blargblog

Straight, married, approached my spouse with the idea. She liked it fine because our spiritual commitment to each other belongs in the church, not as a matter for the state to have any say in. And our civil commitment, which is also important for completely different reasons, isn't something the church should have any say in.

There's certainly no reason people can't have both, and they effectively do, now, seeing as how "holy matrimony" is a matter of conscience regardless of what the state chooses to call its "solemnified civil contracts."

For the record: Not a libertarian. But they're right on this one, and the result of going the other direction is codifying "separate but equal" yet again.

I like the proposal, and in a more reasonable world, I think it would fly. But it will take a lot of cultural re-programming for most people, you and your spouse being enlightened exceptions. My spouse would probably find the idea attractive, too; but on a more subjective, perhaps more nebullous level, giving up the idea that one is "married" is a hard leap to make. Marriage is more than the sum of its benefits/rights/priveleges, it's a highly subjective interaction between two people making the best effort for a lifelong commitment, a certain mixing of individual selves into a larger bond. I think it was my buddy Kip who recently cited the idea "you complete me" as being a very succinct expression of marriage's complex negotiations of the self. (Kip, if you're listening, feel free to confirm or deny, and possibly provide the link. Work. Busy. Thanks. Smooches.)

"But they're right on this one, and the result of going the other direction is codifying "separate but equal" yet again."

But there is yet the present direction of expanding the definition of marriage, of including same-sex couples. The Libertarian approach is admirable in its radicalism, but for that, all the less likely. I feel there is real momentum here. We will certainly see two steps back for every step forward, but reactionaries can trip up, too.

"You complete me"?

'Fraid not. I'm not so Dr. Evil as all that. I think the quote you're looking for is this: "You are home to me--when you come to me, I will take you in." Not as pithy, but thank God.

--From this post. There's something inexpressably insulting about the fact that some insecure jackass thinks my marriage needs defending. Fuckwits. Therapy may be a little more expensive personally, but it's a lot easier on society as a whole.

And there's nothing about this proposal--which isn't "the Libertarian proposal," it's a proposal a number of people have put forward that the Libertarians are trying to take credit for, which, if they do, will make it much more easily branded as a nutcase position and voted off the island of public discourse, so I really wish they'd shut up and go back to wrecking the state budget, no, wait, maybe I don't, but anyway, there's nothing about it that outlaws marriage, for fuck's sake. We'd all still be married, and people could get married. It acknowledges that the condition of marriage is a state of grace, within the eye of the beholder, and not something to be imposed or withheld by the state. If you can find someone or some institution willing to grant you that state of grace, that you accept, then bingo! --In other words, it acknowledges what we already know to be true: gays and lesbians have been getting hitched for decades. What we're arguing about is whether the state should discriminate in apportioning the rights and privileges that come with marriage. It's pretty fucking clear they shouldn't, so if the rock-ribbed crybabies can't shut up and untwist their knickers over the whole mess, fine; we'll take state-sponsored marriage off the table entirely, and they're free to pretend that the marriage they get from their church is much better than the marriage that our friends get, and nobody else has to pretend likewise with some separate-but-equal bullshit.

It's either this or full-on gay marriage, which is much the same thing; this, at least, offers something of a fig leaf to the dinosaurs, letting them go gently if not gracefully into that good night.

If you think I'm losing my patience with this crap, you're right.

'Fraid not. I'm not so Dr. Evil as all that.

Hee, hee. I was thinking about that. But thanks for the clarification. And the post link.

...there's nothing about it that outlaws marriage, for fuck's sake.

Well, I don't think anyone is saying that. I think the idea is to replace the role of the state as a "solemnizer (or co-solemnizer) of marriage" with a role as granter of civil union contracts. Get the gov't. out of the spirituality racket, so to speak, and leave it to the churches. Personally, I think that gives way too much power to the churches—I can handle my own spirituality, thenkyuhveddymuch—and undervalues the role of government in a democratic society as an expression of the social will. Which is why I think its about more than rights and priveleges, but certainly includes them.

If you think I'm losing my patience with this crap, you're right.

