Do you want to marry?

Annasopra

I'm curious if we have any members who would agree with feminist/queer critiques of marriage as an oppressive institution? Or does everyone insist that they must have their big day out? If you are in a civil partnership do you think that all civil partnerships should be upgraded to marriage in the event of marriage equality?

Here's a long post with a queer critique

http://queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com/

Moon Indigo

Its an odd one. I personally would like the option of getting married rather than 'civil partnership' as I feel it down grades the commitment of my wedding for want of a better word.

Probably not on topic :pac:.. but recently it has been getting under my skin the way monogamous partnerships seems to be the only 'right' way to live life. I therefore in turn believe that yes marriage in its traditional format could be viewed through the lens of oppression. As with all oppression I think it should be looked at from a questioning perspective of.. who is oppressing who? and ultimately who does the oppression benefit/repress?

On a personal note yes I do want to mark my commitment in time but why in this day and age should marriage be the only way? There is alternatives and in time these may become an option for me. Sorry if this post make no sense!

Aurongroove

sure yeah.
I think marriage is a important milestone in one's life and has important social and family implications (a formal event in which family sees each other.)

you don't want a world were the only time family meets up is when someone dies surely.

Annasopra

Moon Indigo wrote: »

Its an odd one. I personally would like the option of getting married rather than 'civil partnership' as I feel it down grades the commitment of my wedding for want of a better word.

Probably not on topic :pac:.. but recently it has been getting under my skin the way monogamous partnerships seems to be the only 'right' way to live life. I therefore in turn believe that yes marriage in its traditional format could be viewed through the lens of oppression. As with all oppression I think it should be looked at from a questioning perspective of.. who is oppressing who? and ultimately who does the oppression benefit/repress?

On a personal note yes I do want to mark my commitment in time but why in this day and age should marriage be the only way? There is alternatives and in time these may become an option for me. Sorry if this post make no sense!

It makes total sense and it's absolutely what I was getting at. I personally want to marry (or civil partner once childrens rights are included) but I know many friends who want to stay unmarried in long term partnerships or want open relationships. I also recently met some people living in a commune in Israel. I guess what I'm trying to get at actually is that family comes in all shapes and sizes and I don't like the idea of a hierarchy of privelege where certain families are more important or socially acceptable or financially supported. I spent a week in April in Berlin at an LGBTQ socialist youth seminar discussing this.

You mentioned "alternatives" - to me this is another form of socially constructing privilege - creating a social norm and everything else is different and alternative.

lottpaul

I would like to have the option of civil marriage. I read the link from queer kids of queer families and I can see some merits on both sides, but to me it boils down to basic equality and freedom of choice.

We had our civil partnership and it was a lovely day etc but thinking back on it all it almost felt like picking up the crumbs that society had condescended to allow us, that others had deemed that CP was enough for us. (I know there are implications re the Constitution, referendums etc)
but:
We are citizens and all citizens should have the options freely open to all others.
There is no compulsion to marry and if people prefer civil partnership, cohabiting, monogamy, open relationships etc that's fine by me too.
But we should have the choice

stephen_n

Not again no, in fact I didn't the first time either but there were extenuating circumstances. I believe everyone should have the right but don't understand why people want it!

baby and crumble

Personally, yes, I am planning my CP with my partner- I use the language of "marriage" "Wedding" etc (well except for when I'm negotiating prices, then its just a big party :P) But in my heart I know it's not the same. I know if/when we have kids, it's going to be a problem, and unless full parenting rights are brought in, it's a very real issue. With kids, if something happens the a non-birth/ adoptive parent then so much is left to the goodness of that partners family re: the children in question. I'm not ok with that. But to be perfectly honest, I'm coming up to 30, been in my relationship for 8 years, and I want some protection for that relationship should the unthinkable happen. I want my partner involved in everything- I'm sure my family would bring her in, but you can never be 100% sure.

At the end of the day though, I want to commit myself to her, and to each other for the rest of our lives. I want to grow up, grow old, and grow together until we're two wrinkled up old bats in a nursing home, scandalising the nurses by reminiscing about having sex in the woods.

Captain Graphite

Personally I couldn't care less if I ever get married or not. I'd be perfectly happy with a long term relationship without marriage being brought into it. But I will always voice support for the rights of other people to be able to marry.

I found that article (the bits of it I had the patience to read) quite infuriating.

We’re also seeing another alarming story surface: If gays are ready to get married and have children, the AIDS crisis must be over! Gay men shaped up after AIDS hit, or at least the smart ones did. Those responsible enough to survive realized that they wanted children, and promptly settled down into relationships that were monogamous and that, presumably, carried no risk of HIV contraction. Come on. We reject all the moralizing about parenthood, responsibility, and sexual practice that goes on in this story. Besides the obvious fact that the AIDS crisis is not over, in the US or abroad, we realize that parenthood and non-monogamy aren’t mutually exclusive.

So we shouldn't campaign for gay marriage because it will make people magically forget about HIV?

