Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Same-Sex Marriage, A Continuation of Legal Discrimination

Posted by on Feb. 12, 2013 at 8:01 AM
  • 73 Replies

 

Poll

Question: Select which best fits your opinion, or click other and explain in replies. All viewpoints welcome in the comments.

Options:

Same-sex marriage is not a form of legal discrimination, and should be legalised

Marriage is not a form of discrimination in the derogatory sense, and should not be changed or dismantled

Marriage, including same-sex marriage, is still discriminatory and should not be recognised. All existing married couples should have domestic partnership status only, and any two consenting adults seeking such status should be eligible if they wish to obtain it.

Private household relationships should not be legally regulated, including domestic partnerships. No adult relationships should have special legal status; all individuals should have a level playing field, and no government subsidizing, whether material or philosophical.

Other, I will elaborate in the replies.


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 13

View Results

 

According to the US Census, 42 million adults share a household with another adult who is not their sexual partner:

"Specifically, 41.2 million adults in 2011 lived in a household in which they were neither the householder, the householder's spouse nor the householder's cohabiting partner. Between 2010 and 2011, the number of these additional adults increased by 1.9 million, from 17.3 percent to 17.9 percent of adults." LINK to US Census Report

Compare that to less than 650,000 gay couples in the US, also according to the US Census. That's 42 million adult individuals in platonic household relationships compared to 1.3 million adult individuals in same-sex couple relationships. The only way to give all of the legally single individuals in either group the chance to the same bundle of legal rights, is to dismantle the legal standing of marriage and replace it with something legally and culturally sex-neutral, like a domestic partnership.

And that's also the only way to be consistent with the pro-ssm arguments. If indeed, as pro-ssm arguments insist, procreation and sex are not a legal requirement of marriage, then the institution imbued with such understandings should be left as a private matter and separate from state and legal affairs.

In other words, there has to be some special reason for the government to treat married persons in a special way, to distinguish their legal agreement from all others, in essence, to legally discriminate.

There are in fact, straight and gay people who are against the LGBT quest for ssm for this very reason.  They say that, instead of seeking access into the social marital norm, gays should be tearing the norm down:

**from such an organisation, at againstequality.org:

They argue that the social and legal norms of marriage perpetuate an "othering" or a separation into groups, where people seek validation and therefore cast taboos on anyone not belonging.

I, for one, do agree that marriage is a form of legal discrimination. Yet, so is the age of consent,  and like the age of consent, marriage helps further the common good and also the protection of individual safety and welfare.  Heterosexual partners pose both risks and benefits to society, which can very easily be correllated to their committment levels.  Therefore, the is public interest in promoting commitment between hetero sexual partners.

So, please share your opinion by commenting, taking the poll, or both.  Thanks!

(Part of my OP taken from a reply in another group.)  

 

by on Feb. 12, 2013 at 8:01 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
rccmom
by Gold Member on Feb. 12, 2013 at 8:59 AM
2 moms liked this

I am not sure about the wording of your choices. I think that homosexual unions should be allowed to become marriages. However, I think since marriage has such become a socially legal contract that it should  be for a domestic union. Then, of anyone wishes to be married in a church in a religious ceremony, that should be up to the church. Some churches will marry gay couples, and some won't. This way we have the legal aspect covered for rights and benefits, and the religious aspect covered for those who wish that aspect.

JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Feb. 12, 2013 at 10:29 AM

 I like marriage.  I think that society has an interest in promoting such a union.  I also think that consenting adults should be allowed to arrange themselves in any sort of marriage that they wish.  If two women want to be married, I'm okay with that.  IMO, society benefits when adults commit to eachother to such a degree, so there is no harm in homosexuals making such a commitment.

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Feb. 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM

So you think that domestic unions should be the only allowable legal status?

Did you read the OP essay?  Hopefully that should make the poll wording clearer.

PS The underlined sentence in your reply does not make sense to me.

Quoting rccmom:

I am not sure about the wording of your choices. I think that homosexual unions should be allowed to become marriages. However, I think since marriage has such become a socially legal contract that it should  be for a domestic union. Then, of anyone wishes to be married in a church in a religious ceremony, that should be up to the church. Some churches will marry gay couples, and some won't. This way we have the legal aspect covered for rights and benefits, and the religious aspect covered for those who wish that aspect.

 

romalove
by SenseandSensibility on Feb. 12, 2013 at 10:48 AM
2 moms liked this

I find this very simple.

"Any two non-related consenting adults may be legally married and have all benefits afforded to married couples."

Done.

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Feb. 12, 2013 at 10:58 AM

 

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I like marriage.  I think that society has an interest in promoting such a union.  I also think that consenting adults should be allowed to arrange themselves in any sort of marriage that they wish.  If two women want to be married, I'm okay with that.  IMO, society benefits when adults commit to eachother to such a degree, so there is no harm in homosexuals making such a commitment.

You mean two consenting adults, right?

Why should marriage be the exclusively-allowed arrangement?  Why do you support access for gay couples to the bundle of rights associated to marriage, but not address the platonic relationships as I mentioned in the OP?

Think about it:  a caretaker staying with someone for 20 years, becoming that person's best "family," but not in legal terms because there is not a designation that fits them.

A mother and daughter living together as platonic companions, sharing in childcare and the household duties.  Why can't they have the same rights that you support for gay couples?

Two brothers living together, two roommates living together long-term, in each case platonic, and they do not find marriage accesible to their relationships because it is imbued with implications of a sexual relationship...if you are for the equality of gays, what about these other, very likely more numerous relationships?

Assume that gay marriage becomes legalised: why would it be okay for the state to be discriminating between sexual couples and platonic partners?  There has to be a very good reason to do so. Any good reason to legalise marriage falls apart when it is broadened to same-sex couples, and therefore fairness and consistency would compel us to dismantle it as a legal status and convert all existing marriages to domestic partnerships.

