(no subject)

[gwynhefar]

This is a wonderfully thoughtful and insightful post. Go read it. It'll help, really.

Comments

[silme.livejournal.com]

I rather like the point about civil marriage versus religious marriage. At first, I was resentful that the UK has civil partnerships and not gay weddings. But then I realised that my own wedding was a civil one performed in a registry office without any religion whatsover. Civil partnerships are registered in registry offices -- or any other place licenced for weddings that's not religious. There can be a ceremony -- it just has to be secular.

It's not what we had, but it's pretty darned close. Therefore, whilst I wish every couple wanting to get married could be married in a religious ceremony or a civil one, it's at least something -- and it's no less valid than our own civil ceremony was. At least all of the rights that go to straight married couples now apply to gay couples who have civil partnerships.

If the US could get that far, it would be incredible.

[gwynraven.livejournal.com]

As long as the civil partnership carries all the same benefits as 'traditional' marriage, I couldn't care less what they called it. Unfortunately many of the civil partnerships that are currently being touted as the 'separate but equal' alternative to gay marriage carry some, but not all, of the benefits.

Ideally, I would like the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. Have civil partnerships for everyone that confers civil benefits, and let the churches do the 'marriages'. That way you can either do a civil registration and get the benefits without the name, do a religious ceremony and get the name without the legal benefits, or do both, or neither; whatever you choose.

At least it would cut down on the confusion of definitions in religious/civil marriage. Not that I see that scenario really happening any time soon, but it's what I would like.

[gwynraven.livejournal.com]

Heh - that's exactly what I just said here.

[queenbookwench.livejournal.com]

I think all of her points are really good--I also think it's important to note that a lot of groups (especially from out of state) spent tons of money on ads to scare and confuse people.

From what I understand, California has a ton of propositions each election, and some of them are worded in very confusing ways. With lots of pro-8 ads on the TV, I could see someone getting a vague idea that, say, church marriage was threatened, and then when faced with the vast # of propositions, just reflexively vote with their gut and vote yes, without really pausing to think things through.

[gwynraven.livejournal.com]

Exactly.