The gay agenda continually fights for increased hate crimes legislation that would incarcerate and execute perpetrators of hate crimes. We believe that incarceration destroys communities and families, and does not address why queer bashings happen.

So gaybashers shouldn't be punished and should be given a heart-to-heart with a cup of cocoa instead of a jail sentence? By all means address why homophobia exists and battle to eradicate it but why should that automatically mean that a homophobic perpetrator has free reign to bash someone's skull in without fear of recrimination?

Perhaps there's merit to the point that the campaign for gay marriage takes up a disproportionate amount of resources and time. But encouraging people to turn their back on campaigning for a civil right that's being denied to them, via a grossly misinformed and unbearably pretentious blog post, isn't the way to deal with that.

Bottom line (and it may be a gross oversimplification but it rings true for me): if you don't want gay marriage, don't get one. But don't stand in the way of those who want one and want to campaign for it.

Ambersky

I feel very uneasy about what I see as the lack of criticism, reflection and questioning, of marriage as an institution. So thank you mango salsa for posting that article.

On a personal level I do support people who want to get married or have legal recognition of their relationships with a civil partnership. Who couldn’t be moved by the images and experiences of same sex couples who have loved one another for years finally getting legal recognition.

My main objection is that I don’t see why couples should be given privileges others are not.
Yes I want to celebrate and acknowledge peoples relationships and I want society to celebrate and support them too but I don’t see why single people or people in different family groupings don’t deserve the same respect and support.
It seems that sometimes in order to be supportive of Lesbian and Gay marriage you have to be ok with them having rights others do not.

The privileges of marriage are often financial and I am told marriage as an institution works best for those who are financially better off. For those people who are less well off it can be a financial disadvantage as in the case of social welfare payments being decreased when the partners income is taken into consideration.
I want to be given choices about who I would like to benefit from any financial allowances married couples get. I want to be able to will my house to someone without them having to pay a huge tax burden. I want to be able to designate someone as my next of kin whether I am now or ever have had sex with them or not.
A friend of mine believes very strongly that once marriage is legal for Lesbians and Gays it will have a domino effect and open all kinds of other doors. Conservatives and the churches seem to think so too.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good.

Maybe once the Queers are allowed into the marriage club they will actually turn around and open doors redefining marriage and campaigning for other people in or out of various kinds of partnerships and families.
Do we still have that radical spark the Vatican gives us credit for?

Goodshape

At the moment, personally, no. I'd like to think I can live my life, in or out of love, without the need to put societies stamp of approval on a relationship.

But that's just me personally. Maybe I just enjoy the occasional bit of non-conformity, maybe I've seen too many marriages go stale and the hassle that can bring, although I'm also open to having my mind changed at some point in the future.

I think being gay has allowed me a certain perspective on relationships that I might have lacked otherwise, but I don't really consider my point of view to be driven entirely by the fact that I'm gay. I have straight friends who I believe would feel the same way.


Regardless, I'd still fight all the way for equality. While marriage exists and is given special status (and in fact, even if it wasn't), I think the arguments for or against marriage are entirely separate to the need for equality. Let each individual involved make up their own mind.

The author of the article linked above (I only skimmed, sorry) seems to want us to band together into one big community, with shared values and a shared "gay" history and culture. I've been happily out now for about 7 years and I still struggle to see where or what that community is supposed to be. We haven't all come from the same place, we don't all share the same values, beliefs, history or goals. We are all gay so, yes, there's some common ground and often common struggles but we're far too diverse a group for anyone to say that this or that is what it should be for everyone involved.

So, marriage for everyone!

Eh, no marriage for anyone!

Em, marriage for those who want it, and miniature gay-flags for those who don't!

Pedant

I'm a long way off from even considering marriage get. I'm 21, not out and have a long way to go.

However, I think a lot of that article is just post-modernist nonsense and immature in many instances. I don't regard anything voluntary as oppressive. If you're not happy with your marriage, then get a divorce but don't go around undermining marriage saying that marriage is "oppressive" just because yours didn't work out.

I think long terms monogamous relationships, regardless of whether their same-sex or opposite-sex, make the best families. I don't understand why that would ever be put into question. The family unit is the cornerstone of any society. Of course, you don't need to be "married" to be in a long term stable monogamous relationship, that's just paperwork.

If you want to bring children into a relationship, you have to make personal sacrifices and make proper decisions for the welfare of the child. If you put yourself above the welfare of child and are not aware of the sacrifices you'll have to make, then, quite frankly, you don't deserve children. Bringing children into a relationship isn't to be taken lightly and you have to make certain that it'll be brought up in a stable home. You should only consider bringing in children if you're sure you're in a long term stable relationship.

However, I don't think that marriage should be a state issue. I believe in marriage privatisation (in order to consolidate these views, however, there'd need to be pretty revolutionary changes made in terms of taxation).

toexpress

It's a complicated one, I'm a conservative in my views and beliefs. Up until a couple of years ago I would have said that no I do not believe that any form of gay marriage/civil partnership is something that we need.

