It seems that the county that I hail from (which decided last week to start issuing licenses to same-sex couples) has reversed its decision pending an Oregon Supreme Court decision later this month. Not only that, but they have stopped issuing licenses altogether (straight couples can still get licenses for other counties and hold the ceremony in Benton County).
Linky <-- Link changed to something more permanent
I'm not sure this is a good idea, but it seems to be a compromise that allows the county to avoid discrimination of any kind while staying within the bounds of Oregon law as it stands now. I sure hope they start issuing licenses again once the court has ruled, even if the county cannot allow gays to marry.
P.S. I have no intention of starting up angry debates again. I just think it's an interesting way for Benton County to deal with the issue.
[ March 24, 2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
[ March 24, 2004, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: raventh1 ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
This is a great idea and I wonder if other cities will adopt it. I think there is growing support for separating the legal issues of marriage from the religious aspects of marriage (which clearly the proposed Constitutional Amendment would not do...it would clearly combine the two). Stopping the process for all people during this national debate is an interesting take on things. Granted, if only one courthouse does this, no big deal as people can go elsewhere, but it would be very interesting if more areas took this up...a kind of "strike" if you will.
fil
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
This is just indiciative of how silly this whole debate has gotten.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* It's genuinely a shame that anti-SSM advocates don't realize how silly they're being.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
...or pro-SSM marriage advocates, of course.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
I can't say I see any humor in this, boys. I respect the county for finding the Chariots of Fire solution: it allows them to hold fast to their position of equality without intentionally breaking the law. How that qualifies as 'silly' escapes me.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Burying your head in the sand doesn't make problems go away.
I've been doing some thinking, and I think that the best way to compromise as I see it, is to establish a real, measureable difference between homosexual unions and traditional, religious man and wife marriages.
Instead of introducing a "civil union" that is, in essence, a down grade to marriage if you will, why not just let anyone who wants to get married get married, and start treating marriage as a totally civil relationship?
Then, states that want to emphasize traditional marriage in a religious context, can do so through instiuting laws like Louisiana's Covenant Marriage Law . Have a separate classification for couples that want to commit under the blessing of their religious organization, to a lifetime commitment and let that law define a covenant marriage as one between a man and a woman that is a lifetime commitment.
It doesn't diminish marriage as it stands now - that option is still open to everybody, and both heterosexual and homosexual couples can get married and get every benefit that entails. What it does do is give those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament ordained by God and is meant to be something sacred, intended between man and woman only, a way to exercise that belief by making an additional commitment under the blessing of our churches.
If I were queen of the world and could design the requirements for a covenant marriage it would be this:
The couple being married must be a heterosexual couple.
There must be a minimum of one year after filing an intent to enter into a covenant marriage before the marriage license is issued.
During that 12 month period the couple must attend premarital counseling offered by either a professional counselor or a clergyperson.
Covenant marriage ceremonies can only be performed by licensed clergypersons, Justices of the Peace will only be able to perform the regular marriage ceremony.
The couple must legally commit that before divorce proceedings can take place, the couple will seek marriage counseling by either a clergyperson or licensed counselor.
The marriage cannot be dissolved through no-fault divorce.
Let us that want to protect the institution of marriage that we hold sacred put our money where our mouth is. We want marriage to be something that more than the joke people like Britney Spears make it? Then let's make a commitment that cannot be dissolved the moment we change our moods. A covenant marriage will not have any legal status different from any other marriage. NO advantages to couples in covenant marriages over those who get married in the regular way. Some churches can choose to only perform convenant ceremonies if they wish. Others, who perhaps believe that homosexual unions should be blessed by the church, can choose to perform religous marriage ceremonies for homosexuals. Similarly, they can perform marriages for people who don't want to take the step into covenant marriage if they wish.
This would mean that homosexuals can get every advantage offered to heterosexual couples now. They can get married with all the legal rights that entails. Those that want to get married and aren't religious and don't want to be holden to religious marriage ideals can do so. Their marriages will be no less valid, legally, than covenant marriages. They get the inheritance rights of spouses, hospital visitation, married tax status, all those things that people want.
And yet, those that feel marriage should be more than just a legal status or a name change, can make a commitment that carries with it greater responsibility, and one that fits the traditional marriage role that so many of us treasure, and honors God.
Thoughts? I know there are a lot of holes and a lot of things I haven't considered, it's just my idea of something that could make everyone if not happy, at least content.
Edit: Added link
[ March 24, 2004, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Interesting proposition. However, don't devout religious heterosexual couples already have the option of being committed to one another under God through their churches? Is it the place of the government to cement religious commitments?
It seems strange that you would propose new secular involvement in what is basically a religious freedom. Is there some benefit you see to a "legal" (i.e. secular) Covenant Marriage other than having the secular law as a backup to keep religious backsliders in line?
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Well I disagree that this county is burying its head in the sand. Not any more than I think Thomas More was sticking his head in the sand when he refused to endorse the King's divorce/remarriage/status as head of the church. The actions are essentially the same.
And that's the kind of thing you're left to doing when you're not the queen of the world.
That aside, I think your solution is a decent and sensible one. I have my doubts that Traditionalists would be so gung-ho about 'putting their money where their mouths are' while also recognizing that people outside of their faiths deserve equal opportunity and recognition from society, but if it was on a ballot I'd vote for it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
OK, I read the link. Now I have to ask why, if there are benefits to this new secular type of marriage, those benefits should be denied to homosexuals who also wish to have the added legal strength to their marriage commitment?
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Karl, I think her main purpose in added secular involvement to various religious constructs of marriage is to further establish a difference between civil marriage and traditional marriage covenants.
While that deosn't really matter to me, I respect the fact that this is the first time I've ever seen anyone trying to "defend marriage" with real ideas about how it needs to be protected. Not from homosexuals, but from the pervasive sense of meaninglessness that the institution gains with each passing year of 50% divorce rates and vanity marriages.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Because a covenant marriage is by definition (in my world where I'm queen) a religious designation, and not a civil one. Under that, it can be defined differently than civil marriages. This gives churches an option to say "We will only perform covenant ceremonies." That way they can uphold the requirements for marriage that they believe have been ordained by God.
Most of the objections to homosexual marriages are based on religious beliefs that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. To satisfy that objection, we must have a definition that distinguishes that type of marriage from the others.
I'm not saying this is ideal or that it's going to be a perfect solution - that does not exist. I think it's a possible compromise.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
That a perfect solution does not exist presupposes that the objection you mention has need of being satsified in the first place. I do not agree that that is the case, since churches already have all the power they need to restrict marriage only to couples of their choosing (and they are further able to place restrictions on what the couples need to commit to to enter into the contract, though those restrictions are nonbinding in a court of law) while the state can only discriminate against homosexuals and people who are underage.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Keats has hit on something important - I despise the no-fault divorce. I think too many people (regardless of gender) enter into marriage with the attitude that they can always leave and try again if it doesn't work.
That damages the institution of marrage that I hold sacred just as much as opening up marriage to homosexuals. Because my ideal of marriage is something that cannot be tossed aside when people get tired of one another.
This compromise, by the way, doesn't deny homosexuals the right to be married in churches and have their union blessed in the house of God if they want it. Churches that support homosexual marriages can still perform the ceremonies. You can stand up at an altar and declare your love for whomever.
You just won't be able to take the additional step, because your union is not a traditional Biblical-based union. This is an attempt to define traditional marriage, as Keats said, not just as opposed to homosexual unions but from the "gee let's go to Las Vegas and get married we can always get divorced next week" mindset as well.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Yes, I understand that and I agree completely. I do see merit in the Louisiana law. However, I do not see this as an answer to the SSM debate. Principally because allowing the normal civil marriage and denying a Covenant Marriage (secular) to gays continues a discriminatory practice and fails to recognize gay couples can be just as committed as straight couples. In fact, offering this as a solution seems to be saying "go ahead and let them have the easy-in/easy-out weakened marriage as long as we can have this stronger, more committed marrieage from which they will be excluded."
I think the answer to the "threats to marriage" might just be laws like the "Covenant Marriage", but if it is a secular law, there is no reason to exclude homosexuals. Churches already have the right to perform only heterosexual marriages if they wish. Churches would also have the right to recognize only hetersexual Covenant Marriages, if they wish. Why the need to have the secular law be exclusionary??
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Because my ideal of marriage is something that cannot be tossed aside when people get tired of one another.
How ironic that this is my ideal of marriage, too. Too bad you still feel that allowing my kind to share your ideals cheapens them.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Belle, why should secular constraints be placed on religious commitments? (honest question )
quote:What it does do is give those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament ordained by God and is meant to be something sacred, intended between man and woman only, a way to exercise that belief by making an additional commitment under the blessing of our churches.
