Thread: Gay weddings - what happens next? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030678
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
The UK Government has 'graciously' allowed the churches the 'opt-in' to performing same sex wedding ceremonies.
They have preempted the biggest row by forbidding Anglican Churches from conducting such ceremonies.
This, they say, is all to do with conscience and allowing churches to practice their beliefs.
How nice of Mr Cameron to let us believe what we do in accordance with our reading of Scripture and conscience.
But something occurs to me that I believe may have been overlooked here. I have never heard anyone yet speak on this - what happens after the ceremony that many Christians and entire churches believe is a sham because 'marriage cannot be between a man and a man'?
Do we who believe this nevertheless have to accept a gay couple as 'married'? After all, we didn't want to conduct the ceremony because we don't believe it is valid.
Mr Cameron has allowed us to have our conscience in this - he is allowing us to think it, allowing us to opt out of validating such relationships in our ceremonies.
Is he also going to allow us the freedom of conscience to refuse to accept people as 'married'? Because if we accept them then it rather makes the 'opt-out' rather pointless.
Has Mr Cameron forgotten that the wedding ceremony is not the actual marriage? If we accept the married relationship then we cannot claim the opt-out as far as the ceremony is concerned.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Mudfrog's topic title: Gay weddings - what happens next?
They go home and have steamy sex?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Is he also going to allow us the freedom of conscience to refuse to accept people as 'married'? Because if we accept them then it rather makes the 'opt-out' rather pointless.
What difference does it make? Or are you simply reserving the right to express disapproval of certain lifestyle choices people make?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
If the CofE acts true to type it will refuse to do the ceremonies but will, eventually, get around to offering a blessing (at least some clergy will).
In other words, it will be exactly the same situation there used to be for those of us who'd had a marriage dissolved.
So the message will be "we don't approve and we won't marry you but we'll bless it anyway, so long as you're a regular churchgoer" - and gradually that, too, will be relaxed.
Frankly, if marriage is seen as being a lifelong commitment to a faithful, exclusive, supportive, loving relationship then I don't see what people are getting so exercised about.
And to answer the argument about children: how many couples of more mature age do you know who've been even asked if they're still capable of having children before being married in church - even more, ever heard of a couple with the woman past childbearing being refused a church wedding?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
What happens next, Mudfrog, is that this thread goes to Dead Horses, where it should have been started in the first play. It's covered by the "any aspect" clause in the Dead Horse topics guidelines.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Le Roc
They go home and have steamy sex?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mudfrog's topic title: Gay weddings - what happens next?
They go home and have steamy sex?
I thought getting married was a sure fire way of making sure that steamy sex never happened again? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
The OP is asking essentially the same question as Spawn asks in his 'Assimilate me' thread.
Mudfrog: married couples are married according to the law of the land, and in all things that bear on marriage according to the law.
You are entitled to snub them and be rude to them, just as you're entitled to snub and be rude to people who have divorced and remarried, men who have wed the sister of their deceased wife, and anyone by the name of Cohen who has married anyone born out of wedlock. Don't be surprised though if quite nice people--fellow Christians even--let you know you're behaving like a shit when you do. And please, please don't announce that you are being persecuted.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Under the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms, the rite of marriage is not the perogative of the church, but the prerogative of the state. It is the state that defines how old people can be to get married. It is the state that determines what has to be done to get married (ie blood tests, marriage license, who is authorized to perform the marriage). Consequently, if the state decides to allow for equal marriage regardless of sexual orientation.
It does present a question for some on how to minister to these couples should they choose to join a church. Anglican churches may want to check out: http://www.integrityusa.org/ Integrity USA
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And to answer the argument about children: how many couples of more mature age do you know who've been even asked if they're still capable of having children before being married in church - even more, ever heard of a couple with the woman past childbearing being refused a church wedding?
I never mentioned that argument.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The OP is asking essentially the same question as Spawn asks in his 'Assimilate me' thread.
Mudfrog: married couples are married according to the law of the land, and in all things that bear on marriage according to the law.
You are entitled to snub them and be rude to them, just as you're entitled to snub and be rude to people who have divorced and remarried, men who have wed the sister of their deceased wife, and anyone by the name of Cohen who has married anyone born out of wedlock. Don't be surprised though if quite nice people--fellow Christians even--let you know you're behaving like a shit when you do. And please, please don't announce that you are being persecuted.
Yeah, thanks for that attack. How well do you know me that you can accuse me in those terms? This thread has been moved to dead horses, not hell!
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Under the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms, the rite of marriage is not the perogative of the church, but the prerogative of the state. It is the state that defines how old people can be to get married. It is the state that determines what has to be done to get married (ie blood tests, marriage license, who is authorized to perform the marriage). Consequently, if the state decides to allow for equal marriage regardless of sexual orientation.
It does present a question for some on how to minister to these couples should they choose to join a church. Anglican churches may want to check out: http://www.integrityusa.org/ Integrity USA
Thank you Gramps. There is a pastoral as well as a legal issue here. The state might say that a couple are married in the eyes of the law but that does indeed present a problem of conscience (that the government says it does, in fact, recognise) to those who sincerely do not agree from a Tradition or Scripture point of view.
People like some shipmates here who will simply yell abuse at us for holding such views which, until 3 years ago were perfectly acceptable, ISTM, will do very little to change our minds.
For what it's worth - though I'll probably get shit poured all over me - I agree with Peter Tatchell when he says gay and straight couples should equally be able to have civil partnerships.
I have no problems whatever with people having a CP - but I do not believe that marriage is something that can be redefined.
[ 25. May 2013, 21:15: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Oh poor Mudfrog. He's been attacked for having a spiteful opinion!
Maybe he could check out what happened in Canada or another dozen or so countries that aren't totally genital-fixated. SSMs have been happening for 8 years here, and it has only been an issue for the kind of church that wants everyone to know how put-upon they are for having to allow for the mere existence of people they don't like.
Which is not a good advertisement for "the Love of God for all"
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Mudfrog, as an example as what might happen after propel start to have gay civil marriages, in Washington, DC, the local Catholic Archdiocese threatened to stop operating homeless shelters there rather than have to allow married same sex homeless couples to sleep together in their shelters. I am not sure if they went through on that threat. DC did not have the equivalent if civil partnerships before same sex marriage, but if they had, I think the Catholic Church would have had to allow same sex homeless couples in a civil partnership/civil union to sleep together in their shelters because their shelters receive government funds and couples in a civil union/civil partnership receive all the same legal rights and privileges as married couples.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
A propos to this thread is this article from CNN, discussing the idea tat (certain) Christians may become a "hated minority" for espousing hateful ideas about groups of people.
These "certain" Christians are amazed that expressing strongly-negative views of certain persons might be seen as hateful, despite all the evidence of bullying, job loss, social ostracism and consequent suicide that those opinions may have caused.
In addition, they haven't been able to separate the concepts of "civil" and "church" marriage, as shown in the OP. The State has interests in defining relationships that are not part of what the church may want. Get over it.
quote:
Public jousts over the Bible's stance on homosexuality rarely change people’s minds. What changes is when people get to know gay and lesbian people as friends and hear their story, says Beal, author of “The Rise and Fall of the Bible.”
“If you open up to that other person genuinely, you basically come to a point where you have to sacrifice them to your ideology or crack open your ideology to make a hospitable place for them,” Beal says.
and quote:
Carter, the evangelical blogger, says he foresees a day when any church that preaches against homosexuality will be marginalized. Just as many churches now accept divorce, they will accept sexual practices once considered sinful.
“It’s getting to the point,” he says, “where churches are not going to say that any sexual activity is wrong.”
IMNSHO, the only sexual practices that should be addressed negatively by the church are those that involve harm to one or both partners in the activity. A long-term loving relationship between two people does not involve harm to either.
Why certain church people insist otherwise?
And why do certain church people whine about losing their status in society if their members exhibit anti-social characteristics (that go against the preaching of the church)?
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Thing of it is, mudfrog, marriage has constantly been redefined over the centuries. What was considered permissible in the 1500's would not be permissible now. The Bible itself describes at least eight different types of marriage, but it really never defines marriage. It gives a principle, that it is not good for one to be alone. While the ideal may be for a man and a woman in companionship, sometimes it does not work out that way. If a man finds lifelong companionship with another man, or a woman with a woman, so be it. I think it is the church's task to encourage that companionship even strengthen it were possible. Same sex couples have the same aspirations as a any couple, they also experience struggles as a couple. Why not work to encourage the aspirations and help them work through the struggles. Companionship is the overriding principle.
Just today I came across an open letter to the church written by a teenager in South Dakota. It is a frank prophetic voice the church needs to hear. Here is the link: http://dannikanash.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/an-open-letter-to-the-church-from-my-generation/
The deal of it is Dannika was to be a camp counselor at a church camp in Iowa this summer. After she wrote that letter, she got a call from the camp director who told her she was fired. I think the actions of that camp director just proves Dannika's point. Why is it the church is always wanting to shoot the prophets God is raising up.
I have found out the camp is Camp Okoboji in Iowa. I have sent a letter to the director protesting the camp's decision. I would hope other people will also object to what happened. You can email the camp director directly rodq@okoboji.org
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Mudfrog
It's not Mr Cameron's job to decide what your church's theological response to gay married couples should be, is it?
Maybe your problem is the legal side of things, e.g. whether churches will be obliged to hire non-clergy staff who are in gay marriages? I have no idea about that. I presume that the Salvation Army's extensive charitable programme must require the employment of people who aren't always Salvationists, some of whom may not be Christians at all. If this is so, then surely you already have lots of experience of dealing with issues like this. How do you deal with straight applicants who are cohabiting, or who have had multiple divorces, or who are promiscuous? I suppose these lifestyles and choices are easier for applicants to hide than being in a gay marriage?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The OP is asking essentially the same question as Spawn asks in his 'Assimilate me' thread.
Mudfrog: married couples are married according to the law of the land, and in all things that bear on marriage according to the law.
You are entitled to snub them and be rude to them, just as you're entitled to snub and be rude to people who have divorced and remarried, men who have wed the sister of their deceased wife, and anyone by the name of Cohen who has married anyone born out of wedlock. Don't be surprised though if quite nice people--fellow Christians even--let you know you're behaving like a shit when you do. And please, please don't announce that you are being persecuted.
Yeah, thanks for that attack. How well do you know me that you can accuse me in those terms? This thread has been moved to dead horses, not hell!
It's not an attack, it's a statement of fact. I'm old enough to recall some of the rhetoric of some of the things said about non-white people, and find myself in wonder.
It might be worth answering the question "when did you choose to be heterosexual?" and posing such questions and ideas in light of the answer.
In a more moderate tone, if you give it time, you'll relax about it, and so will the reactionary denominations. We've had marital equality for a while in Canada, and discrimination is a human rights issue. It's been much easier for all of us to have everyone considered equal. We think Jesus likes it too, because he told us.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
The crucial 'redefinition' was accepting women as equals whose worth didn't depend on their ability to make and rear babies. Once you admit that marriage is about the capacity for lifelong love between equals, not born in the same family, then gender is irrelevant.
People who want less of that sort of marvellous love in the world can't accept that they've lost in their efforts to privilege heterosexual hierarchy (with women limited to the subordinate roles that men allow, and gay people shut out because admitting equal non - procreation centred marriage doesn't fit with the beloved ancient scriptural texts of the excluders ).
The big problem with both Evangelical bibliolatry and Catholic fetishism of tradition is that both are misogynistic - despite hilarious special pleading to claim that women's subordinate roles are actually some sort of privilege. The idea that a superhuman God can only come up with something so poor where women and gay people are concerned makes a mockery of their claims that their God is worth worshipping and undercuts their claims to possess authoritative revelation. But anyway it won't stop some people hanging on to their idea that God expects women and gays to know their (inferior) place in marriage.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
I think my answer on the other thread fits here as well.
quote:
I put "problem" in quotes because ISTM the question in the OP is really how to sneak "your so-called 'marriage' " into conversation without being thought a jerk. Best of luck with that.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Do we who believe this nevertheless have to accept a gay couple as 'married'?
Mudfrog, to address this reasonable question, I think we have to know what actions you have in mind when you use the word "accept".
I don't accept the stop and frisk laws of New York¹, but this mental reservation means very little outside of my own skull until I, myself, am selected for a stop and frisk encounter by, to me, 4th-Amendment²-violating police. Only then do I have to decide what acceptance means.
Can you help us understand your question by giving an example or two of what a demonstration of non-acceptance might entail?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I can't see what the problem is. Surely, you will have the right to say to gay married people, or about them, 'I don't consider you/them to be married', or the equivalent. So what's the problem then?
I have the right to say, 'I don't want black people living in my street', I think, don't I? Or, 'I wish women had not had the vote', and so on.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
For what it's worth - though I'll probably get shit poured all over me - I agree with Peter Tatchell when he says gay and straight couples should equally be able to have civil partnerships.
What, in your opinion, is the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage performed by a justice of the peace, without benefit of clergy?
What would you see as the essential differences between a marriage and a civil partnership, with respect to the law?
quote:
I have no problems whatever with people having a CP - but I do not believe that marriage is something that can be redefined.
The problem with that, of course, is that there are many different definitions of marriage, and those definitions have changed many times.
Even if you restrict yourself to Christian marriages, there's a lot of change over time. For example, in the earliest years of the Church, marriages were not performed in the Church. Men could have more than one wife, and they could have concubines. When the Church began to perform marriages, slaves were not permitted to marry, because they could not give their consent. Remarriage, after death or divorce, was impossible -- for a long time there was no such thing as a second marriage. The Western church began allowing second marriages to the widowed, which was an absolutely radical change to the definition of marriage. The Eastern church began allowing second marriage to the widowed or divorced, which was no more or less radical than the Western church's change.
What is the definition that you consider permanent and unalterable?
And should this definition apply to everyone, even if they are not Christians? Or does it only apply to Christians? If it only applies to Christians, should the state enforce it? Why or why not?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
There you go, Josephine. Logic again.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
There's the states definition of marriage, and Mudfrog's definition of marriage. People are going to chose the former as the default meaning of the word and your attempts to define it as something restricted will be viewed as pathetic, futile and nasty. You can console yourself that you're a Christian martyr, just like those who receive disapproval for calling a remarried divorcee an adulterer.
[ 26. May 2013, 08:42: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The crucial 'redefinition' was accepting women as equals whose worth didn't depend on their ability to make and rear babies. Once you admit that marriage is about the capacity for lifelong love between equals, not born in the same family, then gender is irrelevant.
People who want less of that sort of marvellous love in the world can't accept that they've lost in their efforts to privilege heterosexual hierarchy (with women limited to the subordinate roles that men allow, and gay people shut out because admitting equal non - procreation centred marriage doesn't fit with the beloved ancient scriptural texts of the excluders ).
The big problem with both Evangelical bibliolatry and Catholic fetishism of tradition is that both are misogynistic - despite hilarious special pleading to claim that women's subordinate roles are actually some sort of privilege. The idea that a superhuman God can only come up with something so poor where women and gay people are concerned makes a mockery of their claims that their God is worth worshipping and undercuts their claims to possess authoritative revelation. But anyway it won't stop some people hanging on to their idea that God expects women and gays to know their (inferior) place in marriage.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But Mudfrog will surely be permitted to describe gay marriages as sham, if he wants to. I don't think this will be illegal, will it?
Of course, it depends on how he does it! But at present, it is OK for someone to argue that divorced and remarried people are not really married. I doubt if a policeman would come knocking at the door, if you said that.
In fact, it is important that Mudfrog should be free to say 'that is a sham marriage', isn't it?
[ 26. May 2013, 09:16: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Once you admit that marriage is about the capacity for lifelong love between equals, not born in the same family, then gender is irrelevant.
However, in the real world as well as in theology, marriage seems to be about more than lifelong romantic love. After all, why would the state ever have got involved in marriage if love was the only issue?
quote:
The big problem with both Evangelical bibliolatry and Catholic fetishism of tradition is that both are misogynistic - despite hilarious special pleading to claim that women's subordinate roles are actually some sort of privilege.
Paradoxically, though, both traditions are dominated numerically by women. They clearly feel they gain some advantage (or 'privilege') by being there.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But people are permitted to be misogynists, aren't they? They are not permitted to discriminate against women in some areas, such as employment, but they are permitted to say, I don't like women, and so on. Similarly, Christians are permitted to say that cohabitees are an abomination; I assume that Mudfrog will be permitted to say that gay marriages are invalid. I can't see the problem really.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Svitlana, 'romantic' is your word, not Louise's, and it slants the argument.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I suppose people can be allowed to say that in their opinion, or according to the teachings they follow, a same sex marriage is sham or invalid. I don't think thay can be allowed to go round saying that in fact they are, because that will be legally inaccurate and deliberately hurtful.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Svitlana, 'romantic' is your word, not Louise's, and it slants the argument.
I thought about adding 'romantic' before I did, but decided it was appropriate.
Louise was careful to state that she was referring to individuals 'not born in the same family'. This means she's talking about one, or several, of the kinds of love that can exist between non-related people. Usually in Western culture marriage is deemed to be appropriate for those who experience romantic love, and I assumed that this is the kind of love Louise was thinking of. Other kinds of love, though they may be present, aren't usually thought to be of prime importance in the decision to marry.
However, if Louise was implying that marriage would be appropriate for a couple of friends who have a deep but firmly platonic love for each other, that's a different matter. There are some people who argue that marriage could be re-invented for friends who don't see each other as partners in a romantic relationship. If that's the case, though, the one wonders why members of the same family shouldn't marry. After all, there would be no incest involved, and blood is thicker than water...
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But people are permitted to be misogynists, aren't they? They are not permitted to discriminate against women in some areas, such as employment, but they are permitted to say, I don't like women, and so on. Similarly, Christians are permitted to say that cohabitees are an abomination; I assume that Mudfrog will be permitted to say that gay marriages are invalid. I can't see the problem really.
