Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

getting married is your patriotic duty

Page: 1(2)

16:37 / 25.03.02

quote:Originally posted by bitchiekittie:

back to marriage, though: so what do you propose marriage-minded folks do...should they skip the whole shebang because of the historical implications of the thing, or just skip the legal bits to prevent buying into a system which excludes certain groups? and at which point do we stop skipping it at all - when its honestly equal for everyone, or will it never shed its negative past?

I feel like I missed a bet here, because now I think the thing to do would have been to just skip the whole wedding/marriage thing & do my part in dismantling a legal institution that I don't believe in.

Drat.

pointless and uncalled for

17:06 / 25.03.02

So for those of you excluded from the whole institution and system of marriage, what happens when you're presented with marriage on a non-theory level.

Do you try to dissuade engaged friends, decline invitations, turn down the position of best person/person of honour?

This is not a troll, I am genuinely interested.

Given my present state of affairs I have never had my ethics/tested in that fashion.

I know that I'm the one sadly lacking here but still I would like to know.

17:33 / 25.03.02

thats another issue: do you villainize people who indulge in marriage, complete with the legal aspects of it? do you think that someone who does is honestly wrong, or is that opinion strictly left to theory? what if their religious (or “moral”) beliefs restrict them to a degree where they dont feel that they can carry on with a physical relationship until theyve been married? should their empathy then carry on to a life of celibacy?

edited to add that Im in no way meaning to imply that your points are invalid or wrong; rather that marriage is one of those things that exists on so many levels for so many different groups, and its importance to some groups/individuals shouldnt really be underestimated or nullified.

[ 25-03-2002: Message edited by: bitchiekittie ]

18:06 / 25.03.02

i got married when i was young and foolish.

so that's my lame excuse. now i'm old lazy entrenched have children by adoption which i couldn't have gotten (prolly) if i'd not been married and i love my partner but i'm
(you might have guess)
AMBIVALENT about my own status. should i get a divorce in order to be more pure? (I'm a big anti-purity person, on the other hand, which helps when I want to go on any kind of leftist Puritanical vent . . .)

Whew. True confession, that. so i'm constantly wrestling with this issue, and generally just make myself miserable at weddings. and others, when i can. heh heh.

alas!

19:08 / 26.03.02

Im getting married.
Im trying to work the word "heteronormative" into the vows.
The lady in question, she likes marriage so much she will be doing it for the third time.

I almost got married to help someone get a green card. Then I realized, wait, theres a deadline here in a couple weeks, and Id like some more time to think it over. Then I realized I probably wouldnt want to share a bank account & credit card with someone I just met who was willing to wait until the last minute to look for ways to stay in the country.(No extension forms filed or anything previously, as far as i remember.) The would-be matchmakers hadnt known her that long either.

I go back and forth on the civil institution of marriage, but I was raised to believe it was a sacrament displaying the joining of two souls in a divine union, mimicking Gods love for All Creation. Which is free for all people.

I also perform weddings for people. I currently understand marriage as a public statement of a private status, that one person has found another person that makes the two of them feel like something more than two people. A way to get the community involved in matters of the heart & soul. I like that.

I loathe bureaucracy, though. And exclusion. Ive offered to do a few "commitment ceremonies" for gay acquaintances, but it hasnt happened yet.

pointless and uncalled for

15:06 / 27.03.02

Given that the legal status of gay marriages has come up not just a few times on this board, there is one question that has come to mind and never seemed an appropriate time to ask.

I'll ask this now, because my curiosity is piqued.

If, as I understand the case to be, the British government respects the legitimacy of marriages performed in other countries, do they then apply the same respect to legal gay marriages of the same nature?

Disclaimer: This is not in any way, means, shape, form or method designed to indicate or imply that I am trying to offer a solution to an existing defficiency of human rights.

The same question can be applied to other nations and states.

16:31 / 27.03.02

They would; and this is the same reason why moves to make gay marriage legal in certain states (Vermont and Hawaii) have failed - because it sort of defaults into a national issue.

pointless and uncalled for

16:34 / 27.03.02

I was under the impression that certain states already allowed gay marriage.

16:59 / 27.03.02

only one at a time. and fairly slowly, sometimes met with *lots* of conflict

17:41 / 27.03.02

Really? I thought they all just passed a bill, made gay marriage legal, and then had the law overturned by some suit or another.
Huh. It'd be cool if I was wrong on that.

pointless and uncalled for

17:46 / 27.03.02

I can't see the bible belt signing that bill.

18:45 / 27.03.02

throwing some info out here, in order for us to be a bit better informed:

"The Netherlands is the only country in the world that allows same-sex couples the freedom to marry, providing gay and lesbian people the full range of protections, responsibilities, and benefits that come with civil marriage. A series of laws ending discrimination in civil marriage went into effect April 1, 2001."

for the us:

"US Status of Marriage
No where in the United States of America can a same-sex couple legally marry. In 2000, Vermont passed a law permitting a "civil union" program, mimicking Vermont's state rights and benefits to couples, but none of the federal ones. Currently, there are 35 states with unconstitutional, so-called "Defense of Marriage Acts" (DOMA's), and 1 (Nebraska) that passed an anti-"civil union" bill."

holy shit Im uninformed. for more along these lines go here

18:45 / 27.03.02

here: http://www.marriageequalityny.org/y.html

Page: 1(2)