Should Straight Couples Stop Marrying Until Gays Have Equal Rights?

[ruggerson]

This seems to be a growing, civil rights statement to make. If enough straight couples and liberal straight churches stood up to the bigotry of the right, they could seriously affect the marriage industry, churches, local and federal government and impact this debate enormously.

It would seem to be a profound, moral and powerful way to make a stand until the laws are changed.

No one marries until everyone can.

[Cobalt Violet]

1. Yes. n/t

[babylonsister]

2. It's not going to happen. Sorry.

People are into their own lives and want to live their dreams, or occasionally, nightmares.
Some are great, but you'll never get the masses. Hell, they can't even vote in close to solidarity.

[ruggerson]

9. I have faith in the human spirit

Apartheid was stopped by people individually standing up for what is right.

The civil rights movement was partially launched by one brave woman refusing to move on a bus.

What's more powerful than two people in love standing up for the marriage rights of their gay brothers and sisters?

[babylonsister]

14. ruggerson, this will send your heart and change my mind!

Defiant church won't marry straight couples

MINNEAPOLIS -- A Minneapolis church has voted to stop performing civil marriages for heterosexuals because civil marriage isn't offered to same-gender couples.

"I will officiate at only religious marriages for same- and opposite-gender couples alike," said the Rev. Don Portwood of the Lyndale United Church of Christ. "I will no longer sign marriage licenses as an agent of the state of Minnesota, until the state of Minnesota recognizes the loving commitment of all couples."

The congregation's April 9 vote makes the church the second in the state to refuse to perform civil marriages. White Bear Unitarian Universalist Church made a similar stand a few years ago.

Lyndale joins a small group of churches across the country that won't perform civil marriages for male-female couples because same-sex couples aren't allowed to marry.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/defiantchurchwontmarrystraig...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2225986

[ruggerson]

16. thanks for posting that

I do indeed think it could work as a liberal, religious movement, much like the civil rights movement in the U.S. was born out of spirituality.

[babylonsister]

17. Then please nom. it for more eyes to see. nt

[ruggerson]

22. Just did

:)

[madeline_con]

3. And we're supposed to know the reason they're not married how?

[ruggerson]

8. Well apparently

Charlize Theron, amongst others, is making it known publicly that she will not marry her boyfriend until there is marriage equality in the United States.

The way for non-celebs to make it known would be to have commitment ceremonies instead of marriages and make it clear why.

It would be a grassroots movement which would impact individual families and groups of friends as it grew in scope.

[kevinbgoode]

4. I have watched my brother go through a divorce that

after 18 months, is STILL being fought in the courts. Frankly, NO ONE should get married any longer until the states dig up those archaic, 100-year-old family laws which govern the most basic functions of everyone's life and REFORM them. There is nothing more irresponsible than a state government which spends money passing stupid...and I mean STUPID...constitutional amendments to protect "benefits" of marriage that were never designed to be incidents in the first place. Every single, unattached, divorced or separated person should be outraged at this travesty and be demanding that these laws be changed to reflect reality. No citizen should be without an EASY means of designating decisions about his/her life whether married or not.

[BuyingThyme]

5. No, but straight couples should protest that

the Wingers, by defining straight marriages after the fact, are turning institutions of love into institutions of hate.

Straight couples should not allow insane people to define their marriages.

[cboy4]

6. If anything, it would help control the astounding divorce rate

in the bible belt where they like to say everything is a sin as long as it doesn't involve them.

[porphyrian]

7. I'm not sure that would work.

When we take back our government from corporations, fascists and fundamentalists, it should be easy to give gays equal rights with regards to legal marriage, even if some religions still reject the idea. Fuck 'em.

[Democrats_win]

10. This would be a huge problem for the "end-times" wing nuts.

As you know, the wing nuts think that gay marriage is a sign of the end times.

However, the Bible says that during the end times people will continue to get married just as before. Thus if people stop getting married, it won't be the end times. So don't stop getting married for the sake of gay marriage; stop getting married to save the planet.

