SCOTUS ruling

CattivaGattina

New member
If a civil union is as good a marriage, why didn't homosexuals and their supporters settle for it?

Because the beuarcarcy considered a civil union more of a commitment thing. It didn't come with the federal benefits (or the ability for it to be recognized state to state).

Basically because governments weren't considering civil unions as good as a marriage.
 

Memorandum

New member
The religious connotation is not needed (for any feeling anyone attaches to it IMO), it exists as just that. In my mind it never referred to anything religious, even though it's the majority of what I've seen. Like I said before, religion doesn't own a word. Those that think it should are dangerously catering.
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
So, if the government stopped doing marriages, but started doing civil unions instead (with all the benefits currently associated with marriage), would everyone be okay with that?

And the various churches/religions would do marriages, but those marriages would have no material benefits. Spiritual benefits only. So, to get what we consider a marriage today, you'd have to first get a civil union from the government, then a marriage from the church (for the spiritual blessings).

Logically it makes sense, but emotionally I find myself struggling with the idea.
 

River

Active member
A Really Stupid Analogy: The concept of the bicycle has been around for a while (since 1817 at least - earliest, maybe, 1493). At some point we achieve the "modern" bicycle and avid enthusiasts call themselves "cyclists". Fine. Good.

At some point in the future - some religious sect decides that cycling is "the one true path". It is a "rite" of the religion, the pathway to enlightenment, a sacred physical covenant. Followers call themselves "Cyclists". The movement takes hold, more and more people identify themselves as "Cyclists". THEN they decide that "cyclist" is a "religious" term and ONLY those that are "Cyclists" in the religious sense have the right to call themselves that - because THEY are the only one that REALLY KNOWS what being a "cyclist" means.

This is NOT a "really stupid analogy" at all. It's a very good analogy.
 

River

Active member
.... So, to get what we consider a marriage today, you'd have to first get a civil union from the government, then a marriage from the church (for the spiritual blessings).

Logically it makes sense, but emotionally I find myself struggling with the idea.

Plenty of churches would be happy to offer such marriages to same-sex couples, etc., today. So everyone could get married under such terms. But the whole idea, concept, plan... is dumb because it treats "marriage" as a religious and never a secular institution. What's the point? Marriage has already been treated as a secular institution for centuries. Churches have not ultimately decided this issue, and why start now?

All of this is just getting so old and dry and silly, isn't it? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a secular matter, not a church matter. Why are we going round and round about it?

Myself? I can't much stand either the church OR the state. Let people do what they may. Neither the state nor the church is any kind of damn standard barer of decency or goodness. Anarchists of the world, unite! ;):D:p
 
Last edited:

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
Awww, shucks. I was starting to enjoy the debate. :)
 

River

Active member
Awww, shucks. I was starting to enjoy the debate. :)

You want to divvy up power, giving the power of the decision of what constitutes a "marriage" to religious institutions and the power of decision about "civil unions" to the state?

Maybe you don't understand what "the state" ultimately is? It -- the state -- is that power which claims to uniquely decide the legitimate application of recourse to violence. That's why state power controls jails, prisons, police and military -- while all others are deemed criminal (illegitimate) in their recourse to violence in the defense of their aims.

If the Church and the State were at odds, really, there'd probably be a bloodbath as they decided through the spilling of blood who really controls this world. In the modern world, the state is secular. At least in theory. It gets more complicated in actuality; but that's the theory.

But the Church and State are both minor powers in comparison to the Marketplace (i.e., Capital, Money). Both Church and State are tools of Capital / Money, which are the real Gods of our world. Capital couldn't give a flying flook who marries whom. If it can keep us distracted by silly debates about who whether Church or State hold ultimate power, it's happy. Think of Church and state as willing servants to Real Power.
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
So, we need to stop participating in Church and State affairs, as much as we can, right? refuse to let Church or State marry us, declare ourselves married instead? (or not bother marrying at all)

To stop participating in State affairs, we need to stop participating in things like welfare and social security. Certainly we need to forgo the legal benefits of marriage-by-government. There are sacrifices to be made for throwing off the shackles of the State, don't you agree?