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Feb. 12, 2013 at 11:00 AM

 

Quoting romalove:

I find this very simple.

"Any two non-related consenting adults may be legally married and have all benefits afforded to married couples."

Done.

 And you're comfortable with platonic relatives not having access to those benefits?  Remember, close-blood relatives do not have all the same rights as married couples. How could that be okay to you?

romalove
by SenseandSensibility on Feb. 12, 2013 at 11:01 AM


Quoting Meadowchik:

 

Quoting romalove:

I find this very simple.

"Any two non-related consenting adults may be legally married and have all benefits afforded to married couples."

Done.

 And you're comfortable with platonic relatives not having access to those benefits?  Remember, close-blood relatives do not have all the same rights as married couples. How could that be okay to you?

They aren't couples.

JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Feb. 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM
2 moms liked this
I just completely disagree with your premise that the whole argument for extending rights to gay couples falls apart if you don't include platonic arrangements. There has never been the expectation that these rights would or should extend to platonic relationships. The expectation for the overwhelming majority of these arrangements are that the are somewhat temporary. They are not typically looking to make a lifetime commitment to eachother.

And just because homosexual couples can't procreate with each party contributing DNA, does not mean that many of them don't seek to create families that include children in one way or another. Protection of the children and preservation of the child's relationship with their parents is a big factor in why society benefits from supporting the institution of marriage.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:


 I like marriage.  I think that society has an interest in promoting such a union.  I also think that consenting adults should be allowed to arrange themselves in any sort of marriage that they wish.  If two women want to be married, I'm okay with that.  IMO, society benefits when adults commit to eachother to such a degree, so there is no harm in homosexuals making such a commitment.


You mean two consenting adults, right?


Why should marriage be the exclusively-allowed arrangement?  Why do you support access for gay couples to the bundle of rights associated to marriage, but not address the platonic relationships as I mentioned in the OP?


Think about it:  a caretaker staying with someone for 20 years, becoming that person's best "family," but not in legal terms because there is not a designation that fits them.


A mother and daughter living together as platonic companions, sharing in childcare and the household duties.  Why can't they have the same rights that you support for gay couples?


Two brothers living together, two roommates living together long-term, in each case platonic, and they do not find marriage accesible to their relationships because it is imbued with implications of a sexual relationship...if you are for the equality of gays, what about these other, very likely more numerous relationships?


Assume that gay marriage becomes legalised: why would it be okay for the state to be discriminating between sexual couples and platonic partners?  There has to be a very good reason to do so. Any good reason to legalise marriage falls apart when it is broadened to same-sex couples, and therefore fairness and consistency would compel us to dismantle it as a legal status and convert all existing marriages to domestic partnerships.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
rccmom
by Gold Member on Feb. 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM

 

Yes, I did read it. I think I may agree with the first statement, but I have problems with it. It says SSM marriage is not a form of legal discrimination. I am not sure why they worded it that way. Hetero marriage is a not a form of discrimination either, until you make hetero the only legal form of marriage. Then it is discriminatory.

And that's also the only way to be consistent with the pro-ssm arguments. If indeed, as pro-ssm arguments insist, procreation and sex are not a legal requirement of marriage, then the institution imbued with such understandings should be left as a private matter and separate from state and legal affairs.

I am not sure I understand the above either, but I may be particularly dense today. I do not agree that it says pro ssm arguments insist.... because that is not the way marriage is defined today. We do not insist that procreation be a part of marriage or we would not allow post menopausal women to get married, or those who are infertile to marry. I am not sure when it says procreation and sex, does that mean the act of sex, or male and female sexual identity. If it means the action of sex, gays and lesbians do have sex within the context of marriage. So to me, that is setting up a false argument that is not consistent with the way most heteros define marriage these days.   

For the underlined sentence, no it is not clear. Let me try to clarify. Today marriage is, IMO, less religious, and more of a social contract in nature. If my husband is in the hospital, I as his wife am immediately recognized as the closest relative. If we divorce, I have legal protections that give me part of his retirement. I have the legal benefits of being covered by his insurance because I am married to him. All this is social in nature, and protected by the legality of marriage. Those aspects are not religious in nature. The pastor of the church I was married in pronounced us husband and wife, but not without the legal license inssued by the state. 

So, I think anyone wanting to enter into the social contract of marriage, where 2 people emotionally support each other, work together in life to succeed, possibly raise children together, and are committed to one another should be allowed the legal and social aspect of marriage. Also, I believe that anyone who wishes to enter into the religious definition of marriage, where the 2 shall become one, and God really does not approve of divorce, so be committed to the long haul and working at it, should be allowed a religious ceremony as long as the church is willing. Some churches will bless a homosexual union, and some will not. 

This way we still have marriage, but we also have a legally binding way for couples to codify their union and have it recognized by the state.  

 

Quoting Meadowchik:

So you think that domestic unions should be the only allowable legal status?

Did you read the OP essay?  Hopefully that should make the poll wording clearer.

PS The underlined sentence in your reply does not make sense to me.

Quoting rccmom:

I am not sure about the wording of your choices. I think that homosexual unions should be allowed to become marriages. However, I think since marriage has such become a socially legal contract that it should  be for a domestic union. Then, of anyone wishes to be married in a church in a religious ceremony, that should be up to the church. Some churches will marry gay couples, and some won't. This way we have the legal aspect covered for rights and benefits, and the religious aspect covered for those who wish that aspect.

 

 

 

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Feb. 12, 2013 at 11:12 AM

 

Quoting romalove:

They aren't couples.

 So it's okay for the government to discriminate between couples and platonic partnerships?  Why?

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN