They're scared. I'm scared.

[beetiger]

I guess there's something positive about the fact that the President and the Pope, two major world leaders, feel like they have to talk about gay marriage. It means things are happening, and the conservative world is nervous. But it kind of kicks me out of the lazy mindset I have now and again, the mindset that says that we're nearly there on queer acceptance, and that church and state really are separated just like it says in the books.

I asked sythyry whether we could move to Canada soon. He reminded me that we're already married.

I actually have my ministerial credentials in NY now, through the Pagan Temple to which I belong. One of the dreams I have for my lifetime is to be able to officiate at a legal gay marriage here.

Comments

[read-alicia.livejournal.com]

Sigh... can somebody air the gender out of gay marriage and just say that anyone in a commited relationship can have it officially recogized? I really don't want to have to spend more energy to re-fight this battle once other genders, intersex, nongenders, and gender variants are recognized.

*waits a long time*

That should be enough to make Dubya's brain pop out though.

[postrodent.livejournal.com]

Actually, if I had my druthers, marriage would be purely an affair of church, and the government would recognize _only_ "civil unions", of which marriage was only one type, regardless of the gender of all involved. That way we'd strengthen the divide between church and state, and maybe even open the door to recognition of triads and quartets (if that's the right word).
Which is pretty much what you were suggesting anyway... :)

Repeating myself redundantly.

[krdbuni.livejournal.com]

I actually just got done saying in another LJ pretty much this exact thing. Though, I would push it one step further. If we're going to make marriage a religious institution, then the government ought to either endorse all religious marriages, or none of them. That means repealing the laws against bigamy and polygamy in general, as well as DoMA.

I think, amusingly, that taking this tack might well get the Mormons on "our" side, or at least off the side of the Catholics. They've been the second-largest financial contributor to the anti-same-sex-marriage campaigns out there, but if we were able to turn the argument into one of endorsing all religious marriages and not just the mainstream Christian ones, they might well hesitate in their feverish opposition, 'cause then they could go back to their original practice of taking as many wives as they could afford to feed.

Of course, in a nod to an earlier comment in this thread, we're going to go through this again when the intersexual, ambisexual, ambigendered, and other gender-fluid groups make themselves public. Of course, they're going to screw with far more than just the marriage laws. Which public restroom does someone who does not consider zirself to be either male or female use when those are the only options? Flip a coin? Jessie and I have already spent many evenings discussing this very topic.

Then, we're going to go through it all over again when the transhumanists come out of the woodwork.

I think the thing to do is consider now what term we want to stick on that movement. Historically, saying "rights for X" never gets interpreted as "equal rights" but instead as "special treatment". Thus, rights for blacks became Civil Rights, rights for women became Equal Rights, and rights for homosexuals became Human Rights.

I wonder if this last is going to shoot us in the foot when the transhumanists and posthumans do indeed start cropping up and making demands, 'cause if we just got done giving rights to humans, what's next? Don't sit on the chairs?

PERSONAL RIGHTS NOW! Next you'll ask me what a person is, I'm sure....

Kristy

Re: Repeating myself redundantly.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

You should use the restroom containing people who you are not sexually interested in and who are not sexually interested in you.

Gay or Bi people have to use private single-person restrooms, less they be overcome by lust.

People who aren't attracted to anyone can use either restroom, as long as they're ugly.

Re: Repeating myself redundantly.

[beetiger.livejournal.com]

Damn. I think I'd better take to going out and peeing in the woods. :)

[read-alicia.livejournal.com]

As long as government and private institutions recognize the concept of family (for example, letting only "family" in to see a sick person in the hospital), we need an official way to include people with whom one is in a relationship as family. We can't all get certified as ministers in order to gain access to the ones we love, though the thought is intriguing.

I was also thinking about this case as well, in which a lesbian couple in Texas were married since one of them is trans. It made me think about the tradeoff between accepting the government's identity in order to get their approval. Of course, I know a few people who just happen to fit the male/female category close enough that they were able to marry so it does work out sometimes. I wonder if they would want to re-marry if the government expanded their definition of who can marry.

[ahiruko.livejournal.com]

I am COMPLETELY in favor of changing the laws about marriage (which is a religious institution) to recognize civil unions instead.

But then, I also don't think that churches should have any legal benefits beyond those of other non-profit organizations, I don't think religious officials should be able to perform legal marriages unless they're also justices or notaries, I don't think Bibles should be exempt from sales tax, and I don't think that religious celebrations should be federal holidays, nor should they be observed in schools.

I'm funny that way. :)

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Well NYC (and other places) have same sex unions you can register at city hall. Not the same, but it does give couples some sort of legal protection. Which is all marriage SHOULD be. A legal contract. What your religion wants to do, it SHOULD be allowed to do.

I'm Quaker -- they do same sex weddings. The government does not recognize them. So the government, in some way, is legitimizing the beliefs of some religions over other religions, which is stupid, too. Just do the civil unions for two people of legal age who want a relationship like that, and let the churches and temples and circles and so on do what they want, without judgement, since it would be a different ceremony.

In Germany, you need to have a civil wedding. Even if you have a Church one, you need a civil one. That's how it should be. The religious one isnt enough. (At least that is how it was years ago.)

For those who want similar benefits, next of kin sort of stuff, did you know that adults can adopt each other? I've read of it before, I think thats pretty wild.

[melskunk.livejournal.com]

You're Quaker? Rock on! So am I! Our meeting marched in the Toronto Gay Pride Parade :)

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Well, working on it -- but 'almost Quaker' sounds funny!

Apparently the NY Meeting has been at every Gay Pride Parade since inception, and at the night of the Stonewall riots they opened their doors for the people on the streets in trouble, giving them a safe space/sanctuary. In fact some people who marched that day said that they brought this up at the reviewing stand this year.

I'm too shy to write the letter -- I want to give it more time. It took me long enough (five YEARS) to get the nerve to go there at all. I'm funny that way. Born Catholic and stuff. Easily intimidated. ;)

[beetiger.livejournal.com]

I'm Quaker -- they do same sex weddings.

The Unitarian-Universalists, with whom I'm also associated, do same-sex union ceremonies, and have for decades, and are one of the few religious organizations possibly getting involved on the pro-gay-marriage side.