Marriage revisited
Nov. 20th, 2003 08:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
judecorpI just punched this out and made myself late for work, so I figured I would cut and paste it here for discussion:
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
galbraith said: Is it going to be called a "marriage?" Do you really want it to be?
You know, I had every intention of discussing this at length in my own journal, but I haven't had a heck of a lot of time. But I suppose I can make myself a little late for work to explain myself a LITTLE bit. :)
Whatever the roots of marriage were (and they could be religious, and they could be a tribal means of passing property, or whatever), that is not the marriage as we know it today. Some people (and maybe even a majority of people) equate "marriage" with church, but for a lot of people (and I would wager that number is growing), marriage is simply legal/civil. You can get married by Elvis, or your friend who registers on the internet, or a JP, and I would imagine that getting married in a drive-through chapel by Elvis does NOT go back to the roots of religious marriage.
Do these people go against the sanctity of marriage? Are these the people marriage needs to be "protected" from? It doesn't really matter what the answers to those questions are, because regardless, the people who got married by Elvis are able to enjoy the privileges and protections of marriage in the United States.
Yes, you can sit down with a lawyer and pay (estimate) $500 to draft a medical proxy and some other next-of-kin type forms (inheritance documents, etc.). You can go to court and pay (estimate again) $300 to change your name to your partner's. You can buy a home together and then go to the lawyer /again/ to draft papers about the nature of the joint purchase. You can try to find a corporation that will allow DP benefits, try to get a job there, get a job there, and offer health insurance to your partner. But you know what? If you go and get married, you get all of these things /immediately/ and /for free/.
And then there are lots of benefits that you're just not eligible for unless you are considered married. Pensions, social security, co-adoption, etc.
Another infuriating little tidbit (and I'm sorry my thoughts are sort of disjointed here) is the ease in which one can be considered married versus domestic partnered: You can go get a marriage license and take it to the JP and get married. Hell, the two people don't even have to /know/ each other. And they still immediately get access to the benefits. I could marry some homeless man next week and put him on my insurance. But to be considered a person in a domestic partnership (in order to get any benefits from a company that offers them), you have to /prove/ it.
I received notification from my dental insurance yesterday (Cigna, for the interested) that I could insure my domestic partner, as long as I could show several of the following things: joint ownership of a house or co-lease on same coupled with residence together of at least one year, joint ownership of a vehicle, joint bank account, or a host of other legal documents like wills or medical proxies. This may not seem like a big deal at first, except that you DO NOT NEED TO PROVE JACK TO GET BENEFITS IF YOU'RE MARRIED.
The only time you have to "prove" anything is to marry for immigration purposes. Heck, that homeless guy that I marry next week? We don't have to live together, we don't have to own a car, he doesn't have to be in my will, NOTHING. It just automatically happens.
That, my dear, as quickly as I could muster, is why the word "marriage" is so effing important.
galbraith said: Is it going to be called a "marriage?" Do you really want it to be?You know, I had every intention of discussing this at length in my own journal, but I haven't had a heck of a lot of time. But I suppose I can make myself a little late for work to explain myself a LITTLE bit. :)
Whatever the roots of marriage were (and they could be religious, and they could be a tribal means of passing property, or whatever), that is not the marriage as we know it today. Some people (and maybe even a majority of people) equate "marriage" with church, but for a lot of people (and I would wager that number is growing), marriage is simply legal/civil. You can get married by Elvis, or your friend who registers on the internet, or a JP, and I would imagine that getting married in a drive-through chapel by Elvis does NOT go back to the roots of religious marriage.
Do these people go against the sanctity of marriage? Are these the people marriage needs to be "protected" from? It doesn't really matter what the answers to those questions are, because regardless, the people who got married by Elvis are able to enjoy the privileges and protections of marriage in the United States.
