h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm in one of those 11 states in the US where my bigoted countrymen voted to prevent gay marriage or gay civil unions or anything similar. Advertisements in favor of the defining marriage as only one man and one woman would talk about traditional values and how this change would "protect marriage."

I've gone over the idea time and again, but I just can't figure where they saw any harm in letting gays marry each other. Would some married people become so depressed about this change that they would not want to stay together? Would young men and women decide not to marry each other because the institution of marriage meant something different today?

The people who seem to be most up-in-arms about the idea of gay marriage, pouring their effort and money into their crusade, seem to be the least likely to ever change their mind about their own personal marriages. So why are they so concerned about other consenting adults who want to have their relationships treated like conventional marriage?

Can anyone explain? Even if you don't like gays, don't want to ever be around them, how would it harm the rest of us just to humor them? (Humour them?)

I can't... I can't even get over how Issue 1 passed in Ohio- it more or less anulls all common law marriages by making partners ineligible for benefits after one dies.

PS - I'm heterosexual and just celebrated my seventh wedding anniversary on Halloween. I can't imagine how weak-willed a person would have to be in order for their own marriage to feel "threatened" by the possibility of gay marriage. Hell, if the government ordered my wife and I to separate and denounce our marriage, never see each other again, then I wouldn't change my mind about the meaning of our marriage. You can take my wife when you pry her from my cold, dead fingers!

Okay, somehow the NRA motto doesn't work in this situation, but you get the drift. Why must people apply their personal standards about marriage to all of their neighbors? Why can't the decision be made by their churches instead of limited by the government? For example, my parents felt it necessary to have their wedding officiated by a Catholic priest and an Episcopal priest, to satisfy the families on both sides. The government recognizes lots of weddings that would not be recognized or appreciated by the members of certain religious sects.

Some sanctimonious people already scoff at weddings performed by justices of the peace. What's the difference between their disdain for gay civil unions and current civil unions? Why get the government mixed up in your discrimination?

I'm hoping that somehow the US Constitution will override all these discriminatory amendments to state constitutions, but I don't know if it will work like that.

I used to be proud that Michigan was so progressive, they outlawed the death penalty around the 1840s. Not that the two issues are comparable, but today's results make me ashamed.

Because they are bigoted, fantastical fundamentalists who seem to think that because something was written nearly two thousand years ago in the name of God, it has to be true and any who doesn't believe it is evil.

The are no different the the Muslim fundamentalists who think the same thing about the Koran. At the root of both is a megalomaniac desire for power.

I have just looked up megalomania in the dictionary.

megalomania n. 1 mental disorder producing delusions of grandeur. 2 passion for grandiose schemes.  megalomaniac adj. & n. [Greek megas great, *mania]

I think GWB fits the description perfectly.

Donald

I've been trying to get my head around this matter for quite some time now. The best I've been able to come up with is that these people aren't worried about gay marriages weakening their own marriages, but rather that it'll make matrimony less 'special' and exclusive in the eyes of society. Perhaps they're afraid that, as alternate forms of marriage gain legitimacy and social acceptance it'll eventually end up a mere contract for the financial and legal convenience of the participants, and that all those "values" which come along with it will fall to the side.

My take on the matter is that the acknowledgement of non-heterosexual partnerships would make it apparent that there are alternatives to the established norm. This would threaten the fundamentalist community - after all, if one societal norm is subverted, what's to stop people thinking for themselves on other matters...

I'm all in favour of *anything* that makes people think. I have my own reasons for wanting gay civil unions to be recognised , but apart from that, anything that challenges the fundamentalist world-view gets my support.

So I do see why some people would feel uneasy at the prospect of everyone being free to live his or her life as he or she sees fit, but I never will understand what makes these same people believe that they have the right to dictate someone else's lifestyle.

Ivan.

I was discussing this issue with a friend the other day - who admitted that he felt that marriage should only be between a man and a woman "because that's the way it is".

Which did strike me as a very narrow-minded and blinkered response. Do we just accept the world "the way it is" warts and all? (maybe an answer in the affirmative indicates that it suits us like that)

Or do we try to make it a fairer place? (OK, so life isn't fair, so what business do we have trying to force it to be...)

I too am puzzled by why this was such a big election issue. But the same friend did liken it to the fox-hunting debate in the UK - an emotive issue which affects only a small number of people, but which has taken on an enormous political importance.

