our kids won't be considered bastards by other Jews and so on. It has absolutely NO legal standing in a court of law.

At this same signing, the rabbi also signed our state's wedding license as a legal witness, because, presumably, clerics are given the authority. Without his signature, the wedding isn't valid from a state POV.

Anyway, when we came back from our honeymoon, we discovered that the rabbi had signed a copy of the marriage license, not the original. Thus, we were not technically "legally" married. That caused the first huge fight of our marriage (since I was the one responsible for taking care of the licenses). That very day (which happened to be a Jewish holiday) we chased around the city to find the rabbi and by luck happened to find him (in a deli, no less) and had him sign the real license. Nearly twenty five years later I can laugh very loudly about it now, but back then, it seemed like the en of the world (at least to my wife).

Ken_Light

raisindot:

Ken Light:

raisindot:

Ken Light:

Marriage is not a legal contract, it is a religious rite. It's a promise between two people before their chosen deity. In most cases it's a promise also to procreate and raise children in the service of that deity. There is nothing legal about it. Governments, ours included, got lazy in the search for some method of legally joining two people and have hijacked it and shoe-horned it into a legal contract. But now we see the trouble with that laziness: it just doesn't work in all cases. There are people who claim others cannot bind in the eyes of their deity. And perhaps they cannot, and shouldn't, but that's up to religious people to decide, not the government (and certainly not me).

So the government needs to come up with something else, and I'd prefer it not be dependent on silly inanities like who those people live with, sleep with, and what genders they happen to be. We don't worry about those things when corporations are formed, why should we worry about them in this particular legal contract?

I don't know about your religion, but in mine marriage IS a legal contract that can be signed either with or without religious rituals. In this tradition, the contract is signed in a private ceremony with only a few witnesses present (and the cleric whose signature makes it official). The ceremony itself is just window dressing; the contract is what seals the marriage vows, not the ceremony. And, by the way, there's nothing in MY contract that says anything about procreation.

And thousands of couples get married in civil ceremonies (the old courthouse marriage) either because they're of separate religions, they don't want to have to fork over money for a cleric to marry them, or they simply don't feel the need to have an institution dictate to them their marital obligations. The need for marriage contract issued by state is necessary, BECAUSE of the religious diversity of America and the need to protect the rights of both parties (particularly the woman). For example, in one religion the marital contract might give the husband total power over the woman and forbid her from divorcing him or owning or inheriting property (as is the case in countries where Sharia law rules). A state marriage contract overrules these religious restrictions, and thank goodness it does.

I'm agnostic, I wasn't married under any religion. I did have a ceremony for friends and family to make vows to my wife and then got legally bound to her by signing a contract and then threw a killer party afterwards to celebrate it. I made no promises to a god though.

I don't know about your country, but in mine church and state are separate, and the law is part of the state. Therefore nothing sanctified by any religion can influence any matters of the state, so a marriage in any religion is not a legal contract in the United States of America. A vast majority of people get married both religiously and legally at the same time and so it gets confusing. But those laws and rights you're talking about come from the legal marriage, something I think should be simply renamed to avoid confusion and debate. Clearly any two people should be able to get legally 'married' (please insert new word in the quotes). They should have all rights and responsibilities we've come to associate with legal 'marriage.' But we have no business asking where they live and who they have sex with. It's simply not relevant.

Amazing as it may seem, I think we're both in agreement here. I don't think that any marriage carried out through a religious ceremony would be recognized as "legal" in any state (or in the country) without a corresponding "registration" of that marriage with a state through the use of marriage license. Personally, I don't care, from a state's legal point of view, whether you call it a "civil union," a "marriage" a "consensual personal legal partnership" or anything else as long as whatever the entity is it provides both parties with equal rights in terms of divorce, inheritance, ownership, raising of children, or anything else.