More recently I have come to the view that if I was with someone and it mattered to them then I would run with it to make that person happy.

My issues with it relate entirely to the effects that it may have on the constitution of the family. While lots of marriages now end in divorce and that's life I think that they have a better chance of going the distance than a gay marriage and for the benefit of children that may be involved this important. I know that may sound a bit hard and perhaps a bit right wing but there we go that's my own view

Ambersky

I have a difficulty with the names of certain campaigns.
Campaigns choose names that are righteous and positive and would be difficult to argue against. Titles like Pro Life, who would be against Life, when are you arguing against them are you therefore Pro Death? I think that is the intention to put others in that situation.
Similarly with Marriage Equality.
Im not sure about the catch phrase "All We Want Is Equality".
Who is going to stand up and say I am against Equality except bigots and homophobes.
I want to ask questions. In the early days of Gay Rights the Hirschfield Centre had a demand in their constitution that they were Looking for Equality with their Heterosexual Counterparts. Many of the women were not happy with that because in the 70s and 80s in Ireland women and men were most definitely not equal. There was a marriage bar, unequal pay, inability to control reproduction etc etc. Lesbians in politics have a history of seeing the inequality often hidden in the Equal Rights Campaigns.

So when we look for Marriage Equality who and what do we want to be equal to. Are we looking for equal access to the top rung of the ladder so that we too can feel superior to others not in the same kind of relationship as us.
Are we looking for a social statement of how wonderful we are because we are in a couple and therefore deserving of tax exemptions, succession rights and other privileges granted to us by the state and society that will be denied others simply because they are not in the same kind of relationship.
What kind of Equality is that?

Moon Indigo

For me I would feel exactly in many respects as Baby and Crumble. We are together 11 years and I am nearly thirty yet at times my relationship feels 'less'. Its hard to explain but yes I/ we could live content in a our long term relationship but we plan to start a family. I want to be able to provide not only emotionally, financially but also sensibly for both her and my children. I am 'fairly' sure my family would accept her wishes should the worst ever happen. But why after all those years should that be enough? Its just not good enough.

In my view there has to be a paradigm shift with relation to what marriage means rather than who it entails. The traditional ideology of marriage being the cementing of two people one man and one woman in the act of.
Like was said this could and should open doors to other ideas about what a relationship is. Must it be a humans? Must it be two people etc? Again the point was raised regarding privilege.

To me the starting point is at that junction of questioning and these seeds are planted through information, education and openness. In short I feel yes marriage should be an equal right not a dictatorship and CP is my view crumbs to quell the disquiet within the ranks. But maybe the issue rest in re-visiting and re-addressing if marriage in both name and concept may be archaic in its current guise.

Annasopra

I think there's a danger when we discuss family structures of completely villifying single parent families and other diverse family structures. Some of what we've discussed in here so far has been very prescriptive about what the ideal family structure should look like which is very interesting but then there's no attempt to consider anything else outside this "ideal"

Irish Aris

Generally I think that the option of marriage should be available to everyone who wants to go for it.

Personally, the civil partnership would do for me. My way of life/way of thinking doesn't include children, don't know if I would think differently later in my life (rather unlikely, I am already 40 years old), so no immediate concern on this.
I find civil partnership important. If you are long term with somebody, you need some kind of assurance if something bad happens to one of the two. You can never be sure who the families would react, so better to be safe.
I don't see the civil partnership as something oppressive/suppressive etc. When I am in a long term relationship, I make a commitment to my other half and. . .this is it actually. I am with him, strictly monogamous, there is nothing else "playing" around.
And on a more general note, It's so good that Civil Partnership for gay couples exists in Ireland. In Greece, where I come from, we are not even close to that.

Conor30

mango salsa wrote: »

I'm curious if we have any members who would agree with feminist/queer critiques of marriage as an oppressive institution? Or does everyone insist that they must have their big day out? If you are in a civil partnership do you think that all civil partnerships should be upgraded to marriage in the event of marriage equality?

Here's a long post with a queer critique

http://queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com/

I think marriage could once, perhaps, have been seen as 'oppressive' since it was what men and women were 'expected' to do, especially women. The very word, spinster, had negative connotations.

However, in this day and age in the West, I don't believe this holds true anymore, since getting married is more of a personal choice nowadays (provided you find someone you fall in love with, that is).

In the gay sphere, I think there should also be this choice. I don't see how anyone could call it oppressive if I choose, for myself, to get married. If it's something I actually want to do for myself, I'm hardly oppressing myself now, am I? And it's not as if outside forces, namely society, are forcing or even encouraging gays to get married; indeed the opposite is more true. Getting gay married should be a choice for all.

So, no, I don't agree with this feminist theory, especially when it's in the context of 2012 and in the context of LGBT.

Conor30

toexpress wrote: »

It's a complicated one, I'm a conservative in my views and beliefs. Up until a couple of years ago I would have said that no I do not believe that any form of gay marriage/civil partnership is something that we need.

