Heliotrope, married or not, plenty of women keep their maiden name. What’s wrong with that? So do 99.99% of men when they get married. How would you feel if someone called you Mr. (your wife’s maiden name)? Maybe you’re a better man than me, but I would not like to be called Mr. (my partner’s last name).

Fine, but if they are comfortable with playing house for so long, what is the hang up with the assumption they are married?

Good question. But for whatever reason, they choose to not marry. Of course, we have the other situation where a gay couple would like the assumption that they are married. And there’s plenty of opposition to that.

I also wonder why gays don’t target “civil unions” instead of marriage. By the way, I have been married to the same woman for 46 years and I have never had to produce my marriage certificate a single time. I doubt I could even find it. There is no magic in the certificate. It is all in the heart.

It’s great that your marriage is in your heart, as it should be. But if your marriage certificate wasn’t on file somewhere, you wouldn’t have all the rights and benefits that come with marriage, unless you had your attorney draw up all the legal papers to do so. So there is plenty of magic in that piece of paper.

I have hosted parties at which I have introduced a guest and his partner to others. I can not bring myself to introduce a guest and his husband to others. I really don’t care to stir up the chatter that would result.

Unless you have rude guests, I don’t think that would be an issue. In any case, I personally would not insist on having someone refer to my partner as my husband.

I oppose “open marriage” and long term co-habitation among heteros. But, I am content to save my activism for bigger issues. I have neighbors who have co-habited for more than twenty years. She keeps her maiden name and is quite militant about it. If someone calls her Mrs. (…..) she sets the record straight. Fine, but if they are comfortable with playing house for so long, what is the hang up with the assumption they are married?

Gay unions are just fine with me, but I think gays need to work out their own terminology. Long ago, I learned what “my partner” meant. But every time a man tells me the other man is his husband, I admit to experiencing an involuntary gulp. I have hosted parties at which I have introduced a guest and his partner to others. I can not bring myself to introduce a guest and his husband to others. I really don’t care to stir up the chatter that would result.

Hopefully, you will understand this as a form of provincialism and not an example of bigotry.

In all good faith, I think civil unions would be largely accepted by those who do not bring a strong religious ethic to the debate. But going for marriage “equality” is way too much for many more than just those with a strong religious objection.

For the most part, I think people have a sympathy for the issues of next of kin and inheritance. They just do not want the fundamentals of marriage upended.

…I support civil unions. But I find something really disingenuous when gays insist on the marriage tradition being opened to accept same sex couples. That is a major breach of the tradition.
…wonder why gays don’t target “civil unions” instead of marriage.

But legally, or from the point of view of the State, civil unions are the substance of marriage. The name is different. I’m OK with having the name be different if that makes it easier for you, but I call it “gay marriage” myself because I focus on the substantive reality. I don’t agree that gay marriage is “a major breach of the tradition”, but if it is, then so are civil unions and I should think you would want to oppose them as well.

Long story short, I don’t understand why it is so important (for some people) to not call gay marriage “marriage” – but, since I believe in doing it democratically, I’m personally willing to go along.

I think same sex marriage is far more radical than polygamy

I gave rebuttal points in another thread: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/06/01/when-are-gay-groups-going-to-thank-mary-cheney/comment-page-1/#comment-435103

I can not understand how one can assume that a titanic redefinition of marriage to accept same sex couples is not a major opening for other adjustments of traditional marriage.

And I gave a response here: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/06/01/when-are-gay-groups-going-to-thank-mary-cheney/comment-page-1/#comment-435694

I’m not sure that society DOES benefit if there are no children.

I am sure that it does.

One dies before the other, and the state often times ends up paying for the surviving spouse through inherited Social Security benefits, medicare, medicaid, and other welfare programs.

Mixing issues. Those programs have bigger things wrong with them than their treatment of spouses. The problems with Social Security, for example, include the fact that it exists (Leviathan won); the fact that it is welfare-Ponzi scheme (not a savings scheme); the fact that it pays-or-has-promised unaffordably large benefits to (not just spousal survivors); etc.

I’m not sure that without kids, married couples do save the state money.

The couple are each other’s top incentive to live productively and each other’s first line of assistance in illness or other things that go wrong. But to the extent your point may be valid, then think about this: that situation would be how the Left wants it. The Left wants the State to be everyone’s marriage partner – and mommy and daddy – making traditional marriage obsolete.

If “we the people” can be moved to ask our legislators to include same sex couples in the “marriage” tradition, then individual states will comply. However, no source I have read has explained how the other states are not bound by the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution.

