Join the Impact is organizing a nationwide protest against Proposition 8, the silly ballot question that banned same-sex marriage in California, in reaction to the legalization of marriage in that state. Join the Impact has organized gatherings in cities in every state this Saturday, November 15th, to express our opposition to Prop 8 — check their Web site for locations — including one in Boston at 1:30 p.m.
I’ll be going to the gathering in Boston. The organizers are working on permits for City Hall/Government Plaza, but it’s not finalized yet The organizers have confirmed that City Hall will be the location. Check their blog, or their Facebook event page for latest news.
As the organizers put it: “This is not just a California issue! This is an issue of equality for all Americans!” Even though same sex marriage is legal here in Massachusetts, it would be very good if we could get a large turnout of people across the country to show support for same-sex marriage.
If you can’t go yourself, let all your progressive friends know about this event! (And thanks to Erin for letting me know.)
Why don’t people use the argument that all the state is doing is supporting a contract between two people – same sex, opposite sex or whatever. The religious aspect to this contract is up to churches if they want to be involved.
Ed Steinfeld @ 1 — That’s exactly the argument I use, and have been using for some time. If we’re serious about the separation of church and state (and sometimes I wonder how serious we really are), then that’s exactly the way it should be. This, of course, is the way it’s done in France and other countries — you go to City Hall to get married, and then if you wish you can go off to a church for a religious ceremony.
I’ve been using the same argument for some time. Legal contract with the state for everyone. Religious ceremony is between you and your church and the state cannot dictate one what the church recognizes or not.
If we’re serious about the separation of church and state…
Then wouldn’t we be advocating getting the state out of the marriage licensing business?
Seems to me we’re doing just the opposite here.
Bill @ 4 — You’re confusing the legal/governmental contract that is called marriage with the religious ceremony that is called marriage. Same name, two very different things. Marriage in our culture does not require the religious ceremony, but it does require the legal aspects.
Note what E says above @ 3 (and E is a lawyer, she knows a contract when she sees one). Her point is that there are two kinds of marriage:– state-sanctioned marriage (a legal contract, which carries with it certain rights granted/guaranteed through the government), and religious-sanctioned marriage (a religious ceremony, important for religious, not contractual reasons).
Note, too, that religions do not require a marriage license from city hall for a valid religious ceremony (although we may require other things like marriage counseling or classes). This shows that marriage licenses are not a religious requirement but a government requirement. Thus it is nonsensical to ask the state to get out of the marriage licensing business, because marriage licenses are a specifically governmental function.
What Ed and E and I are saying is — separate the two kinds of marriage.
No I am not Dan. Far from it. I’m repeating the standard Libertarian position that Government should get out of the business of licensing marriage.
If couples (or more) feel a need to go to a Church for a religous ceremony, then fine.
Otherwise, Gov should get out of the business of licensing marriage. It inevitably means discriminating and defining what marriage is, and who can marry. As long as UUs feel there is a need for Gov to license marriage, we are stuck with the need to establish criteria for marriage. It makes a mockery of our Marriage Equality theme and I think most people see right through it…
Illinois law prohibits first cousins under age 50 from marrying. Is that a violation of equality? You can argue it, but your still left with where should Government draw the line? Yes or No on first cousins at any age? Three cousins ok?
One of the few things the Libertarian GOP candidate said (I’m blanking on his name) was government should simply get out of the licensing business all together.
He was right.
I mean one of the few things he said I thought made a lot of sense…
Bill @ 6 — Thanks for clarifying! Whew! I thought you were headed in the other direction, towards the people who say the churches should run marriage and make the government defend the legal rights of marriage, and that’s not the Bill Baar I know and enjoy talking with!
I think the Libertarians have an interesting argument when it comes to marriage, and I’ve had some interesting conversations with some of them. But I don’t go that far, because I think government should license marriage for one very good reason — to protect kids. Marriage is really good for children. Making sure children are safe (i.e., protecting those who can’t protect themselves) is an appropriate function of government in my view.