I saw this first on Americablog, but Joe Sudbay’s post there is mostly a clip from the original post, so I’ve link the here as well as Joe’s. While I really appreciate the voice Americablog brings, the writers there, are usually, just a bit too far out there for me. Still, this is a good piece for raising questions and beginning to think through the full issue. First this clip, which I think is right on the money:
First off, can we please drop the canard that allowing certain people to marry each other somehow impinges on certain other people’s religious freedoms? No one will be forcing churches or religious leaders to perform same-sex ceremonies against their will, and people will undoubtedly maintain their right to worship as they choose completely free of government interference—as they always have. And for the Post to suggest that recognizing marriage equality necessarily conflicts with the beliefs of all religious groups is completely disingenuous, especially after nearly 200 religious leaders in the district stood with the multifaith group D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality.
This is so true and both points here need to be shouted loud and clear every time the fake “religious freedom” argument is raised. I get it on one hand, the “Religious” (mostly conservative Christians) who think they talk for all religious and think they own Marriage. As if it is theirs to determine who can and can not have it. Too bad the marriage license, which is essential for a marriage, is government issued, and “the state” simply allows ministers and priests to perform the ceremony and thus officiate the marriage from a legal perspective. Can two straight people get married in a church without a marriage license and have it still mean the same thing as a marriage legally?
One solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business all together. To begin to issue domestic partnership licenses that are required of all couples, gay and straight. Then the churches would be free to either perform ceremony for a couple or not, but the minister or priest has no official capacity from the legal perspective. This most likely would never happen, because it would mean changing the language in lots of places- thousands and thousands of statutes- and that would be cost prohibitive, and as well as politically difficult.
The other option is for everyone to accept that there are two parts to marriage. There is the legal part, and a ritual/religious part. Gays and Lesbians are seeking equality in terms of the first- the legal or civil marriage. It’s not that some same-sex couples don’t want the whole church wedding, because some do, but that we aren’t demanding that every church honor same-sex weddings. So any of those churches who do celebrate same-sex marriage- that’s great, and for those that don’t, no big deal.
Here, however, is where it slips over the edge for me:
But perhaps more to the point, it’s time for mainstream America to realize that endorsing politicians who claim to support “equality†for LGBT Americans but not marriage equality is tantamount to aiding and abetting homophobia; that they are mounting a direct attack on the love shared by fellow tax-paying, law-abiding citizens who want to make lifelong commitments to care for one another; that they are relegating people they work with, live with, and, yes, worship with, to second-class status.
There is no gray any longer, no hair-splitting, no rationalization or triangulation that suffices anymore. If you don’t support same-sex marriage, you don’t support equality and that is quite simply homophobic.
He had me all through the stuff about second-class status, but calling individuals who do not support marriage equality homophobes isn’t useful. Or more accurately, feeling the need to draw a line in the sand at Marriage is not useful.
Homophobia: Here’s to killing a useful word!
The terms homophobia and homophobe can be powerful words that contain much meaning, but to label anyone who isn’t on the bandwagon for gay couples assimilating to be just like straight couples? That’s silly and detrimental. It will be like the word “racist” which now, is thrown around as a weapon, but is actually a term without any real meaning these days. Racism is alive and well, but because the way the label has been used, it can’t really be used now to identify real racism. That will be the outcome of the word homophobe. A stinging weapon with no real meaning.
A friend on facebook posted a really tremendous story about a lecture he had heard. Maybe he will read this and post it here as a comment. The speaker spoke to a degree about how homophobia is something we are taught since we are children, and the coming out process, is a process of continually shedding bits of that homophobia that we carry around inside of us. That’s an image that I think works better than “a line in the sand.” This notion that we all are homophobic to a degree (some far less and some far more) is not the easiest concept to own, no matter how accurate I or others think it might be.
Domestic Partnerships are not portable world wide.
This notion that marriage is a religious institution is flawed. If marriage is a religious institution then try going back to your church or synagogue to get a divorce? You can’t because it is a state contract that needs to be nullified by the state. Clergy always say “by the powers vested in me by the state of” that is because they are performing a marriage on behalf of the state. Actually officiates do not marry couples. The two people marry each other and the officiate is the witness to the marriage. Besides which about 50% of the population who marry, marry in a civil non religious marriage.
