Thought of something this morning

[jackskellingtonsgirl]

I had a random thought this morning so I decided to share it with all of you.

DH and I were married in a hotel by a justice of the peace. There was no religious component, no church involvement. Yet we are married. The thing we had was a wedding, and now we are married. We file our taxes as married, that piece of paper we got is a marriage license, when I check off a box for marital status it says "Married". Nobody has ever asked me to prove my marriage was sanctioned by a church. Nobody has ever tried to tell me I am less married than someone who was married in a church. It has never even come up in conversation.

There is NO logic to denying GLBT couples the option to have the same sort of ceremony. My marriage has nothing to do with the church - it is a legal "contract" for lack of a better term. I don't really even know what made me think of it, but I find it interesting.

 

[zulemara]

I had a random thought this morning so I decided to share it with all of you.

DH and I were married in a hotel by a justice of the peace. There was no religious component, no church involvement. Yet we are married. The thing we had was a wedding, and now we are married. We file our taxes as married, that piece of paper we got is a marriage license, when I check off a box for marital status it says "Married". Nobody has ever asked me to prove my marriage was sanctioned by a church. Nobody has ever tried to tell me I am less married than someone who was married in a church. It has never even come up in conversation.

There is NO logic to denying GLBT couples the option to have the same sort of ceremony. My marriage has nothing to do with the church - it is a legal "contract" for lack of a better term. I don't really even know what made me think of it, but I find it interesting.

This is my fundamental argument and belief. Straight couples go to vegas and get "married" by a judge. If people are so stuck on marriage being a religious thing, then people who do not have a ceremony in the church should be considered a "civil marriage" Same rights in society, same bennefits, just a different check box on a form ya know? That's all it would take.

Of course there are some people who make up this whole "institution of marriage" thing and claim it's not religious, but is a societal institution made to protect children bla bla bla. The argument has its roots in religion no matter what they say.

 

[hematite153]

My marriage has nothing to do with the church - it is a legal "contract" for lack of a better term. I don't really even know what made me think of it, but I find it interesting.

Yup!

Whereas, my marriage was in a church, was sanctioned by the church, etc. and all kinds of people seem to think that I shouldn't have been allowed to get married because it would force my church into something. Huh? What exactly would it force them to do? My church started marrying same-sex couples more than a decade before the Equal Marriage Amendment was passed. So, it always sounds to me like people are arguing that their own religion should set the rules that other religions must abide by. And, once you think of it that way, it seems like religious persecution--the reason many of the US's early settlers came to the New World.

 

[rpmdfw]

the reason many of the US's early settlers came to the New World.

Yep. The thing is, those early U.S. settlers left England because religion wasn't restrictive and conservative enough for them!

In so many ways, we're still the country that was founded by Puritans.

 

[koolaidmoms]

I fully think that there should be a civil marriage component whereby two adults could be married (as they are now). Two adults would enter into a civil marriage contract before a court appointed designee and that would be the "marriage." Heck if the religious want to keep the term marriage let them and they would have to come up with a new term to define what to check on all those forms. Are you unionized?

The religious ceremony would not be the "legally binding" part but rather the civil marriage component that could be completed at the church just prior to the religious service if someone so chose.

Then we could all check the unionized box and no house of worship could cry foul.

 

[jackskellingtonsgirl]

This is my fundamental argument and belief. Straight couples go to vegas and get "married" by a judge. If people are so stuck on marriage being a religious thing, then people who do not have a ceremony in the church should be considered a "civil marriage" Same rights in society, same bennefits, just a different check box on a form ya know? That's all it would take.

Of course there are some people who make up this whole "institution of marriage" thing and claim it's not religious, but is a societal institution made to protect children bla bla bla. The argument has its roots in religion no matter what they say.

The most dysfunctional, damaged children I know have come from straight couples. I can't name names, but I know a boy who I PROMISE you will be a serial killer when he grows up. I know it with 100% certainty. And his parents are enormous homophobes.

Have you guys ever heard of a serial killer with gay parents? I haven't.

I would have no problem appointing our gay friends as guardians for my son, I am just very lazy with legal documents so we actually don't HAVE guardians appointed for him. That, and they are already the appointed guardians for several of their nieces and nephews. If all of these straight people dropped dead our friends would have to raise a gaggle of children they agreed to be guardians for. It's not really funny, I am just kind of twisted.

 

[rpmdfw]

It's not really funny, I am just kind of twisted.

Which is why we LIKE you!

 

[jackskellingtonsgirl]

I fully think that there should be a civil marriage component whereby two adults could be married (as they are now). Two adults would enter into a civil marriage contract before a court appointed designee and that would be the "marriage." Heck if the religious want to keep the term marriage let them and they would have to come up with a new term to define what to check on all those forms. Are you unionized?

The religious ceremony would not be the "legally binding" part but rather the civil marriage component that could be completed at the church just prior to the religious service if someone so chose.

Then we could all check the unionized box and no house of worship could cry foul.

That's exactly what I think. The legal component and the religious component have nothing to do with each other. The legalities of being a married couple in the US are all identical. Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, or NO religion has no bearing on the final legality of the union so I just do not understand the basis of the arguments. Hopefully some savvy attorney will craft a landmark case around this.

 

[jackskellingtonsgirl]

Which is why we LIKE you!

Thanks!
I like you guys, too!

 

[hematite153]

The religious ceremony would not be the "legally binding" part but rather the civil marriage component that could be completed at the church just prior to the religious service if someone so chose.

Actually, this is how it works now. The religious ceremony is not at all legally binding, but, religious leaders are licensed by the "state" to sign the legally binding civil documents. Many people include the signing of these documents as part of the religious service--that point where they play nice music and everyone takes pictures of people sitting at a table signing the "marriage licence".

 

[jackskellingtonsgirl]

OK, so it appears we have this all sorted out!
Now to just get the powers that be to LISTEN and DO SOMETHING to make it right!

 

[rpmdfw]

OK, so it appears we have this all sorted out!
Now to just get the powers that be to LISTEN and DO SOMETHING to make it right!

And THERE'S the rub!