As many of you know, Portland, Oregon (well, Multnomah county, but it makes no difference if you don't live here) recently started handing out marriage licenses to same sex couples. As I've been an ordained minister with The Universal Life Church for fourteen years and have legally performed weddings in the past, I felt I could help out. I performed seven weddings today. I'm very tired and I think I'm going to bed now.
Re:A minor note
Ovid on 2004-03-05T14:42:38
I will admit that it's a bit of an odd situation. "Legal" marriage in this country has nothing to do with religion (in theory), so the idea that only certain government workers and religious ministers can fill out the paperwork (the ceremony is superfluous from a legal standpoint) is a tad odd. It is, essentially, a contract. Boeing doesn't need a Reverend officiating over their contract signing with their union, though I confess that it would possibly make things more amusing
:) Re:A minor note
da on 2004-03-05T15:11:29
First- great job.:-) Along with Schwern's description, you've given me a good picture of what my friends Bonnie and Sara have been up to- other than being photographed on national news. About the odd situation of law and marriage- a different perspective is found among the Quakers. We've been marrying people without ministers for 300-odd years- because as a faith, we don't have ministers. (Or, more accurately, we don't have laity.) One of the community responsibilities is marrying people. Everybody at the ceremony signs the wedding certificate. Long before, during, and long after the wedding, a small committee (yes, that's actually the word we use) is responsible for meeting with the couple and helping with any concerns they (or the committee) might have about the marriage.
So it's an example of an intentional community taking care of what we think really matters to us and to God. As opposed to leaving it to the State.
I've been told that the English Quakers were the originators of marriage licences (as opposed to marriage banns) but I might be confusing that a bit.
And I'm happy to say that many quaker groups have been marrying same-sex couples for over fifteen years.
Re:No yay from me...
jordan on 2004-03-05T16:18:53
Agreed.
These people have no respect for the rule of law. Civil disobedience has it's place, but only when every other mechanism has been tried. This issue is currently being decided in the courts and legislatures nationwide and now is not the time to disregard the law.
I don't seriously believe that many of these people even want to be married. I think they just want to participate in destroying a traditional institution that they have been excluded from for reasons of revenge.
That being said, I do believe that Marriage is a religious institution and the Government should not be sanctioning it directly. I say let's do away with Civil Marriage altogether.
Anyone should be allowed to name their next of kin for whatever reason they see fit and Insurance plans should allow for one partner and any children of self or partner. That would be fair, I think, and would decouple (pun intended) the Governement and Religion here, which would be a good thing.
Re:No yay from me...
rafael on 2004-03-05T16:29:39
Civil disobedience has place when civil rights are being ignored by a governement. I'm not well placed to judge whether it's the case currently in the US, but I'd like to point out that the black people who fought for their most basic civil rights decades ago faced exactly this kind of discriminatory remarks.Re:No yay from me...
jordan on 2004-03-05T17:29:20
That's why I said that civil disobedience has it's place. Clearly, the black people's rights were not being addressed by the government at that time and thus, they had the right to take matters into their hands.
I don't see how my remarks are in any way discriminatory, however.
Re:No yay from me...
Ovid on 2004-03-05T17:41:31
You wrote: I don't see how my remarks are in any way discriminatory, however.
From dictionary.com, the difinition of discriminatory: Marked by or showing prejudice; biased. Head over there and take a look at their definitions of prejudice, if you must.
Give that definition, let's take a look at something you previously wrote:
I don't seriously believe that many of these people even want to be married. I think they just want to participate in destroying a traditional institution that they have been excluded from for reasons of revenge.To broadly impugn the motivations of same-sex couples that desire to get married seems to fit the "discriminatory" definition quite nicely.
Many of my friends are gay or bisexual. I know what their motivations are. I was down their marrying people who are gay, I saw their tears of joy. Couples who had been together for many years (one older couple told me they had been together for 17 years) are finally getting a chance to have the same rights previously restricted to opposite-sex married couples. Same-sex couples want equal rights (equal rites?). It's time we end special rights for opposite sex married couples.