If by "permitted," you mean that it's not illegal, of course people are permitted to be misogynists. At least on this side of the pond, there are no laws restricting what you think, feel, or believe.
If by "permitted," you mean that you can think it and say it without adverse social consequences, then it's likely that it won't be permitted. If you tell your next-door neighbors that they are not really married because they are gay, or because they married after divorcing a previous spouse, or because one of them is Christian and the other not, or because one of them is white and one of them is not, it is likely that your neighbors may begin to shun you.
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I suppose people can be allowed to say that in their opinion, or according to the teachings they follow, a same sex marriage is sham or invalid. I don't think thay can be allowed to go round saying that in fact they are, because that will be legally inaccurate and deliberately hurtful.
In this country, you are allowed to say things that are legally inaccurate and deliberately hurtful. Anti-abortion groups are allowed to say that abortion is murder. Libertarians are allowed to say that if you accept government assistance, you are stealing.
I don't know whether that kind of rhetoric is illegal elsewhere. I doubt that it is. Here, it's a perfectly normal part of political speech. Unpleasant, maybe, but normal.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, that's an interesting point in law, which I don't know what the answer is to. I suspect it depends in the UK on how you say it. Thus, if you make a theological argument, that say, cohabitation is an abomination, I doubt if PC Plod will be tapping at your door. If you say that 'fags are perverts' he may do, depending on where you say it.
[ 26. May 2013, 13:59: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I thought getting married was a sure fire way of making sure that steamy sex never happened again?
Oh, I'm so sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The state might say that a couple are married in the eyes of the law but that does indeed present a problem of conscience (that the government says it does, in fact, recognise) to those who sincerely do not agree from a Tradition or Scripture point of view.
You may have to (finally?) come to grips with the fact that your traditon and Scripture do not dictate the law of the land. You may have to acknowledge that there is a difference between legal marriage and the church's holy matrimony. The Catholics have already done this because to them a remarried person whose first marriage was not annulled is not "really" married as far as the church is concerned, yet they clearly ARE married as far as the state is concerned. Time for the SA to grow up?
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
I am assuming that Louise, as a historian, knows the history of the idea of 'romantic love' and its distinction from what the authors of the BCP refer to when they speak of 'the mutual society, help, and comfort that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.'
Mind you, according to the Church, 'romantic love' has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. Would you say that the love that Christ has for His Bride, the Church is 'romantic love'? What about the love described in the Song of Songs?
To describe either as 'romantic love' would be the definition of kitsch.
It seems to me that the part of Louise's post you have fixed upon is the part that points out that the third purpose of marriage according to the prayerbook ('the mutual society, help, and comfort...') has become the most important in our culture; she suggests some historical reason for this.
Personally, I've been struck by the sense that the otherness of the Beloved doesn't need to be a gendered otherness for the marriage to represent the marriage of Christ and His Holy Church--that is, the lover and beloved don't need to be of opposite sexes for the symbol to be valid.
ETA: And if you think that marriages can't and don't happen between 'Platonic friends,' Svitlana, I can only say that the world is bigger and wilder than you think.
[ 26. May 2013, 14:09: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
[massive crosspost - this was following on from Amos's earlier post - Amos deals very well with the romantic love derail]
I'd just come along to make that point. If there's anything about egalitarian marriage as it's historically developed which excludes those of the same sex, I don't know what it is. What marriage has to do with the state and whether it should have anything to do with the state is an entirely different question.
In response to Svitlana's other point, I was speaking specifically in the context of the ultra conservative approach to marriage - with its gendered hierarchy and traditional gender roles. In the same way that you get poor people voting for parties that exist to benefit the rich, you get women who buy into a system that ultimately works against them as a whole - either because they don't see it that way or because 'I'm alright Jack' - it so far hasn't bitten them in the bum as it bites others. Others, for example, might find that if they leave an abusive husband, they're seen as the guilty party because they weren't submissive enough, or they'll be judged because their marriage didn't adhere to traditional gender roles etc.
It's this end of the spectrum I'm talking about - thanks to the general advances of feminism, it's the case that in a lot of the church world the old misogyny inculcated by church tradition and the usual proof texts is rendered 'mostly harmless', unless you happen to get in the path of the zealots who're very keen on keeping and reviving this sort of stuff. This matters for gay people because teaching about traditional gender roles and gendered hierarchy is used to claim that marriage for them is 'redefining marriage' in some horrid blasphemous way rather than simply extending to others the kind of marriage we (the non-conservatives) have already had and enjoyed for some time.
Hence the conservative types in a tizzy about the horror of even possibly mentally or socially accepting equal marriage for gay folk. They don't accept egalitarian marriage for straight folk and they're very cross that the rest of us do, and that we don't reverence the sexist bits about marriage in the Bible or Church Tradition anymore, and even worse, many people dare call the nastiest bits in the Bible/Church Tradition 'bigoted' - as they'd talk about any other text or organisation advocating discrimination against harmless ordinary people.
To steal the catchphrase of Corporal Jones, the Unco' Guid don't like it up 'em. Instead of being able to bask in social approval for their goodness and holiness, they now run the risk that people might look at them with horror like they just admitted to voting BNP or drowning kittens. It's a threat to their respectability which used to be one of the great pay-offs of visible piety.
To be fair though, there is a vast amount of selfless good done by people who accept the uglier bits of the Bible along with the good bits, and there's some justice perhaps to them feeling this will be dismissed out of hand or devalued as people shudder and dodge their collection box or respond to their testimony of piety with thoughts along the lines of 'Oh no, he'll be another one of those God-bothering, gay haters'.
I think the changing respectability of conservative piety might have a fair bit to do with things like the OP.
[ 26. May 2013, 14:28: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Amos
I don't think anything you've said in your last post identifies why marriage can't include people who are already related to each other. You do mention Song of Songs, which indicates that sexual love can play a part (I'm not sure why you think 'romance' is an inappropriate term, though), but it's not clear why platonic marriages shouldn't occur between brother and sister in other scenarios.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Svitlana, you're missing my point, I personally think of marriage as partly constituting something like a family relationship when there wasn't one before. [I may be right or wrong on that - it's a personal view] But this is also irrelevant as to whether there is anything in modern egalitarian marriage which requires that people must be of differing genders/sexes. If you think there is, then please tell us what it is.
[ 26. May 2013, 14:41: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
And to be clearer from my cross-posting
quote:
It seems to me that the part of Louise's post you have fixed upon is the part that points out that the third purpose of marriage according to the prayerbook ('the mutual society, help, and comfort...') has become the most important in our culture; she suggests some historical reason for this.
Exactly. One of the interesting things about Reformed Church approaches to marriage is that this starts to emerge as important at an early stage. The Westminster Directory for worship is already moving away from procreation-centred approaches in the mid 17th century. I like the BCP statement of that element very much.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I was speaking specifically in the context of the ultra conservative approach to marriage - with its gendered hierarchy and traditional gender roles. In the same way that you get poor people voting for parties that exist to benefit the rich, you get women who buy into a system that ultimately works against them as a whole - either because they don't see it that way or because 'I'm alright Jack' - it so far hasn't bitten them in the bum as it bites others. Others, for example, might find that if they leave an abusive husband, they're seen as the guilty party because they weren't submissive enough, or they'll be judged because their marriage didn't adhere to traditional gender roles etc.
So women in the RCC, or in Pentecostal churches, for example, are basically victims, sleeping with the enemy because they haven't been enlightened and liberated yet? Some might see that as a bit patronising! Western women have been walking away from churches and marriages for a long time now, so it's rather dramatic to talk about people living in fear of being 'judged'.
quote:
The conservative types [are] in a tizzy about the horror of even possibly mentally or socially accepting equal marriage for gay folk. They don't accept egalitarian marriage for straight folk and they're very cross that the rest of us do, and that we don't reverence the sexist bits about marriage in the Bible or Church Tradition anymore, and even worse, many people dare call the nastiest bits in the Bible/Church Tradition 'bigoted' - as they'd talk about any other text or organisation advocating discrimination against harmless ordinary people.
To steal the catchphrase of Corporal Jones, the Unco' Guid don't like it up 'em. Instead of being able to bask in social approval for their goodness and holiness, they now run the risk that people might look at them with horror like they just admitted to voting BNP or drowning kittens. It's a threat to their respectability which used to be one of the great pay-offs of visible piety.
I agree that conservative Christians in the West should give up on the 'social approval' lark. They haven't represented the moral majority, or been the benchmark for 'respectability' for a long time now. Some of them have chosen to withdraw from the role of guardians of a diffusive Christian culture, and I think that's for the best. They should be in the world and not of it.
Mudfrog's comments arise out of a perception that we live in a 'Christian nation', and that what the PM says is somehow meant to line up with what happens in churches. I think it's time to let this notion die, because the discordance between the ideal and the reality is just to great to do anything but create frustration and impotence in the churches. My view is that these churches should be focusing now on strengthening the spirituality and commitment of their core membership, rather than arguing about what non-Christians and non-members should do about gay weddings!
(Your view is probably that they should either get with the secular programme or wither away and die. But each to his own!)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Louise
Very good long post above. It must be a shock to conservatives that it's a Tory govt that has introduced the bill on gay marriage. Some of the reaction has been utterly bizarre - e.g. Tebbitt with his lesbian queen being artificially inseminated. Good grief, the man has been watching too much sci-fi.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Svitlana, you're missing my point, I personally think of marriage as partly constituting something like a family relationship when there wasn't one before. [I may be right or wrong on that - it's a personal view] But this is also irrelevant as to whether there is anything in modern egalitarian marriage which requires that people must be of differing genders/sexes. If you think there is, then please tell us what it is.
Oh, I think that the government can and should re-configure marriage however it sees best, according to the democratic wishes of the electorate, whether that's 'modern' and 'egalitarian' or something else. But I also think that the churches should be free to use entirely different criteria. The problem we have today, as I'm sure you'll agree, is that the two things got muddled up at some point in the past and haven't entirely been disentangled yet.
As for marriage being about creating new families, that seems to be a somewhat random concept if we believe that people can 'become family' perfectly well without the benefit of marriage, as is quite common in the culture today. If marriage isn't necessary for the creation of families, then perhaps the creation of families shouldn't necessarily be seen as the starting point for marriage. But perhaps that's a tangent.
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
A bit puzzled by the OP starting this discussion, as to my knowledge, marriage isn't a sacrament to the Salvation Army. So, what does it matter? Further, Mudfrog, how would you treat a couple who were married at the local Justice of the Peace or courthouse, rather than at a church?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It must be a shock to conservatives that it's a Tory govt that has introduced the bill on gay marriage.
Do you think so? Conservative Christians in the UK haven't been exclusively wedded to the Tory Party. Maybe the Anglican ones have, but not the others. Indeed, those who vote Labour or Lib Dem, knowing full well that those parties have socially liberal tendencies, are probably relieved that it's the Conservatives who've made the move on this issue.
All Christians who vote for the major British parties surely know and must accept that the 'traditional' Christian influence is now on the fringes of all those parties. It's probably easier for conservative Christians to tolerate this reality if they can see that liberalising social tendencies are spread equally across all the parties, rather than being exclusive to just one of them - especially if that one party might be the party that they'd otherwise like to vote for. Psychologically, it's probably easier to vote for something you don't like if you feel that the alternatives are just as bad!
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Justice doesn't need to be secular, the shame of many churches is that they have left justice to the secular world, so now important forms of justice like equality for gay people and women are thought of as exclusively 'secular', when they shouldn't be.
Choosing to go along with a system that defines you as subject and subordinate doesn't make you a victim - many people did very well out of divine right monarchies without being the divine right monarch. But if you do choose to knowingly go along with a system which defines you as a second class citizen with inferior rights to more privileged classes and castes, the time can come when you pay dearly for whatever you were originally getting out of it.
As for being easily able to walk away from the fall-out of sexist or anti-gay ill treatment or being able easily to face social disapproval and judging in tight church communities- that depends on how much of it you, yourself have internalised. It's often far easier said than done.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Justice doesn't need to be secular, the shame of many churches is that they have left justice to the secular world, so now important forms of justice like equality for gay people and women are thought of as exclusively 'secular', when they shouldn't be.
Choosing to go along with a system that defines you as subject and subordinate doesn't make you a victim - many people did very well out of divine right monarchies without being the divine right monarch. But if you do choose to knowingly go along with a system which defines you as a second class citizen with inferior rights to more privileged classes and castes, the time can come when you pay dearly for whatever you were originally getting out of it.
As for being easily able to walk away from the fall-out of sexist or anti-gay ill treatment or being able easily to face social disapproval and judging in tight church communities- that depends on how much of it you, yourself have internalised. It's often far easier said than done.
Firstly, I think the perceived connection between church and state, even in countries where they're supposedly separated, has been unhelpful to the church's role in working for justice. It's quite possible to be in favour of gay marriage as a democratic legal possibility while not accepting it theologically within your own church fellowship. But where individuals don't distinguish significantly between their personal theology and the state it's harder for them to compartmentalise in this way.
Yes, a conservative theological position may cause pain among gay Christians in their family church in a 'tight-knit' community - but that's the downside of living in such a community. There are plenty of yearnings, lifestyles or world views that would also be problematic in such a place. If you want utter freedom to be yourself, to live without judgmentalism, then you leave the village or the small town and go to the city, where noone cares how you live, or what you believe. You can still love your family, but you don't have to be under their critical gaze! This is the story of civilisation and of of Western literature! The local community and the local church aren't the be-all and end-all of communities or of churches, and neither should their expectations necessarily be normative for the whole of society, and nor should every individual feel entitled to fit in at every church, even if it's the church they grew up in.
Moreover, women, poor people, gay people, black people, etc. all have to make judgments about what they'll lose and what they'll gain by being part of particular religious institutions. Strengths in one area tend to indicate weaknesses in others. Those churches that commit themselves primarily to justice often fail to meet people's spiritual yearnings in other ways; 'conservative' churches may win out because they offer a whole-body or emotional experience that appeals to the yearnings of a particular group of suffering people. Sociological factors, such as a 'strict' church's ability to convert and reform wayward husbands, may be of higher priority to a poor, struggling mother than whether or not there are women priests or a radical feminist theology of liberation in place.
Some ideological battles seem like academic, middle class concerns when set against the immediate realities of many ordinary people's lives. This may seem like an improper and paradoxical thing to say, and it's not always the case, of course, but it's a problem that definitely seems to afflict churches as they get more liberal. I do hope it can be solved somehow, because I'd like to see all churches flourish, liberal or not.
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
What I want to know is, what is the difference (in Mudfrog's church) in the way they currently treat married straight couples, cohabiting straight couples and cohabiting gay couples. If we knew that, we could probably extrapolate a consistent way of treating married gay couples.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Personally, I've been struck by the sense that the otherness of the Beloved doesn't need to be a gendered otherness for the marriage to represent the marriage of Christ and His Holy Church--that is, the lover and beloved don't need to be of opposite sexes for the symbol to be valid.
There are Christians who insist that the marriage of Christ and the Church is a gendered one. These are those who insist that the Church is female because she is called "Mother."
Usually, these people have a very definitive idea of what "female" means, and it is not pretty:
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/gospel-coalition-douglas-wilson-sex
Sexism masquerading as Christian theology.
[ 26. May 2013, 18:03: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
What I want to know is, what is the difference (in Mudfrog's church) in the way they currently treat married straight couples, cohabiting straight couples and cohabiting gay couples. If we knew that, we could probably extrapolate a consistent way of treating married gay couples.
I wonder if the SA, rather than really being non-sacramental, just mentally shifts the sacrament of marriage to the state. Thus if the state starts marrying gays, it is abusing the sacrament.
Otherwise ISTM if marriage is not a sacrament, then it's a legal arrangement overseen by the state, and what should the church care about how that arrangement is legally defined?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Here is the thing I do not understand, Christians as a whole redefine parts of the bible. Name me a church, even a crazy splinter sect, that stones children for being disobedient. How many of you follow the dietary rules? How many accept the slavery guidelines. Still, that is, several did use them past.
As well as the aforementioned various biblical marriages that would not be accepted in most Christian churches.
You are free to think SSM is icky, but to say it is a redefinition is sorta bullshit.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Josephine, when I used the word "allowed", I was thinking very fuzzily, and not about legal rights to be nasty to people. I suppose I was thinking that people should not allow themselves to challenge the way others feel about themselves, if what they think about themselves is legal according to the state, and not harmful to others involved.
Mind you, that is also fuzzy, because it depends on the state, and who is perceiving the situation as harmful. I continue to be amazed at how some, such as the people demonstrating in France today, do regard this issue as doing harm. No-one seems to have the same attitude to divorce, or, more extremely, to married couples whose activities result in real and physical harm to others.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Here is the thing I do not understand, Christians as a whole redefine parts of the bible. Name me a church, even a crazy splinter sect, that stones children for being disobedient. How many of you follow the dietary rules? How many accept the slavery guidelines. Still, that is, several did use them past.
As well as the aforementioned various biblical marriages that would not be accepted in most Christian churches.
You are free to think SSM is icky, but to say it is a redefinition is sorta bullshit.
But you're kind of contradicting yourself here. First you say that Christians redefine parts of the Bible all the time, then you say that SSM isn't a redefinition of the Bible.
I agree with you that Christians do redefine the Bible quite a bit, and by the same token it's surely obvious that SSM is as much of a redefinition as anything else, since (unless the scholars here know otherwise) SSM was never conceived of by the biblical writers, despite the fact that all the 'elements' were available, and nothing else needed to be invented! (Unlike, say, TV or motorbikes.)