More recently I have come to the view that if I was with someone and it mattered to them then I would run with it to make that person happy.

My issues with it relate entirely to the effects that it may have on the constitution of the family. While lots of marriages now end in divorce and that's life I think that they have a better chance of going the distance than a gay marriage and for the benefit of children that may be involved this important. I know that may sound a bit hard and perhaps a bit right wing but there we go that's my own view

Are you LGBT yourself, if you don't mind my asking?

Killer_banana

I've got mixed views on marriage. I think that anyone who wants to get married should have the option but at the same time I don't like that monogamy is treated as the one and only true from of love and commitment and I do feel marriage perpetuates that ideal. That being said rejecting marriage 'cause I think those in open relationships, relationships involving more than two people etc. deserve more respect and recognition isn't right either. I'm starting to ramble now so I'll stop talking about the treatment of 'non-traditional' relationships and how they're viewed by society, others have handled it far better already in this thread anyway.

As for whether marriage is oppressive, it's not as bad it once was but I do still feel that heterosexual women who are in long term relationships are expected to want to marry and are questioned on it far more frequently than men. I think women are more likely to choose to marry now than to be forced into it but there is still a certain amount of pressure there and some women feel they have to marry to meet the expectations of their family.

When I was younger I wanted to marry and couldn't understand those who didn't but when I was younger I also though I only liked guys and I was a pretty serious catholic (although I always believed in rights for LGBT people). Now I don't really understand the point of marriage. I find it hard to imagine loving someone for such a long time and even if I do want to commit to someone for the rest of my life why do I need to get married to make that commitment? It doesn't change how you feel about each other or why you're together. That said I'm only twenty and currently in my only serious relationship to date so my views could very well change. At this moment in time though I can't see myself marrying anyone for any other reason other than if we had children together. So I guess under current law and with my current viewpoint I wouldn't enter into a civil partnership since it doesn't provide any protection or rights for children.

Goodshape

What exactly is it about marriage which people believe is oppressive or misogynistic? Honest question, I feel like I'm missing something here.

I understand historically women might have been sold off, essentially, into marriage to benefit a families influence, land/money deals, etc., but in modern society? Is oppression / misogyny still an issue for people?

Maybe I just surround myself with very liberal people, or I'm just ignorant, but I don't think I'm aware of any particular extra pressure on the women I know to marry, for any reason outside of love. As far as I can see marriage is expected, or hoped for, or encouraged, for both sexes pretty equally. It's the manifestation of growing up, finding love, living happily ever after.

Pedant

Goodshape wrote: »

As far as I can see marriage is expected, or hoped for, or encouraged, for both sexes pretty equally. It's the manifestation of growing up, finding love, living happily ever after.

If marriage is expected by society, then you could argue that society is oppressed, rather than marriage. Society is oppressive in varying degrees though, like you could hardly see being "forced" to go out on a night out by you friend, risking being looked down upon if you didn't, as oppressive. Being forced into marriage by your culture or society is a legitimate form of oppression though, as it's not wholly voluntary. Again in this case, it'd be culture and society that's oppressive, not necessarily marriage.

Goodshape

Pedant wrote: »

If marriage is expected by society, then you could argue that society is oppressed, rather than marriage.

Yeah, maybe. I just keep picking up on this notion that it's oppressive or unfair to women in particular. That's what I was wondering about -- and in the context of modern life, rather than anything historical.

There's an expectation on both sexes, as far as I can see, that finding love (in, I guess, a monogamous relationship) is a key goal in life. Something your parents wish for you and something most people wish for themselves. Marriage, then, is the public deceleration of that love. Cementing the deal. Parents can die peacefully knowing their child will live happily ever after.

It does sound a bit unnecessary really. Love being the more important thing. But, you know, it's just a public gesture --- if you're madly in love anyway then why not?

Being forced into marriage by your culture or society is a legitimate form of oppression though, as it's not wholly voluntary.

But who's forcing that? Is there anyone out there getting married simply to be married? Like that's a goal in and of itself? It's human nature to love and want to be loved, and to want the best for your children (i.e. that they love and are loved). And - then - you marry.


The only real problem I can see (and I'm not preaching --- willing to be shown the errors in any of my thoughts here) is that there are other real-world social benefits to being married - not just in love - that are currently available for only one specific type of relationship. So I don't really understand those who would argue against the need for gay marriage. It's at least one step in the right direction, away from the narrow minded view of what love can be?


And.. I must find the time to actually read about what those "other real world social benefits to being married" are. Admitedly, I don't really know. And I probably should if I'm willing to say (a few posts above) that it isn't for me.

stephen_n

Is that not more an argument for the removal of those rights from marriage and giving them a wider availability through civil partnership or other such devices which more encompass minorities who do not conform to traditional concepts of relationships?

FairytaleGirl

I cant wait to get married.
I dont see why the right to make a commitment to the person I love for the rest of my life should be taken away from me because Ive fallen in love with a woman.

I'd still want to get married if I were straight.

