A proud member of the reality-based community
This site is a member of WebRing. To browse visit here. Wednesday, February 18, 2004 I've held off commenting about same-sex marriages, since I can't claim to be exactly unbiased on the subject, but perhaps it's time to do some thinking out loud. What I think is that all this rhetoric about who can and cannot get married, or whether one set of people can get married and another set can have only a "civil union" is a smokescreen. The fact is that everyone who gets married legally in the United States gets a civil union. When marriages are performed by a member of the clergy they are invested with all the rights, obligations and benefits of the civil union as defined in each state. In Virginia, any person who can talk a judge into authorizing it can perform marriages, upon posting a $500 bond. You don't need any kind of religious credentials at all.§§ 20-25. Persons other than ministers who may perform rites. Any circuit court judge may issue an order authorizing one or more persons, resident in the jurisdiction in which the judge sits, to celebrate the rites of marriage in such jurisdiction. Any person so authorized shall, before acting, enter into bond in the penalty of $500, with or without surety, as the court may direct. Any order made under this section may be rescinded at any time. Any judge or justice of a court of record, any judge of a district court or any retired judge or justice of the Commonwealth or any active, senior or retired federal judge or justice who is a resident of the Commonwealth may celebrate the rites of marriage anywhere in the Commonwealth without the necessity of bond or order of authorization. (Code 1919, §§ 5080; 1938, c. 152; 1981, c. 295; 1981, Sp. Sess., c. 15; 1983, c. 64; 1985, c. 195; 1987, c. 149; 2003, c. 228.) In fact, in Virginia two people may marry each other without the benefit of any marriage celebrant at all, as long as someone posts the $500 bond and accepts the responsibility for completing and filing the marriage certificate.§§ 20-26. Marriage between members of religious society having no minister. Marriages between persons belonging to any religious society which has no ordained minister, may be solemnized by the persons and in the manner prescribed by and practiced in any such society. One person chosen by the society shall be responsible for completing the certification of marriage in the same manner as a minister or other person authorized to perform marriages; such person chosen by the society for this purpose shall be required to execute a bond in the penalty of $500, with surety. (Code 1919, §§ 5081; 1968, c. 318; 1981, c. 295.) Virginia's marriage statute completes the definition of marriage as a civil union by making it illegal to perform the ceremony of marriage unless you are authorized by civil law to do so.§§20-28. Penalty for celebrating marriage without license. If any person knowingly perform the ceremony of marriage without lawful license, or officiate in celebrating the rites of marriage without being authorized by law to do so, he shall be confined in jail not exceeding one year, and fined not exceeding $500. (Code 1919, §§ 4542.) It's clear that in Virginia, at least, marriage IS a civil union first. It is a religious celebration only to the extent that any given couple wants it to be. And if the insititution of marriage is a primarily civil one, then it was my impression that no state could constitutionally restrict it to only one privileged set of people. For those who would allow "civil unions" but restrict "marriage", the question becomes whether there can be one kind of civil union for heterosexuals and a different one for homosexuals. The philosophy of "separate but equal" was demolished long ago as unconstitutional, but that isn't really the issue. The bottom line is that the people who are opposed to gay marriages do not want our relationships to be legitimized in any way, and the name-calling is getting ugly. You'd think we were back in the old Equal Rights Amendment days, when any women who favored passage was labelled a lesbian. Now that "lesbian" is no longer the ultimate epithet, knee-jerk conservatives have had to come up with a whole new list of accusations, and they're getting creative. If all you wanted was to marry the person you've chosen to spend the rest of your life with, you might be a bit surprised to learn how many other things you're pushing as well. Visit some of the anti-gay-marriage websites and you'll learn that we favor polygamy, that we're out to replace the traditional family as the cornerstone of social order, and that allowing gays to marry would be as wrong as letting a man marry his mother, daughter or sister. Andrew Sullivan, not usually a bastion of leftist thought, puts it pretty well:What exactly is the post-Lawrence conservative social policy toward homosexuals? Amazingly, the current answer is entirely a negative one. The majority of social conservatives oppose gay marriage; they oppose gay citizens serving their country in the military; they oppose gay citizens raising children; they oppose protecting gay citizens from workplace discrimination; they oppose including gays in hate-crime legislation, while including every other victimized group; they oppose civil unions; they oppose domestic partnerships; they oppose . . . well, they oppose, for the most part, every single practical measure that brings gay citizens into the mainstream of American life.We're going to see George Bush and the Republicans use the issue of homosexuality itself, not just gay marriage, as a way to divert attention from the sick economy, the increasing number of deaths in Iraq, the lies that got us into Iraq to begin with, and every