Pondering

[willowisp]

Six years ago I managed to remove the best guy in the world from the pool of available bachelors. I hope he remains this way for as long as I'm alive. Yet I can't help but feel sad that many of our dearest friends cannot do the same with the loves of their lives. callicrates and I are very lucky in that we were born with two sets of bits in different places. erish and her beloved are not so lucky in that they were both born with the same sets of bits.

Andy's and my wedding was witnessed by family and friends, who promised to help us through the worst as well as to rejoice with us in the best. Then again, so was Rikistene and Teredon's. More significantly, Andy's and my wedding was mostly secular with hints of religion and was not recorded in the ledger of any religious denomination. Rikestene and Teredon's was witnessed not only by friends, but by members of their church. It wasn't recorded in their church due to the (out of touch) leadership's refusal to recognize same-sex vows, but someday when that is changed they will have a religious marriage, whereas Andy and I will, unless/until we renew our vows in a church, always be a domestic partnership.

If Andy had been American and had I been British, I might now be in the process of living with him due to a marriage visa or I might even have some sort of citizenship (help on that one, helenschappell?). Rikistene doesn't have that luxury, and is simply lucky that her PhD has opened doors to her working in the States.

If something happens to me, Andy will be able to decide the best course of action, though I understand that in cases such as Terri Schiavo, sometimes this can be overruled, particularly if politicians become involved. If something happens to Rikistene, however, even if she and Teredon have given one another legal rights, it would be ludicrously simple for Rikistene's family to overrule Teredon. I know one person firsthand (not FOAF) whose family, which was extremely hostile to her chosen lifemate, denied that lifemate access to visit while she was comatose. When her lover finally manged to get into the hospital the friend came out of her coma almost immediately. Her family was annoyed. So much for any semblance of love by those whom the courts would default to.

I really don't care what it's called; be it civil union, social contract, or marriage. What I do want is for Rikistene, Teredon, and countless others to be able to have the same rights and legal protections as Andy and I do. Basically, if the feds and states tomorrow did the equivalent of s/marriage/civil union/g to all of the laws and made "marriage" a term usable by those whose union were recognized exclusively in religious ceremonies, I'd be happy even if no longer technically married.

Currently the governor of the United States is trying to rally people by ignoring the real issues which effect marriage (false expectations, poverty, lack of concept of the so-called sanctity of marriage) and instead focusing on a threat which is not only not a threat but which is, in fact, a glowing example of what marriage could/should be. He wants to pass a Constitutional amendment which would deny a whole group of people rights solely because of the bits with which they were born -- sort of the opposite of another amendment which gave rights to people despite the skin color with which they were born, and a later amendment which extended rights to a group of people despite the bits with which they were born.

One of the best ways to honor Andy's and my marriage would be to make sure that our friends can also have those celebrations. Please vote against those trying to get the amendments passed, and please vote against state laws which would restrict a part of the population so arbitrarily. Please vote for those who want to strengthen hate crime laws and for those who understand that religious marriage should be completely divorced from civil marriage. Please vote for initiatives which would allow Rikistene and Teredon to be considered as legally "valid" as Andy and I are. Finally, please consider what the real dangers to marriage are and tell your politicians to do so as well, rather than focusing on something which has nothing to do with strengths or weaknesses of other relationships.

For the record, Rikistene and Teredon's wedding was five years and six months to date after ours. Despite their being committed to one another for the past six months, Andy's and my marriage has not been weakened. I know of no one who has divorced solely because Rikistene and Teredon are living together. In fact, the only broken marriage I've heard of recently failed not because same-sex couples were allowed to marry briefly in several cities, but instead because the bride and/or groom was/were drunk when they got married and had second thoughts later.

Yet the Las Vegas marriage fiasco didn't weaken our marriage either -- simply put, Andy's and my marriage will work so long as we put effort into it. Even if gay folks marry; even if straight folks divorce at a 50% or greater rate; the only thing which can ruin Andy's and my marriage is us and our actions. Our marriage may be strengthened by the love of couples around us and the hope of being as happy, but the happiness of echoweaver and her husband is no different than that of erish and her soulmate.

Comments

[tallest-spork.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear!

[esmerel.livejournal.com]

or I might even have some sort of citizenship

At this point, you would most likely have your green card, marking you as a permanent resident of the US (assuming you renew your card every 10 or so years), and you'd probably be eligible for citizenship, should you wish to go that route.

[goldenlily.livejournal.com]

Yeah, they make you go through some bullshit for 2 years whereby they give you a 'Greencard with restrictions' which basically means you have to stay married for two years. After that, it's permanent for 10 years, and you just have to renew every 10 years.

If you'd not gotten one yet, you would either be waiting for INS to get off their butts and finish your application, or you would've been kicked out of the country, or like someone I meant in INS, waiting for their file to be retrieved from Washington archives because apparently she was dead. She looked pretty good to me though!

[aardvarklf.livejournal.com]

Right on. This is a side of the argument politicians need to hear.

I got into a discussion of same-sex marriage in someone else's journal - I'm reposting the relevant bit of my response here.

...I don't think it should be the state's business to say what people can do in this regard. If your church does not believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, then that's fine: those churches shouldn't perform marriage ceremonies on gay couples, and the state shouldn't force them to do so. But if there's a church out there that thinks gay marriage is okay, the state shouldn't stand in their way. To do otherwise would violate the Constitutional provision against favouring one religion over another. The complicating factor is that marriage is a civil as well as a religious institution. Being married gets you tax breaks and company benefits and so forth, and frankly I don't see why two people who intend to be each other's one and only love for as long as they both shall live shouldn't enjoy those benefits.

So to sum up: churches should be able to choose whether or not they want to perform gay marriages. The state should have some provision for providing the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples.

Separation of Church and State

[clubjuggler.livejournal.com]

The state should have some provision for providing the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples.

Ideally, the state shouldn't be involved in marriage anyway, since that's (historically anyway) a religious issue. Instead, they should only be involved with the civil aspects of it. So, I guess you could say that I don't favor state sponsored gay or straight marriage and instead favor "state" sponsored civil unions for everyone with churches free to do what they want with respect to "marriage". This isn't quite as far fetched as you might think. While I was in Spain this is how things appeared to me. I had friends who were "married according to the state" for an entire month before being "married according to the church".

Of course, the chances of this actually happening in the U.S. are nearly next to nothing. :-( So, in that case, the state should just be done with it and stop discriminating. jklgoduke and I discussed it and there's absolutely no chance our marriage would be lessened at all if gays were allowed to marry so this argument, I believe, is disingenuous. People fall in love and want to get married. Who are we to say they shouldn't be able to. It's only the plank in our eyes that keeps us from noticing that the speck in other people's eyes isn't really that big of a deal.

[willowisp.livejournal.com]

In New York state two Unitarian-Universalist ministers were charged with criminal offenses for performing same-sex ceremonies (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0%2C1282%2C-3867021%2C00.html) in which they stressed that the joining had no legal basis.

[aardvarklf.livejournal.com]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Gay marriage is okay with the Unitarian Universalists, so the government's actions against them really are forcing another group's religious beliefs onto them.

Although, I suppose an opponent of gay marriage would point out that the government told the old-style Mormon church where to get off regarding bigamy, and now prosecutes those who refuse to obey laws against the practice. And a religion that sacrificed animals would, I hope, come under animal cruelty laws. So maybe it's not such a strong legal argument after all...

Anyone wanna re-convince me?