Christians disagree on which bits of the Bible to redefine and which not to. I have Christian relatives whose theology prevents them from eating pork or prawns, and other Christian relatives who'll eat them happily. I see SSM as a similar sort of thing, but obviously with a greater social impact, since everyone's fascinated by what Christians have to say on sexual matters, but less fascinated by their dietary concerns!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I was (poorly) making two points.
One: Redefinition is part of Christian reading of the bible.
Two: Marriage is so porously defined in the bible that SSM isn't much of a redefinition regardless.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
lilBuddha
I see. That doesn't help matters much, though, because porous definitions generally lead to a diversity of perspectives, not to theological agreement.
I can't see Christians unifying around this issue in the long term, any more then they unify around other sexual behaviours. Of course, the edges will become blurred, and there'll be wider acceptance in some denominations. One limiting factor may be that gay people will remain a small minority, even if all of them come out of the closet. And although there are many gay people in the church some of them may fear that pushing their denominations too hard on this issue will only divide and weaken them further in a largely secular, Western context.
[ 26. May 2013, 21:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I know. I simply get irritated at the convolutions people go through to justify ignoring Jesus' message of love and tolerance.
At times, this drags me closer to the (perhaps apocryphal)Gandhi quote:
quote:
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Some ideological battles seem like academic, middle class concerns when set against the immediate realities of many ordinary people's lives.
I was lucky, I didn't grow up in a country dominated by a male supremacist church which still had great influence over the state. My working class Irish friend wasn't so lucky. You try telling her that what she endured as a working class teenager having an unwanted pregnancy in the religious climate of 1980s Dublin is just airy-fairy academic stuff that shouldn't have affected her as she wasn't middle class. Male priestly hierarchies inculcating in women what their sex life, marriage and fertility should be like interfere in stuff as real and immediate as it gets for working class women, never mind anyone else.
People who'd be horrified by white supremacist churches and get at once why they're noxious, still try to make excuses for male supremacist churches and to trivialise the damage they do.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Some ideological battles seem like academic, middle class concerns when set against the immediate realities of many ordinary people's lives.
I was lucky, I didn't grow up in a country dominated by a male supremacist church which still had great influence over the state. My working class Irish friend wasn't so lucky. You try telling her that what she endured as a working class teenager having an unwanted pregnancy in the religious climate of 1980s Dublin is just airy-fairy academic stuff that shouldn't have affected her as she wasn't middle class. Male priestly hierarchies inculcating in women what their sex life, marriage and fertility should be like interfere in stuff as real and immediate as it gets for working class women, never mind anyone else.
People who'd be horrified by white supremacist churches and get at once why they're noxious, still try to make excuses for male supremacist churches and to trivialise the damage they do.
I obviously didn't have '80s Ireland in mind when I made my comments. I was referring to the secular parts of Europe. Having said that, if male supremacist churches teach that it's okay for young men to get girls pregnant, then they're hardly champions of the 'traditional family', are they? The girls don't do it by themselves. The cynic in me says that ignoring the boys and blaming the girls is just another way of allowing young men to sow their oats, which pretty well undermines religious 'conservatism' as I would understand it.
One obvious downside of being horrible to everyone, of course, is that your church can end up driving people away. Ireland Catholicism is now in retreat, so I hear, so the RCC has hardly gained by the attitude that you allude to.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
[Tangent]
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Christians disagree on which bits of the Bible to redefine and which not to. I have Christian relatives whose theology prevents them from eating pork or prawns, and other Christian relatives who'll eat them happily. I see SSM as a similar sort of thing, but obviously with a greater social impact, since everyone's fascinated by what Christians have to say on sexual matters, but less fascinated by their dietary concerns!
Svitlana,
Do you know what your first set of relatives think the point of Jesus dying on the cross for us was, if we are still bound by the rules of the Torah?
I am always bemused by people who call themselves Christian but seem to pay more attention to the Old Testament than the New, but I have never heard of any following Jewish dietary rules before. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[/Tangent]
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mudfrog's topic title: Gay weddings - what happens next?
They go home and have steamy sex?
Personally, I was thinking more along the lines of a buffet and perhaps a disco with a few 'Hits of the 70s'. But evidently I'm lacking in ambition!
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Having said that, if male supremacist churches teach that it's okay for young men to get girls pregnant, then they're hardly champions of the 'traditional family', are they? The girls don't do it by themselves. The cynic in me says that ignoring the boys and blaming the girls is just another way of allowing young men to sow their oats, which pretty well undermines religious 'conservatism' as I would understand it.
For my part this seems like a very traditional setup. Very much in keeping with the Old Testament standards of sexual assault, as well.
At any rate, let's pose an hypothetical. A and B are married, and A dies intestate. A's brother X claims that he doesn't accept A and B's marriage as valid and therefore he, X, is the rightful next of kin. Would the state be violating X's freedom of conscience by not accepting his claim to be A's next of kin and legal heir?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Having said that, if male supremacist churches teach that it's okay for young men to get girls pregnant, then they're hardly champions of the 'traditional family', are they? The girls don't do it by themselves. The cynic in me says that ignoring the boys and blaming the girls is just another way of allowing young men to sow their oats, which pretty well undermines religious 'conservatism' as I would understand it.
For my part this seems like a very traditional setup. Very much in keeping with the Old Testament standards of sexual assault, as well.
The Bible relates a number of stories of sexual assault, true. But stories about sexual assault and God's blessing and approval of sexual assault are two separate things.....
One thing I sometimes wonder is, if it's only women's sexual sins that matter (which we're assuming is the case for 'conservative' Christians), why don't the 10 Commandments make this explicit? Why doesn't the 7th Commandment only apply to wives, not husbands? After all, the 10th Commandment is addressed explicitly to men. If the reader is presumed to be male then it ought to be made clear if a certain law doesn't apply to his sex.
It's often said that women don't stand up for each other, but this seems to be just as true for 'conservative' men. If men are allowed to be sexually free while women are to be sexually restrained, this means that men are effectively given the green light to try to violate or to seduce other men's wives and daughters. I don't see how this situation truly aids the cause of conservatism, so much as maintain the sex war. But maybe it explains why some supposedly conservative societies paradoxically have a high rate of teenage pregnancy and family breakdown.
quote:
At any rate, let's pose an hypothetical. A and B are married, and A dies intestate. A's brother X claims that he doesn't accept A and B's marriage as valid and therefore he, X, is the rightful next of kin. Would the state be violating X's freedom of conscience by not accepting his claim to be A's next of kin and legal heir?
Why should the state care about the objections of a minority religious group to any marriage that the state deems to be valid? 'Freedom of conscience' doesn't mean 'freedom to get your hands on a shedload of cash'.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Having said that, if male supremacist churches teach that it's okay for young men to get girls pregnant, then they're hardly champions of the 'traditional family', are they?
Quite on the contrary. I'd say that holding women responsible and letting men off the hook is far more traditional than holding men responsible for impregnating women. Far, far more.
quote:
The girls don't do it by themselves. The cynic in me says that ignoring the boys and blaming the girls is just another way of allowing young men to sow their oats, which pretty well undermines religious 'conservatism' as I would understand it.
Then I would submit your understanding of it is irrelevant to the vast majority of the history of Christian Europe.
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mudfrog's topic title: Gay weddings - what happens next?
They go home and have steamy sex?
Personally, I was thinking more along the lines of a buffet and perhaps a disco with a few 'Hits of the 70s'. But evidently I'm lacking in ambition!
The last lesbian wedding I attended had a pot luck. My husband commented that lesbians should have gay men plan their weddings.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
At any rate, let's pose an hypothetical. A and B are married, and A dies intestate. A's brother X claims that he doesn't accept A and B's marriage as valid and therefore he, X, is the rightful next of kin. Would the state be violating X's freedom of conscience by not accepting his claim to be A's next of kin and legal heir?
Why should the state care about the objections of a minority religious group to any marriage that the state deems to be valid? 'Freedom of conscience' doesn't mean 'freedom to get your hands on a shedload of cash'.
Because per Mudfrog's argument, the state is "forcing" X to acknowledge A and B's marriage as legitimate and thus violating his freedom of conscience. Of course, if the state took X's side it would be violating B's freedom of conscience to assert the validity of the marriage. The need for a unified legal standard is why freedom of conscience isn't usually extended so far that it invalidates other people's legal arrangements.
Besides, I'm sure if you asked X he'd tell you it's a matter of principle. His getting a shedload of cash because of it is purely coincidental.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
The 7th commandment only applied to men and married (or betrothed) women (other than the men's own wives) but not to men (married or unmarried) and women who were neither married nor betrothed.
The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906 has an article on it.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd say that holding women responsible and letting men off the hook is far more traditional than holding men responsible for impregnating women. Far, far more.
[...]
I would submit your understanding of [conservatism] is irrelevant to the vast majority of the history of Christian Europe.
Oh, I'm well aware of how the world works! But I'm not entirely alone with my 'irrelevant' thoughts: in the 18th c. John Wesley grumbled that finding a chaste male was like looking for a needle in a haystack. To him that was a travesty of what 'conservative' Christianity should be about.
One scholar's explanation for secularisation is that in the middle of the 20th c. Western women began to abandon their role as gatekeepers of family morality, hence leaving men unrestrained in their 'traditional' role as the lustful enemies of sexual self-restraint. But this kind of society was always built on shaky foundations, it seems to me. How can male superiority (or 'conservatism', as you might have it) rest upon the eternal irony of male irresponsibility and female vigilance? Late capitalism or post-industrialism, or whatever, was always going to shake that one up a bit! Exclusively male papacies and bishopdoms can't hide the reality.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
SvitlanaV2: quote:
But this kind of society was always built on shaky foundations, it seems to me. How can male superiority (or 'conservatism', as you might have it) rest upon the eternal irony of male irresponsibility and female vigilance?
The way I've always put it to myself when misogynous conservatives of any stripe shake their fingers at women who enjoy the advances of men: If men can't or won't control themselves, why should women be mostly to blame, and why should men be the bosses of the world?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Oh, I'm well aware of how the world works! But I'm not entirely alone with my 'irrelevant' thoughts: in the 18th c. John Wesley grumbled that finding a chaste male was like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Proving just how "traditional" such males are. My point.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, let's pose an hypothetical. A and B are married, and A dies intestate. A's brother X claims that he doesn't accept A and B's marriage as valid and therefore he, X, is the rightful next of kin. Would the state be violating X's freedom of conscience by not accepting his claim to be A's next of kin and legal heir?
The simple fact is that the state decides both what a marriage is for that jurisdiction and also who inherits on an intestacy. Both are matters of secular law. While this has been formed after debate on what the law should posit, once the legislation is through, that is it for the particular state (until repeal or amendment of course). And that does not affect X's conscience one whit.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
The SA doesn't have a great track record when it comes to treating gay people decently:
http://www.bilerico.com/2011/11/why_you_shouldnt_donate_to_the_salvation_army_bell.php
http://heterarch.com/?p=622
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/us/beliefs-salvation-army-hears-dissent-over-gay-views.html?_r=1&
[ 28. May 2013, 07:10: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
True, dat - the comments on traditional gender politics. A man who can't control his John Thomas shouldn't be allowed to control anything else and yet, with perhaps the most aberrant form of logic I've yet encountered, we have.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Oh, I'm well aware of how the world works! But I'm not entirely alone with my 'irrelevant' thoughts: in the 18th c. John Wesley grumbled that finding a chaste male was like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Proving just how "traditional" such males are. My point.
Traditional/ conservative in the sense of conserving your right to be debauched if you're a man, yes.
I find that the word 'conservative' isn't used so much in British Christian discourse, perhaps for this very reason; it's quite a slippery term. It either means 'what they did in the olden days', or else it refers to specific doctrinal positions that may or may not have been prevalent, in the same form, in the past. As for 'traditional', a church can easily be traditional in one sense and liberal or moderate in another, so it's a word that always needs a clear context.
So, going back to the OP, the 'traditional' British thing to do - since the mid-Victorian period onwards - would be for the churches to live and let live, to remember that over recent centuries religion in our culture has been increasingly a matter of personal choice, not of legal sanction or of public normality. Of course, the challenge is in dealing with those blurred spaces where the private crosses over into the public.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The simple fact is that the state decides both what a marriage is for that jurisdiction and also who inherits on an intestacy. Both are matters of secular law. While this has been formed after debate on what the law should posit, once the legislation is through, that is it for the particular state (until repeal or amendment of course). And that does not affect X's conscience one whit.
I agree with this analysis, but the premise of the OP was that when the state establishes such standards it automatically violates the freedom of conscience of everyone who prefers a different standard. I'm not sure how this view can be accommodated short of anarchy.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So, going back to the OP, the 'traditional' British thing to do - since the mid-Victorian period onwards - would be for the churches to live and let live, to remember that over recent centuries religion in our culture has been increasingly a matter of personal choice, not of legal sanction or of public normality.
Wait a sec. The traditional British thing from the mid-Victorian period was to punish homosexuality with legal sanctions like prison, mostly on the basis of religious doctrine. You have heard of Oscar Wilde or Alan Turing, right? How does that count as a "live and let live" policy?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The SA doesn't have a great track record when it comes to treating gay people decently:
http://www.bilerico.com/2011/11/why_you_shouldnt_donate_to_the_salvation_army_bell.php
http://heterarch.com/?p=622
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/us/beliefs-salvation-army-hears-dissent-over-gay-views.html?_r=1&
Thanks for the links. I have long thought it wrong to give to them - now i have justification.
A gay priest friend of mine once remarked that it was odd that the SA sold 'boy soliders' (not a prostitution racket but the name of their junior magazine)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The simple fact is that the state decides both what a marriage is for that jurisdiction and also who inherits on an intestacy. Both are matters of secular law. While this has been formed after debate on what the law should posit, once the legislation is through, that is it for the particular state (until repeal or amendment of course). And that does not affect X's conscience one whit.
Nor do X's beliefs about gay marriage have anything to do with A's estate. The only beliefs which are possibly relevant are A's beliefs, and challenging the division of an intestate person's estate on the grounds that he would have wanted something different to happen is a pretty easy way to ensure that something different does happen, which is that his estate all goes to pay lawyer's fees.
Make a will, people.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Nor do X's beliefs about gay marriage have anything to do with A's estate.
I never specified that A and B were a same-sex couple, just that X says he doesn't consider their marriage valid. The thing about conscience is that it's essentially arbitrary. If you claim to have a deep and abiding objection to marriages between [insert arbitrary criteria here], who can really say your objection isn't a matter of conscience?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But something occurs to me that I believe may have been overlooked here. I have never heard anyone yet speak on this - what happens after the ceremony that many Christians and entire churches believe is a sham because 'marriage cannot be between a man and a man'?
The same thing that happens when a divorcee gets married - something Jesus said shouldn't be done.
quote:
Mr Cameron has allowed us to have our conscience in this - he is allowing us to think it, allowing us to opt out of validating such relationships in our ceremonies.
Is he also going to allow us the freedom of conscience to refuse to accept people as 'married'? Because if we accept them then it rather makes the 'opt-out' rather pointless.
And here comes the Christian Persecution Fantasy. You have the freedom to refuse to accept people as married. You can make a big thing about it in which case you show yourself to be an aggressive, obnoxious jackass and society will treat you accordingly. Or you can treat them politely and show yourself to be a decent human being.
What you don't get is society continuing to praise you for being an aggressive, obnoxious jackass.
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mudfrog's topic title: Gay weddings - what happens next?
They go home and have steamy sex?
Personally, I was thinking more along the lines of a buffet and perhaps a disco with a few 'Hits of the 70s'. But evidently I'm lacking in ambition!
The last one I attended indeed had a sumptuous buffet organised by the parish catering team (one party being the vicar) and the church halls dressed throughout with an elaborate Abba/Dr Who crossover theme. Disco dancing till midnight, and I didn't ask what happened when they went home.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I never specified that A and B were a same-sex couple, just that X says he doesn't consider their marriage valid.
OK, I jumped to conclusions in a thread about gay weddings. My point stands, though - X's feelings about the nature of the relationship between A and B are never relevant. A's feelings about the relationship between A and B could be grounds for a court challenge. There are any number of court cases every year involving people who have acquired a new partner (of whatever legal status) in later life, and the new partner and pre-existing children are disputing the will etc.
In these cases, the nature of the relationship between A and B, and what A thought that relationship was, are relevant. Whether X approves isn't.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I never specified that A and B were a same-sex couple, just that X says he doesn't consider their marriage valid.
OK, I jumped to conclusions in a thread about gay weddings. My point stands, though - X's feelings about the nature of the relationship between A and B are never relevant. A's feelings about the relationship between A and B could be grounds for a court challenge. There are any number of court cases every year involving people who have acquired a new partner (of whatever legal status) in later life, and the new partner and pre-existing children are disputing the will etc.
In these cases, the nature of the relationship between A and B, and what A thought that relationship was, are relevant. Whether X approves isn't.
Well except I think X could refuse a benefit that he would have gotten because of them being recognized as married. For example, A [X's sibling] and B die in a car accident but A survives B for a period of time [but in a coma] so inherits all of B's estate as surviving spouse; X as A's only close relative would inherit A's estate (including B's estate). Now if X truly considered A and B not to be married and in fact sinning, he really should pass B's estate onto B's closest relatives.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Now if X truly considered A and B not to be married and in fact sinning, he really should pass B's estate onto B's closest relatives.
(Not forgetting to deduct the inheritance tax on the tax-free transfer between spouses A and B, and mailing it directly to the coffers of the appropriate government.)
ETA: Perhaps he shouldn't, though. If he wishes to behave as though A and B were not married, he should try to replicate the conditions that would have occurred had B died single, in which case his estate, subject to one lot of tax, would have passed to his relatives. Given that X will have to ensure that tax is paid on the combined estates of A and B, he can just transfer B's share of the post-tax estate to B's family.