Yes, you can sit down with a lawyer and pay (estimate) $500 to draft a medical proxy and some other next-of-kin type forms (inheritance documents, etc.). You can go to court and pay (estimate again) $300 to change your name to your partner's. You can buy a home together and then go to the lawyer /again/ to draft papers about the nature of the joint purchase. You can try to find a corporation that will allow DP benefits, try to get a job there, get a job there, and offer health insurance to your partner. But you know what? If you go and get married, you get all of these things /immediately/ and /for free/.
And then there are lots of benefits that you're just not eligible for unless you are considered married. Pensions, social security, co-adoption, etc.
Another infuriating little tidbit (and I'm sorry my thoughts are sort of disjointed here) is the ease in which one can be considered married versus domestic partnered: You can go get a marriage license and take it to the JP and get married. Hell, the two people don't even have to /know/ each other. And they still immediately get access to the benefits. I could marry some homeless man next week and put him on my insurance. But to be considered a person in a domestic partnership (in order to get any benefits from a company that offers them), you have to /prove/ it.
I received notification from my dental insurance yesterday (Cigna, for the interested) that I could insure my domestic partner, as long as I could show several of the following things: joint ownership of a house or co-lease on same coupled with residence together of at least one year, joint ownership of a vehicle, joint bank account, or a host of other legal documents like wills or medical proxies. This may not seem like a big deal at first, except that you DO NOT NEED TO PROVE JACK TO GET BENEFITS IF YOU'RE MARRIED.
The only time you have to "prove" anything is to marry for immigration purposes. Heck, that homeless guy that I marry next week? We don't have to live together, we don't have to own a car, he doesn't have to be in my will, NOTHING. It just automatically happens.
That, my dear, as quickly as I could muster, is why the word "marriage" is so effing important.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 05:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 05:59 am (UTC)I know when I wrote that letter, I was thinking... 'This is something Jude might do'.
Move to MA and invite me to the wedding.
LOVE!
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 06:20 am (UTC)Marriage is exactly as sacred as the two people involved make it. No more, no less. I don't understand why people think that is affected by the relative gender of those two people.
The institution of marriage...
Date: 2003-11-20 06:30 am (UTC)This is why when Chuck (a non-Christian) and I (a Catholic) were able to be married in my church without too much trouble. We applied for (a fascinatingly titled) "Dispensation for the Disparity of Cult", and the wedding went off without a hitch. Why? Because the Catholic Church recognizes marriage as an institution outside of the church. Sure, it wasn't a fully sacramental marriage because Chuck has never been baptised, but they still were able to recognize it.
This is why I get pissy when people get all worried about the "sanctity of marriage" being besmirched by same-sex marriages, and that somehow the churches would be effected by this ruling. Marriage is an oath and a contract made between two people, witnessed by an official who is recognized by the state. Whether that person be a priest or a JP or your brother (with a special dispensation to be a JP for the day), it doesn't matter. It has existed before the churches came into being, and it will exist in some form long after they're gone.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 06:31 am (UTC)"Gay marriage looms large for '04"
(1) First of all I totally agree with you on the issue of calling it "gay marriage" , but you've covered this in detail already, so I won't go into it.
(2) "Looms Large"? What the hell? It makes "gay marriage" sound like some kind of huge horrible Godzilla monster about to take over our towns and cities.
(3) "Gay marriage looms large for '04": Is this some sort of sporting event or Hollywood trend? I can totally imagine a headline like "Chicago Bulls Loom Large for 'O4" or even "Shitty Matrix Sequels Loom Large for '04." Duh.
Okay, I'm off my pedestal now.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 06:47 am (UTC)But, just so you know, it's not all easy peasy beautiful wonderful changing over all the things that need to be changed over when one gets married, especially if one changes one's name. It's a pain in the ass, and not without administrative costs.
Just...SIGNIFICANTLY LESS cost than for others trying to do same.
(People wanting to commit to the mutual support and joy of each other in no way undermines the mutual support and joy my husband and I pledged)
Plus...