Its no rush, Im only 24 - I do want to get married eventually, and definitley will get married /CP before I have kids (if i decide to have them).

I used to be of the 'Civil Partnership is an insult - and an alternative to marriage' ideal - but since my parents divorced and both remarried via Civil Partnerships - theyre straight btw - I see that a marriage is a marriage regardless of wether its in a chapel or not.

Goodshape

stephen_n wrote: »

Is that not more an argument for the removal of those rights from marriage and giving them a wider availability through civil partnership or other such devices which more encompass minorities who do not conform to traditional concepts of relationships?

Yeah, perhaps you're right. I've been Googling a bit (this one for instance) and the rules and requirements for marriage don't seem to be a very good catch-all for the types of relationships one might find themselves in. Even aside from the "one man, one woman" stipulation.

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

I used to be of the 'Civil Partnership is an insult - and an alternative to marriage' ideal - but since my parents divorced and both remarried via Civil Partnerships - theyre straight btw - I see that a marriage is a marriage regardless of wether its in a chapel or not.

Are you sure that wasn't a Civil Marriage, as opposed to Civil Partnership? The church may not recognise a divorce but the state does -- divorcees are allowed to re-marry, outside of the church. So long as they're not same-sex.

A marriage is a marriage but a civil partnership is not.

ShanePouch

I think it's time to separate a state marriage away from a church marriage. That way the state can let any two adults who want to marry get married, and anyone who wants to subject themselves to the rules of any of the individual churches can opt for that too, should they choose to.

Goodshape

They are separate. The church will give you a ceremony and blessing if you choose that - and suit their requirements - but it's the civil marriage document that makes the difference under law. There's no requirement to go through any church to obtain that.

Unfortunately it is, according to the apparently accepted interpretation, in our constitution that marriage, however obtained, be between a man and a women. If it were just the churches rules that mattered there wouldn't be much of an issue at all.

Ambersky

Goodshape says
I understand historically women might have been sold off, essentially, into marriage to benefit a families influence, land/money deals, etc., but in modern society? Is oppression / misogyny still an issue for people?

Its not just that women were "kind of sold off into marriages".
Its that marriage was a way of keeping women in the home, away from paid work, access to money, or control of their own bodies and reproduction. It also silenced them by keeping any complaints or abuses as private matters to be kept hidden within the family.

Now you might say that is all historical and nothing to do with the kinds of liberal relationships we have nowadays. But it can be useful to know where certain practices and ideas came from if for nothing else than to figure out whether there are any remenants of the old ideas left in the practices.
Take the practice of the woman and it is always the woman, who changes her name to that of her male partner. There may have been an occasional male who has changed his name to hers but it is very unusual, why is that?
It comes from the practice of coverture which was was enshrined in the common law of England ( which covered Ireland as well at the time) and the United States throughout most of the 19th century. Coverture was a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband. This was one of the argument for women not getting the vote untill the 1920s.

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

Here in Ireland , until the early 1970s, the family law statutes were the same since the Victorian period, a time when women received little legal recognition and crimes such as domestic violence were silenced and hidden from the public.

Laws based on the premise that women’s rights were inferior to those of men survived in, and indeed even appeared on, the statute books.
Despite the constitutional adulation of marriage and motherhood, the legislature preferred to keep women in the home by foul rather than fair
means. Contraception was effectively illegal.
The economically powerless homemaker was denied access to free legal aid. No financial aid was available as of right to unmarried mothers,
deserted wives or prisoners’ wives, even when they were fulfilling their “duties” in the home. The battered wife and mother could not exclude
her violent husband from the home (which was
almost invariably his) except by resort to the most cumbersome procedures. If she fled the home, her husband had a right to damages from
anyone who enticed her away, or who harboured her or committed adultery with her
(Scannell 1988: 73)

http://www.estudiosirlandeses.org/Issue5/Issue5_pdfs/Mary_Ryan.pdf

Under the “marriage bar”, which was abolished in 1973, women working in the public and Civil Service had to resign their job as soon as they married. Many of these women lost their cover under the social welfare system when they left work, and either did not qualify for a State pension when they retired, or only qualified for a smaller State pension.
The recognition of marital rape as a crime entered Irish law in 1990. However according to the RCNI, this legal definition 'has done little to lift the lid on this crime'. http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=8520
So marriage has a bit of a history of institutional control of women and of men in other ways. Im just talking about women here, men were tied in other ways and suffered differently to women. In an unequal relationship of domination and control the humanity of even the one expected to be in the dominant position suffers.

You might say if marriage was that bad why "choose" to get married. If a woman did not get married and was not under the protection of some man like her father or brother she lived a much more impoverished life. Men automatically earned more than women. Most of the big paying jobs were in areas that were considered male preserves, rarely did a woman get into them. Even when women and men were doing the same work it was considered fair that men should be paid more because if he was courting a woman he had to pay and if he was married he had to provide for her and the family. Women looking for equal pay were regarded as a threat to the family and to this system. They wanted women to have to get married and to be dependant. So if you remained single you would probably have to forgo any intimate sexual relationships for the rest of your life as without contraception getting pregnant could wind you up in a laundry or impoverished and socially excluded. If you remained single - a spinster - you would stay on a lower wage than your male single counterparts thats if you could get and keep a job.