Yo. Hence all my blogging on this issue. Trying to keep moderately sane.

Get the gov't. out of the spirituality racket, so to speak, and leave it to the churches. Personally, I think that gives way too much power to the churches—I can handle my own spirituality, thenkyuhveddymuch—and undervalues the role of government in a democratic society as an expression of the social will.

Not making much sense here: how on earth does removing the government's power to back up a church's desire to discriminate give the church more power? (You are your own church, to counter the counter I think you'll counter with.) --And driving away those in the public sphere whose religion does not synch up with the JC majority by upholding the government's continued co-support does fuck-all for the expression of the social will.

This blog completes me.

Yeah, I was wondering how solemnization would work. Especially in Oregon where there is no "Justice of the Peace" or other official licensed to solemnize the marriage at "city hall". Well, as far as I could tell. And would that take away the ability of currently certified non-governmental solemnizers to solemnize a relationship that's valid in the eyes of the state?

Jake,

It seems churches would be fine as solemnifiers, and I'd guess that a "privilege" like that would mean a lot to people who wanted to make maximum distinction between their church union and the contracts all the heathens out there in the secular world are getting. It'd be sort of like the state just giving limited notary powers to any member of the clergy on the premise that what really matters is the signed and witnessed contract, not the hand-waving.

I'd also be unsurprised if a lot of churches began producing frilly "marriage certificates" to go with the weddings they performed just because (if we all actually adopted a "civil unions for all" approach) they word "marriage" wouldn't be turning up on the state-issued certificates any longer.

I was a little irritated, btw, at the "back to your Heinlein novels" crack in this entry, but I'm not so much anymore. Big-L libertarians annoy the hell out of me sometimes, and Heinlein's status as their resident visioneer makes him a little annoying by extension, but I can't complain about a liberatory vision of society as part of a laundry list of some things that be nice. Friday-esque contracts etc. might be a way out of this particular conflict and I won't turn my nose up at them.

I was a little irritated, btw, at the "back to your Heinlein novels" crack in this entry

It was an all-purpose tweak, mostly directed at the big Ls, but some collateral damage for the little ls and the sci-fi fans among my friends who adore Heinlein. It's how I express my love. :)

...how on earth does removing the government's power to back up a church's desire to discriminate give the church more power?

Er, I'm gonna answer a slightly different question: The Libertarian proposal potentially enhances the power of The Church (here understood in its abstract form) by giving it monopoly discretion to determine the definition of marriage as concept, as a spiritual manifestation and as a commitment between two people.

The Libertarian proposal potentially enhances the power of The Church (here understood in its abstract form) by giving it monopoly discretion to determine the definition of marriage as concept, as a spiritual manifestation and as a commitment between two people.

Oy! Except there isn't an "abstract church" being granted some monolithic and definitive say in the matter. Such a critter doesn't exist and probably won't as long as the Establishment Clause holds. The number of definitions of what constitutes a valid marriage within the many sacred contexts available in this country will mean that virtually anybody will be able to get "married" in the sacred sense unless, suddenly, Fred Phelps is appointed Archbishop of The One True Church of North America.

The polls indicate that, to most people, marriage is a religious sacrament. The state deciding to make no comment on what constitutes a spiritually valid marriage is no more troubling to me than its current lack of comment on what makes a legitimate baptism, communion rite, or foot-washing ceremony. It's much more troubling to me that same-sex couples are being denied straightforward civil rights I enjoy as a happily married straight dude because the state is confusing its duty to provide equal protection with its inappropriate and unconstitutional role as arbiter of an institution most people consider sacramental in nature.

And the state saying "O.k., I don't want to get into this marriage thing... let that be a function of religious organizations" will be a hollow victory for the people opposing "gay marriage" the most. They'll get to keep the word for their own purposes, but they'll find themselves in disagreement with denominations that choose to be more inclusive with the marriage sacrament.

I'd like to dig Heinlen up and kill him again over that stupid piece of crap *Friday*.

Oh, and for aparently inspiring Chris Claremont. That ought to be good for a few knees to the groin right there.