Maybe it depends on whether B left A his property in a will, or whether the law of intestacy transferred B's estate to A. In the former case, our honest opposer of A&B-type marriages should probably pay inheritance tax twice.
[ 28. May 2013, 23:45: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The traditional British thing from the mid-Victorian period was to punish homosexuality with legal sanctions like prison, mostly on the basis of religious doctrine. You have heard of Oscar Wilde or Alan Turing, right? How does that count as a "live and let live" policy?
Yes, homosexuality was illegal at that time; I'm not saying that the Victorians were sexually liberated people. I'm saying that the trend was towards laws that distinguished between the teachings of the state church and a secular realm of personal choice. And of course, the country has developed an increasing respect for the rule of law. Some religious British people may complain about gay marriage, but I can't see them organising mass protests as we've seen in France recently!!
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
And of course, the country has developed an increasing respect for the rule of law.
What, Britain? Are you sure?
quote:
Some religious British people may complain about gay marriage, but I can't see them organising mass protests as we've seen in France recently!!
Probably because an anti-gay protest would attract about as many people as the Westboro Baptist "Church".
The majority of those opposed to gay anything in the UK are older people, and more often than not the kind of person who doesn't go on protest marches.
When the Conservative Party is pushing gay rights legislation through parliament, I suspect most people will recognize a lost cause when they see it.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The traditional British thing from the mid-Victorian period was to punish homosexuality with legal sanctions like prison, mostly on the basis of religious doctrine. You have heard of Oscar Wilde or Alan Turing, right? How does that count as a "live and let live" policy?
Yes, homosexuality was illegal at that time; I'm not saying that the Victorians were sexually liberated people. I'm saying that the trend was towards laws that distinguished between the teachings of the state church and a secular realm of personal choice.
I'm pretty sure the Victorian-era sodomy laws were religiously motivated. Do you have a citation that contradicts this?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
The anti-sodomy laws well and truly predated the Victorian era - in fact, that was a time when there was some moderation in them. The death penalty had previously been the maximum punishment for sodomy, and IIRC, was last carried out in the 1780s. After then, it was regularly commuted to a term of imprisonment, and in Victoria's time something like 14 years became the maximum. Not exactly lenient, but better than hanging.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Male homosexuality was illegal in Victorian times; female homosexuality wasn't. However, the economics of being an unmarried woman in Victorian times would have encouraged gay women towards heterosexual marriage.
Here is a snippet of a poem written c 1888 by one woman to the love of her life:
"...
And you would take with dainty finger-tips
The flowers I gave you, and for my poor sake,
Even in your bridal hour, would still heart-ache
In me for ever, with the touch of lips.
...."
I wonder how often a woman on her wedding night was "heart-aching" for her female love?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Probably quite a few.
There were some well known lesbian couples though. To start with, there were the Ladies of Llangollen, who ultimately succeeded in obtaining a royal pension. Another were Mary Benson and Lucy Tait ' Ms Benson was the wife of the then ++ Canterbury, having borne him 6 children. Lucy Tait was the daughter of Edward Benson's predecessor.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
There were plenty of lesbian couples in Victorian times, but most had an independent income and did not "need" to marry for financial security.
The difference between male and female homosexuality in the C19th was not just that it was illegal for men, but not for women, but also that men and women had different economic status.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure the Victorian-era sodomy laws were religiously motivated. Do you have a citation that contradicts this?
That's not what I'm getting at.
For a start, as far as I'm aware the Victorian laws on sodomy weren't 'Victorian' in the sense that they were mostly already in existence by the time the Victorians came on the scene.
According to Wiki, it was during the Victorian era that the death penalty was removed for the crime of sodomy, which suggests a gradual weakening of the severity with which homosexuality was viewed. You could say that by removing the death penalty the Victorians were becoming less biblical in their approach to homosexuality. (cf. Leviticus 20 v. 13. I'm NOT saying that NT theology sanctions the death penalty.)
Divorce laws became gradually less onerous for women in Victorian times, and beyond. Also, in specifically religious terms, the religious tests for public office, which required that you had to be Anglican, were removed shortly before Victoria came to the throne. Until 1871 you had to be Anglican to get a Masters degree from the University of Oxford.
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
A propos of not very much, if you are interested in Victorian attitudes to homosexuality (and sexuality generally), I suggest reading Ronald Pearsall's "The Worm in the Bud". I'm sure that newer works have been published, but Pearsall seems to have been the first, and it's also a good read.
AG
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure the Victorian-era sodomy laws were religiously motivated. Do you have a citation that contradicts this?
That's not what I'm getting at.
For a start, as far as I'm aware the Victorian laws on sodomy weren't 'Victorian' in the sense that they were mostly already in existence by the time the Victorians came on the scene.
According to Wiki, it was during the Victorian era that the death penalty was removed for the crime of sodomy, which suggests a gradual weakening of the severity with which homosexuality was viewed. You could say that by removing the death penalty the Victorians were becoming less biblical in their approach to homosexuality. (cf. Leviticus 20 v. 13. I'm NOT saying that NT theology sanctions the death penalty.)
As I understand it, sodomy was always difficult to prove anyway (as one had to be caught in the act, or prove that one had been 'at it', as it were). But homosexual acts that weren't covered by sodomy laws were covered by the offence of gross indecency, which was introduced in Victorian times. This meant it became much, much easier to prosecute homosexual activity (even if no-one went to the gallows for it).
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't think you can simply ascribe anti-homosexual laws and attitudes to religion. Some anthropologists link it to patriarchy, which has for a long time, valorized the married state amongst men, and also their fertility. Hence, for example, in Sparta, which supposedly had gay soldiers, bachelors were ritually humiliated at regular intervals, for not doing their duty with regard to procreation.
Hence, women, gays and children were tightly regulated in some societies, not simply because of religious attitudes, but because of the need to control sexuality, procreation, inheritance, and so on.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
That may be true, quetzalcoatl, but religion -- particularly Christianity -- then takes it on board and turns it into a religious issue, which is then perpetuated for the religious sake, and it becomes (as we see today) part of religious duty to oppose it. It moves beyond "we need to squelch this so people will spawn" to "we need to squelch this because God says so." The latter is a far more powerful motivation, and has the ability to invoke more harm, and has greater staying power.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I agree. It adds an intense ideological component, which compels people, under pain of disapproval, punishment, etc. I think some Marxists would argue that it's a kind of post-rationalization. Well, they might argue that the whole of religion is!
The Freudians might also argue that religion very profitably invokes the super-ego, in the form of God, whose rules must be obeyed, out of fear of rejection and so on.
[ 29. May 2013, 16:12: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I agree. It adds an intense ideological component, which compels people, under pain of disapproval, punishment, etc. I think some Marxists would argue that it's a kind of post-rationalization. Well, they might argue that the whole of religion is!
Of course, so is Marxism -- which is why some people call it a religion.
quote:
The Freudians might also argue that religion very profitably invokes the super-ego, in the form of God, whose rules must be obeyed, out of fear of rejection and so on.
A good point.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, it wouldn't be shocking to see Marxism as a secularized continuation of Judeo-Christian eschatology. For these evil times will come to an end, and then all men shall be equal, and the evil one shall fall from his counting house.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
As I understand it, sodomy was always difficult to prove anyway (as one had to be caught in the act, or prove that one had been 'at it', as it were). But homosexual acts that weren't covered by sodomy laws were covered by the offence of gross indecency, which was introduced in Victorian times. This meant it became much, much easier to prosecute homosexual activity (even if no-one went to the gallows for it).
Yes, the Labouchere Amendment. It should also be noted in systems that allow significant prosecutorial discretion the laws on the books are only half the story. How strictly such laws are enforced is the other half, and the Victorians had quite the gay panic, particularly from about 1880 onwards.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think you can simply ascribe anti-homosexual laws and attitudes to religion. Some anthropologists link it to patriarchy, which has for a long time, valorized the married state amongst men, and also their fertility. Hence, for example, in Sparta, which supposedly had gay soldiers, bachelors were ritually humiliated at regular intervals, for not doing their duty with regard to procreation.
First, I'm not sure that "religion" and "patriarchy" are as easily separable categories as you imply. Second, if the ritual humiliation of bachelors in Sparta was part of the the Lykourgian reforms (and Spartans held that everything they did was handed down from Lykourgos, whether it was or not) I'm not sure it counts as a non-religious example. Lykourgos did have a hero-cult, after all, and the Great Rheta was Delphic Oracle approved.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Very good point, since patriarchy would inevitably be mythologized and ideologized in all societies, and often seen as divinely decreed, or part of our destiny, and so on.
I suppose the modern anthropologist is able to compare across cultures, and see similar patterns, e.g. the tight control over female sexuality, the stigmatization of homosexuality, the desperate urge to go back to mummy's womb - oops, I just made that last bit up!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
As I understand it, sodomy was always difficult to prove anyway (as one had to be caught in the act, or prove that one had been 'at it', as it were). But homosexual acts that weren't covered by sodomy laws were covered by the offence of gross indecency, which was introduced in Victorian times. This meant it became much, much easier to prosecute homosexual activity (even if no-one went to the gallows for it).
I can see that the Victorians were more censorious of sexual licence in general than the Georgians. In that sense, if you prefer complete sexual freedom, then the Victorians were a step backwards. But Victorian prudishness might have represented a gradual desire to protect some people from abuse; one website I came across suggested that the laws against gross indecency were actually designed to protect teenage girls, and were only applied to gay men later.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/wilde/wildelawpage.html
It would be interesting to read the book mentioned above on Victorians and sexuality. I suspect there were competing impulses pulling Victorian opinion-formers in different directions. The concept of privacy became a hallmark of middle class Victorian life, while on the other hand, the growth of cites led to more people being forced into close and anonymous proximity. Both developments might have made it easier to have private gay relationships, without, of course, making such relationships publicly respectable.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I've half heard a report of the first French marriage, and it finished with a reference to death threats and people needing bodyguards. I can't find anything online about it, so I don't know if it is the grooms and/or the mayor who have been threatened. There have been threats to the politicians before.
Not a good way to remember a day which should be happy.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm genuinely trying to think of situations where someone's marital status, or indeed 'relationship' status, is of any real relevance such that I might need to comment on it and express a view as to its validity.
I'm not coming up with a lot. It's pretty much restricted to either chatting a guy up, being chatted up by a guy, and finding out if a party invitation is for 2.
So I do wonder if the 'problem' in the OP has any practical relevance whatsoever. How often will it ACTUALLY matter to Mudfrog whether a same sex couple is married or not?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So I do wonder if the 'problem' in the OP has any practical relevance whatsoever. How often will it ACTUALLY matter to Mudfrog whether a same sex couple is married or not?
Never - except in his own mind if he wants to pigeonhole them.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I suppose some people have the problem as to how to show their displeasure at gay marriage. They are aware that this is socially inept, but on the other hand, it sticks in the craw just to be polite, as then one's displeasure remains unknown.
Do people still have craws? I believe they survive in a few small Scottish islands.
Anyway, I believe that a disdainful sniff is considered quite appropriate in some milieus.
[ 31. May 2013, 09:31: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
God forbid we not be able to make OUR displeasures known, and loudly, and immediately, whenever we feel like it. The one important thing for my getting along in the world is that everybody whose life, choices, or existential being I dislike should know it, and know it immediately.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Someone sent me a series of comments from the Daily Telegraph - I can't link to it as it is paywalled - but:
someone stared quote:
Nothing could be more opposed to Biblical teaching than homosexual marriage.
I wondered - what, not world hunger, genocide or nuclear war?
Another said quote:
bishops are appointed, in effect, by the government. So, especially since 1997, they have only got the job if their credentials are politically correct
and I thought: no, thet sit automatically when someone at the top of the queue retires or dies.
This is the level of ignorance among opponents.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
What did I read in a recent newspaper comments section where some local worthy was bloviating about The Gay? Lessee...we all hate God...God hates us...we deserve to die...if The Gay in fact all died, it would be an improvement for life on earth.
Keep talking like that, sir, and you will NOT be on our 25th anniversary party list.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Pondering all this fairly recently, I couldn't help wondering why homosexuals with their often superior talents would want to do something so reactionary, retro, privet-hedge gazingly conventional as 'get married'. At least in the old days it was a little more avant guard and Brave New World.
A friend told me about France which has recently allowed gay marriage 'a French wit remarked 'but no-one gets married in France these days anyway, except a few old Jesuits.'
Gay divorce? Becoming a Gwidow?
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Yes Sebbie...gay divorce. And death of spouse -- widow if the survivor is female, widower if the survivor is male.
Here we've just celebrated the 10th anniversary of allowing same-sex couples to marry (not same-sex marriage, please, just regular ordinary marriage open to same-sex couples). There have been divorces, and, I presume, deaths among the married. Stands to reason -- some of them had been living together for 40 years or more when they were finally allowed to marry, and not so many people live into their 80s and 90s.
And you know what? It hasn't made a hoot of difference to the married straights, to the living common-law straights, to the just living together straights, to the serially monogamous straights, to the divorced or widowed straights, to the promiscuous straights or to the chaste or celibate straights. Or to anyone else.
John
[ 14. June 2013, 17:52: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Pondering all this fairly recently, I couldn't help wondering why homosexuals with their often superior talents would want to do something so reactionary, retro, privet-hedge gazingly conventional as 'get married'. At least in the old days it was a little more avant guard and Brave New World.
A brief explanation from blogger Andrew Sullivan:
quote:
A friend recalled visiting a man dying of AIDS at the time. A former massive bodybuilder, he had shrunk to 90 pounds. “Do I look big?” he asked, with mordant humor. In the next bed, surrounded by curtains, my friend heard someone singing a pop song quietly to himself. My friend joked: “Well not everyone here is depressed!” Then this from his dying, now skeletal friend: “Oh, that’s not him. He died this morning. That’s his partner. That was their song, apparently. The family took the body away, threw that guy out of the apartment he shared with his partner, and barred him from the funeral. He’s stayed there all day, singing their song. I guess it’s the last place he’ll ever see where his partner actually was. His face is pressed against the pillow. The nurses don’t have the heart to tell him to leave.”
Maybe the drive for same-sex marriage comes from the very hard way the gay community learned that if you're sick, or dying, or in any other kind of trouble, you can't count on your birth family, and you certainly can't count on your church, and that without some kind of rock-solid legal framework the family you've built for yourself is precarious at best.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
To paraphrase a meme from the feminist movement, I suspect the desire for marriage stems from "the radical notion that [homosexuals] are people."
And a vast majority of people, after all, get married.
[ 14. June 2013, 20:29: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
...but in 2013? Surely there is something more imaginative and possible than 'getting married' or in other words dressing as a meringue for a day and being boringly ordinary. My point is that perhaps gay people are above all that, possibly bighter and more imaginative.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
...but in 2013? Surely there is something more imaginative and possible than 'getting married' or in other words dressing as a meringue for a day and being boringly ordinary. My point is that perhaps gay people are above all that, possibly bighter and more imaginative.
And for those gay people who wish to be 'more imaginative', the option of not marrying is open to them. But at the moment in the UK, the option of marrying - for those tedious, traditionalist gay people who like the idea - is not open to them. I look forward to the day when this changes.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
oh I agree. And most certainly for tax reasons. But I expect more avant guard-ness and colour and less boringly ordinary. I prefer single for all genders. But lots of sex of course.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
At the moment in the UK, the option of marrying - for those tedious, traditionalist gay people who like the idea - is not open to them. I look forward to the day when this changes.
For PR purposes I think it's unfortunte that 'tedious, traditionalist gay people' aren't the kind of gay people who are usually in the public eye talking about this issue. SSM is usually presented as a poke in the eye for traditionalism. The popular presentation is always about being modern, about dragging old-fashioned people and ideas into the 21st c.
The 'non-traditionalist' reading of marriage that we find here on the Ship is that straight folk have already destroyed marriage. If so, there's not much that's tedious and traditional about it; SSM is either a battleground for legal protection (in countries without civil partnerships) and/or a cultural struggle to disabuse straight people of the mistaken idea that marriage IS traditional.
What will happen once straight people no longer kid themselves that marriage is traditional? Who knows? The USA has a very high marriage rate compared to the rest of the developed world, so perhaps the only way is down. Marriage is already at its lowest rate ever in the UK, so there's probably not much 'de-traditionalisation' to do.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I couldn't help wondering why homosexuals with their often superior talents would want to do something so reactionary, retro, privet-hedge gazingly conventional as 'get married' ... Surely there is something more imaginative and possible than 'getting married' or in other words dressing as a meringue for a day and being boringly ordinary. My point is that perhaps gay people are above all that, possibly bighter and more imaginative. ... But I expect more avant guard-ness and colour and less boringly ordinary.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
That's a lot of expectations to have about someone else's relationships.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
That's a lot of expectations to have about someone else's relationships.
It sure is. And I'm wondering just how painting a whole diverse group of people as superior in talent, intelligence, etc., helps the process of assimilating any group historically designated as "other" into mainstream society.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
...but in 2013? Surely there is something more imaginative and possible than 'getting married' or in other words dressing as a meringue for a day and being boringly ordinary. My point is that perhaps gay people are above all that, possibly bighter and more imaginative.
Why limit being imaginative and bight [sic] to the gays? Surely you want all the straights to stop "dressing as a meringue for a day", since if it's gross for a gay, it's surely equally gross for a straight and a simple desire to avoid hypocrisy would dictate that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
[tangent] And what's this "dressing as a meringue for a day" and what does it have to do with getting married? Does the groom have to cover himself with sugared egg white and spend the night before the wedding in a slow oven? Does the bride have to arrive with a strawberry pavlova (in season) on her head? The mind boggles.[/tangent]
John
[ 15. June 2013, 16:09: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
That is how most couples do look on their wedding day.
And I also agree with you. I wouldn't recommend 'marriage' for straights either; a silly outdated institution.
