Paranoia and Pop Tarts, but you know how we roll

Posts tagged marriage

12 notes

This is a stupid question

Is there any argument about “protecting marriage” that is not religious? Honest question. I’ve never heard anyone elaborate on this point. They just have to protect it because if they don’t… society will… collapse? Somehow? I assume that this is just hot air meant to cover up religious intervention in legal matters, which is, hopefully, becoming uncool by this point in the debate. Has anyone ever tried to back up that argument without using religion?

Filed under marriage

50 notes

Dear Madam President:

I have vetoed and am returning Chapter 88, Senate File 1308, an act proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution; adding a section to article XIII; recognizing marriage as only a union between one man and one woman.

Although I do not have the power to prevent this divisive and destructive Constitutional Amendment from appearing on the Minnesota ballot in November 2012, the Legislature sent it to me in the form of a bill. Thus, symbolic as it may be, I am exercising my legal responsibility to either sign it or veto it. Without question, I am vetoing it; and I urge Minnesotans to reject this mean-spirited, divisive, un-Minnesotan and un-American amendment.

One of the founding principles of our country, embodied in the First Amendment of the United States Constution, is the separation of church and state. Therefore, the religious definition of marriage should be the province of each established religion, without interference from government.

However, the civil, or legal, realm of marriage is the province of government; and it must conform to the protections and guarantes afforded every American citizen under our Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In other words, all American citizens are entitled to equal rights and protections under the law. That would clearly include the right of a citizen to mary legally the person he or she loves.

The path of social progress in this country has been to expand our founding principles to everyone. Even before the writing of the Constitution, even before their freedom was won, this country’s founders established the core principle of our democracy: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted….”

The authors and signers of the Declaration of Independence thus intended that governments be formed to secure every citizen’s rights, nto to selectively deny them or take them away. Of course, they overlooked women, African Americans, and others in their application of those equal rights. The path of social progress has been to include everyone, fully and equally.

This path of social progress, of human compassion and understanding, would be tragically reversed by this amendment. Minnesota is better than this. Minnesotans are better than this. I urge Minnesotans to reject this amendment.

Governor Dayton’s Letter Symbolically Vetoing the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment Bill (pdf)

Thank you, Governor. (via isopod)

(via squeetothegee-deactivated201111)

Filed under marriage politics minnesota

27 notes

German church weddings (as far as I know)

nanner:

scarygodmother:

erikawithac:

teallikethecolor:

haguenite:

retnuoc-clockwise:

[snip]

[snip]

Yup, you’re right. The waiting period varies (people elope to places like Reno because their waiting period is short/nonexistant, and I know in some places it’s as long as like three days) & in some states (Maryland I believe, probably others) you have to have a test done to prove you aren’t related, but basically yeah.

People bring religion into it because the conservative lying machine at the top has told the scared conservatives at the bottom that if same-sex marriage is made legal, then their churches will be FORCED to marry every gay couple that walks in and asks for a ceremony, which, no. 

Marriage itself is a civil institution in the U.S. The blurring of the lines with religion came about because religious officials can become licensed to officiate at wedding ceremonies and act as a representative of the government. I seem to recall reading somewhere that this practice came about back in Ye Olden Days of the U.S. when judges rode massive circuits and were lucky to swing by your town once a year, but almost every town had a preacher so they started officiating weddings. But I can’t find the source on that.

Also in some states you have to have a blood test. For what purpose, I know not. And I can’t possibly fathom how that’s even legal, but there ya go.

Some states require a blood test to verify that the applicants are not carrying syphilis, a sexually-transmitted disease.

This and more at the United States Marriage License page of Wikipedia!

Filed under marriage

27 notes

German church weddings (as far as I know)

haguenite:

retnuoc-clockwise:

  1. You propose marriage, someone says “yeah, why not”
  2. You set a date
  3. You do a lot of shit to get ready for that, friends and family help you
  4. You pick a church (I’m going Christian here)
  5. You book a place for the party
  6. You throw a big party called “Polterabend” where people smash old dishes and you have to clean them up
  7. The bride and groom have their bachelor parties. Which means they will be dressed up in silly outfits and have to sell shots, candy or something like that while embarrassing themselves horribly in public
  8. You marry 
  9. After the church you go to a restaurant or other rented space and celebrate and people give you gifts

(somewhere along the line you have to get legally married as well)

Dutch weddings (as far as I know)