Re:No yay from me...
Ovid on 2004-03-05T17:46:27
And I obviously can't spell worth a darn.
s/difinition/definition/;
s/down their/down there/;Re:No yay from me...
chromatic on 2004-03-05T17:57:16
Same-sex couples want equal rights (equal rites?)What about singles? What about celibates? Why should what I do or do not do with my naughty bits have anything to do with my legal status?
Re:No yay from me...
Ovid on 2004-03-05T18:24:17
Because many of these special rights have no meaning outside of the context of more than one person. Joint health insurance, wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner, domestic violence protection orders and many other special rights are granted free of charge once you get that piece of paper signed.
Those, and many other rights make no sense in the context of a single person. It's like asking "what color is Wednesday?" (Assuming you're not flying high on acid). Either end discrimination in who gets those special rights or we end those special rights entirely.
Further, it really has nothing to do with "naughty bits". What a couple, same sex or otherwise, does with their naughty bits has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they're allowed to get married and receive those rights.
Re:No yay from me...
chromatic on 2004-03-05T19:36:50
Ahh, so because I was born single, I don't deserve to be able to identify another person who should share health insurance with me, who should receive benefits if I die accidentally, or who can make medical decisions for me?
Re:No yay from me...
Ovid on 2004-03-05T20:03:37
OK, I see what you're asking now. I didn't before. Sorry about that.
Because of the way the law works, if I get married, I automatically have those rights conferred on my spouse. If I am not married and I want to have those rights, I frequently have to hire a lawyer, assign power of attorney, make a will, etc. This is not only expensive, but it's more easily challenged in court by relatives or other interested parties who might not approve of my decisions. I think this falls back to my feeling that those special rights shouldn't be granted simply on the basis of marriage, but since those rights are not going to be eliminated any time soon, I would rather that as many people have access to those special rights as possible.
While I understand what you're asking, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that these special rights should automatically be available to everyone regardless of marital status? If so, it seems as if the legal basis for marriage becomes irrelevant and marriage reverts to a religious institution. As such, giving same-sex couples the right to marry would be moot as they could easily find a minister who is willing to officiate at their ceremony the legal concept of marriage could cease to exist. If you're suggesting something else, I'm curious to know.
Re:No yay from me...
chromatic on 2004-03-05T21:03:30
Are you suggesting that these special rights should automatically be available to everyone regardless of marital status?Absolutely. If our goal is equal protection under the law, we ought to do it right, not piecemeal. If it's wrong to deny a citizen the right to assign power of attorney based on that person's marital status, we ought to remove that right from marital status.
I realize this won't solve all of the difficult issues (homosexual marriage for green cards?), but it seems to make a lot of problems go away. Plus, it's even less discriminatory from where I sit.
Re:No yay from me...
pudge on 2004-03-24T03:11:35
This is my position, too.
If so, it seems as if the legal basis for marriage becomes irrelevant and marriage reverts to a religious institution. As such, giving same-sex couples the right to marry would be moot as they could easily find a minister who is willing to officiate at their ceremony the legal concept of marriage could cease to exist.
Exactly.
Equal rites
rafael on 2004-03-05T18:16:44
A Terry Pratchett reminiscence ?Re:Equal rites
Ovid on 2004-03-05T18:25:17
:) It was a great book.
Re:No yay from me...
jordan on 2004-03-06T00:29:22
- From dictionary.com, the difinition of discriminatory: Marked by or showing prejudice; biased. Head over there and take a look at their definitions of prejudice, if you must.
Give that definition, let's take a look at something you previously wrote:
I don't seriously believe that many of these people even want to be married. I think they just want to participate in destroying a traditional institution that they have been excluded from for reasons of revenge.
To broadly impugn the motivations of same-sex couples that desire to get married seems to fit the "discriminatory" definition quite nicely.