Date: 2003-11-20 07:15 am (UTC)Gay marriage was rejected by a lower court in NJ a couple weeks ago, but the plaintiffs' lawyers are planning an appeal to the state supreme court there, too. I don't know the time scale on such things, but by the time you're ready to move, MA might not be your only choice.
Every committed couple strengthens the sanctity of marriage, and every shallow attack on basic civil rights weakens it. This is my opinion on "defense of marriage"; I think we should try to take over every catchphrase the prejudiced bigots use and turn it against them.
-- eann
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 08:23 am (UTC)Yes, you can sit down with a lawyer and pay (estimate) $500 to draft a medical proxy and some other next-of-kin type forms (inheritance documents, etc.). You can go to court and pay (estimate again) $300 to change your name to your partner's. You can buy a home together and then go to the lawyer /again/ to draft papers about the nature of the joint purchase. You can try to find a corporation that will allow DP benefits, try to get a job there, get a job there, and offer health insurance to your partner. But you know what? If you go and get married, you get all of these things /immediately/ and /for free/.
And then there are lots of benefits that you're just not eligible for unless you are considered married. Pensions, social security, co-adoption, etc.
Thanks for delineating the points on how difficult it is to get all the benefits of marriage without getting married - I knew it was tough, but not how tough. Slight editing on that it does cost (a little) money to get the marriage license ;-)
However, I'd actually be in favor of marriage being slightly more difficult to put into place, but allow every couple who wanted to do so to have equal footing:
If marriage happens for the right reasons, it's sacred. Whereever it takes place, it's a holy ground. When it's meant in love, it receives the blessing of (whatever God/dess/es/s there be, or not).
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 09:11 am (UTC)The law is changing already, in some areas. I expect that these changes will spread until what is now the exception becomes the norm.
It is in the religious arena that resistance to change will be strongest. Unfortunately, the notion of separation of church and state isn't fully realized (nor will it likely ever be), and the religious resistance will bleed into and slow the alteration of the law.
I'd be curious, though, to know whether same-sex "marriage" in places like Toronto and Massachusetts is a creation of the legal system or of the media. By that, I mean I'm interested in the verbiage involved. Does the law actually mention marriage or has the media imposed the word on the new legislation simply to make the concepts more easily understood by its audience?
I do not disagree with you on what marriage should be. I am not at all opposed to removing the gender restrictions on marriage. I recognize that same-sex couples ought to have the same rights, benefits and privileges that opposite-sex couples enjoy. By that, I mean that a same-sex couple ought to be able to enter into an institution that grants them said rights without having to jump through the hoops you mentioned. It should be just as easy for same-sex couples as it is for opposite-sex couples. Period.
What I am, perhaps, is a bit more cynical. Opposite-sex couples can be married by a representative of the church, by a Justice of the Peace, by Elvis, or by any number of other "officials." That does fly in the face of the sanctity of marriage as defined by various religions. It is accepted, I think, because it still follows some of the tenets set forth by those religions, namely it being the union between a man and a woman that will (quite likely) result in procreation. Same-sex marriages, regardless of how they are accomplished, do not follow those basic tenets, thus the strong resistance. While I am hopeful that such resistance can be overcome, I am not confident that it can.
As I mentioned previously, we don't have true separation of church and state. We also have people like George W. Bush, John Sununu and the like in positions of political power. Their religious beliefs are clearly playing an important role in the decisions they make, and thus the fight for true equality in marriage becomes all the more difficult.
In my opinion (and that's all this is), the word is not so important as the rights associated with it. Whether the rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples in the institution of marriage are extended to include same-sex couples or a new institution is created that encompasses all couples and grants them equal rights, those rights remain the key.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 02:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 03:27 pm (UTC)And yes, it is an inconvenience to change your name on all of your documents (SS card, credit cards, etc.), but you don't have to PAY to do it. All you need is a signed marriage license and you can change your name FOR FREE.