other facet of his dysfunctional presidency. I've been wondering what he would come up with to scare the voters into keeping him in Washington. Now I know. Among other things, it's me, of all people (sorry, I know that's not grammatical, but it has more gut-level tension than 'Tis I'). I didn't realize I was that scary. I feel like stopping people on the street and asking, "Do I frighten you? If my partner and I got married, would that destroy your marriage? Would the fact that we could never have had children together make your relationship with your children any less significant?" And I want to ask, "Will being afraid of me somehow create more jobs? Will it bring back the child or the spouse or the friend who died in Iraq? Will it balance the budget? What does it get you to be afraid of ME?" We need to keep asking these questions in the days ahead. "Will passing a constitutional marriage amendment get back the job you lost when your company moved its headquarters to Bermuda and its jobs to India?" "Will denouncing me restore the Pell grant your college-aged child lost due to budget cuts?" "Will calling me names bring back the money your school district no longer has?" George, I'll still try to keep my discourse civil, but you just made the fight a personal one. You made me into some kind of monster, into a shibboleth to scare other people with. You made me, a pudgy middle-aged grandmother going gray at the temples and wobbly in the knees, into a weapon for you, and I won't have it. posted by Liz @ 1:33 AM | The template is set to display 10 posts. To see all the posts for this month, click on the month name in the Archive section RSS Feed PERSONAL Send email toliz at life-as-a-spectator-sport.com Home I'm a mother, grandmother, a computer professional, Democrat, Christian. I welcome politely worded comments and email, my spam filter throws the rest away, so don't bother to flame me WHY 'LIFE AS A SPECTATOR SPORT' "If you're lucky not to live in the gutters of a slum, but still can't afford to take vacations in the Alps, you're part of that enormous middle class who lives life through the medium of the television, further separated from "real" life by air conditioner, by automobile, by dishwasher, microwave and ice-in-the-door refrigerator, by automatic washer and dryer, and all the other appliances and conveniences that make it possible for America to live life at second hand. I'm not sure why Americans decided that televised drama was better than the real thing, that cardboard microwave food containers were an adequate substitute for real dishes, and their contents for real food, or that cooking, dishwashing and face-to-face conversation wasn't worth the effort and time it required. Someone fed this nation a plastic crate of out-of-season tomatoes and told us it was life and we took them at their word, and we're so much the poorer for it that it's hard to know where to start to list the shortcomings." I wrote this a couple of years ago, but I have to admit it's much less amusing than I thought it would be to see the artifical construct falling apart. THE NON-ELECTRIC HOME Cleaning, 1 Cleaning, 2 Cleaning, 3 KNITTING BLOGS Extravayarnza Knitting Heretic Mind of Winter Pie Knits Persistent Illusion See Eunny Knit The Keyboard Biologist Taleweaver's Ramblings TECHnitting Wendy Knits FINISHED PROJECTS -------FINISHED IN 2006------- Peruvian Cap Tutti-Frutti Socks Shelley's Socks Carol's Socks -------FINISHED IN 2007------- Chain Link Socks Baby Surprise Jacket Valerie & Friend Baby Bonnet Rainbow Baby Socks Girls Pixie Hood Mitred Square Heart Red & White Socks Coffee Cup Pot Holder Nubbins Dishcloth Garterlac Dishcloth Suede Booties Kate's Socks Norwegian Sweet Baby Cap Half Thumbless Mittens Red Mittens for Akkol -------FINISHED IN 2008------- SELF-RELIANCE AND THE FUTURE -- Blogs and websites -- Causubon's Book Club Orlov Food Storage Made Easy From the Wilderness In the Wake Listening to Katrina Survival Topics The Modern Homestead The Oil Drum Notes from a Hillside Farm -- Mailing Lists -- 12vdc Power Living on the Land Rainwater Refrigeration Alternatives Old Ways of Living POLITICAL BLOGS and SITES The political sites have moved BOOKS I'M READING How to Grow More Vegetables, etc. Small Scale Grain Raising ARCHIVES February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 Feedjit Live Blog Stats
I've held off commenting about same-sex marriages, since I can't claim to be exactly unbiased on the subject, but perhaps it's time to do some thinking out loud. What I think is that all this rhetoric about who can and cannot get married, or whether one set of people can get married and another set can have only a "civil union" is a smokescreen. The fact is that everyone who gets married legally in the United States gets a civil union. When marriages are performed by a member of the clergy they are invested with all the rights, obligations and benefits of the civil union as defined in each state. In Virginia, any person who can talk a judge into authorizing it can perform marriages, upon posting a $500 bond. You don't need any kind of religious credentials at all.§§ 20-25. Persons other than ministers who may perform rites. Any circuit court judge may issue an order authorizing one or more persons, resident in the jurisdiction in which the judge sits, to celebrate the rites of marriage in such jurisdiction. Any person so authorized shall, before acting, enter into bond in the penalty of $500, with or without surety, as the court may direct. Any order made under this section may be rescinded at any time. Any judge or justice of a court of record, any judge of a district court or any retired judge or justice of the Commonwealth or any active, senior or retired federal judge or justice who is a resident of the Commonwealth may celebrate the rites of marriage anywhere in the Commonwealth without the necessity of bond or order of authorization. (Code 1919, §§ 5080; 1938, c. 152; 1981, c. 295; 1981, Sp. Sess., c. 15; 1983, c. 64; 1985, c. 195; 1987, c. 149; 2003, c. 228.) In fact, in Virginia two people may marry each other without the benefit of any marriage celebrant at all, as long as someone posts the $500 bond and accepts the responsibility for completing and filing the marriage certificate.