For some of us who were involved in or supported campaigns to end such discriminations it can be difficult to now get excited about marriage in any form without being suspicious that it is still a form of control. Marriage has financial rewards to keep you together and punishments to stop you from seperating or at least to make it difficult.
Some of the women who were active and or supported campaigns for womens rights are now active in the Marriage Equality campaign. I think they want to change marriage from the inside and I think thats what some of their detractors are afraid of.
Perhaps we need to look at what marriage has been historically to make sure we get rid of the negative influences of the past and then to look at why people are drawn to marriage, what it could offer us and create something new out of it.

ninty9er

I want to be able to have any relationship a straight couple can have, whether that will always include marriage or not is irrelevant to me so long as my straight friends can't have a legal relationship status that I can't have.

What is the actual difference between getting married and having a civil union? Is it the religious aspect?
IMO all persons should have the same rights to marriage. Its about making a commitment to another person and should be gender neutral.

unreggd

I think 'gay marriage' is bad phrasing. It implies that it would still be a different/specialised type of marriage. Marriage should be a human right, not means tested

Aard

"Civil union" is a vague term that doesn't really mean anything in Ireland. If you're talking about Civil Partnership, then there's a lot of differences (things like tax, social welfare, healthcare, inheritance... not to mention the whole kids issue). Or maybe you're talking about Civil Marriage, which currently is available only to a man and woman -- this is pretty much your average wedding, except that it takes place in a registery office (or maybe a hotel or something).

I don't think any/many gay people are pushing for churches to be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies.

Pedant

unreggd wrote: »

I think 'gay marriage' is bad phrasing. It implies that it would still be a different/specialised type of marriage. Marriage should be a human right, not means tested

I think Marriage Equality is a better term to use.

ShanePouch

Goodshape wrote: »

They are separate. The church will give you a ceremony and blessing if you choose that - and suit their requirements - but it's the civil marriage document that makes the difference under law. There's no requirement to go through any church to obtain that.

Unfortunately it is, according to the apparently accepted interpretation, in our constitution that marriage, however obtained, be between a man and a women. If it were just the churches rules that mattered there wouldn't be much of an issue at all.

We all know the churches and state are separate. What I was advocating was to separate the two marriage ceremonies, the church one and the state one. Currently the state on is available in all churches, as well as the church one.

Incidentally, it is not "the church" but "the churches" which may or may not decide to bless divorced people who have remarried, marry divorced people who may want to remarry, bless civil partnerships or even have services to bless ones pets. That is a s true for jewish churches, as it is for muslim or christian ones, and not just for "the church".

My argument is that the state should have no interest in whatever arrangements you, or I , wish to have with our particular church, and should only be concerned in state matters. For far too long we have seen the effects of what a group of sex obsessed hysterical virgins has had on Irish society, and it's high time the Irish State rid itself of their meddlesome and troublesome intefering, and left the various churches to talk to their congregations without any connections of help from the Irish State.

1ZRed

Yeah maybe/probably someday but I'm a long long way off the idea of marriage yet.
Tbh, I don't really see it in my future but it could change. I still have a long way to go to even be comfortable with having a boyfriend nevermind a husband!

I'm sure I'll get there eventually though:)

Goodshape

Aard wrote: »

Civil Marriage, which currently is available only to a man and woman -- this is pretty much your average wedding, except that it takes place in a registery office (or maybe a hotel or something).

Just as an aside, when people talk about Civil Marriages they always seem to reference that dreary registry office, "or a hotel or something". As if it's completely opposed to something wonderful like the traditional church wedding.

I think easily the nicest wedding I was ever at was a Civil Marriage. They rented a room in a castle. Friends and family all looking wonderful. Bride walked down the aisle. They chose a celtic / druidic priest to preside over the ceremony which was full of beautiful words and vows. Seriously, it beat the socks off any catholic ceremony I've been to. And at the end of the ceremony the "registry office" came to them -- papers were signed in the castle. Was all very lovely. Just sayin' .



@ShanePouch -- You want to remove the state-recognition of religious / church weddings and force everyone to go to the registry office? If that's what you mean, I kinda see where you're coming from but seems like it might be a fight too far.

ShanePouch

Goodshape wrote: »

@ShanePouch -- You want to remove the state-recognition of religious / church weddings and force everyone to go to the registry office? If that's what you mean, I kinda see where you're coming from but seems like it might be a fight too far.

Currently , the state does not recognise religious marriages.

When you get married in a church you, in fact, get married twice. Once by the church, and the second time it is a civil or state marriage. Both ceremonies happen at the same time in the same place. The only marriage which has any legal recognition is the state or civil marriage, and the religious marriage is not a matter in which the state has any interest.

What some churches seem to want is a situation where only those of whom they approve, and sanction, can avail of either a civil or a religious marriage in their properties.