Anyway....

[cynatnite]

11. Less people are getting married already...

44% of American adults are currently unmarried (2000 data). This number has been rising steadily: in 1970 36% of Americans were unmarried; in 1980 39% of Americans were unmarried; in 1990 41%of Americans were unmarried.
- "Marital Status of the Population 15 Years Old and Over, by Sex and Race: 1950 to Present," U.S. Census Bureau, 2001

http://www.unmarried.org/statistics.html#general

I really don't see how this would help gay marriage.

[ruggerson]

12. It could be called the "Marriage Freeze" n/t

[MuseRider]

13. I would but

this was not an issue (although it should have been) 24 years ago. If I was single now I would certainly in solidarity not get married. If we can't all do it then none of us should.

[babylonsister]

19. I've been married for 24 years, and despite lots of things, I'm

not about to diss marriage. I think you can be in solidarity w/o being gay or not married.
Yeah, big tent Dems! :evilgrin:

[Ayesha]

15. I'm a lesbian and I think it's silly

However, I do appreciate when hetero couples getting married ask their guests to donate to a group that fights for marriage equality. I think that's ultimately a more helpful act, as it supports the cause directly and is a much more direct statement than not getting married (which people choose for a myriad of reasons).

[SmokingJacket]

18. Hmmm... and forego health care until we have universal coverage

and not buy clothes until all garment workers are paid a living wage...

It's a good idea in theory, but it is asking for a lot of unselfishness from people.

[SPKrazy]

20. No

While I support gay people's right to have civil unions, I do not support marriage.

flame away

[babylonsister]

21. Why? And I'm not gay, just curious. nt

[SPKrazy]

23. I Believe Marriage To Be A Religious Institution

and I don't even think the government should give marriage licenses

the government should give civil union licenses to anyone that wants one

and marriage should be a religious institution and not a legal one.

[babylonsister]

25. Very interesting. I've going on 25 years of marriage, we aren't

religious at all, but it means a lot to both of us. :shrug:
And just today, my husband gave me some more papers "in case he dies". Sigh.
We're not religious, we just love each other.

[SPKrazy]

54. You Shoud Have A Civil Union

The state has no place in sanctioning religious institutions

Marriage is a religious institution, regardless of where, or how you were married.

Glad you love each other after 25 years

[theHOMOagenda]

27. Actually, Marriage is a civll contract

between you and your partner. There are 1,138 rights that you have because of this contract that are currently denied to me and my partner. Some of these are:

The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.

The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.

The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.

The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.

The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.

Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.

The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.

The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

You can read the rest at: http://hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16980

Religions cannot marry you... you must first be licensed to do so by the state.


:patriot:

[SPKrazy]

55. Civil Union Should Give You Those Rights

not marriage

marriage should be a religious institution

a Church should decide whether to marry you as a gay or not

but the legal rights should be conveyed to you, and to me, a straight married person, through a civil union

Marriage is a bad "marriage" between church and state in my opinion

[mondo joe]

62. But since the state IS giving out marriages - regardless of whether

you feel they should or not - shouldn't it be without discrimination?

[Misunderestimator]

76. But civil unions do NOT give those rights, while civil marriage does.

Why is that word so important to you? Why do you care if it's called a marriage? It's a word. I care about the rights that go with it, about the protection that goes with it for my partner and for my partner's child. The argument about whether marriage should be civil or purely religious doesn't even enter into this. This is ONLY about equality.

[REP]

33. Totally Agree

Civil unions for all. Religious ceremonies would have no legal status. Civil unions would have most of the rights and privileges of what is now called marriage (except for assuming the other party's debts or credit record and a few other things I'm too tired to think of) and would be available to any adults of legal age of consent.

I am not married to my SO of 14 years, and barring some disaster (like losing my health coverage), we won't be married because I do not believe in what "marriage" has come to mean. I made a promise to him, and I don't need the state or a priest or an angry god to hold me to it.