I disagree. I don't believe I either broadly impugned a group, nor did I show prejudice by the definitions given.
Read what I said, not what you think I said. I said "I don't seriously believe that many...". That's not broad, nor is it impugning if I can back it up. Your observations of some gays who you believe didn't have the motivations I gave does nothing to disprove what I said. Your examples could disprove a universal generalization, but I made no universal generalization.
I've known many Gay and Lesbian couples and I've yet to hear one of them express their desire to be married. In any case, religious marriage has been available to them for decades, yet few partake. Had all of the couples that you recently married solemnized their vows in ceremonies prior to "legal" marriage being available to them? It is religious, or secular if you prefer, but not civil marriage, where the commitment to a life-long partnership is made. I wonder at the motives of someone who only gets married when they suddenly seem to have the blessing of the state.
Civil Marriage is just an institution that gives legal benefits. It is this institution that is under attack.
In this article a paper by Gay Activists is described that promulgates the principle that of "The Dissolution of the American Family". Recommending the breakdown of the definition of Family to accommodate other relationships.
I've heard radical gays refer to traditional married couples as "breeders" with disdain. I believe that some of these couples, perhaps many, are involved in an effort to destroy this institution they hate.
Would it be your position that none of the gay couples who are now marrying actually have as an agenda to destroy traditional institutions like marriage? Careful, if you said that, it would be both prejudice and a universal generalization I could disprove with only one counter-example.
- It's time we end special rights for opposite sex married couples.
Yes, and let's end special rights for those who wish to be married to only one partner? Shall we? I hear the polygamists, often old men "married" to many young women, are already lining up for civil marriage rights. How could we deny them when the only criteria for marriage is supposed to be professed love?
How about the case of my Mother and Brother? They live together in the same house and could benefit from being married both in their taxes and various government benefit programs. Should they be allowed to marry? I can tell you that they do love each other. Isn't that your criterion? If not, exactly what acts qualify you for marriage?
Please, step back and admit that there may be problems with redefining marriage. At the very least, it should be something that should be soberly considered and not just adopted in a orgy of law-breaking civil disobedience.
Re:No yay from me...
TorgoX on 2004-03-06T06:49:19
Citing a Focus on the Family web page, and then challenging someone to prove a negative? That's argumentation barely worthy of a Jack Chick tract.In this article [family.org] a paper by Gay Activists is described [...]
Would it be your position that none of the gay couples who are now marrying actually have as an agenda to destroy traditional institutions like marriage?Re:No yay from me...
jordan on 2004-03-07T15:59:00
- Citing a Focus on the Family web page, and then challenging someone to prove a negative? That's argumentation barely worthy of a Jack Chick tract.
Well, at least I haven't stooped to guilt by association and attacking a source without addressing the point being made. That would be really low.
However, I wasn't challenging him to prove a negative. I was asking him if he believes a positive statement that applies to all of the gays who get married.
You might assume that his answer might have begged me to then ask him to prove a negative, but actually, I explicitly stated that I would then attempt to disprove his universal generalization with a counter-example, so I don't know where you get this "challenging him to prove a negative".
Re:No yay from me...
vek on 2004-03-05T18:46:19
I don't seriously believe that many of these people even want to be married.
Based on what evidence?
I think they just want to participate in destroying a traditional institution...
Could you give me an example (or two) of exactly *how* the 'traditional instituion' will be destroyed. Thanks.Re:No yay from me...
jordan on 2004-03-06T00:43:53
- Based on what evidence?
Like many things, based on life experience. Do you really believe that none of the gays currently marrying are just doing it to attack a traditional institution? If you agree that some may be, then it's just a quibble of the meaning of some and many.
- Could you give me an example (or two) of exactly *how* the 'traditional instituion' will be destroyed.
I didn't say it would be destroyed, I said that was their intent.
Heterosexuals have already done so much more toward destroying marriage as an institutions than gays could ever do, with no-fault divorce and pop stars marrying and annulling the marriage within a few days time.
