If Not Marriage for All, How About Marriage for None?

[Shana A]

If Not Marriage for All, How About Marriage for None?
Filed by: Tobi Hill-Meyer
November 11, 2008 11:00 AM

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/11/if_not_marriage_for_all_how_about_marria.php

The simplicity and brevity of same-sex marriage bans like prop 8 leave a lot of room to look at alternatives. I can't help but see something like this and think, Okay, I can work with that.

    Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.
    --Text of Proposition 8

We've still got the equal protection clause, and all the reasoning that brought the CA Supreme Court to make its original ruling around marriage. We've still got the freedom of religion. This creates an apparent contradiction where a court might have to decide which clause supersedes the others, however, the answer that recognizes all of these clauses seems obvious to me:

If only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized, then to ensure equal protection, the state must cease to provide rights and privileges to an institution that only allows some to participate - in other words, civil unions for all, marriage for none.

[lisagurl]

The simple solution is to make marriage a religious word not a legal one. No legal rights given to those that are married. Have a new legal word such as social contract that applies to all.

[Dawn D.]

It sounds to me as though there is a whole "can of worms" that's gonna get opened up if the right lawyers get hold of this concept! The Yes on 8 people could end up having wished they kept their collective mouth's shut!



Dawn

[Constance]

This is something my wife and I have talked about. If our friends and relatives can't be legally married, why should we? At this point, we're in a holding pattern to see how the court case against prop 8 goes. If prop 8 stands, we might go ahead and get a divorce, and live the way our friends and relatives are forced to.

[Shana A]

This is something my wife and I have talked about. If our friends and relatives can't be legally married, why should we? At this point, we're in a holding pattern to see how the court case against prop 8 goes. If prop 8 stands, we might go ahead and get a divorce, and live the way our friends and relatives are forced to.

My partner and I could get married because of our legal genders, but won't marry until everyone can. I think a great protest would be for married people to turn in their marriage certificates in solidarity. Ha!

Z

[Constance]

This is something my wife and I have talked about. If our friends and relatives can't be legally married, why should we? At this point, we're in a holding pattern to see how the court case against prop 8 goes. If prop 8 stands, we might go ahead and get a divorce, and live the way our friends and relatives are forced to.

My partner and I could get married because of our legal genders, but won't marry until everyone can. I think a great protest would be for married people to turn in their marriage certificates in solidarity. Ha!

Z

We might very well be doing just that.

[Shana A]

We might very well be doing just that.

The question is how to publicize this. Otherwise the protest is silent or invisible. All I/we do at the moment is if someone assumes we're married, we say, no we're partners, and won't marry until everyone can. But it isn't the most effective way of getting the message out there.

Z

[Constance]

We might very well be doing just that.

The question is how to publicize this. Otherwise the protest is silent or invisible. All I/we do at the moment is if someone assumes we're married, we say, no we're partners, and won't marry until everyone can. But it isn't the most effective way of getting the message out there.

Z

We're still in the planning stages, but we would have a ceremony at the very same church where we were married in the first place. Perhaps contacting local news media would be in order, too.

[Sheila]

Marriage is a civil contract between two people, most places say between one man and one woman. The states that have the civil unions only have the perks of that state and not the federal government. If they were to incorporate the law that makes a marriage in one state legal in all fifty states to civil unions then we can get the perks of the federal government. I say let the religious people have their word "marriage", make it so that the civil unions have all the same perks. It is called equality and that is found in our constitution.

[cindianna_jones]

I've been pushing this concept for years.  While there are many who support it, we just can't give legs to the idea.  There is SOOO much law that includes the word "marriage" that it is overwhelming to change.

Lately, I've been talking about the idea of "civil marriage" and "holy marriage".   The first is a legal contract, the other is a church blessed marriage.  It just gives the M word two possible meanings...... you know.... like the word "gay". In local circles, the concept is taking hold. The good thing about this is that you don't have to change existing law.  You just need to convince the faithful that the marriage performed in their church is not recognized by the government until you have your civil paperwork on file.... oh wait... that exists already!

See how easy it is?  If you believe that your god only recognizes the sacrament of marriage performed in your church, then you'll be just fine.  It shouldn't matter what the legalities are for other people.

Cindi

[Shana A]

I've also thought this for years. Civil marriage (or unions) for all, straight, gay, call it whatever, as long as it has FULL federal and state benefits, religious marriage for anyone who wants it, and whose church will grant it within its laws. No church should have to perform a marriage that doesn't comply with their religion, but right now they're denying churches who would sanctify a same sex couple.

This country is so puritanical sometimes!

Z