[SPKrazy]

56. Definitely, You Understand My Post

and I'm glad you agree

church and state should not be mixed as they are in marriage

[Misunderestimator]

47. Until marriage is NOT a legal thing, gays should be able to marry.

If civil unions carry the same rights some day as marriages of today carry for straight people, I'm all for it. What they are now is laughable.

[ruggerson]

51. Yep

It's akin to saying in 1915: well, I don't believe in voting, because it's an archaic institution that until now has been used by the landed gentry to oppress everyone else. Therefore, I dont' think women should have the right to vote, because voting itself is wrong.

That doesn't address the injustice or the inequity.

First, give same sex couple equal, full marriage rights. They have paid for it with their hard earned tax money.

Second, have a debate about what you want to call the piece of paper the government issues.

Don't put the cart before the horse.

[Misunderestimator]

52. Exactly. I get so tired of hearing "there should be NO marriages"

to me it's a cop-out for someone who doesn't want gays to have equality... just an easier way to get away with saying it.

[SPKrazy]

58. Well You Must Realize That A Lot Of People Are Against That

and just because you are for it doesn't mean it is going to change

Emphasis should be put on the idea that marriage is a bond between two people sanctioned by the church they are married in, and not the government.

Governments should give civil union licenses, or partnership licenses that convey partnership rights.

I'm sorry that you don't get to have your relationship recognized in the way you would like for it to be.

My state voted to have gay marriage made illegal.

What right does the state have to tell a church, if they so choose to marry gays, that they can't?

They don't. They might have a right to tell people that they can't have legal rights of partnership. But then you get into constitutional protections of all persons.

As long as it is an argument on the right of gays to marry, you are going to have a) the right wing against you; b) a law that is wrong on its face, just as state sanctioned marriage of heterosexuals is wrong

I just don't see it happening for you to be able to legally marry if you are gay due to this.

[ruggerson]

65. Your state voted to make CIVIL marriage illegal

Gays can still marry one another in your state in a church wedding (if they find a church willing to perform the ceremony). But the marriage has no validity under your state's law, because they were prohibited from obtaining a license. That's all your state can prohibit: getting a marriage license. They can't stop people from having a ceremony.

[Misunderestimator]

77. Good point. Gays can still marry in a church willing to do that...

yet the state has now made them second class citizens by law. How disgusting. So they can have the marriage, but none of the rights.

[SPKrazy]

57. The Law Should Be Changed

but why should the state and church be mixed?

marriage is a religious institution

gays should only be married if a church decides to marry gays

civil unions should be the legal route for gays and straights to have partnership rights

[ruggerson]

61. I have no problem with that

and largely agree with it.

But that's not what the issue at hand is.

At the present moment, gay couples don't have the luxury to debate whether civil marriage should be called "marriage" or "unions", because whatever it's called, they don't have access to it.

[SPKrazy]

64. Well, Let's Advocate For Changing The Argument

Instead of arguing that gays should be able to marry

let's start arguing that states shouldn't have a say in marriage

write legislators

write LTE's

grassroots baby.

I think the chances of getting marriage for gays legal in most places is about like trying to get ice not to melt in hell.

Peace

[ruggerson]

67. Considering the fact that the latest polling

in New York and New Jersey shows large majorities SUPPORT gay marriage, I think you're totally wrong.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid29478.asp

In addition, almost the entire region of New England now shows a majority supporting gay marriage. Polling shows similar surges in California.

It is merely a matter of time before all of New England and the mid Atlantic states, and more than likely California, have some form of legalize unions, if not marriage itself.

I think it's a generational issue and that over time, the opposition will crumble, much as it crumbled against interracial marriages two generations ago.

[SPKrazy]

71. Maybe, But Is That An Argument Not To Change The Argument?

Marriage is still a religious institution

the South isn't going to go for the kind of change you are talking about.

So the divide goes on

when the divide could disappear through change of understanding of how partnership rights are given.

[ruggerson]

72. Hey, I'm all for changing the word

if that resolves the situation. I have no problem with calling civil marriage rights "unions" and leaving the word "marriage" to churches.

But I don't think you are going to convince a young couple to go to City Hall and get a "civil union" in front of a Justice of the Peace. I think people are too attached to the word marriage. And a lot of people don't have a church wedding, so their civil ceremony is all they ever have.

[Misunderestimator]

75. Of course the state and church should not be mixed.

But we are talking about civil marriage and civil rights. Equal rights, pure and simple. It's ridiculous to simply say that gays and straights should both have civil unions. Of COURSE that's the way it SHOULD be. But that's not the way it is. Marriage, civil marriage, a contract that is legal between a man and a woman, is NOT legal between a woman and a woman or a man and a man. That's INEQUALITY and should be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[Finder]

74. I agree 100%. (nt)

[Warren DeMontague]

82. Logically consistent, except you leave out the fact that SOME religions

are okay with it.

[helderheid]

36. I'm actually with you - I don't support marriage, gay or straight - Civil

unions for all - leave marriage where it belongs - in the church.

[SPKrazy]

59. Yes It Is A Religious Institution

and the state should have no standing in a religious matter.

the state should have standing in a civil matter.

[Orangepeel]

24. mmm... nice gesture but there are better ways to make an impact

If, say, a restaurant wouldn't serve gays, it would make a difference if enough people boycotted the restaurant.

But, a straight person not getting married just impacts (punishes?) the straight person in question, not the people who are discriminating. "The marriage industry" might also suffer, but they aren't responsible for the discrimination either. Moreover, straight people can get married without spending money (except for the license, and I don't think that losing that revenue would hurt local governments much).

The laws should be changed to allow gays to marry, but I think it would have more impact to rally, write letters and, most importantly, get non-bigoted candidates elected.

But, like I said, it's a nice gesture of solidarity. Kind of like shaving your head because your friend has cancer. It doesn't cure the cancer, but it might make the friend feel less awful.

[ruggerson]

26. Well it wouldn't pre empt any of those things

you mention. But it could possibly catch on as a big media story, if enough churches and couples participated. Instead of putting a traditional marriage announcement in the newspaper, people could announce their commitment ceremony with a note of explanation on the bottom (another couple who will marry only on the day everyone can). Again, I liken it to the various public displays of support (and sacrifice) that non blacks gave in solidarity with the civil rights movement.

There's an old story about WW II. When the Nazis invaded Denmark, their first edict was that the Jews all had to immediately start wearing identifying Stars of David. The King had a clever response to that, and on the day the law went into effect, everyone in Denmark went out wearing a star of David.

There is strength in solidarity against repression.

[MuseRider]

28. K&R

Interesting discussion.

[Neil Lisst]

29. no,

[theHOMOagenda]

30. LOL

Is that the sound of your foot hitting the floor?

:rofl:

I wish I was straight so I could marry a girl on a whim and divorce her 32 days later just like eminumb.

The fact that my partner and I have been together for 10 years is just a fluke I guess.

[Neil Lisst]

31. no, just registering my response to the question of the OP

I seldom agree with proposals like this one, that involve some dramatic behavioral statement that isn't going to happen, but even if it did, would never go anywhere.

I consider such activities to be political snipe hunts, of equal use as real snipe hunts.

Besides, it's an illogical proposal. Marriage isn't the villain.

[ruggerson]

34. It's about standing in solidarity against bigotry and repression

of course marriage isn't the villain. If it were, the end objective wouldn't be marriage rights for all.

[Neil Lisst]

44. I think this kind of call to action doesn't work and doesn't help

The notion of refusing to get married because gays cannot is not about standing in solidarity against bigotry and repression at all. It's taking an action under the misguided notion it will help a cause. Not every idea is a good one, and that's where I place this one.

