[Vision2020] The Damage Done in this Community

[amy smoucha]

LuJane,

Your question is a really good one.  I think the many discussions about 
marriage for gays & lesbians are going awry because we are not all taking 
about the same things.  The idea of "marriage" covers at least three totally 
independent institutions:  a civil, legal institution; a sacred institution 
that is a sacrifice in many religions, and a cultural institution.

Gays and lesbians already participate in the cultural institution--we live 
in couples, even have children, share finances, care for our elder family 
members, buy houses, socialize and move around the world as a couple, grieve 
. . . just like those in heterosexual relationships.

Some gays and lesbians would like to have access to the sacred institution 
of marriage, and that, too is happening at some level.  Some churches 
perform marriage or union ceremonies for gay & lesbian couples.  This 
institution has many, many purposes--it makes the relationships sacred, 
pursues a public blessing and the approval of family and friends, creates 
the opportunity to make promises to each other and take vows . . .

It is the third institution--the civil, legal institution--that is on the 
table.  I truly think the many people and elected officials who adamantly 
oppose gay marriage really oppose the cultural and sacred institutions 
expanding to include us, but the only thing they can control, at the moment, 
is the civil institution.

Because we cannot participate in civil, legal marriage:
--when we have children and our relationship dissolves, laws about child 
custody and parenting don't apply (and the children are not protected by 
ensuring the support and access of both parents);
--when one of us is critically sick, the other is not the "spouse" with 
rights to make medical decisions;
--we don't have access to benefits provided through Social Security that 
married couples can count on in some cases of disability and death;
--unless a state specifically creates rights, we don't have access to 
unemployment insurance if our spouse is relocated
--unless a state specifically creates rights, we can't get healthcare 
through a spouse's employer, or education or other benefits related to a 
spouse's employment.

If we create a separate legal institution, and it bestows *exactly* what 
civil marriage bestows on other couples, we are effectively allowing gays 
and lesbians to marry.

Hopefully in my lifetime,

Amy Smoucha

----Original Message Follows----
From: "LuJane Nisse publisher" <lujane@lataheagle.com>
To: <thansen@moscow.com>, <vision2020@moscow.com>
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] The Damage Done in this Community
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:25:05 -0800

is there another way gays could be "married" without calling it
"marriage"... would that not satisfy the masses? As long as the contract was
"as binding" as a marriage contract (just a thot).  The goal is to protect
the union as far as children, assets, insurance, etc. (if I understand it
right). The religious sector, those against this "gay marriage" object to
calling it marriage as that is reserved for a union before God (if I
understand them right). Could the two be bound another way? That could
satisfy both groups.


   -----Original Message-----
   From: Tom Hansen [mailto:thansen@moscow.com]
   Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 6:02 PM
   To: LuJane Nisse publisher; Dan Carscallen; vision2020@moscow.com
   Subject: RE: [Vision2020] The Damage Done in this Community


   This brings to mind a statement made a long, long time ago.  I believe it
went something like:

   "People fear those things they do not understand"

   The problem (I think) is getting people to understand.

   The question is "Why not allow same sex marriages?"

   Do people think that if same sex marriages are outlawed that gay couples
will not cohabit?  Here is a news flash.  People (heterosexual and
homosexual) are going to live together and "indulge" whether they are
married or not.

   The church may not recognize a same-sex marriage.  So be it.  Each state
of the Nifty Fifty (as I like to call them) establishes laws unto
themselves.  A marriage, according to the church, is sanctified.  A
marriage, by statutory law, is a "contractual" obligation between two
people.

   Certainly if I were a religious person a marriage of two people of the
same sex may go against my religious convictions.  But that does not
disqualify them from "equal justice under the law".  A same-sex marriage,
whether it exists next door, down the street, across town, or across the
country, is not going to impact on me as a person, me as a contributing
member of society, and most certanly not as a husband to my wife.

   Take care,

   Tom Hansen
   My spouse's significant other

_________________________________________________________________
Click here for a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963