It is just a little like baby gorillas. They bounce about and are fun and imaginative until..they settle down with a 'mate'; then they sit on their arses and eat bananas all day.
I have very high expectations of gay people - and I wouldn't lump them all together by using the phrase 'the gay community'. The idea that they need assimilating into 'normal' society is both patronising and, one would imagine, horribly stifling.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
...but in 2013? Surely there is something more imaginative and possible than 'getting married' or in other words dressing as a meringue for a day and being boringly ordinary. My point is that perhaps gay people are above all that, possibly bighter and more imaginative.
Shorter version: Why aren't homosexuals abiding by my stereotypes of them?
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
No. You are providing the sterotype. Not I. Are you gay?
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Shorter version: I believe 'marriage' to be completely ludicrous in 2013 and wonder why certain people might wish to go for it.
I do understand that equality under the law is necessary and there has been much ridiculous discrimination for centuries. I suspoect that this discrimination might still exist for those, gay or straight, who wish to be single.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Shorter version: I believe 'marriage' to be completely ludicrous in 2013 and wonder why certain people might wish to go for it.
You're right, sebby. Totally pointless.
So my partner and I will just buy a house and move in together. It's that simple.
Joint ownership, of course. We want to make sure that if one of us dies the other one still has the house.
And of course we'll need to ensure that we inherit each other's possessions, as well, so that we still have money for the mortgage and all our furniture.
And we need to make sure we have medical proxy and power of attorney for each other, just in case we're incapacitated somehow.
And I guess since we're planning to have kids we'd better make sure that we both have custody for them. And someone in government should probably make sure that we're providing for them.
...you know, that's a hell of a lot of paperwork. It's a pity there isn't some super-simple way of doing it all at once. Hmm... what would we call that?
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
One sees the point, of course, if one wanted to go in for all that you describe.
But I would have no personal comprehension why someone would want to settle down...like some straights do for an increasingly short period of time...and as for having children, one feels mercifully biologically preserved from such a horror. The expense! The tie! Like having hamsters but for longer.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For PR purposes I think it's unfortunte that 'tedious, traditionalist gay people' aren't the kind of gay people who are usually in the public eye talking about this issue. SSM is usually presented as a poke in the eye for traditionalism. The popular presentation is always about being modern, about dragging old-fashioned people and ideas into the 21st c.
The 'non-traditionalist' reading of marriage that we find here on the Ship is that straight folk have already destroyed marriage. If so, there's not much that's tedious and traditional about it; SSM is either a battleground for legal protection (in countries without civil partnerships) and/or a cultural struggle to disabuse straight people of the mistaken idea that marriage IS traditional.
What will happen once straight people no longer kid themselves that marriage is traditional? Who knows? The USA has a very high marriage rate compared to the rest of the developed world, so perhaps the only way is down. Marriage is already at its lowest rate ever in the UK, so there's probably not much 'de-traditionalisation' to do. [/QB]
You can see the results already since the US now is a patchwork of states that allow ssm and traditionalist states that don't.
The divorce rate is much higher in the traditionalist states. It's marry young and divorce frequently in the traditionalist Christian groups. No doubt they're still reeling from the damage done by allowing inter-racial marriage in the last fifty years in the US.
So I would guess your prediction that ssm marriage is going to destroy marriage so far has turned out to be wrong. I'll let the Canadians here tell the story of what SSM has done to straight marriage in Canada.
My own prediction is that SSM will not destroy marriage but it will badly weaken traditional Christianity because those churches are more and more seen as a source of bigotry and hatred. Young people who grow up knowing gay people and knowing gay couples are much less willing to believe what is being spewed by their church leaders.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
oh I agree. And most certainly for tax reasons. But I expect more avant guard-ness and colour and less boringly ordinary. I prefer single for all genders. But lots of sex of course.
Feel free to be avant-garde and colorful yourself. Don't expect others to want it imposed on them.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The divorce rate is much higher in the traditionalist states. It's marry young and divorce frequently in the traditionalist Christian groups. No doubt they're still reeling from the damage done by allowing inter-racial marriage in the last fifty years in the US.
So I would guess your prediction that ssm marriage is going to destroy marriage so far has turned out to be wrong.
[...]
My own prediction is that SSM will not destroy marriage but it will badly weaken traditional Christianity because those churches are more and more seen as a source of bigotry and hatred. Young people who grow up knowing gay people and knowing gay couples are much less willing to believe what is being spewed by their church leaders.
I didn't actually say that SSM would 'destroy' marriage in the USA. (What a cliché that would be!) Rather, I think that the innovation of SSM will work alongside the previous innovation of high divorce rates to make marriage increasingly look less and less like a 'traditional' choice.
I find it hard to believe that American churches can sanction frequent divorce for generation after generation without it having any impact on the marriage rate. In fact, I often read online comments by American men who swear that (straight) marriage is bad for their sex, because they lose out when they divorce. If this is reflective of real attitudes, it surely means that straight marriage is likely to decline in the USA, regardless of SSM. SSM simply reinforces the creeping social reality that there are other options to be had besides a straight marriage. But of itself I don't think it's going to 'destroy' marriage, no.
Different countries will have different outcomes, though. In countries that don't have the USA's high marriage and divorce rates, nor its highly distinctive experienceof 'traditional Christianity', SSM may have more of an impact.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
When same-sex marriage was made legal here in San Francisco, in 2004, the mayor asked
Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon to be the first couple married. They'd already been together 50 years.
Somehow, I don't think they were any kind of bad example.
As to the argument that having more marriage options will further weaken marriage:
a) It's not like straight people are going to say, "hey, I'm going to try the other side of the street for the first time and marry the person!"
b) I think most people--LGBT, straight, asexual, curious, undecided, too busy--are just trying to get on with their lives.
c) Perhaps the real fear underlying the "they'll destroy marriage!" argument in the world at large is "what if these people we fear, vilify, and despise...turn out to be better at marriage than straight folks?"
What if SSM revitalizes marriage, instead of destroying it?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Sebby, I'd issue a Hell call if I wasn't tethered to my iPhone and keeping my posts as short as possible. The whole point of SSM is to give same sex couples the same range of choices to be as boring or colourful as they want that straight folk take for granted, not to make being married compulsory.
And for what it's worth, I know that even couples into the leather scene and kinky sexual practices want to get married. It's not an either/or situation.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Goldenkey said: quote:
c) Perhaps the real fear underlying the "they'll destroy marriage!" argument in the world at large is "what if these people we fear, vilify, and despise...turn out to be better at marriage than straight folks?"
You know, I hear people saying this and it always irritates me. Not because I am opposed to SSM (I support it) but because it seems to assume that homosexuals are superhuman. Maybe that's better than assuming that they're subhuman, as many SSM opponents do, but they're just human. Neither better or worse than anyone else; some of them will not be interested in getting married, some will rush into imprudent marriages and get divorced a few years later, some will settle down with their soulmate for 25 or 40 or 50 years. The fact that some of these marriages may not last does not invalidate the rest of them, any more than a celebrity's serial divorces would invalidate my marriage.
ISTM that the real fear of those violently opposed to SSM is that they will be called upon to, you know, behave with ordinary civility towards These People and act as if their relationships are somehow special and deserving of support. That's the real sticking point; up to now it has been possible to pretend gays and lesbians don't exist, or at least to refuse to take their relationships seriously. Allowing them to get married changes that.
We won't really have achieved true equality until people stop justifying SSM by saying that 'they' are better at marriage than straights. It's like saying that women should only be allowed to do a job if they can prove they can do it better than a man.
[ 17. June 2013, 13:06: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... I think that the innovation of SSM will work alongside the previous innovation of high divorce rates to make marriage increasingly look less and less like a 'traditional' choice. ...
This makes it sound like straight people will choose to marry someone of the same sex, rather than the opposite sex, just as they can now choose to divorce their partner, rather than stay married. Jane and Frank are in love, but straight marriage is only one of the many options available for their relationship. So let's have Jane marry Susan and Frank marry John. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I didn't actually say that SSM would 'destroy' marriage in the USA. (What a cliché that would be!) Rather, I think that the innovation of SSM will work alongside the previous innovation of high divorce rates to make marriage increasingly look less and less like a 'traditional' choice.
Are high divorce rates really an "innovation", something mandated by a central authority? Or is it something chosen by individuals? Sure, certain policies can make divorce easier, such as recognizing women as legal persons who can file for divorce on their own behalf, or the end of the worst of workplace gender discrimination allowing a divorced woman to exist above a bare subsistence level. But I'm not sure that these are, in themselves, bad things, nor do I think that lowering divorce rates is such an unadulterated good that it requires sacrificing them.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What if SSM revitalizes marriage, instead of destroying it?
I take American exceptionalism on board, so it's quite possible that this will happen in the USA. I don't think this has happened in other places where SSM has come into being, though. Someone may have some examples to share.
Re high divorce rates being an innovation: what I meant by that was that they represented a huge change in society. It's hardly a right-wing thing to say; plenty of sociologists and feminists would agree that the mainstreaming of divorce was a significant cultural turning point in Western society, whether for good or ill. SSM too represents an innovation - not that straight people are going to enter into gay marriages(!), but simply that an age-old heterosexual institution is now being brought kicking and screaming into a new era, with new values. (Well, there's been more kicking and screaming in some countries than in others! Let's keep a sense of proportion!)
[ 17. June 2013, 15:12: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I didn't actually say that SSM would 'destroy' marriage in the USA. (What a cliché that would be!) Rather, I think that the innovation of SSM will work alongside the previous innovation of high divorce rates to make marriage increasingly look less and less like a 'traditional' choice.
But is that a bad thing? If people are only getting married because it's a 'traditional' choice, their relationship is off to a rocky start already.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I didn't actually say that SSM would 'destroy' marriage in the USA. (What a cliché that would be!) Rather, I think that the innovation of SSM will work alongside the previous innovation of high divorce rates to make marriage increasingly look less and less like a 'traditional' choice.
But is that a bad thing? If people are only getting married because it's a 'traditional' choice, their relationship is off to a rocky start already.
Palimpsest talked about how Americans in 'traditionalist Christian groups' often marry young and divorce frequently. IF SSM discourages that kind of 'traditionalism' then it would ill behove Christians elsewhere to complain, absolutely!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Nice slogan then for the up and coming energetic Christian: marry young and frequently!
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I didn't actually say that SSM would 'destroy' marriage in the USA. (What a cliché that would be!) Rather, I think that the innovation of SSM will work alongside the previous innovation of high divorce rates to make marriage increasingly look less and less like a 'traditional' choice.
But is that a bad thing? If people are only getting married because it's a 'traditional' choice, their relationship is off to a rocky start already.
Palimpsest talked about how Americans in 'traditionalist Christian groups' often marry young and divorce frequently. IF SSM discourages that kind of 'traditionalism' then it would ill behove Christians elsewhere to complain, absolutely!
Heh. This amuses me because I fell into the same traditionalist trap and got married very young, at 22. Because it's not right to be having sex before marriage, yes?
Of course, my wife and I were the same gender and it wasn't a legal marriage so when her mother gave her $1000 to leave me because she didn't want a dyke for a daughter, all it took was her signing one piece of paper to clear out our joint bank account (of which I was the only one depositing money into 'cause I was supporting her through graduate studies), another signature to relinquish the apartment to my name only, and throwing all my books in the back of her father's pickup to 'finalize' the 'divorce'.
We're all young and stupid at one point, while the former is taken care of by merely surviving long enough, sometimes it takes some painful lessons to get over the latter.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What if SSM revitalizes marriage, instead of destroying it?
I take American exceptionalism on board, so it's quite possible that this will happen in the USA. I don't think this has happened in other places where SSM has come into being, though. Someone may have some examples to share.
Re high divorce rates being an innovation: what I meant by that was that they represented a huge change in society. It's hardly a right-wing thing to say; plenty of sociologists and feminists would agree that the mainstreaming of divorce was a significant cultural turning point in Western society, whether for good or ill. SSM too represents an innovation - not that straight people are going to enter into gay marriages(!), but simply that an age-old heterosexual institution is now being brought kicking and screaming into a new era, with new values. (Well, there's been more kicking and screaming in some countries than in others! Let's keep a sense of proportion!)
The amusing part is that it's already been dragged into a new era by women who wanted marriage to be a partnership of 2 equals. SSM is merely the logical outcome of that process, but some people didn't realise this was where gender equality led.
Of course, some people DID kick and scream against sex discrimination laws and the allowance of women into male spheres, but they generally lost.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
You know, I hear people saying this and it always irritates me. Not because I am opposed to SSM (I support it) but because it seems to assume that homosexuals are superhuman. Maybe that's better than assuming that they're subhuman, as many SSM opponents do, but they're just human. Neither better or worse than anyone else; some of them will not be interested in getting married, some will rush into imprudent marriages and get divorced a few years later, some will settle down with their soulmate for 25 or 40 or 50 years. The fact that some of these marriages may not last does not invalidate the rest of them, any more than a celebrity's serial divorces would invalidate my marriage
SSM couples don't have as much of the "we've just discovered we're pregnant so we'll have to marry to raise the offspring" marriages as hetero couples. I don't know how much that's a factor given modern contraception, but it wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of bad heterosexual marriages start that way.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
SSM couples don't have as much of the "we've just discovered we're pregnant so we'll have to marry to raise the offspring" marriages as hetero couples. I don't know how much that's a factor given modern contraception, but it wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of bad heterosexual marriages start that way.
I don't have the numbers, but I'm sure you're right on this one.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Palimpsest: quote:
SSM couples don't have as much of the "we've just discovered we're pregnant so we'll have to marry to raise the offspring" marriages as hetero couples. I don't know how much that's a factor given modern contraception, but it wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of bad heterosexual marriages start that way.
The point is not whether or not SSM couples will be better or worse at marriage than hetero couples. The point is that marriage (just marriage, as John H and the other Canadians keep saying) should be available to all freely consenting adults. That's all I'm trying to say.
Though you're right as well; having children places a lot of strain on a couple's relationship, and only heterosexuals are likely to have them unexpectedly...
It is probably safe to say that the number of heterosexual marriages that start off because of an unexpected pregnancy is smaller now than it ever has been; at least in countries where contraception and abortion are freely available.
In the UK it's fairly normal for couples to delay marriage until they want to start having children; buying a house together is the new sign of serious commitment. Perhaps this is another reason why some people find it difficult to understand why anyone who doesn't want or can't have children would want to get married?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Palimpsest: quote:
SSM couples don't have as much of the "we've just discovered we're pregnant so we'll have to marry to raise the offspring" marriages as hetero couples. I don't know how much that's a factor given modern contraception, but it wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of bad heterosexual marriages start that way.
The point is not whether or not SSM couples will be better or worse at marriage than hetero couples. The point is that marriage (just marriage, as John H and the other Canadians keep saying) should be available to all freely consenting adults. That's all I'm trying to say.
I agree that it should be available to all freely consenting adults. I was addressing the point you made about being irritated that people assume homosexuals would be better at marriage. There are probably fewer bad homosexual marriages because it's rarely caused by feckless propagation.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
I'd say that the social acceptance of divorce actually raised the marriage rate, if by that you mean the number of marriages performed per unit of population. That's because people now had 2 or 3 or 5 or more over their lifetime rather than just one.
It was the social acceptance of couples living together without being married that reduced the marriage rate (as well as the divorce rate.) In many cases the more "Christian" conservative states / groups haven't progressed as far in this regard, so they are still at the point of having higher rates for both.
Because LGBT people are already more used to living together without benefit of marriage, I'd expect a smaller percentage of current relationships to choose that option when it is available to them. But as society becomes less judgmental about such things I would expect the rates to increase somewhat.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Palimpsest: quote:
I was addressing the point you made about being irritated that people assume homosexuals would be better at marriage.
The reason why it irritates me - as I explained - is that people making this argument in support of SSM seem to be conceding that marriage should only be open to same-sex couples if they are going to be good at it. ISTM that this argument weakens their case - and it's hard for those outside a relationship to judge its quality anyway. Look at all the 'happily married' couples who end up getting divorced or murdering each other without any outward signs that their relationship was heading towards the rocks...
I agree with your point that same-sex couples don't have to worry about unexpected offspring. But there are plenty of other stresses that affect everyone, and nobody can really be sure (in advance) that they will be able to keep their marriage vows for the rest of their life, however hard they try.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Just adding a note to report that Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has made a significant statement in favour of SSM becoming legal.
Statement here
Based on good libertarian theology (sorry - political theory), and invoking Ronald Reagan, so it should sell well among the GOP.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Carex
Your comments above seem to be somewhat specific to the American context. In the USA marriage seems to be highly valued in general (except among certain groups) to the extent that people continue to remarry after divorce, and cohabitation is less common. Also, in the USA marriage seems to bring real legal benefits. These conditions don't apply to the same extent in Europe.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
What I want to know is why will it still be possible to create new civil partnerships? What is the point, given that the rights are exactly the same and the ceremony is only slightly different?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
In the USA it has been my observation that interest in SSM seems to be highest amongst youg, romantic and idealistic lesbian and gay folk -- 20-somethings -- and the well-into-middle-age or older long-term couples. Those in the middle have seemed to me often less interested in a legal marriage. I don't think this is so much a generational artifact per se, as a phase of life one. For those of us who've spent decades together, we are apt to realise how important it is to secure our legal rights in respect to one another in the anticipation of the infirmities of old age, unanticipated early death, an the ultimate end-of-life realities, as well as matters of inheritance. survivor benefits and other financial advantages. Those younger, or those who rely a great deal on denial as a coping mechanism, aren't so apt to think in terms of the importance of these aspects of marriage. However, in the case of the younger adult and even adolescent gay and lesbian cadre now coming up, the real possibility of the social recognition of marriage - and their developmentally natural romanticism and idealism - seem to be strong motivating factors for marriage.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sebby, I'd issue a Hell call if I wasn't tethered to my iPhone and keeping my posts as short as possible. The whole point of SSM is to give same sex couples the same range of choices to be as boring or colourful as they want that straight folk take for granted, not to make being married compulsory.
