I don't believe this

[chanter1944]

Last night, the Federal marriage amendment passed in Wisconsin.

Marriage is now to be defined as between one man and one woman, and civil unions are out the window.

I am now a second class citizen. In. my. own. state.

In a word, fuck.

I am *so* leaving this bloody country...

Comments

[goldenlily.livejournal.com]

Hang tight. Nothing happens overnight. It took a long time for women to get a vote, same thing with segragation. Give it time. Besides if you leave you probably can't take Bosco with you :(

[chanter1944]

*hugs you* thanks for the encouragement. You have a point, and it's well taken. It's very disheartening to see vote results like those, all the same.

And true, there'd be quarantine issues and all that wonderful bureaucratic junk if I were to leave. *pets Bosco*

[kittytech.livejournal.com]

Jim and I weren't happy about the amendment passing either. The question we've had is, where does it end? Are they eventually going to say that courthouse marriages aren't legal either? It's stupid, and it definitely should not have passed.

[morcath.livejournal.com]

Funny, I've had a similar wondering about where it would stop if same-sex marriage was permitted... Would incestuous relationships between two consenting adult siblings be permitted? Just thought I'd fire out the other side of the coin...

[chanter1944]

No offense intended to you as a person, but... we are talking about consenting, *unrelated* adults here, couples that will not have to worry about all manner of genetic defects and the emotional consequences of inbreeding if they do harbor a wish to procreate, whose only supposed moral crime is, to put it bluntly, existing. If I wanted to marry my sister, of *course* I wouldn't expect to be able to, as I'm aware of just how many physical and emotional consequences there could potentially be... and I'll leave my personal views on incest out of this and be as analytical as possible for once.

And as for marriage being a right, heterosexual couples certainly seem to view it as one. Who gave them the right to play judge, jury, executioner and higher power? and don't say God, because that argument doesn't hold water with me since religion has a tendency to shun people like me as a matter of principle.

[morcath.livejournal.com]

I don't take offense when someone disagrees with me. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, just a host of questions. As long everyone's honest and respectful, I'm cool with it.

The problem I've encountered, as I've said before, is that there would need to be a change made to the definition of marriage that doesn't allow for all manners of other relationships to be included. To say that homosexual marriage ought be permitted based on the partners' consent and adulthood leave us with the problem of incest. To refuse incestuous relationships based on their acceptability to our sense of morality, taste, or social convention is going to be a huge problem, as that's what the anti-gay marriage side is accused of doing. Good for the goose, good for the gander, and all of that.

In terms of emotional consequences... those are inherent in any relationship, so we can't use those either, when we discuss social policy changes.

On a point of semantics, God and religion are not necessarily the same thing. So it's important to make that distinction. Just for future reference, I would think.

Just because heterosexual couples view marriage as a right does not make them correct. It makes them just as confused as everyone else. Marriage is missing from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I believe it is also not present in the US Bill of Rights. Its absence from these documents makes it something else entirely. Perhaps it is a privilege that is extended only to certain groups of people and not others. If this is the case, it may be unfair, but it does not make those ineligible second class citizens.
The problem is that marriage is so different a creature than anything else we can think of that it comes to our thoughts loaded with meaning and weight that can't really be described. Some people would say that if I oppose two men from getting married that I am opposing their love and happiness. This may not be the case. I've known many unhappy marriages - perhaps I wish to prevent one more. Marriage as the institution is so loaded with significance that it seems to me that it becomes foolhardy to force society to change their opinions of it. Perhaps a new term needs to be decided upon to facilitate discussion.

Like I said, I don't have all the answers. I am not a religious nut (well, I'm a Christian, but I don't think I'm crazy) who is bent on converting all the gays, or condemning them to Hell. What I want is to force the discussion towards something more respectful and more logical - both sides. Anti-, pro-, both sides have done a lot of damage. I may not agree with your stance, Charlie, but I don't think less of you for it. I may think the position you hold is a dangerous and foolish one, but that is my response to your opinion, not to you as a person. Just like, I hope, you can disagree with me without me being labelled a "homophobe" or a "hate monger" or any of those other epithets which are so carelessly thrown about.

[chanter1944]

I can see your point. I *do* understand the need for logical discussion of the issues here. At the same time, I object to the idea of marriage being a privelige. That plays right into the hands of all the fundamentalists out there who *would* convert us or condemn us all to hell. And no, I don't view you as a religious nut or a homophobe or any of those other lovely extremes, don't worry.

and maybe marriage should be written in as a right, if that's truly the issue here. Simply as a right, not qualified in any way, and then we can deal with the issues it spawns with a clearer definition to go by.

[morcath.livejournal.com]

But if it's just written up as a right without any clear definitions, don't we find ourselves in the same dilemma? There will always be one group who will want things changed to suit them, but if we call it a right, then we're going to have a REALLY tough time preventing polygamy and incestuous relationships from being recognised as proper marriages.

I don't know what else to say, really. There's no good way to define marriage which will solve the issue without spawning new - and arguable more distasteful - issues in the future as a result. There's no way to extend marriage beyond its current definition - however unfair - without requiring us to try to nail down what marriage actually is. If it's simply a series of legal privileges (health benefits, pension, etc), that's one thing and can be handled by the State. But there is most certainly something more to it. It's that amorphous piece of the definition that's causing the whole thing to get bogged down.

[whiskeybit.livejournal.com]

I once read a great article on this topic, with the point coming out to something along the lines of 'Any one who truly understands the essence of state supported marriage will fight for it's abolishment, not for it's acceptance of all others.' I'm not sure if I entirely agree with it, but it was very well written, and I wish I could link you.

On that note, though, why should any government recognize any marriage?

What does a heterosexual couple have that a homosexual couple does not? And for that matter, what does either of those two couples have that two very close friends couldn't have?

Take any two people, of any gender, in love or not, put them under the same roof, and give them common goals which they are willing to work together to accomplish, and tell me why they don't deserve what is given to married couples- Married couples who may not even, in fact, live in the same house, nor be in love, nor be working towards a common goal.

[chanter1944]

Ooooh, now I really wish I could read that article. Sounds like it would be a fascinating read.

As for why any government should recognize any marriage... you have a very valid point. What gets frightening is the fact that at least presently, government is quietly entangled with religion and the values of both are intertwined.. or at least in America they certainly seem to be. Religion is where everything gets complicated.

*Snugs*

[souconwarlin.livejournal.com]

Same here, wash rinse and repeat in colorado. Oh, mind you, not only did we get /that/ amendment, we also managed to pass a law the prohibits same sex couples from getting any sorts of benefits (Like hospital visits)

[morcath.livejournal.com]

I'm still not convinced that this is an issue of rights and who is a second class citizen. It seems to me that we discriminate all the time and for a variety of reasons, but no one complains about that. You're not allowed to drive - because you were born the way you are? How unfair! I'm not allowed to marry my sister - but we love each other! Regardless of whether I agree with the whole issue specifically, we still haven't even come to a conclusion about whether marriage itself is a RIGHT vs a privilege. Until we even sort out how to define what a marriage is (in the sense of where it lies in our understanding of a bigger picture of society and the rest), then it seems to me we've jumped the gun on labelling it a right.

[whiskeybit.livejournal.com]

Amen.

[jewelledfairy.livejournal.com]

I'm one step ahead of you.