It seems like breaking the covenant marriage would be an issue for that person and his or her church. If the "additional commitment" portion is a church matter, then shouldn't the enforcement of that additional commitment portion be a church matter, as well? (e.g., excommunication, etc)
(((KarlEd)))
And (((Belle)))
[ March 24, 2004, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Belle, I don't understand why you would need the STATE to recognize some sort of "super-special blessed-by-my-God-of-choice better-than-your-REGULAR-marriage marriage."
If, indeed, you think civil marriage should be open to everyone, then open civil marriage to everyone. If you then want to have a religious marriage that, to your mind, is more "special" than a civil one, go right ahead -- but why create a special category for "special" civil marriages that merely reflect religious observance, particularly if these "special" marriages don't get any further civil benefits? It seems like just another excuse to continue to ostracize people who're looking to legitimize their relationship: "Well, see, we let them get MARRIED, but since they couldn't get MARRIED-MARRIED, I don't have to really think Bill and Roger love each other as much as I love my husband."
Let's face it: a marriage that can't be tossed away when two people get tired of each other ALREADY exists, even in states with no-fault divorce. The trick? People don't have to get divorced. If you want YOUR marriage to last forever, don't file; it's really that easy, and it's already an option open to every married couple.
[ March 24, 2004, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Tom said it better.
*shakes fist
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I think everyone who gets married should have to get a "covenant marriage". I understand what your're going for, Belle, because my beliefs probably match your own in this area, but I think the idea of throw-away marriages has done far more damage to the institution than SSM could ever do.
No-fault divorces Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Because marriage is not just a religious conviction, but a civil action as well. Because already, I have to file papers with the county when I get married, even if I believe that should be just between me and my husband and God. And, for all the reasons listed before, society has a stake in the health of the family. We've gone over this in all the other threads. No one can deny that already marriage is both religious and secular. The two are already intertwined.
KarlEd, I don't deny that you hate my stance and I can see why you would. Saying it's not personal is probably trite and useless, although I do hold it to be true. You're welcome in my home anytime, you would be given sweet tea and invited to church and fed cookies, just like anybody else.
I can't help, though, that my ideal of marriage is different from yours and that my ideal is offensive to you.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
But Belle, the investment that society has in the stability of marriage (raising of children, etc) has nothing to do with the positing of any particular god or religion. I'm not sure why religion must be brought into play here, or even why it is relevant.
If society has a vested interest in making divorce more difficult to obtain, then why not, well, just make divorce more difficult to obtain?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"And, for all the reasons listed before, society has a stake in the health of the family. We've gone over this in all the other threads. No one can deny that already marriage is both religious and secular."
Then what's the point of giving gays legal marriage, if you're going to just redefine "real" legal marriage to keep them out again?
It's like being forced to open up a country club to black folks, but then starting a new club down the street for people whose families came in on the Mayflower; you're STILL keeping out the black folks, and the whole intent of the new club is to continue to discriminate against blacks, but now you can pass it off as discriminating against a number of OTHER people -- which is fine, because you didn't really particularly like those other people much, anyway -- and think it can pass court muster that way.
The whole POINT of gay marriage, Belle, is to grant legal and social equality to gay unions. If you create a second type of union specifically designed to keep gays from being able to enter it, you're DELIBERATELY circumventing that goal.
"Okay, fine. We HAVE to let homosexuals use the sidewalk. But we're going to put in a second sidewalk, which we'll call the "Better Sidewalk," right next to the other sidewalk. And even though it'll look just like the other sidewalk, it'll cost five cents per mile so you know it's better and you won't be able to use it unless you've got a letter from a priest saying you're a godly person. That's because it's good for society to have a BETTER sidewalk."
[ March 24, 2004, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The county is probably vulnerable to a court order compelling them to issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples, since I would expect the issuance of marriage certificates to be a ministerial, non-discretionary function. It's an interesting take on the problem, but probably not a legally tenable position for the county to be taking.
Dagonee
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I am very, very uneasy at enforcing secular constraints on religious commitments. That strikes me as a scary step to make, from either perspective.
"Because you didn't live up to your religious commitments, the State will punish you."
*shudder
I'd rather have the State enforce State commitments and leave the Church to enforce Church commitments.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
*shakes head*
No, Tom you have my motivation wrong.
There are no advantages to covenant marriages - the only differences would be seen by a lot of people to be disadvantages.
And you're wrong by the way, I know plenty of people who've gotten divorced through no-fault divorce filings, and gone separate ways by paying a $200 attorney and court cost fee and never looked back. If there are no custody disputes or any issues with property division, a divorce is very easy to obtain.