And for what it's worth, I know that even couples into the leather scene and kinky sexual practices want to get married. It's not an either/or situation.
I completely agree with the notion of equality - to be boring or otherwise. I DO question the necessity - and certainly desirablilty - of marriage. In fact, I would disgree with the phrase 'it is not good for man to be alone' wholeheartedly; I would recommend it. But go and enjoy the sex.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Carex
Your comments above seem to be somewhat specific to the American context. In the USA marriage seems to be highly valued in general (except among certain groups) to the extent that people continue to remarry after divorce, and cohabitation is less common. Also, in the USA marriage seems to bring real legal benefits. These conditions don't apply to the same extent in Europe.
I'm genuinely puzzled why you always respond in this sort of fashion, Svitlana, looking for ways to distinguish the situation in your country from the situation in other countries.
As far as I can see, the desire of people to couple and to have their coupling recognised is pretty consistent. Anywhere that same sex couples are allowed to marry, they do it.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I respond in this way because I see sociological differences between countries. Attitudes towards marriage do differ between countries. That's obvious.
I do agree that in the West (very broadly defined), where marriage is entirely optional and doesn't carry the same religious and dynastic importance as in the past, SSM makes sense as a symbol of equality. (The legal implications vary from country to country, so they can't be seen as the primary global issue.)
[ 22. June 2013, 13:11: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
So what's the essential difference in attitudes between the UK and Canada with regard to marriage where Britons can't learn and follow what Canada did?
Be specific. Show your work. Use concrete examples.
[ 22. June 2013, 14:33: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I respond in this way because I see sociological differences between countries. Attitudes towards marriage do differ between countries. That's obvious. ...
So what?
The overall average "attitude" of a country may be one thing or another. However, the attitude of the individuals choosing to get married is pretty much the same no matter who they are or where they are. It's reasonable to assume that people who want to get married have an overall positive view of marriage. Thus, Americans who want to get married feel the same way about marriage as Britons who want to get married, regardless of orientation. If keeping up some sort of "attitude" towards marriage is so damn important to a country, why deny marriage to those who clearly value it?
There is no evidence anywhere that a single straight couple has decided NOT to get married because teh gayz have ruined marriage. None. Zero. Nada. Niente. Nichts. Bu. Ie.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The overall average "attitude" of a country may be one thing or another. However, the attitude of the individuals choosing to get married is pretty much the same no matter who they are or where they are. It's reasonable to assume that people who want to get married have an overall positive view of marriage.
Depending on culture and circumstances, some marry principally for love, for social status, for wealth, for legitimate heirs, to avoid loneliness, etc. etc.
quote:
Thus, Americans who want to get married feel the same way about marriage as Britons who want to get married, regardless of orientation.
If so, it's because the cultures have a lot in common. But the fact that the marriage rates are at different levels in those two countries suggests a certain difference, however subtle, in attitude and context.
quote:
There is no evidence anywhere that a single straight couple has decided NOT to get married because teh gayz have ruined marriage. None. Zero. Nada. Niente. Nichts. Bu. Ie.
Not sure how this is relevant to what I've said. Especially since I've said several times that it isn't. I have said that I understand the desire for marriage equality in cultures such as ours. In the UK we're going to get SSM soon, so in a sense the discussion on this thread (which was started by a British person) is academic.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So what's the essential difference in attitudes between the UK and Canada with regard to marriage where Britons can't learn and follow what Canada did?
Be specific. Show your work. Use concrete examples.
This is a good question. Many websites seem to say that the Canadian experience might have lessons to teach the USA about SSM, but comparisons with the UK are fewer. I'll have to look for some interesting links.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Do that thing. And do consider that English exceptionalism is just as pernicious as alleged US exceptionalism.
I spent four years living in the UK (admittedly many years ago) and still visit, and have many friends. I follow the UK press as well. And on this issue, what has not surprised me but has distressed me, is that the English penchant for thinking that they are the only ones who count has been marked. That is, only what happens in England counts, and only when it has happened in England. Nothing that happens anywhere else can possibly be a guide or advice to what "we're doing here in Engalnd".
It's rather like the English reluctance to learn a second language, as if the only one that really matters is English.
What the w*** (epithet used historically, but not currently polite) do across the Channel (or the Atlantic Ocean), that is, just isn't really part of the world that we live in.
Please note that I am explicitly not accusing the Scots or the Welsh of this, and I'm not commenting at all on the Irish (of the groups that currently comprise the UK). And of course, there are individual exceptions (some of them on this Ship).
John
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Do that thing. And do consider that English exceptionalism is just as pernicious as alleged US exceptionalism.
I spent four years living in the UK (admittedly many years ago) and still visit, and have many friends. I follow the UK press as well. And on this issue, what has not surprised me but has distressed me, is that the English penchant for thinking that they are the only ones who count has been marked. That is, only what happens in England counts, and only when it has happened in England. Nothing that happens anywhere else can possibly be a guide or advice to what "we're doing here in Engalnd".
I didn't think I was promoting English exceptionalism at all. My point was that ALL countries have distinct cultural factors that impact on the decisions they take, and that influence the outcome of those decisions.
As I implied above, I don't think SSM would have a drastic effect on marriage in England. The English are already fairly tolerant when it comes to family arrangements. Almost half of all British children are born out of wedlock.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I believe that SSM will prove more popular amongst gay and lesbian couples in the US than in the UK, at least in part because of the higher religiosity in the US. Many in the gay "community" want church weddings, have fought for full inclusion of LGBT persons in their various Christian and Jewish denominations, and see marriage as very much part of a social narrative that includes organised religion -- this despite the bigotry and rejection that LGBT persons have experienced from large sections of the organised Church and parts of Judaism and their hierarchies.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
John H: quote:
And on this issue, what has not surprised me but has distressed me, is that the English penchant for thinking that they are the only ones who count has been marked. That is, only what happens in England counts, and only when it has happened in England. Nothing that happens anywhere else can possibly be a guide or advice to what "we're doing here in Engalnd".
To those of us who actually live here it's even worse than that; what counts (and what usually gets adopted as government policy) is What's Good For London. Even the rest of England comes a long way behind that.
Posted by StevenS (# 17738) on
:
[suspicious-looking website removed by host - as per C9. Don't advertise or spam - Don't use these boards to advertise your site or product, or to lift email addresses to spam our members - L]
[and on googling it turns out the text of the post was spammed all over other forums too, so not a genuine contribution to the thread - text has been removed and saved for admins. - L]
[ 27. June 2013, 23:49: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
And in news across the Pond, the Supremes have spoken: 1) They upheld the appellate court's strike-down of Prop. 5, the Calif. anti-GM resolution, and 2) and say that the Federal government cannot discriminate against gay married couples in all federal matters such as Social Security benefits, tax law, and the benefits of Fed employees.
The wedding industry is revving up in California! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Read it here!
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
One complication with the Supremes' decision: In states with domestic-partnership laws (ie, their legislatures were too squeamish to tackle SSM per se but settled for some neither-fish-nor-fowl attempt at parity), gay couples will not be eligible for many federal benefits that couples in "gay marriage" states will enjoy. And couples who married in SSM states but who live in anti-SSM states will be eligible for still fewer protections. I'm not quite sure what will happen to couples who married out-of-country...I think, because the US military considers Canadian marriages (among others) as valid, they will extend benefits to military spouses who married in Canada, but I'm just not sure what other states will do for these couples. It's not fair, so expect lots more feuding in the courts in the months and years to come.
[ 28. June 2013, 13:08: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
LutheranChik, the marriage of Ms Windsor and her late partner - the former being the plaintiff in the DOMA suit, Windsor v United States - were married in Ontario, and this was noted in the SCOTUS ruling in the case. SCOTUS noted that the marriage was recognised by the State of New York. Likewise, in Delaware where my partner and I live, our marriage in Canada is explicitly recognised here, as I believe marriages contracted abroad typically are. Based on the SCOTUS ruling, it doesn't look as though it should be a problem.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
LutheranChik, the marriage of Ms Windsor and her late partner - the former being the plaintiff in the DOMA suit, Windsor v United States - were married in Ontario, and this was noted in the SCOTUS ruling in the case. SCOTUS noted that the marriage was recognised by the State of New York. Likewise, in Delaware where my partner and I live, our marriage in Canada is explicitly recognised here, as I believe marriages contracted abroad typically are. Based on the SCOTUS ruling, it doesn't look as though it should be a problem.
I suspect a problem would be with immigration as a spouse of a US citizen or permanent resident or getting a visa as a student or temporary worker's spouse. In such cases the federal government has sole responsible for determining the legality of the marriage under US law since the people (or at least the incoming person) are not residents yet of US states. Note the US does not recognize all opposite sex marriages (notably ones where a man has married a second concurrent wife).
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I don't think that's correct, at least as long as the US citizen is domiciled in a State that has marriage equality. It shouldn't matter where the couple contracted the marriage, so long as it was in a legally mandated form that can be recognised by the United States, e.g., marriages licensed by the authorised public authority in almost any country with a functioning government whose legitimacy is internationally recognised; and the marital partners are not in violation of any general criteria that the particular US State in question sets for valid marriage, e.g., age of consent.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I don't think that's correct, at least as long as the US citizen is domiciled in a State that has marriage equality.
That's the rub, isn't it? The immediate question is whether federal benefits accrue according to state of residence or state of celebration. The U.S. military, which moves its personnel around a lot, has always used a "state of celebration" standard to avoid complications. Some gay rights activists are urging Obama to issue an executive order explicitly stating that things like military pensions and veterans' benefits will be handled in that manner. That's fairly straightforward since that's completely within the federal sphere. Where it gets more complicated is federal programs administered by the states, like Medicaid. It's fairly easy to foresee a situation where the federal government considers a couple married but their current state of residence does not. Since section 2 of DOMA is still in effect, that could get complicated.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
I guess a key question is how the Federal government handles first cousin marriages since some states recognize them, some don't, and some are a bit iffy (e.g., legal if the woman can't become pregnant).
It seems for social security it would depend on domicile
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/rulings/oasi/53/SSR63-20-oasi-53.html
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Apparently the Social Security Administration recognises common law marriages even in states where they are not recognised. I expect they have some criteria for proving-up such a marriage. Common law marriage law is all over the map in the US. Delaware, where I now live, does not recognise such marriages, while Texas - where I once lived - doesn't even have a duration requirement for such relationships: there, if two people present themselves as married and live as such, with no fraudulent intention, their relationship is legally recognised as a common law marriage. Other states, I believe, have typically imposed a certain number of years that the relationship must have endured before it can be recognised as a common law marriage.
Posted by HenryT (# 3722) on
:
I wonder if some polyamorous group with the proper residence might hack the states systems by using the other section of DOMA to construct a sitation where Bob and Ted are married in state A, as are Carol and Alice, while in state B, which does not take notice, Bob and Carol can marry, as can Ted and Alice.
Or does the presence of "not recognizing SSM" not go that far?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I have seen some argument that the fact that federal benefits due not apply to civil unions actually makes it easier to prove that civil unions are now provably not separate but equal.
It's going to be messy for a long time. The Democrats are likely not to be forceful about applying the ruling with full faith and credit as a federal status. The current New Yorker has a an interesting article about the bipartisan effort to make an immigration bill. The Republican Senators in the group objected to Senator Leahey's amendment to allow immigration of the same sex partners of citizens. The Democrats pressure Leahey to withhold the amendment.
And so it goes...
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
HenryT: quote:
I wonder if some polyamorous group with the proper residence might hack the states systems by using the other section of DOMA to construct a sitation where Bob and Ted are married in state A, as are Carol and Alice, while in state B, which does not take notice, Bob and Carol can marry, as can Ted and Alice.
State B may permit it, but State A will see this as bigamy. Or polyandry. Or something. Anyway, whatever State B may allow it will become a problem anytime you decide to move to a state that recognises SSM (State C? State D?)
[ 01. July 2013, 16:55: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
HenryT: quote:
I wonder if some polyamorous group with the proper residence might hack the states systems by using the other section of DOMA to construct a sitation where Bob and Ted are married in state A, as are Carol and Alice, while in state B, which does not take notice, Bob and Carol can marry, as can Ted and Alice.
State B may permit it, but State A will see this as bigamy. Or polyandry. Or something. Anyway, whatever State B may allow it will become a problem anytime you decide to move to a state that recognises SSM (State C? State D?)
Usually these sorts of disputes are resolved in favor of whichever state has the greater claim on the person in question, typically the state of residence.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
There you go, then. As long as you plan your lives so that when the music stops you are in a state that doesn't allow SSM, and never move to one that does, you should be fine.
I don't understand why the question of marriage isn't regulated at the federal level anyway - it must cause a lot of problems for straights who marry their cousins.
[ 02. July 2013, 08:40: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
There you go, then. As long as you plan your lives so that when the music stops you are in a state that doesn't allow SSM, and never move to one that does, you should be fine.
I don't understand why the question of marriage isn't regulated at the federal level anyway - it must cause a lot of problems for straights who marry their cousins.
Certain things are regulated at a federal level. For instance, due to Loving v. Virginia no state can ban inter-racial marriage. There are other restrictions on what states can and can't do based on the federal Constitution, mostly flowing from the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There may eventually be a same-sex marriage ruling along those lines.
At any rate, marrying your second cousin is legal in all U.S. states, and there aren't that many straights marrying their first cousins for it to cause "a lot of problems".
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Jane R, domestic relations law - at least at the basic level - isn't regulated by the federal government precisely because that is not an enumerated power of the federal government in the Constitution of the United States, and because under the 10th Amendment, powers not specifically delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the exercise of the several State governments or to the people in general. This really leaves a limited - though important - range in which federal law and regulations can exercise authority in respect to marital status. The problem in the case of SSM arises now because the Supremes struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which was to do with an unconstitutional federal definition of marriage, whilst Section 2 of DOMA was left unaffected by the SCOTUS ruling; Section 2 - to my mind an unconstitutional violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, by which the several States are to recognise each others' public acts and contracts - allows States to not extend recognition to SSMs contracted in other States. The recent suit, Windsor v United States, really only had to do with discrimination under Section 3 of DOMA, and did not invoke any arguments regarding Section 2 (which wasn't relevant to the issue at hand).
There seems little doubt that Section 2 will eventually be struck down outright as well, or - very likely - become a dead letter as a result of other legal developments.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Article in the Atlantic that's quite interesting, and I think is relevant to this thread. It looks at how marriages of man/woman, man/man, woman/woman compare in terms of things like job division, child-rearing, all sorts of bits & pieces really. It's worth reading.
Thought this was an interesting quote, from a cathedral dean
quote:
“When [conservatives] say that gay marriage threatens my marriage, I used to say, ‘That’s ridiculous.’ Now I say, ‘Yeah, it does. It’s asking you a crucial question about your marriage that you may not want to answer: If I’m a man, am I actually sharing the duties and responsibilities of married life equally with my wife?’ Same-sex marriage gives us another image of what marriage can be.”
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
That was quite good, thank you for the link.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
There is, of course, another way in which same-sex marriage threatens a certain specific subset of opposite-sex marriages. If someone is married to a deeply closeted homosexual of the opposite sex who will file for divorce once a certain level of social acceptance is reached, then legalized same-sex marriage is a threat to that marriage.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Toujours Dan
quote:
So what's the essential difference in attitudes between the UK and Canada with regard to marriage where Britons can't learn and follow what Canada did?
Be specific. Show your work. Use concrete examples.
Well, I ended up writing what became quite a long piece on this, but I'll try to provide only a summary here. I used lots of links, and I can post some of them if anyone is interested in any of the points made.
Canada and England have many relevant cultural similarities, especially a high level of secularisation. The transition to SSM has been fairly smooth in Canada, but there have been some issues. Some religious people and groups have been penalised or prosecuted for expressing views against SSM; religious groups in England would have to be prepared for this. The CofE is an established church, and has been excluded from the upcoming legislation, but both anti- and pro-SSM commentators foresee legal problems over this exclusion.
Various polygamists and polyamorists in Canada have seen SSM as a potential opening for them; their legal endeavours have come to naught, but it's possible that similar groups will trouble the courts in England. Muslims are increasingly visible and influential here, and Muslim polygamy is becoming more common. It's recognised in both countries for state benefits, though not as a legal reality. (I see that Brazil and the Netherlands have begun to recognise multiple-person civil partnerships, and it'll be interesting to see how that pans out.)
I haven't considered the legal and financial implications of SSM in Canada and England, but in the UK in general straight marriage is becoming more and more of a middle class practice. Culturally and financially it has less to offer poorer families. SSM hasn't reinvigorated straight marriage in Canada, and I think this is unlikely to happen in England either.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some religious people and groups have been penalised or prosecuted for expressing views against SSM; . . .
Isn't that more of a function of Canada's half-assed stance regarding free speech and not something specific to same-sex marriage? At any rate, it doesn't seem like that will be a problem for much longer. Does the U.K. have something equivalent to Canada's Human Rights Commission? If not, I'd say this is a misplaced worry.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
I was going to let it pass, but it's important to realize that SvitlanaV2's post grossly overstates the importance or the profile of any problems related to SSM in Canada. Each of her examples may be true, but they are of no importance because they have had no effect, no impact on what's happening in Canada.
If "Offended" of Tumbridge Wells writes to the Times objecting to marriage for same-sex couples, but no one else does and no one else objects publicly, why then no one is going to pay attention to "Offended"'s concerns. And SvitlanaV2's examples are roughly on a par with a lone "Offended" who has no support, no followers and no imitators.
Moreover, her examples do not address -- indeed, nothing her post addresses -- the question of why Canada's experience is inapplicable to the UK, and why some people in England feel they have to re-invent the wheel, rather than taking notice of other people's experiences.