It's my opinion that things like the one proposed (1) don't achieve their objective, (2) don't help the cause, (3) don't persuade anyone who needs persuading, and (4) don't do anything positive to create marriage and marriage rights for gays.

Exactly who is this supposed to prevent from getting married? Do you really think a single person who really wants to get married will fail to get married to show "solidarity" with gays on this issue? I don't. I think people who don't want to get married will SAY they are doing it for that reason.

There are good ideas and good efforts than can be made to support gay rights and gay marriage, but I don't think this is one of them.

[ruggerson]

45. Don't really see it that way

This kind of solidarity worked very well in the sixties in the civil rights movement.

I'm actually of the belief that marches and demonstrations and rallies don't do much of anything except make the marchers feel temporarily good about themselves and their cause.

But grassroots creative efforts have a real history of success.

Gay rights has advanced as far as it has because of individual persuasion: people coming out of the closet to their families and friends, so that at this point, almost everyone in America knows someone, or has a family member, who is gay. This has helped dispel the lies of the religious right, because the average person knows that the average gay person is nothing like the caricature the religious right propogates. The second part of the movement has been activism on local and federal levels: organizing, getting the right people elected, strategizing for or against referenda, pushing legislation and using the courts as a system of redress.

This idea fits right in with the first arm of the gay rights movement. It would be a grassroots effort, which might succeed because it would get enormous media exposure. See the Charlize Theron squib above and the news story in LBN which evidences that this is a small but growing statement that individual religious congregations are making.

Of course, it's not the panacea, but it could be one small part of the movement to gain equality. A lot of straight couples and most churches would not participate, obviously, but a number of straight couples and a number of churches WOULD, if it caught on.

And if that changes the hearts or minds of a few people, then it's all for the better. IMHO.

[Neil Lisst]

46. we're simply disagreeing over tactics

I appreciate your point of view, and I understand the rationale.

I generally find most such proposals off message, irrespective of the cause or its relationship to the party. It does have one advantage, however. Young straight men who don't normally care about gay rights will think this is a great idea. Who knows? Maybe it will work.

[AtomicKitten]

32. Charlize Theron weighs in.

Charlize Theron received the Vanguard Award at the 17th annual GLAAD Media Awards for increasing "visibility and understanding in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community."

"This is very surreal for me because two years ago, I stood right here and won my Oscar for 'Monster,'" Theron said.

Last year, Theron said that she and her partner, Stuart Townsend, would not wed until gay and lesbian couples attained the legal right to marry.

"I feel so fortunate that I am in a relationship with a wonderful man," Theron said Saturday night. "I find it incredibly unfair that because of our sexual preference, we have the rights that we have, and that, because of someone else's sexual preference, they don't have those same rights."

[gatorboy]

35. Mmmmmmm....increasing "visibility"...

gllaarrghhh.....

[petronius]

40. LOL - very nice!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who got a bit side-tracked by that picture...

[Toucano]

37. I think it is neither profound nor useful.

Well intended, but useless.

How would anyone know? Who would feel the pressure? It will really send the bigots scrambling!

Now, if straight couples want to organize hunger strikes on the steps of their state legislatures until the laws treat people equally, I'd support them.

[ruggerson]

38. Standing up for human rights is always profound

regardless of the specific issue. And people would know why couples were choosing not to be married, because the couples would tell them.

[Toucano]

79. It's not "standing up". There is no sacrifice.

They experience no discrimination for being unmarried, no suffering. What consequences with they face for taking this "stand"? What are they risking?

Zip. Nada. Nothing. It's naive and pointless. Weak as water activism. Nothing, regardless of the specific issue, has ever changed without risk and sacrifice.

People have to stop thinking that they've "done something" by writing a check or putting a bumper sticker on their car or wearing a fucking ribbon. "Sending a message" that's completely ignored is pointless.

As for them telling people, here's the conversation:

"Did you hear? Jennifer and Bill aren't going to get married until gays can get married."
"Whatever."

Real profound! Sure to usher in a new era of enlightenment.