I, personally, believe society would be better off if we could staunch the bleeding the no-fault divorce epidemic has caused. It's damaging to our children long term, we've just recently begun to discover the full effect it has on them, even as adults.
Covenant marriages will make divorce so much harder to get, and force couples to really look at what is wrong in their marriages, and that will, I hope, prevent many of those divorces from happening. Divorce is still an option for people abused or abandoned or who have unfaithful spouses. But "I've decided that having kids and being married isn't as much fun as I thought it would be so I'm out of here" is not an option - the person must stay and work out the problems.
Now, I've chosen in my world where I'm queen to use religious ideals to define these marriages because I'm a religious person. Homosexual marriages do not fit in my personal theology. That is why I've made it like this.
To my knowledge, Louisiana's covenant marriage act doesn't even mention gender, does it?
In case you're wondering if I'm really just looking for a way to deny homosexuals "real" marriages and just diguising it under a veil by decrying the divorce rate, I would support a covenant marriage act even if it made no prohibition against homosexual unions, because it would still require that anyone who gets married must make a true commitment and be forced to stay in the marriage and make it work as opposed to running at the first sign of trouble.
However, I'd prefer it to be the way I originally outlined it, because I think that fits with what many of the religious objectors to SSM really want. A way to distinguish a Godly commitment to matrimony from others. There's no way around the fact that many congregations consider homosexual marriages to be invalid. This would give them a way to not have to recognize those unions as covenant unions, but still give homosexual partners the full benefits of marriage under the law.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Just to clarify: I see nothing wrong with a church handing out stickers saying "I got a REAL marriage at St. Mary's" or something. But I don't think the government should be doing the equivalent.
There SHOULD be no way for the state to distinguish between "holy" matrimony and civil matrimony. The state, quite frankly, should be completely blind to the whole issue.
Now, if you think there's some legitimate reason to keep no-fault divorce available to those who want the option when they get married, but a second kind of marriage WITHOUT no-fault divorce for those people who get married and DON'T think they'll want to get divorced (unlike, say, that first group of people who DO, who I'm sure must number in at least the tens), that's fine -- but God has absolutely no business in a civil marriage.
[ March 24, 2004, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
You see, the State has a vested interest in maintaining the stability of a legal contract. The State does not have a vested interest in enforcing your individual commitment to your religion and its laws. (At least, it shouldn't -- this seems very basic to the separation of Church and State.)
The fact that a religious commitment may overlap with a civil commitment is irrelevant. This happens all the time; e.g., it is illegal to give perjurous testimony under oath. It also happens to be immoral to bear false witness in the the Christian tradition, but that does not justify (much less mandate) penalizing Christian perjurors over and above atheist perjurors.
The issue of wronging the State and of wronging God are two different matters.
quote: A way to distinguish a Godly commitment to matrimony from others.
Which can (and should, if desired) be done by the church-of-your-choice. What is insufficient about that? Why isn't the Church itself sufficient to make this distinction?
(Why on earth would you need the State to do so as well?)
[ March 24, 2004, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
(On the topic of no-fault divorce: frankly, I don't see how "covenant marriages" really address this issue, as most people I know don't go into a marriage expecting to benefit from no-fault divorce law. Consequently, I imagine the majority of people would get covenant marriages, only to discover -- as currently happens -- that they'd want to get divorced, and it would suddenly be harder for them. I see no actual functional difference between this and simply eliminating no-fault divorce.)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
CT, don't we already? Does not the state already punish people by breaking what are religious laws?
I mean, the constraints on divorce in a covenant marriage are no more than what have been on marriages in many states already, but are unenforced. Adultery is still illegal in a lot of places but isn't enforced.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In those cases, Belle, where the only motivation behind a law is found to be a religious proscription, the law has often been found to be unconstitutional (see, for example, laws against sodomy.) In general, in a modern court, the behavior proscribed usually needs to cause demonstrable harm to an individual or society before it can be banned. (Your specific mention of adultery is interesting, as I believe it remains illegal -- and grounds for divorce even in states without no-fault rules -- precisely because it represents the breaking of a legal contract, NOT a sin.)
[ March 24, 2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Belle, this intervention is easily justified on grounds of breaking the terms of a contract.
Another serious question (I promise, not a trap or a bait): Do you really not see a huge problem with having the State become involved in enforcing an individual's adherence to a particular religious commitment?
[ March 24, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
You guys keep posting before I even finish a response!
Stop it already.