1) Someone proposes, someone else goes YEAH LET’S DO THIS SHIT.
2) You organise things, mostly aided by your master of ceremony and maybe some other friends and family
3) You book an approved location for your legal wedding
4) You have your legal wedding, at city hall or an old city hall or at one of the other state-approved locations
5) Then you may have a religious ceremony, but you don’t need to. This is why it was so easy to allow same-sex couples to marry in The Netherlands: it’s legal/state marriage which was opened up to them, not religious ceremonies.
6) You’ll probably have a reception, with the people who were at the ceremony in attendance, but also with people you like, but don’t want to spend too much money on. They will probably give you an envelope with cash, which will most likely go to your honeymoon or house.
7) There’ll be a dinner, usually with close family and maybe a couple of friends. Somewhere between the reception and dinner you may take wedding photos. Anyone you want can be in them! People don’t have to be part of a special “wedding party” to be in your photos. It’s completely up to you.
8) Then there’s a party, with the people who were at the dinner, the people who were at the ceremony, and probably some other people you like more than the people who were just invited to the reception. You probably asked people to get babysitters for their kids. There may be a DJ or a band. There is most certainly an open bar, but just for wine and beer and such.
9) You stay at your own party until the end. This also appears to be a foreign concept to many Anglo-American folks. When you’ve said goodbye to all your guests, you may go to a hotel for the night or you may go home, where you’d already been living together anyway. 

Question/comment about civil and religious weddings. I am not an expert on this, but I’m pretty sure that in the US, you have to get your marriage license/certificate through the state. In the case of my dad’s wedding in Queens, they applied for a license, waited the requisite 24 hours, then had a religious ceremony and signed the certificate after that. But you can skip the religious bit and the fanciness and just go down to the courthouse and have a judge marry you. Regardless of the ceremony, the license comes from the state. But people are dragging religion into the same-sex* marriage debate (which, in theory, is a legal affair) because… they like to have their noses in everything, idk.

Do I have this right, people who know more about US marriage laws?

*I was going to write same-gender marriage, then I remembered that recognition of the rights of transgendered people is a clusterfuck all its own.

(via thatpassed-away)

Filed under marriage

32 notes

civillyunioned:

Senator and Granddaughter Hold Rival Gay Marriage Rallies 
Erica Diaz, 22, a gay woman who is the senator’s granddaughter, wanted  her grandfather’s supporters to know whom they were opposing.
“I am a Diaz; my family is very political,” said Ms. Diaz, whose pastel  pink shirt stood in contrast to her grandfather’s bright white cowboy  suit. “It is in my blood to stand up for what I believe in — regardless  of who I am up against.”
Ms. Diaz’s supporters, far smaller than the raucous rally on the  courthouse steps, numbered a couple of dozen, including her mother,  sister and girlfriend.
They spun rainbow umbrellas in the rain and shouted through a bullhorn  until a police officer said they did not have the proper permit.
It was years ago that Ms. Diaz told her grandfather that she was gay.  The experience, she said, was a positive one. “He told me that  regardless of my decision, he is my grandfather, and he loves me, and he  respects me,” she recalled. “I respect the fact he believes what he  believes.”
But she also spoke of the hurt that came with watching him fight against  what mattered most to her: her right to marry whom she pleased and to  serve in the Navy, where she enlisted as a young woman hoping to make a  career. Instead, she admitted she was a lesbian and was discharged  shortly before President Obama signed legislation repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy
Read the entire story

civillyunioned:

Senator and Granddaughter Hold Rival Gay Marriage Rallies

Erica Diaz, 22, a gay woman who is the senator’s granddaughter, wanted her grandfather’s supporters to know whom they were opposing.

“I am a Diaz; my family is very political,” said Ms. Diaz, whose pastel pink shirt stood in contrast to her grandfather’s bright white cowboy suit. “It is in my blood to stand up for what I believe in — regardless of who I am up against.”

Ms. Diaz’s supporters, far smaller than the raucous rally on the courthouse steps, numbered a couple of dozen, including her mother, sister and girlfriend.

They spun rainbow umbrellas in the rain and shouted through a bullhorn until a police officer said they did not have the proper permit.

It was years ago that Ms. Diaz told her grandfather that she was gay. The experience, she said, was a positive one. “He told me that regardless of my decision, he is my grandfather, and he loves me, and he respects me,” she recalled. “I respect the fact he believes what he believes.”

But she also spoke of the hurt that came with watching him fight against what mattered most to her: her right to marry whom she pleased and to serve in the Navy, where she enlisted as a young woman hoping to make a career. Instead, she admitted she was a lesbian and was discharged shortly before President Obama signed legislation repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy

Read the entire story

(via lezgethistorical)

Filed under glbtq politics dadt marriage

193 notes

Marauding Gay Hordes Drag Thousands Of Helpless Citizens From Marriages After Obama Drops Defense Of Marriage Act

bubonickitten:

lesbianoutlaw:

cognitivedissonance:

Reports continue to pour in from around the nation today of helpless Americans being forcibly taken from their marital unions after President Obama dropped the Defense of Marriage Act earlier this week, leaving the institution completely vulnerable to roving bands of homosexuals. 

