And looks like a great time on the dance floor. I know its a matter of symantics about marriage, but what is wrong with a civil union, or whatever else we shall term a same sex marriage? If people are comittted to each other, why not have the same benefits?
d.c.: Me too! Hopefully they will see your comment.
dusty: We all had a really good time dancing at this wedding. It had to be one of my fav's of all time! I agree that everyone should be able to get married (if they want to). I don't really understand people who have a problem with this. What business is it of theirs? No one is hurting them by giving everyone the same rights to basic things.
I'll step on this question of marriage. Historically, marriage was actually about the transfer and continuity of property rights in feudal systems. By marrying, you secured the succession of your lands and titles in perpetuity. Marriage was originally NOT an institution of the church (I'm using the royal we in terms of church here, by the way.)
I believe it wasn't until the 14th or 15th centuries that the Catholic Church decided that marriage needed to be sanctioned by the church and it became institutionalized as a sacrament (don't quote me on the dates, though.) Prior to that, marriages were the purview of the state.
What many in and out of the GLBTIQ community have been advocating is the ability to be married and recognized as a couple by the state. America is unique in the fact that they've taken a function of the state--marriage and property rights--and folded it into religious rituals and sanctions. Most GLBTIQ aren't asking for the church to endorse their unions--though many would like that blessing as well--but are asking for the state to sanction their unions and provide them with the same benefits hetrosexuals enjoy. In other words, take marriage (state) out of religion (church). Technically speaking, marriage in a church is a violation of the Church-State clause.
In Europe, church marriages are an extra. Most Europeans, when they marry, are first married in a civil ceremony at city hall by a justice of the peace or clerk of the court or a judge. Then, if they want a church wedding and the blessing of the church, they have a ceremony at their parish/congregation. That's as it should be, IMHO.
While domestic partnership or civil unions are a step in the right direction, they still don't afford full benefits to GLTBIQ. Where hetrosexuals, for example, receive healthcare benefits for their spouses pre-tax, GLTBIQ have to pay for those benefits. Granted, it's great to have the benefit, but a bit of a sting to have to pay more than straight people.
Anyway--I could go on and on and on, but won't. Bottom line: it shouldn't (and doesn't) matter if two people want to commit to each other and care for one another. Given the rate of divorce in the straight community and shining examples of the sanctity of marriage from the likes of people like Brittany Spears, I doubt there's any more or less damage to be done to the institution of marriage by GLBTIQ.
Okay. I'll go away now. This photo still makes me very, very happy!
Maya, it is fun to see this photo from Carole and my wedding three years ago and to read the comments. I am pleased to report that our state and federal rights are continuing to improve as time goes on. And it's so great that posting this photo had such a positive impact on your personal life.
6 comments:
Yeah! This makes me happy! Cheers to the brides!
And looks like a great time on the dance floor. I know its a matter of symantics about marriage, but what is wrong with a civil union, or whatever else we shall term a same sex marriage? If people are comittted to each other, why not have the same benefits?
d.c.: Me too! Hopefully they will see your comment.
dusty: We all had a really good time dancing at this wedding. It had to be one of my fav's of all time! I agree that everyone should be able to get married (if they want to). I don't really understand people who have a problem with this. What business is it of theirs? No one is hurting them by giving everyone the same rights to basic things.
I'll step on this question of marriage. Historically, marriage was actually about the transfer and continuity of property rights in feudal systems. By marrying, you secured the succession of your lands and titles in perpetuity. Marriage was originally NOT an institution of the church (I'm using the royal we in terms of church here, by the way.)
I believe it wasn't until the 14th or 15th centuries that the Catholic Church decided that marriage needed to be sanctioned by the church and it became institutionalized as a sacrament (don't quote me on the dates, though.) Prior to that, marriages were the purview of the state.
What many in and out of the GLBTIQ community have been advocating is the ability to be married and recognized as a couple by the state. America is unique in the fact that they've taken a function of the state--marriage and property rights--and folded it into religious rituals and sanctions. Most GLBTIQ aren't asking for the church to endorse their unions--though many would like that blessing as well--but are asking for the state to sanction their unions and provide them with the same benefits hetrosexuals enjoy. In other words, take marriage (state) out of religion (church). Technically speaking, marriage in a church is a violation of the Church-State clause.
In Europe, church marriages are an extra. Most Europeans, when they marry, are first married in a civil ceremony at city hall by a justice of the peace or clerk of the court or a judge. Then, if they want a church wedding and the blessing of the church, they have a ceremony at their parish/congregation. That's as it should be, IMHO.
While domestic partnership or civil unions are a step in the right direction, they still don't afford full benefits to GLTBIQ. Where hetrosexuals, for example, receive healthcare benefits for their spouses pre-tax, GLTBIQ have to pay for those benefits. Granted, it's great to have the benefit, but a bit of a sting to have to pay more than straight people.
Anyway--I could go on and on and on, but won't. Bottom line: it shouldn't (and doesn't) matter if two people want to commit to each other and care for one another. Given the rate of divorce in the straight community and shining examples of the sanctity of marriage from the likes of people like Brittany Spears, I doubt there's any more or less damage to be done to the institution of marriage by GLBTIQ.
Okay. I'll go away now. This photo still makes me very, very happy!
Very well put! I agree with the church/state violation.
Washington has come a long way, including child support and property rights, but still ALL the rights would be nice...
Maya, it is fun to see this photo from Carole and my wedding three years ago and to read the comments. I am pleased to report that our state and federal rights are continuing to improve as time goes on. And it's so great that posting this photo had such a positive impact on your personal life.
Post a Comment