Tom, I don' tthink that is the case. I'll look for stats but I don't believe that's what has happened in Louisiana, I don't think everyone is getting covenant marriages at all.
I will look, though.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Tom, I've met several people who didn't see marriage as a lifetime commitment. They went into it with the belief that they would be married several times in their life. I think it's very sad, but I believe more people would opt for the easy divorce marriage than you think.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What I'd specifically like to know, Belle, is why you think you'd want the government of your state or country to recognize that you worship God in the right way.
Is it more important to you that your CHURCH approve of your relationship with your deity, or that your governor think it's a-ok?
------
zgator, those same people are not people that, frankly, would benefit from the covenant marriage law. Wouldn't eliminating no-fault divorce altogether reduce the marriage rate among such people, thus improving the sanctity of marriage overall? Why allow them to retain the option of an easy divorce?
[ March 24, 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Sorry, Belle. )
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's a quote from the majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479:
quote:We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
Two interesting notes: the court was upholding the right of married couples to use contraceptives (i.e., to not have children), so the idea of the special status of marriage based on the procreation needs of society is already not conidered essential.
Second, it was assumed that the state had the power to ban sexual acts outside of marriage. Homosexual sex was casually identified as something bannable.
But the entire opinion, not just this quote, talks about certain aspect of marriage being beyond the scope of the state. It is not a social project but a fundamental relationship that is more basic than society. The law accomodates marriage - it does not define it.
Under this principle and that of equal protection, the same accomodations ought to be provided to any married couple. This dovetails nicely with my idea that from a legal perspective, marriage is simply a collection of civil benefits and duties created by the recognition of a default relationship.
I just thought that was an interesting quote from an unusual context that applied to this debate.
Dagonee P.S., and, if someone insists, I can spend a lot of time showing how almost all the accomodations of marriage provided by the law work only for two-person marriages, and almost none of them (if any) rely on the fact that the two people are of different sex. But I'd rather not spend the time right now.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Is it more important to you that your CHURCH approve of your relationship with your deity, or that your governor think it's a-ok?
Tom, I would think that the deity's approval of the religious commitment would be the trump card, not the reverse. The civil commitment seems like an issue of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; i.e., it is a part of engaging in civil affairs as a citizen, but one's religion has no need of State sanction or approval. At all. The State's wishes are irrelevant to the sanctity of one's religious commitments.
quote:Wouldn't eliminating no-fault divorce altogether reduce the marriage rate among such people, thus improving the sanctity of marriage overall? Why allow them to retain the option of an easy divorce?
Exactly. If the concern is that it is too easy to obtain a divorce (i.e., nullify the civil contract), then make it less easy to do so.
[ March 24, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:where the only motivation behind a law is found to be a religious proscription, the law has often been found to be unconstitutional (see, for example, laws against sodomy.)
No, sorry. This is not the basis for the decision striking down sodomoy laws. The fundamental substantive due-process right to liberty is the basis for that decision. Religion is not mentioned at all.
Dagonee
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Okay.
A study on convenant marriages in Louisiana, and in the first two years only about 2% of the new marriages were covenant.
So, it doesn't appear that people are doing as you suggested, Tom and electing covenant marriage just because.
It's a pdf file, and it's an interesting study but I'm still reading it, so I don't know the full results of it.
[ March 24, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: KarlEd, I don't deny that you hate my stance and I can see why you would. Saying it's not personal is probably trite and useless, although I do hold it to be true. You're welcome in my home anytime, you would be given sweet tea and invited to church and fed cookies, just like anybody else.
I can't help, though, that my ideal of marriage is different from yours and that my ideal is offensive to you.
Belle, I don't take it personally. If I did I'd have stopped posting on these threads years ago. I believe you to be a kind and generous person. I believe you to be as Christian a person as you know how to be, in all the good connotations of that word. We could probably be friends to some extent, or at the very least friendly, if we lived in the same circles. (Point in fact, we do live together in this circle and I think we have managed to get along.) But you are right that on this particular point we will probably never see eye to eye.
I do see some value in having the additional commitment in marriage. What I think would be a better solution is to make a clause in the marriage contract that eliminates "no fault" divorce completely once the couple has children. And I would make this binding for both gay and straight couples.
I do see why you think that SSM is not ideal. I understand that you believe in a God that hates the "sin" of homosexuality. I do not hate you for that, though I cannot, myself believe in such a god.