§§ 20-26. Marriage between members of religious society having no minister. Marriages between persons belonging to any religious society which has no ordained minister, may be solemnized by the persons and in the manner prescribed by and practiced in any such society. One person chosen by the society shall be responsible for completing the certification of marriage in the same manner as a minister or other person authorized to perform marriages; such person chosen by the society for this purpose shall be required to execute a bond in the penalty of $500, with surety. (Code 1919, §§ 5081; 1968, c. 318; 1981, c. 295.) Virginia's marriage statute completes the definition of marriage as a civil union by making it illegal to perform the ceremony of marriage unless you are authorized by civil law to do so.§§20-28. Penalty for celebrating marriage without license. If any person knowingly perform the ceremony of marriage without lawful license, or officiate in celebrating the rites of marriage without being authorized by law to do so, he shall be confined in jail not exceeding one year, and fined not exceeding $500. (Code 1919, §§ 4542.) It's clear that in Virginia, at least, marriage IS a civil union first. It is a religious celebration only to the extent that any given couple wants it to be. And if the insititution of marriage is a primarily civil one, then it was my impression that no state could constitutionally restrict it to only one privileged set of people. For those who would allow "civil unions" but restrict "marriage", the question becomes whether there can be one kind of civil union for heterosexuals and a different one for homosexuals. The philosophy of "separate but equal" was demolished long ago as unconstitutional, but that isn't really the issue. The bottom line is that the people who are opposed to gay marriages do not want our relationships to be legitimized in any way, and the name-calling is getting ugly. You'd think we were back in the old Equal Rights Amendment days, when any women who favored passage was labelled a lesbian. Now that "lesbian" is no longer the ultimate epithet, knee-jerk conservatives have had to come up with a whole new list of accusations, and they're getting creative. If all you wanted was to marry the person you've chosen to spend the rest of your life with, you might be a bit surprised to learn how many other things you're pushing as well. Visit some of the anti-gay-marriage websites and you'll learn that we favor polygamy, that we're out to replace the traditional family as the cornerstone of social order, and that allowing gays to marry would be as wrong as letting a man marry his mother, daughter or sister. Andrew Sullivan, not usually a bastion of leftist thought, puts it pretty well:What exactly is the post-Lawrence conservative social policy toward homosexuals? Amazingly, the current answer is entirely a negative one. The majority of social conservatives oppose gay marriage; they oppose gay citizens serving their country in the military; they oppose gay citizens raising children; they oppose protecting gay citizens from workplace discrimination; they oppose including gays in hate-crime legislation, while including every other victimized group; they oppose civil unions; they oppose domestic partnerships; they oppose . . . well, they oppose, for the most part, every single practical measure that brings gay citizens into the mainstream of American life.We're going to see George Bush and the Republicans use the issue of homosexuality itself, not just gay marriage, as a way to divert attention from the sick economy, the increasing number of deaths in Iraq, the lies that got us into Iraq to begin with, and every other facet of his dysfunctional presidency. I've been wondering what he would come up with to scare the voters into keeping him in Washington. Now I know. Among other things, it's me, of all people (sorry, I know that's not grammatical, but it has more gut-level tension than 'Tis I'). I didn't realize I was that scary. I feel like stopping people on the street and asking, "Do I frighten you? If my partner and I got married, would that destroy your marriage? Would the fact that we could never have had children together make your relationship with your children any less significant?" And I want to ask, "Will being afraid of me somehow create more jobs? Will it bring back the child or the spouse or the friend who died in Iraq? Will it balance the budget? What does it get you to be afraid of ME?" We need to keep asking these questions in the days ahead. "Will passing a constitutional marriage amendment get back the job you lost when your company moved its headquarters to Bermuda and its jobs to India?" "Will denouncing me restore the Pell grant your college-aged child lost due to budget cuts?" "Will calling me names bring back the money your school district no longer has?" George, I'll still try to keep my discourse civil, but you just made the fight a personal one. You made me into some kind of monster, into a shibboleth to scare other people with. You made me, a pudgy middle-aged grandmother going gray at the temples and wobbly in the knees, into a weapon for you, and I won't have it.