DEAR GOD, THE CHILDREN!

Filed under gayness marriage lol

32,543 notes

tiaramerchgirl:

The attitudes in this picture frustrate and disturb me. They imply that there’s only one good way to have a relationship - long-term commitment - and that divorce, polyamoury, or quick decisions are undesirable.
People of all sorts of genders and sexual backgrounds have all sorts of relationships - including fucked-up ones. Fucked-up people have good relationships, and vice versa. The right to marriage includes the right of anyone to marry, regardless of why they’re marrying.
Not all relationships last, and I think it’s a huge problem that people are expected to make their relationships last beyond all time, because it doesn’t allow for natural endings, people changing and growing, and troubles & strife in the relationship. Divorce and separation can be healthy and preferable to an abusive or unhealthy relationship. And why does it matter how many times someone has married, how many partners they have or don’t have? People have their own journeys and their own ways of forming relationships.
And so what if you hook up in a second and decide to marry? Does that make your relationship any less valid? Is there a minimum length of time required before you marry, or shack up, or sleep with each other? You can know everything about someone you never met, hardly know someone you’ve known for ages, or know very different things about the same person compared to someone else. Again, we all have our journeys and our own relationships.
Let’s move away from the idea that there is a “sanctity of marriage” to protect. Hell, let’s move away from the idea of marriage as the only valid form of relationship, or that you’re only worth acknowledging and having rights if you are married.

Spot on commentary.

tiaramerchgirl:

The attitudes in this picture frustrate and disturb me. They imply that there’s only one good way to have a relationship - long-term commitment - and that divorce, polyamoury, or quick decisions are undesirable.

People of all sorts of genders and sexual backgrounds have all sorts of relationships - including fucked-up ones. Fucked-up people have good relationships, and vice versa. The right to marriage includes the right of anyone to marry, regardless of why they’re marrying.

Not all relationships last, and I think it’s a huge problem that people are expected to make their relationships last beyond all time, because it doesn’t allow for natural endings, people changing and growing, and troubles & strife in the relationship. Divorce and separation can be healthy and preferable to an abusive or unhealthy relationship. And why does it matter how many times someone has married, how many partners they have or don’t have? People have their own journeys and their own ways of forming relationships.

And so what if you hook up in a second and decide to marry? Does that make your relationship any less valid? Is there a minimum length of time required before you marry, or shack up, or sleep with each other? You can know everything about someone you never met, hardly know someone you’ve known for ages, or know very different things about the same person compared to someone else. Again, we all have our journeys and our own relationships.

Let’s move away from the idea that there is a “sanctity of marriage” to protect. Hell, let’s move away from the idea of marriage as the only valid form of relationship, or that you’re only worth acknowledging and having rights if you are married.

Spot on commentary.

(via creatrixtiara)

Filed under marriage

40 notes

Keeping Marriage From Gays Has Long Been a Focus of Chick-fil-A?

Chick-fil-A’s President and COO, Dan Cathy, went on video last night to address the ballooning controversy about the restaurant’s ties to nearly every sector of the anti-gay marriage movement. If an organization is anti-gay — Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage, the Pennsylvania Family Institute, Exodus International — the chances that Chick-fil-A has either donated to them, or worked with them via Chick-fil-A’s charitable branch is darn near 100 percent.

But Cathy doesn’t want you to think that makes his company anti-gay. It just makes them proponents of strengthening marriage.

“Heartfelt hospitality is at the core of Chick-fil-A. We want to welcome into a comfortable environment all of our guests, and this commitment is a daily focus,” Cathy says in the video. “Last week, one of our local franchise operators in Pennsylvania made the decision to provide food to two upcoming February events billed to strengthen marriage. Marriage has long been a focus of Chick-fil-A, starting with my own mom and dad who are celebrating their 63rd year of marriage.”

How nice that Cathy’s parents are celebrating their 63rd year of marriage. Know any gay couples celebrating their 63rd year of marriage? Nope. And you won’t until 2067 at the earliest (63 years after Massachusetts first legalized same-sex marriage in 2004). And that’s because many of Chick-fil-A’s friends work hard day in and day out to ban same-sex couples from getting married.

[…]

Oh.

(Source: lgbtqblogs, via )

Filed under oh marriage

12 notes

How much does your faith shape the way you view marriage?

I just realized last night how my atheism affects my attitude toward marriage. Whenever I hear people say that marriage is in the sphere of the church, I think

What are you talking about? No it isn’t.

To me, marriage is nothing more than a legal statement that you and your spouse are kin. I don’t know whether my lack of religious belief or lack of a romantic nature has more influence. I’m fairly certain that the atheism gives me my definition of marriage and my personality affects how much or how little I care about it.

How about you?

Filed under religion marriage the only time you will ever see me talk about my views on marriage