Maybe They Should Know How It Feels?

[furrbear]

have to try this out (Hattip to stillturning and Lil bro' envirobear for pointing it out):

A Marriage Manifesto... Of Sorts

A Marriage Manifesto... Of Sorts
A gay man experiments with language, love and law.
By Tom Ackerman
November 17, 2008

I no longer recognize marriage. It’s a new thing I’m trying.

Turns out it’s fun.

Yesterday I called a woman’s spouse her boyfriend.

She says, correcting me, “He’s my husband,”
“Oh,” I say, “I no longer recognize marriage.”

The impact is obvious. I tried it on a man who has been in a relationship for years,

“How’s your longtime companion, Jill?”
“She’s my wife!”
“Yeah, well, my beliefs don’t recognize marriage.”

Fun. And instant, eyebrow-raising recognition. Suddenly the majority gets to feel what the minority feels. In a moment they feel what it’s like to have their relationship downgraded, and to have a much taken-for-granted right called into question because of another’s beliefs.

Just replace the words husband, wife, spouse, or fiancé with boyfriend, girlfriend, special friend, or longtime companion. There is a reason we needed stronger words for more serious relationships. We know it; now they can see it.

A marriage is a lot of things. Culturally, it’s a declaration to the community that two people are now a unit, and that unity should be respected. Legally, it’s a set of rights and responsibilities. And spiritually, it’s whatever your beliefs think it is.

That’s what’s so great about America. As a constitutionally secular nation, or at least in reality a vaguely pluralistic nation, we can all have our own spiritual take on what marriage is. What’s troublesome is when one group’s spiritual beliefs deny the cultural and legal rights of another.

But, back to the point. They say their beliefs don’t recognize my marriage, I say my beliefs don’t recognize theirs. Simple. It may seem petty, and obviously the legal part of the cultural/legal/spiritual trilogy is flip-floppy, but it may be the cultural part that really matters.

People get married to be recognized as a permanent couple. To be acknowledged by friends, family, and strangers as being off the market, in a relationship, totally hooked up, yikes… it’s impossible to say without saying ‘married.’ We wear rings to declare this!

So, we can take this away. We can refuse to recognize marriage in the cultural sense. It is totally within our rights, as Americans, to follow our beliefs and recognize or not recognize what we like.

I guess this is a call out to all Americans with beliefs similar to mine.

If you believe that all people should have equal rights, and if you believe that marriage is one of the greatest destinations of a relationship, then perhaps you believe that nobody should have marriage, until everybody does.

That’s what I believe.

Source: http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/sexandgender/755/a_marriage_manifesto..._of_sorts/

Comments

[putzmeisterbear.livejournal.com]

Very nice. Thanks.

[strongaxe.livejournal.com]

Very good!
But I'd do it selectively - only to "yes on 8" people. No need to belittle people who are ALREADY on our side.

[major7.livejournal.com]

That certainly is another way to nail them.

However, as long as it is in the hands of the voters, it is going to be an issue whether we like it or not. The Courts, on the other hand, are our best bet.

And you already know my issues on terminology. However, I do understand how for many, the word "Marriage" is the only way they will feel equal.

[furrbear.livejournal.com]

I know all about the terminology.

"Marriage" is a civil contract.

"Matrimony" is a religious rite (not a right).

Conflate the two as we have done in this country and you get the current mess we have. Most other countries kept the distinction and avoided the issues we're having. Instead we as a country opted to make things easier and let religious folk in on the marriage license signing franchise.

It's hell trying to unring a bell.

[major7.livejournal.com]

But everyone is not as smart as you.

Silence of the Bells

[major7.livejournal.com]

But it has been done. However, like many things, the more we try to silence them, the louder they become (much like us).

Re: Silence of the Bells

[furrbear.livejournal.com]

They become shriller and shriller as they engage in one of my favorite forms of democratic fallacy, argumentum ad populum. Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, gave it the name we all know it as: "Tyranny of the Majority."

Limits on the decisions that can be made by such majorities, such as constitutional limits on the powers of parliament and use of a bill of rights in a parliamentary democracy, are commonly meant to reduce the problem. Which explains why they so often resort to constitutional amendments to achieve their aims.