John
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some religious people and groups have been penalised or prosecuted for expressing views against SSM;
Expressing an opinion that SSM is wrong is not the reason anyone has been penalized. People (one or two) have been penalized for publicly campaigning to incite hatred and persecution of gays.
John
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Moreover, her examples do not address -- indeed, nothing her post addresses -- the question of why Canada's experience is inapplicable to the UK, and why some people in England feel they have to re-invent the wheel, rather than taking notice of other people's experiences.
John
I'm sure that politicians, religious groups, pro- and anti-SSM activists and commentators of all stripes are all 'taking notice of other people's experiences'.
In some respects the wheel will have to be reinvented - especially regarding the CofE's position - but as I said quite openly in my post, the two countries have a number of similarities. That implies that one might fruitfully refer to the experiences of the other. Nowhere have I said that the UK has nothing to learn from other countries. What I've said is that each country has its own particularities.
It seems only wise that those groups and individuals who have issues with SSM reflect on what the consequences might mean for their behaviour or speech after the law changes. 'Offended' of Tunbridge Wells might want to consider breaking his addiction to letter-writing, at the very least! Bigger groups should be careful to study what is legal and what isn't. I would certainly hope that such individuals and groups try to learn from the Canadian experience.
[ 10. July 2013, 20:29: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
One difference between Canada and the UK is that Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which specifically deals, among other things, with equality:
quote:
Equality rights: (section 15): equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.
from Wikipedia
It was not possible to write a law preventing SSM without transgressing those equality rights. This is distressing for people who need to discriminate against "others", but they should be reassured that they also cannot be discriminated against unless they set out to actively harm someone.
UK law seems to allow for all sorts of discriminations that would not be allowed under the Canadian Charter: CofE priests, for instance, are not "employees" for the purpose of some laws. The fact that there is an established church would probably fall in the same territory.
Formal discrimination against GLBTs (or other groups) as a national sport may be occurring, but would not under a properly-written constitution.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mudfrog's topic title: Gay weddings - what happens next?
They go home and have steamy sex?
But that's just the problem, typical of well-meaning straights who think they understand queer. Many gay couples/people simply do not do the kind of things popularly thought of as going on.
I come to this rather late, but anything in Purgatory on SSM is likely to get booted down here anyway. Both religious and civil understandings of marriage require definition which SSM simply eludes. The nearest you can get is a kind of covenanted/sanctified exclusive friendship, however such a relationship has no precedent in Christianity. In Christianity, you're either an integrated part of the chaste family/community or you're shagging an unique individual. Often one is up to both, but these are the only two human relationships found in the Christian tradition.
Now, yes there are exceptional hetero couples marrying & unlikely to have sex (through age or disability) but the intention needs to be present. Even then, no-sex is always grounds for nullification - civil or religious.
I don't in fact care one way or the other about SSM, but I reckon definition is impossible, which calls into question whether it can exist at all. Marriage is not at heart about partnership and romance - it's fundamentally about sex & procreation, even if these are only present in will. You have to call SSM something else or it sadly isn't anything.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
I don't in fact care one way or the other about SSM, but I reckon definition is impossible, which calls into question whether it can exist at all. Marriage is not at heart about partnership and romance - it's fundamentally about sex & procreation, even if these are only present in will. You have to call SSM something else or it sadly isn't anything.
Except, as has been pointed out too many times for you to have missed it, childless couples can still be considered "married". Being infertile or simply intentionally not procreating does not constitute grounds for annulling a civil marriage, at least in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with.
For that matter, not everyone who has sex or procreates is considered married.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Sorry, I don't follow how SSM doesn't fit into 'shagging a unique individual'?
Also, same-gender couples have sex and procreate. I don't see the problem here?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, same-gender couples...procreate.
How?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, same-gender couples...procreate.
How?
Many have children from previous relationships, have children of their own via surrogacy or adopt, just like different-gender couples. Unless those children are not 'really' their children...?
Marriage is for the *raising* of children. The children do not have to be biologically related to the parents to be their children. My dad is not my biological dad, but he is still my dad.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, same-gender couples...procreate.
How?
Many have children from previous relationships, have children of their own via surrogacy or adopt, just like different-gender couples. Unless those children are not 'really' their children...?
But in the examples you've given, the couple haven't procreated, have they?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, same-gender couples...procreate.
How?
Many have children from previous relationships, have children of their own via surrogacy or adopt, just like different-gender couples. Unless those children are not 'really' their children...?
But in the examples you've given, the couple haven't procreated, have they?
In the first two, they have, just not with each other. In all of them, they have brought a new child into their family.
Are children born to both parents in the standard way more their children than those children who are born via surrogacy or adoption? In the strict biological sense, it is not procreation, but if that is broadened to bringing new children into the family then it works fine. Plenty of heterosexual couples don't procreate in the strict sense, but do in a broader sense.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mudfrog's topic title: Gay weddings - what happens next?
They go home and have steamy sex?
But that's just the problem, typical of well-meaning straights who think they understand queer. Many gay couples/people simply do not do the kind of things popularly thought of as going on.
Was this a reaction to my post? If so, I don't see the link.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Are children born to both parents in the standard way more their children than those children who are born via surrogacy or adoption?
More to the point, are couples with adopted children or children conceived through medical intervention less married than couples who have procreate their own genetic offspring? Or not married at all? If a couple uses a surrogate and a donor egg to have a child, does that mean the man's real wife is the egg donor?
More critically, I'm concerned about a highly reductive definition of "marriage" that does not consider spousal abuse to be fundamentally contrary to what marriage is. According to Vaticanchic, marriage boils down to two things:
- Screwing
- Having your own genetically-related offspring
So as long as the beatings don't interfere with the sex or ability to procreate (or the abuse is confined to emotional abuse), there's nothing particularly contrary to the fundamental structure of marriage about it. As long as the sex and babies happen, any kind of treatment is okay (or at least not contrary to what being married means).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
When straight people are required to be screened for fertility prior and have cameras mounted in their bedrooms after, perhaps we can continue the bullshit about procreation mattering to marriage.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Is he also going to allow us the freedom of conscience to refuse to accept people as 'married'? Because if we accept them then it rather makes the 'opt-out' rather pointless.
What's to stop you from viewing gay married couples as cheese sandwiches?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
When straight people are required to be screened for fertility prior and have cameras mounted in their bedrooms after, perhaps we can continue the bullshit about procreation mattering to marriage.
It's the sheer inconsistency that gets me riled up. No one bats an eyelid at clearly non procreative couples until they are 2 people of the same gender. Then all of a sudden there's a crash course in Biology 101 and cries of "you can't make babies by putting your naughty bits together!"
[ 18. July 2013, 06:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I have struggled to follow the natural law arguments - that marital sex is procreative and unitive.
Vaticanchic provided a sort of paraphrase of this:
'Marriage is not at heart about partnership and romance - it's fundamentally about sex & procreation, even if these are only present in will. You have to call SSM something else or it sadly isn't anything.'
I suppose the word 'fundamentally' here is the crucial one. What does this mean? I suppose in natural law, that God has ordained marriage to be thus, and humans cannot tamper with it.
I guess Catholics are consistent in a way, as they also condemn contraception in the same vein, as defying the 'fundamental' essence of marriage - to have babies.
Yet haven't Christians continuously redefined stuff, as society changes? For example, we no longer condemn usury; we no longer say that God made Africans to be our servants, and so on.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yet haven't Christians continuously redefined stuff, as society changes? For example, we no longer condemn usury;
A great shame because it should.
quote:
we no longer say that God made Africans to be our servants, and so on.
This was always somewhat of a relatively late novelty.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, maybe Christians should condemn usury, but quite often they don't. In fact, some of them get into celebrating capitalism and leveraged buyouts as God-given and approved of by Christ. Well, OK, but this seems to undermine the whole position that some things are 'fundamentally' just so. No, they're not; they are redefined as and when it suits people.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
we no longer say that God made Africans to be our servants, and so on.
This was always somewhat of a relatively late novelty.
Not at all. The idea that God has marked out certain ethnic groups as slaves is a particularly ancient one. The particular group to be enslaved changes with convenience, but I don't think anything found in the Old Testament can reasonably be called "a relatively late novelty".
It should also be noted that this relatively late novelty is still older than the idea that Christianity considers slavery to be morally wrong.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, same-gender couples...procreate.
How?
I know a same sex female couple who now have several children. One of the partners became pregnant and carried these children to term to be born within the relationship. I guess the fertilisation mechanism is artificial insemination by donor sperm, but I've never asked. Artificial insemination by donor sperm is not unknown for heterosexual infertile couples.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
we no longer say that God made Africans to be our servants, and so on.
This was always somewhat of a relatively late novelty.
Not at all. The idea that God has marked out certain ethnic groups as slaves is a particularly ancient one. The particular group to be enslaved changes with convenience, but I don't think anything found in the Old Testament can reasonably be called "a relatively late novelty".
It should also be noted that this relatively late novelty is still older than the idea that Christianity considers slavery to be morally wrong.
That Wiki page doesn't actually say that God marks out certain ethnic groups as slaves. It says a lot of stuff, but not really that. Among other things, it states that some Christians take this view and that some don't. Perhaps not least because the curse is pronounced by Noah, not by God himself.
Of course, if the text is read to justify racial subjugation, it must also be read as an account of inter-family warfare. There's no ignoring the shared ancestry. Highlighting a shared bloodline merely highlights the consequent killing as fratricide.
It occurs to me that biblical experiences of inter-family warfare might be interesting to consider in the light of SSM. (Interesting to me, anyway.) If the family in its various previous versions is a site of oppression and antagonism, as some gay activists think, then 'what happens next' is that SSM is a step on the road to recreating the family as a non-oppressive place. SSM could therefore configured as part of a process of almost holy purification for the family.
Secondly, the gay family, in which a gay couple cannot both be the biological parents of a child, could be seen as attacking the obsession with shared genes, since shared genes in no way prevent the kind of inter-family warfare that we've inherited from the Bible. The gay family is a family built on love, not on the shared genes of people who may hate or oppress each other, and our heterosexual divorce-ridden culture could be read as simply a modern version of the biblical experience of inter-family warfare and obsession with shared genes. SSM could be read as an attempt to overcome the dysfunctional models of family inherited from the Bible.
[ 18. July 2013, 21:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That's very interesting, Svitlana. It's not just an inheritance from the Bible, though, it's our patriarchal inheritance, which seems to exist throughout most of the non-Christian world. If you accept that traditionally men ruled women and children, not because they were evil, but because that was a particular social formation, which valorized property, inheritance, female virginity and fidelity, and required loads of kids, and so on, then I suppose gay radicals (and feminists) will argue that its time has come.
I don't know if you've been watching 'The White Queen', based on the novels, but it shows very graphically how women and children were treated as pawns in a dynastic struggle. Thus the Earl of Warwick has two daughters, who are vital to him in his drive to remove the Yorkist King (Edward). So he marries them off to various pretenders - of course, they have absolutely no say in the matter.
I think that in some societies gay sex was tolerated, as long as you also got married and produced lots of sprogs. Thus the Spartans had gay warriors, but bachelors were periodically ritually humiliated. Get thee a wife, son! I suppose this is one reason that gays use the derogatory term 'breeders'!
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's very interesting, Svitlana. It's not just an inheritance from the Bible, though, it's our patriarchal inheritance, which seems to exist throughout most of the non-Christian world. If you accept that traditionally men ruled women and children, not because they were evil, but because that was a particular social formation, which valorized property, inheritance, female virginity and fidelity, and required loads of kids, and so on, then I suppose gay radicals (and feminists) will argue that its time has come.
I don't know if you've been watching 'The White Queen', based on the novels, but it shows very graphically how women and children were treated as pawns in a dynastic struggle. Thus the Earl of Warwick has two daughters, who are vital to him in his drive to remove the Yorkist King (Edward). So he marries them off to various pretenders - of course, they have absolutely no say in the matter.
I think that in some societies gay sex was tolerated, as long as you also got married and produced lots of sprogs. Thus the Spartans had gay warriors, but bachelors were periodically ritually humiliated. Get thee a wife, son! I suppose this is one reason that gays use the derogatory term 'breeders'!
Pederasty was actually much less common in Sparta than in Athens or Rome. Women in Sparta had an education and status equal to men, and it has been argued that the strength of women's position in Sparta is why pederasty was relatively uncommon. Also, please do not confuse the routine homosexual couplings in Classical societies with people actually being gay. They were pairings of an older, powerful man with a young boy and were entirely about power, with strictly defined sexual roles. Very few men involved were what we would think of as gay, and there was no such thing as a gay identity anyway. You were either the active or passive partner. So nobody in Classical times was 'a gay warrior', because nobody would have identified as gay.
Also 'gays use the derogatory term "breeders"'? SOME LGBTQ people use it, but considering how many LGBTQ struggle to get their children recognised as being part of their families, I think that's a very insensitive thing to say.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
My experience is that "breeders" is more often used by heterosexuals without children who seem to believe that that fact makes them morally superior to those of us with kids, who are all of course brats.
Been a few on here in the past.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I should have said 'some gays'. I recently had a fierce row with a gay bloke on another forum, who kept using it, and I objected.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My experience is that "breeders" is more often used by heterosexuals without children who seem to believe that that fact makes them morally superior to those of us with kids, who are all of course brats.
Been a few on here in the past.
Singles, gay or straight, are superior to you insensitive breeders. Filling up our planet with more resource hogging, pollution causing, noisy little disease vectors. Hang your head in shame!
For the humour impaired, this is a joke. I love children.
Particularly marinated with a good sauce and paired with the proper wine, perhaps a nice Riesling....
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Riesling?! You're cooking your children wrong.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Depends upon the preparation. Philistines.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
Babies. The other white meat.
Alsatian Rieslings are quite appropriate with charcuterie.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Ah! someone who understands proper pairings. Not like these peasants with their broad-stroke guesstimates.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Babies. The other white meat.
Alsatian Rieslings are quite appropriate with charcuterie.
I was actually wondering if there was a veal comparison.
...what the hell am I saying???
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My experience is that "breeders" is more often used by heterosexuals without children who seem to believe that that fact makes them morally superior to those of us with kids, who are all of course brats.
I'm sure that does happen, but my experience as a "non-breeder" is that many people with children consider that that fact alone makes them morally superior to me. They may well be morally superior to me - many people are - but it's not because I'm not a parent. "Oh, but anne, you'd feel differently about it if you had children of your own."
Anyway before I really get started, I'm just trying to say that moral superiority is an equal opportunity idiocy.
anne
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
One answer to the question is a gay couple sue the church for refusing to marry them.
And they have 5 children by surrogacy, which sort of answers another question on this thread.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One answer to the question is a gay couple sue the church for refusing to marry them.
And they have 5 children by surrogacy, which sort of answers another question on this thread.
The law was written so that this case will just be a waste of time and money (of course the flip side is that it will show the bill does not do what it says on the tin...rather scary thought...)
I love the pithy little statement at the end "Aren't Christians supposed to..." after having highlighted his 'Christian' credentials previously (screams of hypocrisy IMO). It's a load of tosh and attention seeking nonsense from a media crazed couple who bring the whole community into disrepute and will do little to help bring the CofE closer to recognising the validity of SSR's.
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on
:
Yes. I am not sure this 'case' will ever reach the courts, since the law seems pretty watertight and I doubt the couple's lawyers could advise them to pursue it (and incur the costs), but if it does it would be a useful test case, particularly as the church in question appears to be CofE.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Interesting thought on this piece of news. I don't think they'll necessarily win this case, but this particular couple have got experience of changing the law - they fought and won to bring their first children home from America. Are they publicity seeking? or are they agents for change? Isn't publicity part of the modern way of changing minds? Don't you need to court publicity to change public opinion?
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on
:
True, it probably is more a shot across the bows from the gay rights lobby than an actual legal fight (the Act won't even come into force until mid 2014). And they are clearly setting up a definite angle to their argument, less bullying, more a Rosa Parks fight against injustice 'they're meant to be Christians' tone.
Have to say they're an ideal couple to use - one if not both is Christian, both are young and charismatic, 5 children so will get sympathy, plus they have experience of these fights.
As for motivation, who can unpick motivations? Probably a mixture of believing in what they do and enjoyment of the celebrity they get in the movement because of it, each feeds into the other.
I also suspect that there will be some on the traditionalist side who will also be also itching for this - I've heard plenty of St Helens sermons stating that the secular world is moving against the church, whatever claims Parliament makes, and the sooner we get martyrs, the better.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I think some anti-SSM people will love this, and will be praying that it succeeds, then they have a perfect martyr's crown. I also doubt very much that it will succeed. I wonder if any divorced people have tried to sue over not being to remarry in some churches?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think some anti-SSM people will love this, and will be praying that it succeeds, then they have a perfect martyr's crown.
But presumably some pro-SSM people will love this too. A match made in heaven indeed!
Posted by Storm (# 878) on
:
I agree that the law has been tightly enough drafted that there is probably no workable legal case.
But in the article, one of the couple makes reference to being members of their local parish church at Danbury. I couldn't find any explicit position statement from that church, but given St John Baptist Danbury is listed on www.gaychurch.org and reading between the lines of this statement on its parish website, it's plausible that the vicar and local pcc would be perfectly happy to carry out a gay wedding in the church if they were not prevented by law.
So although this is being presented as a couple trying to force the church to marry them, the more interesting question is not about whether a couple can sue to force an unwilling Conservative vicar to marry then or an unwilling congregation to provide their building for the services (which is the scare-story), but whether a vicar and local church who want to do so can reasonably be prevented.
In fact – due to the strength of the lock on the CofE – I think the answer is clearly that the vicar and local church cannot perform the marriage until or unless the CofE hierarchy asks for the law to be changed and that suing will not help that.