You don't need to go to court, pay a court fee of several hundred dollars, try to convince a court why you should be allowed to change your name, and THEN do all the inconveniencing stuff.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 03:28 pm (UTC)(BTW, it cost me $15 to get my marriage license in Rhode Island in 1999.)
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 03:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 03:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 03:32 pm (UTC)I'm really psyched that you wrote letters. The elected officials can't know what the people think if the people don't tell them.
(MA is looking like the big winner here. Between the licensing requirements, the closeness to family, the major metro area, and now the possibility of some actual rights, it looks like a go!)
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 03:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 03:33 pm (UTC)We'll sell you the whole seat, but you'll only need THE EDGE!!!
Re: Plus...
Date: 2003-11-20 03:35 pm (UTC)You don't need any of these things to get married. You don't need to live together, or own things together, or open a bank account together. Sure, some people DO all of these things before they get married, but they don't HAVE to.
You don't have to have a relationship AT ALL with the person you marry, as long as that person is of age, not your first cousin, and is of the opposite sex.
Love you!
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 03:44 pm (UTC)*snork*
*wipes eyes*
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 03:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 08:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 09:18 pm (UTC)How kind of you, marrying a homeless guy just to hook him up with all those benefits. I always knew you were an earnest, self-sacrificing social worker.
Only one question: Which of the Faith on 8th residents who asked you out is the lucky guy?
no subject
I'd say "The Shoe Doctor" if I didn't think he'd want to consummate the marriage.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-21 04:47 am (UTC)Equality in legal benefits is what matters to me, and why I continue to write letters and make phone calls. Because if civil marriage equality was granted, the military couldn't treat you two like "not family."
They just couldn't.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-21 04:53 am (UTC)Re: The institution of marriage...
Date: 2003-11-21 05:24 am (UTC)I'm glad to know that you and Chuck are in "different cults." That explains a lot, Ms. Pants.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-21 05:29 am (UTC)We should drink many bottles of wine or something.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-21 05:37 am (UTC)Ya learn something new everyday! :)
And I'm totally with you -- the current state of affairs blatantly shafts people outside heterosexual marriage pairings. It's hideous. It needs to change.
Yes, it does!
Date: 2003-11-21 08:44 am (UTC)That cracked my shit up. ;>
no subject
Date: 2003-11-21 09:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-21 07:04 pm (UTC)If you're ever out in Ohio again, let me know, and I'll take you to Graeter's. :)
no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 08:25 am (UTC)*pisses on self*
Re: Yes, it does!
Date: 2003-11-22 08:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 08:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-22 11:17 am (UTC)First off, there is no new legislation. It's not that any sort of law passed that has created same-sex marriages. What has happened in both Ontario and Massachusetts is that the body that has the power to interpret the laws (in the MA case, the judicial branch of government - the MA Supreme Court) has ruled that the Constitution does not pose a gender limitation on marriage. They haven't invented "gay marriage licenses" or anything of the sort. What they /have/ done is state for the record that refusing to grant /current/ marriage licenses to same-sex couples is unConstitutional. So the media hasn't "invented" anything - we're talking actual marriage here, and the ability to get a marriage license.
Opposite-sex couples can be married by a representative of the church, by a Justice of the Peace, by Elvis, or by any number of other "officials." That does fly in the face of the sanctity of marriage as defined by various religions. It is accepted, I think, because it still follows some of the tenets set forth by those religions, namely it being the union between a man and a woman that will (quite likely) result in procreation.
But not /all/ religions require these marriage restrictions. In fact, many religious groups and denominations have been blessing same-sex unions for quite some time now (some more than others), and even in the religions that currently frown on such things, there are still individual churches and religious officials who /will/ perform such unions. They just can't act as a representative of the State when they do it, because there is no marriage license.
In my opinion (and that's all this is), the word is not so important as the rights associated with it.
Three words: separate but equal
no subject
Date: 2003-11-24 05:41 am (UTC)