However, in this post, I do list some of the problems with redefining marriage, especially without a serious national debate. Some local tinhorns deciding state law is null and void is not a serious national debate, in my book.
Then where does it stop? At what point can we as a society say "That is immoral?" and make laws against it? Where does it stop my friends?
Re:Answer me this...
mary.poppins on 2004-03-06T11:53:57
Perhaps you could rephrase your post?
I really don't understand your point. Where does what stop?
What laws are you talking about?
Re:Legal
Ovid on 2004-03-24T15:58:20
Was what you did illegal?
After a fair amount of research, I have to conclude that it was. Regardless of the ambiguous wording of Oregon law, the intent of the law was fairly clear and legal decisions are often based on intent, even if the law is worded as poorly as ours.
As for the "children" argument, I don't by them. Yes, maybe the Catholic (amongst others) Church dictates that marriage is for procreation, many churches do not and many people do not. While there are plenty of federal and state laws that deal with marriage and children, there are many more that do not.
The "for the children" arguments is similar to the Second Amendment debate over the "well regulated militia" phrase (I keep thinking I may have discussed the following here before...). The legal argument frequently surrounds whether this is a "qualifying" phrase (reason for) or an "exemplifying" phrase (example of). The courts frequently hold that it's a qualifying phrase and thus states can regulate our right to keep and bear arms because arms can be regulated in such a way that a militia's arms may be regulated. If a court rules that it's an exemplifying phrase, then the right to regulate militias is irrelevant and there is therefore no Constitutional right to regulate arms. The "children" argument is similar. Now many people are rallying around the "for the children" battle cry, but they assert that bearing children (not just having or raising them, because same-sex couples can adopt or have children from a previous marriage) is the reason for marriage. If so, why aren't they being logically consistent and banning sterile people from marrying? If I get married again, should they insist upon a signed affidavit from me and my wife that we will attempt to produce at least one child (presumably with each other
Breaking the law should be a last resort.:)? I find it interesting that those who use this argument only target same-sex marriages and ignore the logical consequences thereof. This is a tough one. The first thought that pops into my mind is "Rosa Parks." Had she not broken the law, the civil rights movement would likely not have gained as much ground as it did. Even today, we have areas trying to ban gay people, wanting to make sodomy illegal, permitting discrimination based upon sexual orientation, etc. I can see absolutely no legitimate distinction between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. Opposing either is bigotry and reading the arguments used today, one finds them often similar to the arguments used against interracial couples. Still, breaking the law should not be done lightly and I'm hard-pressed to figure out the dividing line. I completely understand why many who have no problem with same sex marriage still oppose my actions.
Re:Legal
pudge on 2004-03-24T16:55:54
After a fair amount of research, I have to conclude that it was. Regardless of the ambiguous wording of Oregon law, the intent of the law was fairly clear and legal decisions are often based on intent, even if the law is worded as poorly as ours.
Agreed with the latter, though I can't see how you would think the intent of the law from the 1800s would be to allow homosexuals to marry. That seems unreasonable to me. At best -- being as objective as I can -- I'd have to conclude the intent is ambiguous, and the wording is ambiguous, and that therefore tradition should stand until a court rules otherwise, or the law is modified.
We ran into something like this when I was acting chair of my town Finance Committee. The letter of the law said that the Finance Committee did the budget, but the Town Council did it. The letter of the law was clearly against the tradition, so we figured, we do the budget. However, upon further investigation, the people who wrote and voted for the bylaw in question said their intent was not how we read it! So, I was perfectly happy to defer the Town Council, even though I preferred the meaning as we had read it, and we suggested they modify the wording of the bylaw in the future.
That is: intent > letter > tradition.
As for the "children" argument, I don't by them.