Myself, I'm absolutely in favour of a ban on gay marriage. Ban the gays from getting married, completely. Shouldn't be allowed. Marriage is for men and women, only. And the LAW should define the word "marriage" to mean just that. That way, none of the people who don't like the idea could complain.

Of course, I WOULD like to see gay people allowed to make legal contracts with one another giving each other the same legal, financial and employment benefits as straight couples. Something that's NOT called a "marriage", but for all rational practical purposes means exactly the same thing.

I WOULD like to see gay people allowed to have celebrations marking the signing of such legal documents in whatever church or other public place they'd like, and for those celebrations to be able to use whatever wording they choose.

I'd also like to see such a legal contract available to straight couples.

And most importantly of all - because marriage is, we are so often told by the religious people who want so badly to protect it, "special" - I'd make a marriage licence cost £1000, and a "civil union" licence cost £20. There'd be no doubt, then, that marriage really is special, and different.

I'd also make the dissolution of a civil union cost £200, and a divorce cost £10,000. We absolutely should do these things to protect the sacred institution of marriage.

I leave it to the imagination how many *straight* couples would get married - and I mean *properly* married - if there was an alternative.



Of course, if my policy is followed, there'd be a small problem. If you're gay, and someone asks you your legal status, do you say "Oh, I'm a participant in a civil union agreement." Seems a bit of a long-winded phrase, huh? Funny thing is, people have a habit of abbreviating things, just using a sort of verbal shorthand. Chances are you'd just say, "I'm married."

And what would people call the ceremony? "Are you going to Dan and Steve's civil union signing ceremony next week?". Don't think so. "Are you going to Dan and Steve's wedding?".

I say, ban gay marriage, give them all the legal rights to do something equivalent but with a really long nam, and let linguistic laziness trample the bigots into history.

H.

I think it's something to do with shame. I had a looooong talk with some American Bible-Belters a few years ago and as far as I can make out, putting aside all the 'Leviticus says' bit, they acknowledge that in this current climate, any gay couple who marry are MORE likely to be thoroughly committed to each other and the relationship. To marry now, a gay person would have to be very brave and really mean it to be forever or it wouldn't be worth facing the prejudice and difficulties for. Therefore, if you let gay people marry, you'll be showing up all the straight people who marry the wrong person for the wrong reason or who don't have the will to fight for the relationship or who run out of commitment. And straight people will therefore end up looking LESS morally strong and dedicated than gay people, which will of course overturn the constitution and bring on Armageddon and turn the seas to blood and set fire to the Moon and put the Sun out and let Democrats into power.

Very nicely put, Agapanthus!



Hoo,

The only problem I see with your suggestion is that many straight people do get married outside the church, so for them it isn't a religious event at all. Other than that, you have followed the argument through to its logical conclusion, as usual.

I think gay couples could still call their ceremony a wedding. As for what they call their wedded partner, perhaps they could adopt a word from Spanish - pareja (pah-ray-ha). This word is used to describe any sort of partner one has, whether they are simply boyfriend-girlfriend, boyfriend-boyfriend, girlfriend-girlfriend, married, living together, what have you. It's quite all encompassing and has the meaning of two people being together. It certainly sounds much better than 'partner', which has connotations of some sort of business agreement.



Ivan,

<>

Couldn't agree more. Though I do see the issue being one of homophobia more than simply wanting things to 'remain as they are'.


az

So, if it's OK for gays to have some sort of civil union, but you can't call it a marriage....

...which box are they "allowed" to tick on a form that asks for marital status?

Interesting question. At first, we'd have to change a few laws.

I'm proposing that the words "marriage" and "wedding" become narrowly defined legal jargon, applied in their strict sense as meaning something done only by superstitious people who talk to the weather and believe in talking snakes. I'm proposing that since these people want their unions kept special and unlike what the heathen masses get up to, we make sure they take it seriously by charging them a grand a go and making it damn difficult to get out of. That's what THEY want, after all, I say let them have it - with both barrels. Meanwhile, the rest of us can get on with our lives...

At the same time, we enact a law allowing "full civil unions" - which would, for *every* single practical, legal, financial purpose, be absolutely identical to being "married". The only difference would be you wouldn't be allowed to call it "married" on official forms, and presumably some churches wouldn't let you get civilly united in their buildings - but hey, who'd want to?

Of course, that would mean official forms would have to have a whole bunch of boxes:

[] Single
[] In civil union
[] Married
[] Divorced
[] Widowed
[] Cliff Richard

It would, of course, be illegal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of what we would still call "marital status".

