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

[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. :)