We in the U.S. are one of the few countries in the world that allow Clergy to solemnize marriages. In 90% of the countries you must get married by a government official for your marriage to be legal and then you can have your religious ceremony concurrently or afterwards.
Agree totally. Thanks for adding these comments to the dialogue.
Mr Waters says, “One solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business all together.” The graceful and workable solution is for government to get out of the marriage business AND special civil union business all together. The government can stop giving exclusive financial subsidies to people with government marriage licenses. Single people are now forced to pay for these subsidies. These subsidies are unfair to single people and also disproportionately go to the more affluent married people.
What would happen if government got out of the marriage business and civil union business? I submit that life would go on. People would fall in love; live together in committed relationships; raise families and all the romantic things we like to associate with word marriage.
I can’t say I agree with this line of thinking at all, but thanks for adding a different perspective to the dialogue.
Mr Waters, Step back for a moment, Why not? Would people stop having beautiful weddings? Would people stop doing the things that we associate with with fulfilling marriages?
Does the government policy of providing Social Security benefits to 65 year old spouses who would not otherwise qualify, weigh on the decision of a couple in their 20’s to marry?
Are the bundle of default marriage laws, such as spousal inheritance, superior to specific legal documents such as wills?
What percentage of married couples have a critical need for the government financial perks given to couples with government marriage licenses?
What is the government’s definition of marriage? Not WHO can get married , but WHAT marriage itself is? How can the government accuse the marriage of a Russian woman to a US citizen for the purpose of coming to the United States as being a “sham� What about the brief Las Vegas marriage of Britney Spears?
I have multiple answers for this.
1) No, people would stop having beautiful weddings and living in partnership, and doing things associated with fulfilling marriages. But, the problem is that all marriages are not fulfilling, and many will come to an end, and without a legal basis for partnership, that today, we call marriage, there is no legal basis for ending a marriage, that today, we call divorce.
I think most if not all couples have need of the “financial perks (your term, not mine). For example, when Susan Sontag died, her partner, a famous photographer, came close to losing everything she had because of what they had built together over the long course of their relationship. There are over 1000 ways that marriage benefits two people. In the case of the death of a partner, it is an unreasonable inheritance tax for example. Even in my own case, where my partner’s name is on the deed of our house, he will be taxed differently (far more) than if we were married, upon my death (or other other way around, depending on who dies first.
Life insurance benefits is another way that the inability to get married impacts gay couples. While my partner, who is self employed and would have trouble affordsing health insurance on his own, can be covered by my employer’s plan, we have to pay for that out of our pocket and it is taxed, where as a married couples is not taxed, and the employer pays a higher share.
Yes, the bundle is totally superior to specific legal documents such as wills. Just recently there was a case in CA, where a gay couple was forcibly separated after one of the couple got ill. All of their belongings were sold, and the two placed in different nursing homes. They had all the “correct” legal papers, yet it didn’t stop them from the county tearing them apart. The one died, and the other never got to see him again. Even buying a house as two men, as opposed to buying a house as a couple creates very different issues. And the amount of attorney fees to even try and get close to what a married couple would enjoy is unbelievable.
The couple in their 20’s don’t have to think about Social Security benefits, because government, by its very nature is supposed to think through all of those issues , and see the bigger picture. The benefits themselves mat not come into mind because the base narrative of what marriage means and offers includes all of that.
As for the definition of marriage- I don’t know. I do know that same-sex couples are denied the ability to get a marriage license in most states on the US. That ability to get a marriage license, is the key to who does and who does not be called married.
If you do a search on my blog, you will find that I am not a strong supporter of marriage equality for a number or reasons, and I completely agree that marriage as an institution has major problems. For me, things like Vegas marriages as you mention nly display the lunacy of the anti- gay marriage forces who talk about the sanctity of marriage being harmed by allowing gays to marry. I guess I think every couple who seeks to get a marriage license should be allowed.