Re:
"Think of Church and State as willing servants to Real Power."

I'll drink to that.
 

River

Active member
There are sacrifices to be made for throwing off the shackles of the State, don't you agree?

It's generally not realistically possible to live outside the State in the contemporary world, especially not in "advanced" nation states. The best we can hope for, probably, is not a "throwing off of the shackles" of the State, but a gradual shrinking of the oppressive nature of the State, an expansion in real freedom. Some genuine democracy would be nice, for example. But that would not be a majoritarian system, ultimately. Just what makes a majority a better judge of truth or direction than a minority? (Just remember the Confederate States of America! The pro-slavery folk were decidedly in the majority there!)

Oh, by the way... Most folks who read "the oppressive nature of the State" (American readers, anyway) will likely want to associate me with the political Right -- those so-called "conservatives --, but I'm actually positioned to the far Left -- the anarchic left. I'm basically an anarchist -- just not the violent, bomb-throwing kind. And anarchists are -- believe it or not -- often deeply supportive of democracy! It may take some a bit of mind-bending thinking to realize that majoritarianism and democracy are not necessarily synonymous.

See: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13330433-the-democracy-project
 
Last edited:

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
So how do you get genuine democracy? How do you get something that isn't "three wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for lunch?"
 

River

Active member
So how do you get genuine democracy? How do you get something that isn't "three wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for lunch?"

That's the $64,000 Question, isn't it?

My view is that you have to go much deeper than a game of winners versus losers, deeper than what we now call "politics".

Politics, as we know it, is an expression of a culture. What is normal in our politics is normal in our culture, and if you want real, deep, basic change, you've got to change the culture -- deep down, to the roots.

Without fundamental cultural change, no fundamental political change is possible.

What I propose is a radical new way of engaging in politics which recognizes all of this. It would look a lot like what we now call 'art". Art is the most powerful way of engaging in social / cultural change-making.

But artists would have to drop out of "normal art" -- by which I mean, commercially oriented art, art with the intent of paying the bills. Culture-shifting art will probably not be paying the bills, so the artists we need these days are the very courageous and daring folks who are happy (or at least content) to have basics like food and shelter ... with few extras. And such activist-artists (change agents) have to be supported by their larger community; so there is need of artist-activist communities!

The boundaries between art and not-art would have to be largely dissolved. One's "art" becomes a whole way of life.

It should be obvious here, by now, that we're talking about a radical re-definition of "art," "politics," etc.... The boundaries between things are shifted around. Art and politics are dissolved in order for art and politics to be re-defined outside of the dominant / dominator system. Indeed, it all comes down to the power of imagination. Which is the power of art. Which is why this is our ultimate fulcrum. Culture is ... finally -- art. And when we collectively awaken to the art of culture-making, we'll surely stop wanting to participate in systematic oppression.


Simply Question, in other words. Question all received "wisdom". And take leaps of risky leaping faith in the human heart. :p

Or, in one word: Give.


____________

I think this guy is onto important stuff...:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEZkQv25uEs
 
Last edited:

InsaneMystic

New member
All of this is just getting so old and dry and silly, isn't it? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a secular matter, not a church matter. Why are we going round and round about it?
No, SCOTUS most definitely didn't. Religious representatives (priests, rabbis, etc.) still have the constitutionally guaranteed right in the US to refuse to officiate over gay marriages, so SCOTUS did, of course, not pretend that marriage weren't a religious term and a matter for religions the state is not allowed to overrule.
 

