Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
Back to the post

Times Analyst Makes Good Case About Gay Marriage In Dollars—But Lacks Some Sense

gay-wedding


Back to the post
By:           Dan Avery
On:           Feb 20, 2012
Tagged: ,
  • 6 Comments
    • Mark
      Mark

      My partners children want us to get married – that’s exactly what they asked – Papi, when are you and dad going to get married?

      Feb 21, 2012 at 12:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      Keep marriage for everybody… and if your church feels the need to make a distinction and can’t figure out how to add an adjective before the word “marriage,” let them come up with some other term.

      Feb 21, 2012 at 12:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joetx
      Joetx

      Well, U of Chicago economics profs gave us neoliberalism & the resulting deregulation that lead to the financial crisis, stagnant/falling wages, loss of jobs to outsourcing, etc., so I could give a damn what one of those profs “thinks.”

      Feb 21, 2012 at 1:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Love is Love
      Love is Love

      @hyhybt: There already is a word for “church weddings” — it’s called Holy Matrimony. Also, churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. only “sanctify” those marriage which can only be granted by the government. The so-called Churches do not and can not grant marriage. They only officiate during some shamanistic rite of Holy Matrimony which is purely symbolic and, considering the state of divorce in this country, probably generally pointless in regards to the “till death do you part” aspect of the ceremony.

      By the way, a federal “Domestic Partnership” nomenclature might cause one problems while traveling abroad in most countries where the word Marriage is viewed in a universal legal context as applied to opposite-sex nuptial contracts (as well as same-gender marriage where recognized) and how those relationships are viewed as lawful. In other words, a stupid idea from stupid people who just don’t get it — that is, marriage is broadly recognized for what it is, we don’t need to create more confusion.

      Marriage is meant to be portable and has legal precedence to back that up — civil unions and domestic partnerships do not. And because marriage is supposed to be portable from state to state there lies our best argument to overturn DOMA and state bans on marriage equality. Why muddy the water with something that only serves to obfuscate the issue and serves no purpose other than to appease bigotry?

      Feb 21, 2012 at 2:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      Sorry, but no, that won’t work. Here are just a few of the obvious reasons:

      1. The word “Marriage” is known and understood not only by 400 million Americans, but also by billions of people around the world. Re-educating ALL of them to understand, much less accept, that their own “marriage” no longer exists, simply cannot happen.

      2. The Supreme Court, and other courts and governments worldwide, have repeatedly declared that “Marriage is a fundamental right”. The word “marriage” is not just in law. It is in numerous international treaties. Each individual treaty has it’s own individual amendment and ratification process. Most simply CANNOT be amended, at all.

      3. The United States has bilateral treaties with many other countries, in which each nation promises to recognize marriages (and divorces) made in the other. It is not simply a matter of US law and US treaties. It also requires changing the laws of numerous other nations.

      4. I can just imagine the shrieks from NOM and Maggie Ghallagher, when she learns that ALL marriages are to be repealed…

      If we just allow same-sex couples to marry, and pass the Respect for Marriage Act, the first three issues are not a problem. Maggie Ghallagher is going to shriek in any case. It is far easier to ignore one idiot, than it would be to educate every person in the world, and actually change the laws and treaties of every nation in the world. That one idiot is going to continue shrieking in any case, as long as she can make money by doing so.

      Ultimately, there is only one approach that can work: Government must recognize marriage of all couples who choose to be married. Churches may decide for themselves, which marriages they recognize. And, each may ignore the choices made by the other. Individuals and corporations engaging in Commerce, must obey law regarding marriages, and accept those marriages that are recognized by the Government. Individuals making personal decisions, for themselves, may act according to their religious beliefs.

      Feb 21, 2012 at 3:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the other Greg
      the other Greg

      Easy correction, Dan:

      “We [upper middle class gay people who own real estate] have been fighting the forces of evil so long we sometimes forget that most [gay people] don’t really have a strong opinion about marriage equality—or really understand its significance.”

      Feb 21, 2012 at 8:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • MORE PHOTOS

    FOLLOW US
     




    GET THE DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.