But they don't stop there, they also say the state should not be able to marry anyone or any people, of whom the churches don't approve, even if they are being married in a state registry office.

The main church opposing this is a church which is run by a group of (mainly) men whose chief claim to fame is they either stood by and did nothing while their colleagues systematically raped and tortured generations of Irish people, men, women and children, or else they took part thmselves in raping, torturing and abusing generations of Irish men, women and children.

They seem to think that they are the sorts of people who the Irish people need to give them moral guidance regarding marriage. The irony of this group of hysterical sex obsessed virgins giving anyone guidance on anything is ridiculous, but to give it to others on the subject of marriage is hubris of a high order, and must be exposed for what it is.

Goodshape

ShanePouch wrote: »

What some churches seem to want is a situation where only those of whom they approve, and sanction, can avail of either a civil or a religious marriage in their properties.

"in their properties"... well, so what? Would you demand to be married in a mosque because you like the decor? Those buildings (mosque or church) are sacred to those people, I don't think they should be forced to open them up to the general public just for... whatever reasons you think are valid.

But they don't stop there, they also say the state should not be able to marry anyone or any people, of whom the churches don't approve, even if they are being married in a state registry office.

Yeah, but they don't have the power to decide any of that. What they may or may not want is a bit irrelevant.


It's a moot point if you ask me. Let the religious folk have their fun... we're talking about state recognition. And thankfully, that's a separate issue.

ShanePouch

Goodshape wrote: »

"in their properties"... well, so what? Would you demand to be married in a mosque because you like the decor? Those buildings (mosque or church) are sacred to those people, I don't think they should be forced to open them up to the general public just for... whatever reasons you think are valid.

I think that that's up to them and has nothing to do with me or what I think. I'm not the sort of person who goes around "demanding " things of others, and that is the very trait I despise in the churches who are doing just that, and who are going around "demanding " that no same sex couple should be allowed to marry anywhere in the state.

Goodshape wrote: »

Yeah, but they don't have the power to decide any of that. What they may or may not want is a bit irrelevant.

Thankfully that appears to be the case in 2012. It's taken a long time to get here though, and that the news media continues to take seriously the views of these lonely men is a mystery.

Goodshape wrote: »

It's a moot point if you ask me. Let the religious folk have their fun... we're talking about state recognition. And thankfully, that's a separate issue.

Thankfully it is a separate issue except in that those who lead the churches don't seem to recognise that, and they are actively lobbying to stop anyone of whom they don't approve getting married in a state registry office. They must be resisted and the hubris of a group of hysterical virgins giving the rest of us any advice on marriage must be highlighted and ridiculed for the nonsense it is.

Goodshape

I don't like the church any more than you apparently do, but I think this is veering a fair bit off-topic. The church have their teachings and their rules and you can't really expect them not to lobby and preach about them... that's just what they do, like any other interest group.

It is a separate issue except nothing, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not prepared to debate anyones religious beliefs because they're totally irrelevant (and I think it's important to stand firm on that fact) when you're talking about state and social recognition of various civil unions.

ShanePouch

Goodshape wrote: »

I don't like the church any more than you apparently do, but I think this is veering a fair bit off-topic. The church have their teachings and their rules and you can't really expect them not to lobby and preach about them... that's just what they do, like any other interest group.

I don't expect them not to lobby, just as I think its fine for me to point out the inconsistencies in their arguments, and the irony of a group of hysterical virgins who have a history of raping and torturing children in their care, or have a history of standing by and doing nothing while their colleagues raped and tortured children in their care, thinking they have some insignt into marriage that the rest of us don't have, is too serious, and too ironic, to leave unsaid.

Goodshape wrote: »

It is a separate issue except nothing, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not prepared to debate anyones religious beliefs because they're totally irrelevant (and I think it's important to stand firm on that fact) when you're talking about state and social recognition of various civil unions.

No one is forcing you to debate anything you don't want to debate. I also have little interest in their religiouis views, and have no intention of debating them either.

toexpress

Conor30 wrote: »

Are you LGBT yourself, if you don't mind my asking?

Yes am gay

Aard

Goodshape wrote: »

Just as an aside, when people talk about Civil Marriages they always seem to reference that dreary registry office, "or a hotel or something". As if it's completely opposed to something wonderful like the traditional church wedding.

Oh, of course - don't get me wrong! I didn't mean it to come across that Civil Marriage is boring or drab in any way! Sure atm 30% of all weddings in Ireland are "civil", and that proportion is only going to go up in the future.

xsiborg

i didnt realise myself until now when goodshape mentioned it there that civil marrriage and civil partnership werent the same thing! :eek:

im a straight guy and i had a civil marriage and thats what i thought gay people could opt for too and have the same recognised rights as a heterosexual couple. the whole "partnership" thing then seems to suggest that this is a different thing completely?

just curious then, if someone would care to help me out here- my brother in law is getting married to his scottish boyfriend in scotland in february next year, but they normally reside in london. i didnt ask him too much about it (i just turn up, lol), but what im now wondering is-

is this a civil partnership or a civil marriage, and is it recognised as so in england then, or is that why they decided to get married in scotland? basically what are the legalities of it or what is it legally recognised as then- is gay civil marriage legally recognised in britain, or is this just recognised as another civil partnership (for want of a better word)- effort, and would their union be recognised in ireland?