TheWind

New member

No, SCOTUS most definitely didn't. Religious representatives (priests, rabbis, etc.) still have the constitutionally guaranteed right in the US to refuse to officiate over gay marriages, so SCOTUS did, of course, not pretend that marriage weren't a religious term and a matter for religions the state is not allowed to overrule.
As I am reading this, I did a few times, you are finally making sense. There needs to be a legal aspect and can be a religious aspect to marriage. If I belong to no established faith, I need a way to legally register my marriage. To protect the adults and children in it. Responsibilities, inheritance, all these things have to be addressed in a legal manner. There need to be designated people to do this. That can be the mayor , a justice of the peace, or a religious leader. When we were married there was a Jewish ceremony and it also involved the signing of the licence. My Rabbi chose what kinds of ceremonies he resided over. If a Rabbi, Priest or minister chose to preside over. You want to only marry a man and a woman, your choice. You want to marry same sex couples, OK. A man and two women, go for it.... also this marry cars and animals is stupid and distracts from the real matter.
As long as the government does not tell you who can preside over it, there is no violation of the First Amendment. There is a separation of Church and State. And the government should not care how many nor whom I chose to live with and marry as long as all are consenting.
 

InsaneMystic

New member
There needs to be a legal aspect and can be a religious aspect to marriage. If I belong to no established faith, I need a way to legally register my marriage. To protect the adults and children in it. Responsibilities, inheritance, all these things have to be addressed in a legal manner. There need to be designated people to do this.
Which, of course, leaves the question why on Earth the state and the religions should use the same word for it, why the legal and the religious aspects should go under the same term. I can see absolutely no necessity for this; it's a relic from times where church and state were far closer intertwined than they are now.

It would be far better in terms of separation of church and state if legal contracts that don't involve religion never involve the term "marriage" at all - especially now that a precedent has been set in calling (some of) them civil unions -, and if the religious rite called marriage, in turn, will have no impact at all giving anyone involved any legal rights and benefits whatsoever.

We absolutely are able to take the state out of the marriage business, and in terms of secularity, that's exactly what I think we should do. (In the US, that would be even easier to do than over here... I generally think the German constitution is a wonderful document that I very strongly support, but I envy Americans over one fact: unlike ours, your constitution does not mention a "special protection of marrriage by the state"; it doesn't mention marriage at all). That doesn't change that responsibilities, insurance, protection of children etc.pp. can (and likely, must) be legally regulated in some way - but that's what the civil unions would be for, you don't need marriage for that.

And of course, no religious officiant should ever be able to preside over the civil union ceremony (only judges, magistrates etc. should be able to do that), just as no judge, magistrate etc. should ever be able to perform the rites of marriage (only priests, rabbis, etc. should be able to do that).


BTW, I wholeheartedly agree with what you said at the end, except for the use of the term "marriage": The state should not limit who gets access to a civil union. No matter the number, sex/gender, orientation, race/ethnicity, religion, type of relationship, etc. of the participants - everyone who wants to get such a legal union for their household should be able to get them. Fullstop. Anything else would be unfair discrimination, and a needless and inacceptable violation of equal rights.

Religions, however, should forever remain allowed to limit access to the privilege of marriage rites in whatever way they see fit, with the state forbidden to meddle in that decision. That's simply freedom at work.
 

TheWind

New member
It is a common usage word, one of the oldest. Take the word coffee, it can't be trademarked because it is in common usage. Now Coca-cola is a trademark, but cola is common usage and anyone can use it. It is a label, people like labels. For some reason the word 'marriage' has some sort of magical nice feeling. As my wife said to me early in our poly life, any woman with us is treated the same as me and don't you forget her birthday... dammit I forgot her birthday once in 19 years, and i was working double overtimes.....
 

JaneQSmythe

Active member
This is NOT a "really stupid analogy" at all. It's a very good analogy.

Why, thank you River. I rather enjoyed it myself :p.
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
Re (from River):
"Without fundamental cultural change, no fundamental political change is possible."

I believe you're onto something there.
 

RichardInTN

Member
Which, of course, leaves the question why on Earth the state and the religions should use the same word for it, why the legal and the religious aspects should go under the same term. I can see absolutely no necessity for this; it's a relic from times where church and state were far closer intertwined than they are now.