2) My second answer is that marriage, is a ritual that a couple participates in, with a community to separate their singleness from their coupleness. Many things make up that ritual, it isn’t just about flowers, a cake, and saying , I do. And, in a civil society, laws and statutes play a role in the defining part of the ritual of marriage. So, when I step back, I think eliminating a marriage license would have an impact on what you describe. How big? Don’t know and anticipate it would vary from couple to couple, but it would dramatically change the institution of marriage.
You might find it useful to look back at the history of marriage and why a marriage license, and the government involvement was first instituted.
Again, thanks for participating in a wonderful dialogue here.
Thank you for taking the time for a thoughtful response to my questions.
As you can tell I am coming at this issue from the standpoint of single people or more accurately, people without government marriage licenses.
1. Divorce. If there is no government marriage then there would be no government divorce. Any couple could characterize their relationship with any word they wished. We are married because we say we are married. We are no longer married when we say we are no longer married. It is pretty much that way now with “no fault divorcesâ€.
1a “Financial Subsidies†or government money going to people with government marriage licenses. There are several problems here. First, these monies result in higher taxes from single people. The second problem is that affluent married couples get the lion’s share of these monies. I do not have a source other my personal observations, but I suspect that only a small minority of married people would be caused financial distress if the government stopped its exclusive financial subsidies to married couples. I do know that my wife and I benefit big time from these subsidies.
1b Inheritance. Your concern about inheritance tax is a good example of how the marriage laws are intertwined with other contentious issues. Even without the marriage issue, our inheritance tax laws are a real mess. For people dying in 2010 there is no inheritance tax. Next year it could go to 55%. Hard to predict what will happen. I believe that the unlimited spousal exemption should be eliminated. It is only a factor with large estates, i.e. benefit to the very rich. The other problem is that the unlimited spousal exemption may not be an advantage if there is an asset with significant appreciation because the tax laws do not allow for a step-up in basis for assets acquired via the unlimited spousal exemption.
1c Life insurance. Not sure what the problem is with life insurance. My understanding is that you can name anyone you please as beneficiary.
1d. Health insurance. The fundamental problem is that health insurance should not be linked to employment. The reason employers provide health insurance is that it is a financial benefit to employees on which the employee is not taxed. In my company, in fairness to the single employees, we paid 100% of the health insurance for the employees and none for the employees’ spouses or children. Everyone’s health insurance tax exemption should be the same, employed or not, married or not.
1e Bundle. It is a really bad idea to depend on the government marriage default provisions in the “bundle†to manage ones affairs. For example inheritance. If one cares anything about how assets are distributed after death, then a simple will is best. If there are significant assets then they should be held as JTWROS to avoid probate. If the is large wealth then trusts are appropriate.
I would suggest, however, that the bundle be made available to anyone married or not. For example anyone should be able to designate one person that could not be forced to testify against the designator.
1f. Rather asking for a government definition, I should rephrase the question. What is there about marriage that the government wants to encourage?
2a. How would getting government out of the marriage business “dramatically change†things? People would still become married, the government would just not be involved. There would still be weddings with friends, family and community to witness an exchange of vows and all the traditional ritual and celebration, just no marriage license.
It seems to me that your real issue is with the government overall, considering the comment about health insurance. I totally agree that health insurance shouldn’t be tied to employment, but the fact is that it is, and that isn’t going to change too quickly. and I did my part to get single payer and/ or a public option! But until it changes, things are as they are, and this is one example of the ways same-sex couples suffer.
Your answer to the issue of inheritance is really a non-answer. Much like the Health Care coverage answer. This really isn’t very useful for dialogue about same-sex marriage. That the system has problems doesn’t mean that it doesn’t also work, and the key is in fixing problems as opposed to trashing the while system.
So, please feel free to rail against the government all you want. But that isn’t my interest, nor is it even tangential to the post really.
I suggested two routes in my original post, and you have added a third which is get the government out entirely. It is implausible, would be costly, and probably impossible, but it is your suggestion, none the less. Thanks for your comments.