[readmoreoften]

81. Yes, I suppose these people don't have families.

Of course they'll experience discrimination.

"Bob, you've brought that little lady of yours to the company picnic for four years in a row. When are you two gonna tie the knot?"
"Actually, Frank. We refuse to marry until our queer friends can marry. After all, Jane and I have only been dating for four years. Our friends Sara and Marsha have been a couple for twenty-five years."

"So, Bob, when are you going to make an honest woman out of my little Jane?"
"Actually, Mr. Smith, you may not understand this because you're a Bush voter, but your daughter and I will not get married until our gay friends have the same legal rights as we do. They are tax payers, you know."

"Jane, when are you and Bob going to tie the knot! I want a grandchild!"
"Not until the homos get theirs mom, not until then."

"Our wedding sales have dropped 40% this year!"
"Yeah, it really sucks working in the store room of this bridal warehouse. Hell, this is a blue state. Why don't they just let the fags marry already! Who cares!"

Not everyone is a passive latte liberal with passive latte liberal friends.

[readmoreoften]

78. When the marriage rate drops 10 extra percentage points

the marriage industry slows and feels a financial burden.

[Balbus]

39. I'll do my part!

[KAT119]

41. Great anti-bigotry statement-K&R-.

[SlipperySlope]

42. "everyone"?

You really didn't mean that, I know you didn't.

[msgadget]

43. No, hetero couples should start getting civil unions

Marriage is a church thing...

[Touchdown]

48. How would they taunt gays then?

It's obvious the only reason straight people get married is that gays can't! Why else would gay marriage be a threat?:crazy:

[Occulus]

49. No, they should BE STOPPED FROM GETTING MARRIED

Make them feel the pain for a change.

[SPKrazy]

60. Rotsa Ruck!

Straight people far outnumber gay people.

I'm sorry for your pain.

I think that the way to go is to push to take marriage out of the realm of the state's venue, and make it a religious matter as it really is.

Civil unions for all

[Midlodemocrat]

63. I'm one of THEM.

I have been married for almost 17 years. I believe wholly in gay marriage, but I don't think that by forcing pain on people we will get the message across.

We have to work to change the mindset of the fundies who believe homosexuality is a sin; the ones who quote the OLD testament and speak about being Christians.

They aren't Christians. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than going to a garage makes you a car.

[SPKrazy]

66. Rather Than Changing Their Minds About It

change their minds about marriage being a state issue

why should the state have a say in a religious matter?

civil unions for all is the answer.

I believe something along those lines is done in parts of Europe.

The state sanctions the unions and confers the rights of those unions

the churches sanction marriage which confers no rights except in that church

[kwyjibo]

69. Exactly. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[ruggerson]

70. I agree with you

I think that the "marriage freeze" should be undertaken entirely voluntarily by straight couples wishing to stand with their gay brothers and sisters and by churches wishing to take that same stand.

Married couples such as yourself could lend support to an effort in a variety of ways, mostly by giving moral support to such an idea.

[intheflow]

50. I love this idea.

It makes a justice statement AND it justifies my "living in sin" with usedtobesick even though I'm a minister. :)

[Strathos]

53. YES

It would be incredible for heterosexuals to show how horrible it is for us to not be allowed to marry.

[mtnsnake]

68. How about if all church-goers stop going to church until the church wakes

the hell up...concerning ALL their backward stances on moral issues, including abortion.

[Jose Diablo]

73. Well, I'm wondering if marriage licenses will come with an

expiration date. Something like they'd need to be renewed every 5 years or so.

[readmoreoften]

80. I have another proposal.

How about gay people no longer support the marriage industry by attending weddings of heterosexual friends. I don't. Am I supposed to be happy about YOUR wedding when my relationship gets spit on by the government? No presents, no bridal registry, no paying for your reception.

Haven't been to a wedding in three years.

And by the way, I know A LOT of straight people who have not gotten married in protest. They tell their families that they're staying engaged. It IS a protest.