Same sex marriage is neither an equality issue or a civil rights issue. It is a redefinition of the concept of marriage. No gay is kept from marrying. No gay is denied next of kin and inheritance rights. I don’t know about conjugal visitor rights for the imprisoned.

I fully understand a gay seeking the “benefits” of the law where same sex partnerships are involved. That is why I support civil unions. But I find something really disingenuous when gays insist on the marriage tradition being opened to accept same sex couples. That is a major breach of the tradition. I see no general benefit to society accruing. I have seen no compelling argument displaying the benefits of same sex marriage to the society as a whole.

When a breach in traditional marriage occurs, I think same sex marriage is far more radical than polygamy (for which there is a long tradition in history and is accepted in Islam) or even child marriage.

Many gays claim that opening traditional marriage to same sex couples has nothing to do with polygamy. I can not understand how one can assume that a titanic redefinition of marriage to accept same sex couples is not a major opening for other adjustments of traditional marriage.

I doubt that married gays under a new “marriage” construct would have very much clout when sharia comes calling. Furthermore, I think the general society would have less standing to hold against sharia after accepting same sex couples in the marriage definition.

I am opposed to polygamy, child marriage, a man and his goat marriage and gay marriage for the simple reason that there is nothing wrong or wanting in the marriage tradition as it stands.

I also wonder why gays don’t target “civil unions” instead of marriage. By the way, I have been married to the same woman for 46 years and I have never had to produce my marriage certificate a single time. I doubt I could even find it. There is no magic in the certificate. It is all in the heart.

That’s fine, American Elephant. But that’s true whether or not the couple has children. And if they did, the children are grown up by then.

I’m not sure that society DOES benefit if there are no children.

One of the things that separates us from other animals is that we are a lot more than just procreating. We value many more things than that. We value every person, whether they can or choose to procreate. In fact, we, in many cases discourage procreation (see octomom amongst many such examples).

Adults in stable relationships, whether or not they have children, benefit society. We should have as many positive models for our children while growing up. Continuation of our species will take care of itself, and in a more positive way.

If it’s only about procreating, then why bother recognizing any marriage that does not lead to children. And for those that do, why not automatically dissolve the marriage when the children grow up? Heck, why don’t we just behave like dogs and unload the children when they are weaned. Just sustain them enough until they are old enough to procreate themselves?

Brezhnev, thanks. Although I try not to stir the pot too much. I’m not sure what to say about the Massachusetts Catholic charities. You bring up a good point about the marriages that the RC Church recognizes. I’m wondering how selective they were allowed to be even before same sex marriage. For example, they do not recognize the marriage of a couple where one (or both) have been divorced without an annulment. Do they recognize marriages performed by non-RC clergy, or civil marriages? So, for example, would these charities be able to deny adoption to your sister and brother-in-law solely because they don’t recognize their marriage?

I think the state has an interest in adoption of children. As such, organizations that provide adoption services are required to follow the law. For this reason alone, it makes more sense to have same sex marriage or civil unions go through the legislative or referendum process.

What about poor couples that still need state help?

Society really has no interest in the relationships between adults if its not about promoting whats best for kids.

Society benefits from having people voluntarily pair off in these little, stable mutual-welfare societies. Especially if the pair is then going to have kids.

I’m not sure that society DOES benefit if there are no children.

Remember we are subsidizing these couples. So we are in essence paying them to take care of one another. One dies before the other, and the state often times ends up paying for the surviving spouse through inherited Social Security benefits, medicare, medicaid, and other welfare programs.

I’m not sure that without kids, married couples do save the state money. With as much as we subsidize marriage its entirely possible that they are economically neutral or even a drag.

But if they have kids, that’s another story all together.

As to Massachusetts trying to dictate to Catholic Social Services, that’s a result of government getting its tentacles into too many places, and of too many places welcoming government’s stifling embrace. Government money inevitably brings government regulation. The biggest danger of Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” was that it entangled perfectly good private charities with government money and regulations. Even the tax-exempt status of churches comes at the price of restrictions on overt political speech from some of the most important institutions in our society.

Keep stirring the pot, Pat. It keeps things lively.

My thing is (1) get a marriage-like path going for gays; (2) get it democratically, even if that will take awhile or involve some compromises. So I advocate for same-sex marriage – marriage being the substance of what I want, or the best available word – but on the other hand, I slap down the bogus “rights” language that we see from bob and other more left-wing advocates.

ILC, I think Bruce meant the SSM advocates who say it’s a right never say where it comes from.

You and I differ on the means of achieving recognition of SSM, IIRC. The seperate relationships need to be recognized through legislation, not created whole cloth out of courts.

Not exactly a great line to lead off with in an argument for same sex marriage.