Marriage is a Bad Word

I bow down hublmy in the presence of such greatness.

Yawn.. is the same mantra of all right wingers as of late. "Is not about marriage you selfish gays, it's all about jobs and the economy."

Is a Porn producer the best you can do for commentary? Surely you could reach into the blogosphere for credible sources.

I'm so glad you pointed out the issue is a legal issue left to the state to create or dissolve...I've been trying to explain this to people! The institution of marriage is the purview of the state, and is only granted to religious institutions to confer upon its congregants. This is without regard to any traditions that existed before the development of the state! Thank you for posting!!

Dear Michael Lucas, get a grip. The word marriage "is" important. You say we "should" be fighting for a different institution? Why Michael? I am not a second-class citizen, and I do not want a marriage substitute. Marriage is not a religious institution and fundamentalists do not own it. Advocating such a thing is saying they do. Those people you wrote about who would support us having unions but not marriage are no different than those who offered black people water fountains, but didn't let them drink from their own. It's wrong, and supporting discrimination is not going to get us anywhere. Why are you so sure the Supreme Court will not strike down DOMA? It's clearly unconstitutional and was shot down by a Republican judge. No. You are clearly a beautiful man and I'm happy you were able to marry. But "marriage" is not a bad word as you claim and we cannot be asked to retreat every time religious people stake a mistaken claim on a societal institution they do not own.

While I agree with some of the sentiment, I feel that if falls flat in the face of some real world applications. Those working in the field of medicine might have some of the most poignant stories to illustrate this. Couples with all the legal powers of attorney denied visitation rights because 'only family' are allowed. Even where civil unions fall short because people do not recognize the term 'partner' as meaning the same thing as husband/wife/spouse. The term marriage is important, not because of the feel-good aspect, but because people will, psychologically, view the union of two people differently if one is called marriage and the other is called a civil union. Many people will not take partners (same-sex or opposite) in a civil union as seriously devoted to their relationships as two people who are married. It's not because married people cheat less or are better at taking care of each other, but because of cultural perceptions that we all face, and cannot escape.

I tend to agree. What we have is a semantic squabble. AND there is a legal issue almost every one ignores. IE: There is no such thing as LEGAL religious marriage. "By the power and authority granted to me by the state of (fill in the blank) I now pronounce you..."(married). All legally conractual marriages are civil contracts. State marriage license; and if it doesn't work out a state court to dissolve the union. There are churches a plenty that will marry anyone, but only the state certifies the legal contract that establishes the union. So, maybe we have to get the idea across that only civil unions are legal contracts and the rest is whatever you believe and has no standing in court and no LEGAL meaning!

Something I was saying for years! Thank you Lucas!!! we are not moving anywhere for a long time, yet spending lots of money fighting right wing bigots.

Mr. Lucas makes an interesting argument. From a strategy point of view, one can argue that if we don't fight for full marriage equality, we won't even get civil unions. As we've seen in Hawaii, anti-gay bigots will fight civil unions as much as they fight marriage because they want us dying alone in hospital rooms without our partners in hopes we have "deathbed conversions" to their religion, or they just plain want us dead. On the other hand, there are many people, like my parents near Seattle, who voted in favor of Washington State's Referendum 71, which basically granted the equivalent of civil unions through domestic partnerships, as in Oregon and California, who would not have voted in favor of the word marriage. However, if we hadn't gone for full marriage equality, would they even have considered civil unions as a compromise? Let the dialogue about this continue.

You don't understand that words mean A LOT legally. Whole legal decisions have been based on where a comma falls, let alone a single word. Just look at Supreme Court cases involving the right to bear arms or immigrant rights. Whole sections of rulings are based on what the word "arms" means, historically and today, or whether a law affecting immigrants refers to any "person" or "citizen." With that being the case, "marriage" is the only word that the Supreme Court has ruled is a constitutional right (via the right the privacy). So anything not called "marriage" can be taken away, because only constitutional rights are inalienable. In short, civil unions do not suffice because anything called a "civil union" can be taken away if, for example, put up to a vote. Only constitutional rights, like marriage and freedom of religion, are secure.