I don't think that our ideals of secular marriage are so very different. I don't hate you, or even hate your ideal where it differs from mine. What I hate is the idea that your ideal is threatened by mine in some way and that your ideal cannot exist for you if mine is allowed to exist for me. If I am mistaken and you do not feel this way, then perhaps we are even closer to agreement than I think.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
In my attempt to interject some light humor, I was going to post in this thread and point out that "we think we have it bad" and link to a story about how in El Salvador this week they married two TREES in an effort to appease the Gods for good weather.
However, I can't find the story ANYWHERE on the web... and I'm sure Paul Harvey mentioned it on his noon news.
..now I'm beginning to wonder if I imagined the whole thing..
Farmgirl
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm actually surprised at the 3% adoption rate of covenant marriage, and am somewhat curious why it's so incredibly low. To put that in perspective, it's probably no larger as a percentage of all marriages in Louisiana than gay marriage would be, were the latter legalized.
Given its failure among the general populace, then, I can't help wondering WHY it's failed so badly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think there is growing support for separating the legal issues of marriage from the religious aspects of marriage
It seems to me that support for both sides is growing.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
How about this: We institute a Federal Constitutional ammendment that requires that marriages only be dissovled by the State that performed the marriage.
Marriages would, of course, be recognized across States, but a state that eliminated no-fault divorce could not be overturned by the couple running to Las Vegas for the divorce unless they also ran to Las Vegas for the wedding. Then, if someone really wants to get married with the intention of starting on a career of serial polygamy, they have that option. If people want the option of the extra commitment, they can get that, too.
Then, all those sinful Nevadans can live as they see fit and the more righteous Louisianans can live with the assurance that any of its weak willed citizens will have to get married out of state or be conveniently trapped.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Thanks for that, KarlEd, you are the definition of class act. I know we don't see eye to eye and I know our vision of what God approves of and disapproves of is different. I think we both do set that aside and look for common ground over which we can still respect and appreciate each other and I'm very glad for that.
The main reason it's so low in Louisiana Tom, is that the Catholic church came out against the act, because it mandated that grounds for divorce were mandatory in the premarital counseling. The Catholic church wouldn't support it because they didn't want ANY discussion of potential divorce included in the counselling sessions.
I disagree, I think you should talk about the problems, and I think that in cases of abandonment and abuse, women (and men) should know where to go for help, and the church should cover that.
But, if the Catholic church supported it, I suspect the numbers would be much, much higher.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My theory as to why so few take advantage of Louisiana's covenant marriage law is because those who are religious enough to want it probably do not consider the State of Louisiana to have sufficient moral authority to administer it.
<Edited a typo that changed the whole meaning of the post>
[ March 24, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Gee, I wonder if there is any sarcasm in KarlEd's post?
You know, I respect that my stance is offensive to some and I'm try my best not to intentionally try to demean anyone.
Unfortunately I don't think my side gets the same respect. This goes back to the fact that I can't state my religious convictions without being called a bigot. It's frustrating, I want to discuss these things, and I want to try out my ideas and get feedback from people who I know hold strong opinions on the other side.
But I'm not going to subject myself to attack, it's not worth it. Comments like
quote:righteous Louisianans can live with the assurance that any of its weak willed citizens will have to get married out of state or be conveniently trapped
don't belong in the same thread with the other comments you made above, KarlEd.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:My theory as to why so few take advantage of Louisiana's covenant marriage law is because those who are religious enough to want it probably do not consider the State of Louisiana to have sufficient legal authority to administer it.
Or perhaps more importantly, not sufficient moral authority to do so? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, sorry. Yes. Exactly. What a typo! I must reread before I hit Add Reply.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
katharina: She Looks So Innocent
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Belle, the problem I have with your position is two-fold:
1) You STILL want law and civic society to discriminate against homosexual unions. I recognize that this isn't likely to change, but it does mean that I am firmly opposed to your position in this regard.
2) I'm not sure that no-fault divorce is somehow forcing or even encouraging people who would otherwise stay together to get divorced; if anything, on the downside, I think it's encouraging people who would and should otherwise not get married to do so. As it stands, people who want to stay married can ALREADY stay married without requiring a new law to be passed.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
I don't get it, Belle. Isn't Karl just rewording the method by which you personally would like to codify Christian marriages separately from civil marriages?
And isn't it you who are making the distinction between the more righteous and the less righteous by insisting that the state recognize marriage-by-your-faith as something more binding than a marriage-outside-of-your-faith?
I wouldn't call that sarcasm, I'd call it being coy.
You're complaining that our side of the debate won't throw you a bone. It's like you don't even realize that you already hold all the bones.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Belle,
quote:CT, don't we already? Does not the state already punish people by breaking what are religious laws?
Yes, we do. In fact, I just got notice to appear at a Federal Court because I had a bacon-and-swiss-cheese sandwich last Saturday, after turning on the light in my kitchen.
Or are you saying that the state, in punishing people, is breaking religious laws (Such as: "Did you know you were travelling 58 mph in a 30 mph zone? Here, eat this bacon-and-swiss-cheese sandwich")?
And I still don't get why people are so offended by homosexual unions, except that many may find the actual sex acts involved in homosexual relations to be offensive. But, you know, picturing my heterosexual parents having sex is a pretty offensive idea, too. And that's just if I'm picturing it. If you're picturing it, well, you should be ashamed of yourself!
--DOG
[ March 24, 2004, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
One might say that you ARE a picture of it... but let's not go there. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Belle, I think coy is a better word, as Caleb said. Also, that post was not meant to refer to you at all or specifically to your beliefs. You have to realize that so much of the religious attitude, especially when it comes to secular legislation, comes across as very "holier than thou" to those who believe they are being persecuted or denied rights based on someone else's religious beliefs.
Now, please note that I am not equating you with this. But the attitude does exist. I thought that by making the comment in a different post it would be far enough removed from my personal post to you as to not be confused. I admit on re-reading, though that I can see where you might think otherwise, and for that I apologize.
For the record, I do not think you a bigot and I was not trying to attack you, even obliquely. I will admit I was being snide, but not to you.
Friends? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<edited>
Wow. KarlEd and I posted at the same time. And I thought the thread was toast.
[ March 24, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
<--wonders if Belle read my last post. Wonders if she's still insulted.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
You know, I can see why Belle's in a hard spot.
Churches have no teeth in our society, so they are unable to enforce moral imperatives upon even their own congregations. Christians are treating marriage just as trivially as anyone else is these days and the nuclear family has become less of necessity for successful living than it used to be. To be fair, most of my friends who grew up in divorceless homes also lived in religious homes. But then so did I, and my home was no stranger to divorce. Our difference is that Belle thinks a permanent man & woman led househould makes better people and, in turn, a better society, whereas I think imposing those limitations as a matter of law makes more religious people and, in turn, a more religious society.
But as Belle is pretty much the first person I've seen to approach this issue from a money-where-our-mouths-are perspective, I'm of the opinion that most American Christians are not willing to sacrifice their own liberties in pursuit of a more moral society. It's a lot easier to sacrifice mine.
<the above is not meant to be vindictive or accusatory in any way; I'm more or less just rambling>
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think you're right, JK. I hope Belle is not still insulted. If she is, then maybe it will be a learning experience - not that she shouldn't post her ideas, but that she shouldn't take every slight on religion or Christianity as a personal attack. Just as I have to endure all the general comments on the sinfulness of homosexuality she should reasonably expect to have to endure it when some of the less flattering light is cast on something she holds dear and an integral part of herself.
I agree she is in a tough spot. According to the 2000 census, 83% of Americans consider themselves to be Christian. Who do they think is doing all the failed marrying? Who is doing the divorcing? Who is doing the unwed-mothering, and dead-beat dadding? Who is doing the abusive parenting? Well, I imagine about 83% of it is being done by Christians. It seems clear to me that the single biggest threat to marriage and family stability in the United States is Christians themselves.
I can see where her idea could be a help in strengthening marriage for some people. But as an answer to the SSM debate, well, it's still just a game of semantics. I'd be in favor of it because it would give gays the right to marriage. It would then fail its intended purpose (as a compromise to the SSM debate) because if there is any real benefit to a Covenant Marriage as opposed to a regular marriage, it would be even more ludicrously unconstitutional to deny them to gays, who would by then be recognized by the state as valid participants in marriage.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:she shouldn't take every slight on religion or Christianity as a personal attack.
*thinks* I really think there's a difference between the apologetic expression of an opinion and sarcasm. I don't blame her, and I think I don't take everything personally.
When one side does start to get sarcastic or snide or whatever, the discussion is over, if not literally, then content-wise.
[ March 25, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In contract law, benefits and burdens are defined solely by the contracting parties. A person entering a covenant marriage is exchanging the burden of greater difficulty in obtaining a divorce for the benefit of making it more difficult for the spouse to obtain a divorce. No matter how others may judge this as a benefit or burden, the parties obviously think it is beneficial. In that respect, denying covenant marriages to SSM would be denying them a benefit, even if 98% of the people choose not to exercise that benefit.
Dagonee
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, yes. That's basically my point.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Me or Dag?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Dag, of course.
But in response to you, I think sarcasm has a place in civil discourse and one must consider the target of the sarcasm. Along with the central idea of my post above I was including an expression of contempt for the "holier-than-thou" attitude that pervades so much of this debate. Upon re-reading it, I regret the paragraph but mostly because it detracts from the point of the rest of the post.
In no way did I aim this at an individual. Perhaps if Belle is from Louisiana (I honestly don't know) she might think for a second it was pointed at her, but in the context of everything else I posted above you'd think she'd give me the benefit of the doubt that I wasn't. And maybe she has. I don't know because she hasn't posted. Has she withdrawn from the discussion? I don't know. I haven't checked to see if she has posted elsewhere today and have no way of knowing if she's even online.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
How can it matter anyway, since Belle's purpose as queen of the world was to make the very distinction that Karl "sarcastically" labelled righteous vs. unrighteous?
"Apologetic opinions" are naturally open for scrutiny, since they admit from the outset that they are flawed. Otherwise they would need no apology.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There weren't any citizens of Louisiana in the thread. There was, however, a Hatracker who agreed with them, who was doing her best to explain her position, and who you know is sensitive.
The "When I sneered at the Christians, of course I didn't mean you. Don't take it personally." apology wouldn't work on me, if I were her.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:since Belle's purpose as queen of the world
Good night. Are you trying to help or to prove my point?
<retracted in light of explanation>
quote:"Apologetic opinions" are naturally open for scrutiny, since they admit from the outset that they are flawed. Otherwise they would need no apology.
Do you not understand? They are apologetic because the people expressing them know they may hurt, but choose principle instead. Not because they are flawed. And they are not being said with the PURPOSE of hurting.
[ March 25, 2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, yes. That's basically my point.
That's what I thought - I was anticipating a potential argument to your post and hoping to nip it in the bud.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
kat, I don't think John was being snarky with that "queen of the world" comment; specifically, Belle herself said that these were changes she'd make if she WERE queen of the world, and I think John was pointing out that the one change she'd make in that role was of the nature he described.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*rereads*
*nods* Okay, I take back the first part of that post. I'll leave it there for context.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote: In that respect, denying covenant marriages to SSM would be denying them a benefit, even if 98% of the people choose not to exercise that benefit.
Yes, but the government denies many benefits to people (benefit to do drugs, benefit to drink and drive, etc.) They can deny the SSM benefit as well, I think, so long as they ban same-sex marriages equally for everyone.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: The "When I sneered at the Christians, of course I didn't mean you. Don't take it personally." apology wouldn't work on me, if I were her.
And this analogy only works if you are actively trying to find a way to portray my "offense" as inexcusable. A more accurate portrayal of my apology would be "I was sneering at jerks. Not at you."
My remark did not refer to Christians, or even Southerners specifically (which are the only two major groups to whom I know Belle belongs). I only used Louisiana because that is the state with the law in question.
I am sorry that my apology doesn't meet your muster, katharina, but I'm not entirely sure any reasonable one could.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I am sorry that my apology doesn't meet your muster, katharina, but I'm not entirely sure any reasonable one could.
Yeah, this conversation is over. I'd continue on this, but I don't care so much.
Just thought you might want the information of why someone was probably offended.
[ March 25, 2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Kat, the scrutiny is not given with the intent to hurt, either. If you scroll back up the first page you'll see that Belle says this is the answer she would come up with if she was "queen of the world". The sensitivity game is a little old, as careful reading of the thread shows that no one is trying to hurt anybody else.
Belle specifically asked for opinions about her proposal. We specifically responded. If you'll reread that first page you'll see that I was even generally supportive of it, too. Let's try not to be offended more than we need to be.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think I've made it abundantly clear before you posted that I know why she might be offended. And I have chosen to clarify the intent rather than to plead guilty to a presumed offense.
But thank you for taking the opportunity to let me know that you don't care to recognize a reasonable appology. You'd rather vilify me through a false paraphrase.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
<applies tension-relieving salve to thread>
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, but the government denies many benefits to people (benefit to do drugs, benefit to drink and drive, etc.) They can deny the SSM benefit as well, I think, so long as they ban same-sex marriages equally for everyone.
My comment was made applying to a hypothetical scenario where SSM are allowed for normal marriages but not covenant marriages. In other words, it presupposes SSM is resolved to some extent.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Tom said it better.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)