I wasn't asking you to. The point is that the purpose of a civil institution like marriage should be dictated by the people. If we agreed collectively that this is the purpose, then forbidding homosexual marriage would not be discriminatory. However, it would also require other significant changes to our marriage laws, esp. regarding divorce, and benefits for childless couples, so I don't think that would ever happen (as you note).
I am not in favor of such a thing, and your points here are well-received; I was just making the point that forbidding homosexual marriage is not, by logical necessity, discriminatory, and further, that the purpose of civil marriages is the real point here. Why do we have them?
I offer that the real reason today -- insofar as the government is concerned -- is to provide rights and benefits to cohabiting pairs of adults in exchange for a more stable and efficient society (including preservation of resources, raising of children, lower reliance on public assistance, etc.) and that the *nature* of the relationship between the adults is irrelevant to the government's purpose. And as such, we should not forbid homosexuals from marriage, nor brothers, nor sisters, nor close friends, etc. And as such, we should change the name. Hence my motto: civil unions for all, civil marriages for none.
Also consider that the real reason we have this problem is because marriage is, and has always been (in our society), an intimately religious establishment, on the whole. And yet Congress is to make no laws regarding such.
The courts frequently hold that it's a qualifying phrase and thus states can regulate our right to keep and bear arms because arms can be regulated in such a way that a militia's arms may be regulated.
Yes, many courts intentionally misrepresent the clear intent of the phrase to suit their own beliefs, unfortunately.
The first thought that pops into my mind is "Rosa Parks." Had she not broken the law, the civil rights movement would likely not have gained as much ground as it did.
If that is true, it only bolsters my argument, because we *already had* a strong focus on this issue before people started breaking the law (not necessarily you, but clearly, the law was broken in San Francisco and New Paltz, for example*). The Massachusetts Supreme Court had already ordered homosexual marriages for this May, and people from California were already going to go to Massachusetts, get married, come back, and sue for their rights (arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional).
Things were already moving ahead rapidly; there was no need to break the law.
And speaking of weapons and breaking the law, what would happen if a mayor in Texas decided that the assault weapons ban is unconstitutional, and issued licenses for them? Would you be comfortable with that?
Even today, we have areas trying to ban gay people
Huh?
wanting to make sodomy illegal
They can want to all they wish, but it is already decided. Sodomy is legal in the U.S., period. The SCOTUS decided this last summer.
permitting discrimination based upon sexual orientation, etc.
Usually not legally, except in especially tricky cases, e.g. churches who won't hire gays. But these trickier issues will not be resolved for years to come, if ever, and the homosexual marriage issue at hand is unrelated to them.
* I don't know who cares, but in San Francisco, the state law clearly said marriage is between one man and one woman; to marry homosexual couples, to provide licenses to them, is clearly illegal, unless the courts overturn the law. In New York, the law is less clear, but the mayor there solemnized marriages without licenses, which is, unequivocally, a crime.Re:Legal
Ovid on 2004-03-24T17:17:41
Agreed with the latter, though I can't see how you would think the intent of the law from the 1800s would be to allow homosexuals to marry.
That's only because I wasn't terribly clear. I think the intent was to define marriage as between one man and one woman and that the legislators simply worded the law poorly. Sorry for the confusion.
Even today, we have areas trying to ban gay people
Rhea County in Tennessee. It was all over the news a few days ago.
Huh?And speaking of weapons and breaking the law, what would happen if a mayor in Texas decided that the assault weapons ban is unconstitutional, and issued licenses for them? Would you be comfortable with that?
Again, I have no idea where to draw the line and this causes me much confusion. I do agree that the ban is unconstitutional, so I would actually have a bit of sympathy for the mayor. I don't think that civil disobedience is always good or always bad, but I don't know how to judge. I can say "only as a last resort", but how do I define last resort? It can get awfully murky.
Re:Legal
pudge on 2004-03-24T18:33:29
Rhea County in Tennessee. It was all over the news a few days ago.
Heh. I hadn't heard about it, and am not inclined to care. It's clearly unconstitutional, and couldn't possibly stand.
