Burn the shoes and boil the rice.

Just a quick addendum to TeemKuntz’s well-put thoughts on civil unions. I would like to play devil’s advocate, but… I can’t really think of anything to argue. I guess my brain just doesn’t work like that.

A while back, I started searching for anti-marriage groups with a quick spin on Google, and found unmarried.org, home of the Alternatives to Marriage project.

Good start, I thought.

But, aiming to be politically correct and accept all attitude, one of the projects this group supports is a Marriage Boycott that will end when same sex couples have the same rights to marry as het couples. Then everyone will get married all at once, and it will be like the end of a Shakespeare comedy times a gazillion. Or something.

Does anyone feel like these people have missed the point? Does anyone think this is actually helping? And on a broader more important point, are actually we legitimizing inaction as protest? This ain’t a sit-down strike. There’s nothing pressing about this type of boycott. These people aren’t sacrificing anything, except a chance to fight with their future mother-in-laws about bridesmaids’ dress colors and / or a chance to be divorced. And who are they trying to impress / hurt / get to notice? Friends? Lawmakers? The wedding industry? (who they will give all their money to when the boycott ends, by the way.)

AtMP stresses that there are different ways to be “unmarried” with different levels of vehemency. But a few links later, they have information on types of “commitment” ceremonies (i.e. they look like a wedding, sound like a wedding, cost like a wedding, but aren’t a wedding.)
Isn’t the point to be uncommitted? Or, as I have phrased it before, to rebuild commitment every day? I realize this attitude would cause confusion in terms of legal arrangements, but since these ceremonies have no legal ramifications, then shouldn’t the message at least be right?

I’m not against big parties with fancy dresses and friends and family, followed by luxurious travel and kinky kinky sex. But the vow (if you can call it that) at said party should always be “I love you until I can’t love you anymore.”

Unfortunately, AtMP is the best that’s out there right now, as far as I can tell, and I generally hate to denounce powers used for actual good in favor of powers used for idealistic awesome.

But in the name of making the point, being a militant, being the Nader… I kinda want to.

 

Something borrowed, something blue

A lawsuit is pending in California challenging the states’ definition of marriage. California does recognize civil unions and basically confers the legal protections of marriage, but now they’re fighting for the right to get (dum-da-da-dum) Married(!)

I’m getting a little sick to my stomach this morning. This is such a bad idea that I can’t fully count the ways, but I certainly aim to try.

(One caveat, TeemKuntz did used to be married, so feel free to take this post with liberal amounts of salt.)

The legal protections of marriage and marriage itself are two extremely different things. If I could go *poof*, and make it better, this is one of things I would change.

Being married basically tells the state “Hey, this person here (point to spouse), I want them to look after me and my interests if I am unable to do so myself.” Things like inheretance, power of attorney, medical decisions, these are important. Each person should be able to designate whoever they want to take care of those things. I love my parents and brother to death, but we disagree about enough things that I wouldn’t want them making decisions on my behalf.

This designation is important. Otherwise we could have mass chaos every time someone is injured or dies. Parents, spouses, children, could all have some kind of claim in medical care. Imagine being a doctor in those circumstances. We saw a bit of this during the Terri Schiavo fiasco. Avoiding that fiasco is why the state recoginizes marriages. It assumes the person you marry is the one you want to look after your interests.

Fine, OK. My objection is the recognition of marriage as the means of accomplishing this end. It’s mixing the church and state in very uncomfortable ways. In my world, designating a person would be the equivalent of filling in the “in case of emergency” entry in your passport. Something happens, you erase the name. Simple.

Marriage could still exist as well, but it would be completely outside of the public sphere. You want to go to a church? Fine. Wear a wedding band? Fine. Your church doesn’t want to perform ceremonies for gay people? Fine with me. Remember, coercion is a bad thing. If gay people want to have a wedding, that’s fine too. They can rent the hall, wear tuxedos, watch Uncle Mike get tanked up at the open bar, all fine with me.

And if they fill out the “in case of emergency” form all rights and benefits are theirs.

This is my ultimate problem with same sex marriage. It legitimizes the mixing of public policy and religion. We should be encouraging states to only recognize civil partnerships. But for this to work there cannot be any substantive difference between the civil unions and marriage.