§§ 20-25. Persons other than ministers who may perform rites. Any circuit court judge may issue an order authorizing one or more persons, resident in the jurisdiction in which the judge sits, to celebrate the rites of marriage in such jurisdiction. Any person so authorized shall, before acting, enter into bond in the penalty of $500, with or without surety, as the court may direct. Any order made under this section may be rescinded at any time. Any judge or justice of a court of record, any judge of a district court or any retired judge or justice of the Commonwealth or any active, senior or retired federal judge or justice who is a resident of the Commonwealth may celebrate the rites of marriage anywhere in the Commonwealth without the necessity of bond or order of authorization. (Code 1919, §§ 5080; 1938, c. 152; 1981, c. 295; 1981, Sp. Sess., c. 15; 1983, c. 64; 1985, c. 195; 1987, c. 149; 2003, c. 228.)
§§ 20-26. Marriage between members of religious society having no minister. Marriages between persons belonging to any religious society which has no ordained minister, may be solemnized by the persons and in the manner prescribed by and practiced in any such society. One person chosen by the society shall be responsible for completing the certification of marriage in the same manner as a minister or other person authorized to perform marriages; such person chosen by the society for this purpose shall be required to execute a bond in the penalty of $500, with surety. (Code 1919, §§ 5081; 1968, c. 318; 1981, c. 295.)
§§20-28. Penalty for celebrating marriage without license. If any person knowingly perform the ceremony of marriage without lawful license, or officiate in celebrating the rites of marriage without being authorized by law to do so, he shall be confined in jail not exceeding one year, and fined not exceeding $500. (Code 1919, §§ 4542.)
What exactly is the post-Lawrence conservative social policy toward homosexuals? Amazingly, the current answer is entirely a negative one. The majority of social conservatives oppose gay marriage; they oppose gay citizens serving their country in the military; they oppose gay citizens raising children; they oppose protecting gay citizens from workplace discrimination; they oppose including gays in hate-crime legislation, while including every other victimized group; they oppose civil unions; they oppose domestic partnerships; they oppose . . . well, they oppose, for the most part, every single practical measure that brings gay citizens into the mainstream of American life.
The template is set to display 10 posts. To see all the posts for this month, click on the month name in the Archive section
RSS Feed
PERSONAL
WHY 'LIFE AS A SPECTATOR SPORT'
"If you're lucky not to live in the gutters of a slum, but still can't afford to take vacations in the Alps, you're part of that enormous middle class who lives life through the medium of the television, further separated from "real" life by air conditioner, by automobile, by dishwasher, microwave and ice-in-the-door refrigerator, by automatic washer and dryer, and all the other appliances and conveniences that make it possible for America to live life at second hand. I'm not sure why Americans decided that televised drama was better than the real thing, that cardboard microwave food containers were an adequate substitute for real dishes, and their contents for real food, or that cooking, dishwashing and face-to-face conversation wasn't worth the effort and time it required. Someone fed this nation a plastic crate of out-of-season tomatoes and told us it was life and we took them at their word, and we're so much the poorer for it that it's hard to know where to start to list the shortcomings." I wrote this a couple of years ago, but I have to admit it's much less amusing than I thought it would be to see the artifical construct falling apart.
THE NON-ELECTRIC HOME
Cleaning, 1 Cleaning, 2 Cleaning, 3
KNITTING BLOGS
Extravayarnza Knitting Heretic Mind of Winter Pie Knits Persistent Illusion See Eunny Knit The Keyboard Biologist Taleweaver's Ramblings TECHnitting Wendy Knits
FINISHED PROJECTS
SELF-RELIANCE AND THE FUTURE
POLITICAL BLOGS and SITES
BOOKS I'M READING
How to Grow More Vegetables, etc. Small Scale Grain Raising
ARCHIVES
February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002
Powered by BLOGGER Template made possible by BLOGSKINS.