Annasopra

xsiborg wrote: »

i didnt realise myself until now when goodshape mentioned it there that civil marrriage and civil partnership werent the same thing! :eek:

im a straight guy and i had a civil marriage and thats what i thought gay people could opt for too and have the same recognised rights as a heterosexual couple. the whole "partnership" thing then seems to suggest that this is a different thing completely?

just curious then, if someone would care to help me out here- my brother in law is getting married to his scottish boyfriend in scotland in february next year, but they normally reside in london. i didnt ask him too much about it (i just turn up, lol), but what im now wondering is-

is this a civil partnership or a civil marriage, and is it recognised as so in england then, or is that why they decided to get married in scotland? basically what are the legalities of it or what is it legally recognised as then- is gay civil marriage legally recognised in britain, or is this just recognised as another civil partnership (for want of a better word)- effort, and would their union be recognised in ireland?

It's a civil partnership

The UK Civil Partnership is somewhat superior to the Irish version because it is more equal to marriage or marriage like than the Irish version (Marriage Equality have showed there are 169 differences between marriage and civil partnership in Ireland http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/pdf/missing_pieces.pdf) - Most importantly the rights of children are excluded

Currently same sex couples can get a civil partnership in the UK but they cannot marry - There are moves to introduce same sex marriage

Their Civil Partnership would be recognised in Ireland as an Irish civil partnership

xsiborg

mango salsa wrote: »

It's a civil partnership

The UK Civil Partnership is somewhat superior to the Irish version because it is more equal to marriage or marriage like than the Irish version (Marriage Equality have showed there are 169 differences between marriage and civil partnership in Ireland http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/pdf/missing_pieces.pdf) - Most importantly the rights of children are excluded

Currently same sex couples can get a civil partnership in the UK but they cannot marry - There are moves to introduce same sex marriage

Their Civil Partnership would be recognised in Ireland as an Irish civil partnership

nice one mango, that's a big PDF btw, im just gonna print it out in the morning and have a read over it then instead, too late now for what looks like a heavy read!

Caiseoipe19

ShanePouch wrote: »

I don't expect them not to lobby, just as I think its fine for me to point out the inconsistencies in their arguments, and the irony of a group of hysterical virgins who have a history of raping and torturing children in their care, or have a history of standing by and doing nothing while their colleagues raped and tortured children in their care, thinking they have some insignt into marriage that the rest of us don't have, is too serious, and too ironic, to leave unsaid.

ShanePouch wrote: »

The main church opposing this is a church which is run by a group of (mainly) men whose chief claim to fame is they either stood by and did nothing while their colleagues systematically raped and tortured generations of Irish people, men, women and children, or else they took part thmselves in raping, torturing and abusing generations of Irish men, women and children.

They seem to think that they are the sorts of people who the Irish people need to give them moral guidance regarding marriage. The irony of this group of hysterical sex obsessed virgins giving anyone guidance on anything is ridiculous, but to give it to others on the subject of marriage is hubris of a high order, and must be exposed for what it is.

A great minority of the clergy were involved in the abuse of children. There have been many decent men in the priesthood so how about not making sweeping insults? The same way many gay men don't like the being painted as being promisuous or some flamboyant drama-queen just because they're gay. What evidence have you that all priests knew that their fellow priests were abusing children? Fine disagree with the Church's stance etc. but it's possible to argue a point without making sweeping insulting statements.

Nebit

Short answer.... Yes I want to marry the man I love and have it called what it should equally be. Civil partnerships are a joke IMO and a halfway point that won't be looked into for another 10 years.

Nebit

Nebit wrote: »

Short answer.... Yes I want to marry the man I love and have it called what it should equally be. Civil partnerships are a joke IMO and a halfway point that won't be looked into for another 10 years.

Or maybe Civil Partnerships are a big step in the right direction and with more lobbying etc there will be further progress in creating an equal society.

Nebit

derekeire wrote: »

Nebit wrote: »

Short answer.... Yes I want to marry the man I love and have it called what it should equally be. Civil partnerships are a joke IMO and a halfway point that won't be looked into for another 10 years.

Or maybe Civil Partnerships are a big step in the right direction and with more lobbying etc there will be further progress in creating an equal society.

I don't believe that is the case. The civil partnership laws are based on the marriage laws mostly except every reference to a child removed. It was a way to attempt to appease both church and LGBTs.

Annasopra

Nebit wrote: »

Short answer.... Yes I want to marry the man I love and have it called what it should equally be. Civil partnerships are a joke IMO and a halfway point that won't be looked into for another 10 years.

The constitutional convention is looking at marriage equality this year