And of course, given the advance of secularisation in the civilised countries of the world, such a measure would rapidly see a situation where only superstitious people get "married", and everyone else saves themselves a pile of cash by simply getting a civil union agreement. Most people getting a CUA will call the ceremony a "wedding", and the union a "marriage" and their partner "husband" or "wife", and no amount of fundamentalist ire will stop them.

Laws of natural selection being what they are, in a couple of centuries "marriage", in its fundamentalist definition, will be a quaint anachronism like Amish horse carts, and everyone else will be quietly getting on with marrying each other in a civilised way and not interfering with the naive god-bothering ceremonies of a few morons.

H.

Lucky Star:
I was discussing this issue with a friend the other day - who admitted that he felt that marriage should only be between a man and a woman "because that's
the way it is".

The same view I guess that was also held by those in the past that thought slavery should continue, and that it was a good idea to keep sending young children up chimneys to clean them (the chimneys not the children ) Some people just dont like the idea of change, particular groups, and religious groups often tend to sit in this catogry have self-protective reasons often for not wanting change, or admitting to it, as It can cast dispersions on their beliefs...
There was talk on radio four yesterday regarding how on Bush got reelected this time round, and the suggestion there was that in certain states of the US the vote was made along religious grounds by some in defference to any other issues, and that the Evangelical groups wished Bush to remain because of his views on Gay marrage/cival joining/whatever and some other issues...
It is interesting, however if anyone would ever care to read the book that a lot of religious people seem to hold quite dear, the Bible I think it is:
It has a lot more to say on the nevegative issues associated with personal belongings, accumulation of wealth than it does about where and with whome people want to get naked with and roll on the floor, a selective reading as useual can suit the predjuices of those for whom a 'belief system' os required to 'justify' their views.

Funny, I used the "small boys up chimneys" as well as women having the vote in my rebuttal.

<>

Considering that, what is it, about 40% of marriages these days end in divorce, what is so special about this particular union if nobody is taking their vows and commitments seriously in the first place?

Getting married to someone doesn't mean that you just f**k off the minute things get uncomfortable or difficult or whatever.

It seems that seriously thought out civil unions stand a much better chance of surviving because people are making the choice to be married for personal and realistic reasons.

Meanwhile . . . Cliff Richard?


az

"what is so special about this particular union if nobody is taking their vows and commitments seriously in the first place?"

Well, nothing, obviously, at the moment which is why we should stop people from calling it "marriage" if what they're after is just a union of convenience.

We should do exactly what the fundamentalists want - we should make "marriage" a serious proposition. It should cost a month's wages to get into a marriage and a year's wages to get out of one, paid as tax to the state before any other expenses. People would damn well take it seriously then.

At the same time, "civil unions" should be cheap to get into and almost as cheap to get out of, while conveying all of the same legal rights and obligations. That way most people could get on with doing what they were going to do anyway, and we'd all get a little tax cut because of the money raised from religious people putting their money where their mouths are with regard to how "special" marriage is.

Like I say though, I'm really not sure the fundamentalists would like me to take them at their word this way if I were in power, because I think that even people as blinkered and pig-ignorant as the average Christian or Muslim would see that if we enacted laws to make sure marriage is the special, different thing they claim it is, society would reject it wholesale and their support would wither even further.

H.

H.

Should there also be a box for living together as though married/civil union? Or must those people tick 'single'?

I suspect that most of the people who object to gay marriage do so because of their religious beliefs. I think Hoo's proposal of clear separation between religious ceremony & civil union is going along the right route.

It's not just the separation that's important: it's important to make it *difficult* and *expensive* to get into or out of a marriage.

The superstitious are keen to emphasise that marriage is different and special, and the best way to enshrine that is to charge a seriously exorbitant tax on getting married or getting divorced, while at the same time making clear that "civil unions" - while in every single other legal sense equivalent - are NOT special by making them extremely cheap to form and dissolve.

Surely that would keep the Christians happy?

H.

OH and sorry lucky start; the way I laid that out....a fter I'v posted it, makes it look (if someone hadn't read your post above), like it was your own personal quote rather than that of your friend Yeh; I didn't think of the women getting the vote as an example I doubt very much that most people gay or straight or slightly wonky would care too much about what the name was that would be given to the 'joining' civil marrage, cival joining, whatever, so long as it did carry the same rights, and responsibilities