It would be far better in terms of separation of church and state if legal contracts that don't involve religion never involve the term "marriage" at all - especially now that a precedent has been set in calling (some of) them civil unions -, and if the religious rite called marriage, in turn, will have no impact at all giving anyone involved any legal rights and benefits whatsoever.

We absolutely are able to take the state out of the marriage business, and in terms of secularity, that's exactly what I think we should do. (In the US, that would be even easier to do than over here... I generally think the German constitution is a wonderful document that I very strongly support, but I envy Americans over one fact: unlike ours, your constitution does not mention a "special protection of marrriage by the state"; it doesn't mention marriage at all). That doesn't change that responsibilities, insurance, protection of children etc.pp. can (and likely, must) be legally regulated in some way - but that's what the civil unions would be for, you don't need marriage for that.

And of course, no religious officiant should ever be able to preside over the civil union ceremony (only judges, magistrates etc. should be able to do that), just as no judge, magistrate etc. should ever be able to perform the rites of marriage (only priests, rabbis, etc. should be able to do that).


BTW, I wholeheartedly agree with what you said at the end, except for the use of the term "marriage": The state should not limit who gets access to a civil union. No matter the number, sex/gender, orientation, race/ethnicity, religion, type of relationship, etc. of the participants - everyone who wants to get such a legal union for their household should be able to get them. Fullstop. Anything else would be unfair discrimination, and a needless and inacceptable violation of equal rights.

Religions, however, should forever remain allowed to limit access to the privilege of marriage rites in whatever way they see fit, with the state forbidden to meddle in that decision. That's simply freedom at work.

Why shouldn't the legal term be "marriage" and religions get their own term (or terms, that way each religion could have their own)? Marriage was a secular term LONG before it was taken and used in religion.

I do agree that religions should always have the right to determine what they see fit for the requirements of unions performed in their sanctuary, or performed by their clergy.
 

InsaneMystic

New member
Why shouldn't the legal term be "marriage" and religions get their own term (or terms, that way each religion could have their own)? Marriage was a secular term LONG before it was taken and used in religion.

I do agree that religions should always have the right to determine what they see fit for the requirements of unions performed in their sanctuary, or performed by their clergy.
Freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. Noone but religions alone should have the authority to choose what terms they use. The state must not ever meddle there.

The state can easily give the term up, with freedom being left intact. Making religions give the term up is dictatorial oppression, basically equalling theocracy.

You can remove the secular/legal connotations of marriage, but you can't remove the religious ones.
 

JessicaBurde

New member
how Poly Marriage Could Work

Coming in late to this discussion, but was in a great discussion recently about how poly marriage could work, and one suggestion that I think has serious promise is dyadic marriage.

Here's how it would work. Marriage remains between two people. However, everyone can have as many marriages as they like. So in an MFM V, the MF can get married, and the FM can get married. In a MFM triad, the MF can get married, and the FM can get married AND the MM can get married.

Basically, take poly relationship geometry. Every two person relationship within a poly relationship can get married, but they don't need to get married. So four people in an "N" configuration could have 3 marriages, one for each line of the "N," and four people in a fully integrated quad could have 6 marriages.

This addresses the issue of an approach to marriage which can be adapted to suit any poly configuration, it doesn't completely redefine marriage (making it potentially an easier sell in public opinion), and it would make things like divorce laws easier to adapt (not I don't say easy--but if two people in a poly quad get divorced, the divorce itself can be handled just like a monogamous divorce--though property division when stuff is owned by multiple members of the quad could get dicey.). Child custody and parental laws are easier this way. If Person A and Person B have kids, and Person A is also married to Person C, then person C has the legal standing of a step parent. Just continue pushing expansion of the trend toward allowing a third parent to adopt a child, and we're good there.

Obviously insurance, pensions, etc would still be issues (does a pension get split between all of a person's spouses? Who counts as next-of-kin for medical purposes? Lots of questions there.)

But while it doesn't solve all the problems, dyadic marriage would be much easier to implement and much more inclusive than any other approach to legal non-monogamy.
 
Top