Funny personal story to illustrate this point. When my wife and I were married back in the Cretaceous era, before the wedding ceremony itself we both signed a "ketubah," which is a traditional Jewish wedding contract. Our rabbi signed it as the "clerical authority" or whatever, The language is archaic and in Hebrew and no one really knows what it means but its legally binding from a Jewish standpoint, i.e., in the eyes of Jews it legitimizes our marriages, ensures that our kids won't be considered bastards by other Jews and so on. It has absolutely NO legal standing in a court of law.

At this same signing, the rabbi also signed our state's wedding license as a legal witness, because, presumably, clerics are given the authority. Without his signature, the wedding isn't valid from a state POV.

Anyway, when we came back from our honeymoon, we discovered that the rabbi had signed a copy of the marriage license, not the original. Thus, we were not technically "legally" married. That caused the first huge fight of our marriage (since I was the one responsible for taking care of the licenses). That very day (which happened to be a Jewish holiday) we chased around the city to find the rabbi and by luck happened to find him (in a deli, no less) and had him sign the real license. Nearly twenty five years later I can laugh very loudly about it now, but back then, it seemed like the en of the world (at least to my wife).

I'm certain we agree, that's why I tried harder to make my point. I'm surprised the rabbi was allowed to sign on a holiday unless in a manner of life and death. Isn't writing work? Or maybe the look on your wife's face assured him it WAS life and death!

The3Stogies

Contracts = lawyers. Let me throw this in the stew. My 1st marriage was in a church, all the frills and dressings. Divorced, no children, lawyers involved, got taken to the cleaners. 2nd marriage had a JP in my house, divorced later with 1 lawyer handling the paperwork. My wife and I told him what we decided. After 5 years we got back together have been ever since, 20 years now. Still divorced, she still has my name and I refer to her as my wife. She has her 401K, pension and all that, as well as me. She is my beneficiary as I am hers, we can set our pension plans to allow each other benefits if one dies. Pretty much like we were legally married except when it comes to SS and insurance. So we will probably get married then or when I retire, like we tell my money-man, if it saves us money. Oddly same-sex couples can get on each others insurance, and most other benefits, without being married where I work, hmmm. Don't know where I am going with this but I call her my wife because that is what she is really. No contracts or other parties involved, yet.
The marriage license is the "contract" the ceremony is the promise. Keep your promise and the contract is meaningless.

Gray4lines

Ken Light:

Under in that the real solution is for the government to get out of marriage entirely.

This is my feeling. There is no argument if the gov't just steps back and says. 2 people can be united in some manner and have certain privelidges under the law such as shared assets, tax benefits, inheritance, or whatever.

would some people take advantage of it? Maybe. What if I wanted to be united with someone I dont even know for some kind of tax or asset reason? Honestly who cares. It's my choice and I accept the responsibility.

But what role does the gov't have to assume that everyone who is "united" supports the christian ideal of marriage. Some do. I do. But also some dont. I do have a problem with calling evey kind of union a christian marriage. It's not.

Ken_Light

Gray4lines:

Ken Light:

Under in that the real solution is for the government to get out of marriage entirely.

This is my feeling. There is no argument if the gov't just steps back and says. 2 people can be united in some manner and have certain privelidges under the law such as shared assets, tax benefits, inheritance, or whatever.

would some people take advantage of it? Maybe. What if I wanted to be united with someone I dont even know for some kind of tax or asset reason? Honestly who cares. It's my choice and I accept the responsibility.

But what role does the gov't have to assume that everyone who is "united" supports the christian ideal of marriage. Some do. I do. But also some dont. I do have a problem with calling evey kind of union a christian marriage. It's not.

can't take too much advantage if you limit it to one bond per person.

Amos_Umwhat

jgibv:

I don't care what it's called....but why can't all relationships fall under the same definition for a civil marriage contract. That's what you said it's all about anyways, to gain the same rights and privileges under law.

Here we find the bottom line. I guess another way at looking at my concern was that one group would use their new-found freedom to immediately begin the suppression of another group. What I really care about is "equal, and equal", which then reduces to simply "equal".