The follow-up question is should the hierarchy be able to constrain the local parish church in this way. Given the current CofE governance structures, they clearly can and reworking the structure of the CofE to make it a grouping of Congregationalist churches is just not going to happen.
Pastorally, I think the CofE should choose to permit the decision to be taken at a local level, perhaps with strong protections so that either a vicar or a PCC can block a particular church being licensed for same-sex weddings. But that would mean acknowledging that there are a range of views within the CofE which the House of Bishops doesn't currently seem to want to do. ISTM that the government and the courts should (and indeed will) keep out whether religious denominations, even the established church, take decisions centrally or locally, simply requiring that a decision to conduct same sex marriages be in accordance with that denomination's decicion making procedures.
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on
:
Excellent points Storm. Another question(I apologise if it has been answered elsewhere) is if a SSM-sympathetic CofE vicar, with the support of an SSM-sympathetic PCC, were to attempt an SSM, whether that SSM would be null and invalid, or whether it would be valid but the priest would face dire consequences? In which case, what about a priest nearing retirement, or with an ineffective or SSM-sympathetic bishop - would they risk it?
[ 02. August 2013, 16:19: Message edited by: ButchCassidy ]
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
I think it would be null and invalid, in the eyes of the State as well as the Church. This is because in a CofE wedding it is the clergy who carry out the necessary State role of registrar. They can only act as registrar within the parameters set by the State, which are for marriages that the State permits the CofE to carry out, i.e. not SSM.
It is very unlikely that a legal challenge at the present time would even get a hearing. Basically the High Court will not entertain an application for judicial review on a hypothetical future situation save in very exceptional circumstances. There needs to be an administrative decision, e.g. an actual refusal to conduct a marriage, to bite on.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
What happens next? The C of E is to be sued? So much for 'it won't be forced upon anyone with religious convictions'?
Article here.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One answer to the question is a gay couple sue the church for refusing to marry them.
And they have 5 children by surrogacy, which sort of answers another question on this thread.
um - yes, that's what we were discussing
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Oops. Sorry, I'm out of here.....
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
The question has been raised about 'what difference does SSM make to traditional marriage?'
The answer I would give is that it has destroyed what marriage means and has replaced it with something for gay people that is not the 'marriage' they want equal access to. And it has destroyed the marriage definition that I have lived under for 28 years and replaced it with a status that I did not sign up to.
How so?
Two reasons:
1) There is now no law on consummation as there was until recently. A non-consummated marriage could be annulled. That is now not available.
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce.
What there is now is not marriage - for anyone!
It's something else.
It's not what gays want.
It's not what married people used to have.
Those two 'laws' are not, by the grace of God, applicable to me personally (unless an affair is on the horizon somewhere - God forbid) but they were part of the identity of marriage and its protections and sanctions. They are gone.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The answer I would give is that it has destroyed what marriage means and has replaced it with something for gay people that is not the 'marriage' they want equal access to. And it has destroyed the marriage definition that I have lived under for 28 years and replaced it with a status that I did not sign up to.
How so?
Two reasons:
1) There is now no law on consummation as there was until recently. A non-consummated marriage could be annulled. That is now not available.
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce.
What there is now is not marriage - for anyone!
It's something else.
It's not what gays want.
It's not what married people used to have.
Those two 'laws' are not, by the grace of God, applicable to me personally (unless an affair is on the horizon somewhere - God forbid) but they were part of the identity of marriage and its protections and sanctions. They are gone.
No, they haven't as I understand it. The law on consummation and adultery still apply to marriages between a man and a woman. They won't apply to a marriage between two men or two women.
In that sense, we don't have 'equal marriage' in England since what's available to a homosexual couple is slightly different to what's available to a heterosexual couple. But your heterosexual marriage is unchanged.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The question has been raised about 'what difference does SSM make to traditional marriage?'
The answer I would give is that it has destroyed what marriage means and has replaced it with something for gay people that is not the 'marriage' they want equal access to. And it has destroyed the marriage definition that I have lived under for 28 years and replaced it with a status that I did not sign up to.
How so?
Two reasons:
1) There is now no law on consummation as there was until recently. A non-consummated marriage could be annulled. That is now not available.
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce.
What there is now is not marriage - for anyone!
It's something else.
It's not what gays want.
It's not what married people used to have.
Those two 'laws' are not, by the grace of God, applicable to me personally (unless an affair is on the horizon somewhere - God forbid) but they were part of the identity of marriage and its protections and sanctions. They are gone.
This is a peculiarly English complaint when one takes into account that many jurisdictions have only a single "no fault divorce" pleading of irreconcilable differences between the marital partners. Further, many jurisdictions have got rid of annulments for any reason other than some patent fraud or error that made the marriage legally impossible in the first place, e.g., a marriage contracted when at least one of the partners is below the established age of consent for marriage in the particular jurisdiction, perhaps using a falsified or counterfeit form of identification. Legal annulments have pretty much faded into history in many jurisdictions, partly because of the advent of no-fault dissolution of marriage laws.
I fail to see how the grounds for divorce or annulment make a marriage any less of a marriage from a civil institution standpoint.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The answer I would give is that it has destroyed what marriage means and has replaced it with something for gay people that is not the 'marriage' they want equal access to. And it has destroyed the marriage definition that I have lived under for 28 years and replaced it with a status that I did not sign up to.
Of course, this kind of technicality could be argued for any change in family law. "I didn't sign up for the new revision to standards of joint child custody in cases of divorce, therefore my marriage is ruined!!!" And yet we only find this kind of wailing and gnashing of teeth when the law is revised to accommodate same-sex couples. While this doesn't prove such arguments are motivated by personal animus, it certainly points that way.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
it has destroyed the marriage definition that I have lived under for 28 years and replaced it with a status that I did not sign up to.
Stephen Green, of christian Voice, would add that the rot set in when rape within marriage was made a crime.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The answer I would give is that it has destroyed what marriage means and has replaced it with something for gay people that is not the 'marriage' they want equal access to. And it has destroyed the marriage definition that I have lived under for 28 years and replaced it with a status that I did not sign up to.
I'd never have joined this club if I knew they were going to let THAT sort of people in. How am I supposed to enjoy my meal with one of THOSE people sitting three tables away?
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...it has destroyed the marriage definition that I have lived under for 28 years and replaced it with a status that I did not sign up to.
How so?
Two reasons:
1) There is now no law on consummation as there was until recently. A non-consummated marriage could be annulled. That is now not available.
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce.
So, after 28 years of marriage, does (1) still make a difference to you and your partner?
In the course of my marriage the rules on (2) have shifted several times, both due to changes in the law and because we've moved to a different jurisdiction. None of these changes have had anything to do with Marriage Equality. We have always been able to get divorced if one (or both) of us commit adultery, but the details of the process and what is listed on the decree may vary. So which has more bearing on the definition of our marriage - the fact that we can still get divorced, or the fact that, under some circumstances, we can't publicly point out one partner as having sinned?
We've seen far more changes in other areas, such as tax laws and property ownership. Probably the biggest shift in the definition of our marriage was when we moved away from a Community Property jurisdiction. While I much prefer the Community Property model, I certainly wouldn't say that the change has any adverse impact on our marriage.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
If marriage is the joining of two people by God, how the ever living fuck is a parliamentary bill going to change that ?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...
1) There is now no law on consummation as there was until recently. A non-consummated marriage could be annulled. That is now not available.
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce. ...
Yeah, and that's a good thing. The government has no business between my legs. Or anyone else's.
If you disagree, picture yourself walking into the local police station and confessing that you never consummated your marriage and instead had a series of affairs. I'm sure they'll throw the book at you ... if they ever stop laughing.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
Was annulment on the grounds of non-consummation possible if both parties (opposite sex) went into the marriage fully knowing consummation wasn't possible?
Doesn't adultery still apply as long as the outside party is of the opposite sex. For example a same sex couple (both men) where one cheats with a woman is adultery and, on the other side, an opposite sex couple where the husband cheats with another man is not adultery.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I don't think adultery has been a ground for divorce in Australia since I was a toddler. Not formally, anyway. We did away with that whole system of having grounds.
I'm wondering, Mudfrog, if that means that (1) you would have refused to get married in Australia, or (2) you somehow think all Australian marriages are invalid/not of the same quality as yours.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
PS Just so everyone understands, I'm talking about reforms that applied purely to heterosexual marriages, seeing as how Australia still doesn't have same-sex marriage.
So I find the idea that no adultery as a grounds for divorce is somehow one of those bad things caused by SSM to be completely preposterous.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If you disagree, picture yourself walking into the local police station and confessing that you never consummated your marriage and instead had a series of affairs. I'm sure they'll throw the book at you ... if they ever stop laughing.
Why would you go near the police station - it's a civil matter. Adultery was decriminalized in England more than 150 years ago, and although I gather it's still technically on the books in some US states, it quite clearly wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge were any attempt to be made to prosecute it.
I don't think non-consummation has ever been a crime, although my knowledge of the dusty corners if mediaeval law is rather less than exhaustive.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The question has been raised about 'what difference does SSM make to traditional marriage?'
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce.
...
What there is now is not marriage - for anyone!
It's something else.
You're complaining that same sex marriage is ruining the traditions of Christian Divorce?
Wow.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Um - UK Government site on divorce cites 5 grounds for divorce
- Adultery
- Unreasonable behaviour
- Desertion
- Living apart for 2 years (both consenting)
- Living apart for 5 years
I *think* non-consummation comes under unreasonable behaviour
[ 14. August 2013, 07:17: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Excellent points Storm. Another question(I apologise if it has been answered elsewhere) is if a SSM-sympathetic CofE vicar, with the support of an SSM-sympathetic PCC, were to attempt an SSM, whether that SSM would be null and invalid, or whether it would be valid but the priest would face dire consequences? In which case, what about a priest nearing retirement, or with an ineffective or SSM-sympathetic bishop - would they risk it?
I am not an expert by any means, but I think it more likely that said Vicar would explain that the sacrament of marriage is not effected by the Vicar, the Church or the State. It is effected by the couple themselves, to one another, before God and before witnesses. Vicars don't marry couples; they marry one another.
Therefore, there is no actual difference between a couple having a register office union of whatever kind and a blessing in church, and having a traditional church wedding. In both cases the couple can take vows in the sight of God and the congregation, with the Vicar giving his blessing to those vows.
There is no need to redefine traditional marriage, or to change anything. The only requirement is to understand the sacramental status of said vows before witnesses and God, and that whatever form it may legally take, theologically it is sufficient.
In terms of efficacy, register office plus blessing in church is identical to marriage. The bits that matter are the same; the couple make the vows to one another before witnesses, the Vicar pronounces his blessing. The bit of paper may be different, but who every looks at their marriage licence to remind them of their happy day? Don't we all just look at the photographs?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Doesn't adultery still apply as long as the outside party is of the opposite sex. For example a same sex couple (both men) where one cheats with a woman is adultery and, on the other side, an opposite sex couple where the husband cheats with another man is not adultery.
My understanding (and I could be wrong here) is that adultery requires vaginal sex. So, for example, a husband who has sexual intercourse with a woman who is not his wife commits adultery, but he wouldn't if he only received oral sex from her. If a man had anal sex with another man that would similarly fail the test.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Um - UK Government site on divorce cites 5 grounds for divorce
- Adultery
- Unreasonable behaviour
- Desertion
- Living apart for 2 years (both consenting)
- Living apart for 5 years
I *think* non-consummation comes under unreasonable behaviour
Isn't non-consummation grounds for annulment, rather than divorce?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The things I end up googling for the Ship
Nope, apparently we're both wrong - non-consummation is one of the reasons for a defective or voidable marriage.
Annulment is when a marriage was entered into illegally - bigamy, under age, closely related, and whoops, of the same sex. I suspect that's another bit of law that needs tidying up.
Adultery and same sex marriage has been discussed in a number of papers recently:
Daily Telegraph
Sunday Times
and apparently there could be a challenge on discrimination.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The things I end up googling for the Ship
Nope, apparently we're both wrong - non-consummation is one of the reasons for a defective or voidable marriage.
Yes, if the marriage is voidable, then it's grounds for annulment (as opposed to divorce).
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
My understanding (and I could be wrong here) is that adultery requires vaginal sex.
AKA You're still a virgin if you do anal. If this is the case then it's ridiculous and the law needs to be changed.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The answer I would give is that it has destroyed what marriage means and has replaced it with something for gay people that is not the 'marriage' they want equal access to. And it has destroyed the marriage definition that I have lived under for 28 years and replaced it with a status that I did not sign up to.
How so?
Two reasons:
1) There is now no law on consummation as there was until recently. A non-consummated marriage could be annulled. That is now not available.
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce.
What there is now is not marriage - for anyone!
It's something else.
It's not what gays want.
It's not what married people used to have.
Those two 'laws' are not, by the grace of God, applicable to me personally (unless an affair is on the horizon somewhere - God forbid) but they were part of the identity of marriage and its protections and sanctions. They are gone.
No, they haven't as I understand it. The law on consummation and adultery still apply to marriages between a man and a woman. They won't apply to a marriage between two men or two women.
In that sense, we don't have 'equal marriage' in England since what's available to a homosexual couple is slightly different to what's available to a heterosexual couple. But your heterosexual marriage is unchanged.
This is correct, but with the crucial extra word: "Yet".
Adultery isn't defined in statute law, it has been defined through legal precedent by the courts. The courts have obviously only had to pass judgement on heterosexual marriages because up until now they were the only ones that have existed. It is only a matter of time before a failed SSM comes up before the courts, whereupon they will have to define adultery for those cases as well.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
My understanding (and I could be wrong here) is that adultery requires vaginal sex.
AKA You're still a virgin if you do anal. If this is the case then it's ridiculous and the law needs to be changed.
oral?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
The bit of paper may be different, but who every looks at their marriage licence to remind them of their happy day? Don't we all just look at the photographs?
I came across mine the other day, and enjoyed identifying the different people's handwriting. I also found my birth certificate, which contains my father's handwriting.
I don't have nearly so much affection for my children's birth certificates, which are typed.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
My understanding (and I could be wrong here) is that adultery requires vaginal sex.
AKA You're still a virgin if you do anal. If this is the case then it's ridiculous and the law needs to be changed.
I believe performing anal sex as a means of contraception is called Saddlebacking after the mega-church in Southern California.
Not quite as popular a neologism as Santorum, but still useful.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
To those opposed to civil marriage equality: To borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson, granting civil marriage rights to gay couples neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket. If your particular faith tradition doesn't recognize the validity of same-sex relationships, then they're free to continue not to do so. If you don't care for same-sex marriages, then don't enter into one or take part in one. I assume that those of you opposed to marriage equality also take a dim view of, say, serial marriages, frivolous marriages a la Las Vegas and "reality" TV, green-card marriages and all the other ways that couples legally enter into something other than what you consider to be holy matrimony. So why not just hold your noses/avert your eyes for same-sex marriages as well?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
LutheranChik: To borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson, granting civil marriage rights to gay couples neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket.
Do you realize what the present cost for the last one I went to?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Um - UK Government site on divorce cites 5 grounds for divorce
I *think* non-consummation comes under unreasonable behaviour
Nope - non-consummation is explicitly grounds for annulment - not divorce. Look here instead.
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on
:
Actually, though it is a ground for annullment, one can use also non-consummation (and, while we're on the topic, adultery) as a fact to prove unreasonable behaviour.
Essentially, to prove UB, one needs to provide a number of 'facts', or examples, on the petition. One usually provides 3-6 facts.
There is no definition of what can be a fact, because the test of unreasonsable behaviour applies to what the petitioner themselves considers unreasonable.
One could therefore use adultery or non-consummation, or indeed separation, if one wishes. People often do this because there is not the same need to prove adultery or non-consummation when they are facts in a UB petition, as there would be if you were using them as a standalone basis for a petition for divorce or annullment. If they are used as facts on a UB petition, you can just asset them.
However, in practice, certainly in my (limited) legal experience, we would not want to use adultery or non-consummation as facts of UB if we were acting for the petitioner. That is because our aim is to get the divorce through. Adultery and non-consummation are offensive accusations, and the receiving party may object to them, even if they also want the divorce.
Therefore in general, even if the real reason for the breakdown of the marriage is adultery, you will use relatively inoffensive facts like 'she doesn't get on with my friends', or 'we never spend any time together'. Enough to get the divorce through, but not enough to offend the other side.
Therefore debates about the meaning of adultery or non-consummation, though important, will not (IME) greatly affect the realities.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The question has been raised about 'what difference does SSM make to traditional marriage?'
2) There is now no such thing as adultery as grounds for divorce.
...
What there is now is not marriage - for anyone!
It's something else.
You're complaining that same sex marriage is ruining the traditions of Christian Divorce?
It made me laugh. Mudfrog, the conservative upholder of traditional marriage against the gays, arguing that the main problem with equal marriage is that it doesn't do enough to encourage divorce and buggery.
Remind me again which side won this argument.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Doesn't adultery still apply as long as the outside party is of the opposite sex. For example a same sex couple (both men) where one cheats with a woman is adultery and, on the other side, an opposite sex couple where the husband cheats with another man is not adultery.
My understanding (and I could be wrong here) is that adultery requires vaginal sex. So, for example, a husband who has sexual intercourse with a woman who is not his wife commits adultery, but he wouldn't if he only received oral sex from her. If a man had anal sex with another man that would similarly fail the test.
Of course what most people mean by adultery is sexual contact with someone other than your spouse. So the law doesn't match most people's understanding anyway, and it would be next to impossible to prove unless a pregnancy resulted.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I think you'll find male-female anal sex is illegal in the UK...
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Not any more it isn't. FPA The Law on Sex sheet. I can't see anything about anal sex in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which is the current legislation
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0