From NPR:Housing Market Woes Bring Familial StrifeAmong those frozen in place is Kelly Christensen, who was set to marry her longtime love, Joel Nerenberg. They bought a house in Burnsville, Minn., three years ago. They had wedding invitations printed. Then they broke up. Two years later, they still own their home. Christensen's wedding dress now hangs in her ex-fiance's closet. He lives across the hall.
Christensen and Nerenberg have made peace — with themselves, and with each other. Today, the two are still connected in all ways except marriage. They share a bank account for the house. They fix things together. They serve as each others' emergency contact. They're friends — and they even try to encourage the other's dating life, such as it is.
Really, still connected except for marriage? They're openly not in a sexual relationship though? "Sometimes I see pictures of when we lived in an apartment together. And I think, 'Oh, if we still lived there, I could just drive away,' " Nerenberg says. "Right. Now."
A mortgage on a home underwater binds you to another in a way that even marriage can't.
A couple of my acquaintance, with young children (2-5 yrs), is getting divorced so that she can get the financial aid to return to college. They'll still be living together, still in a sexual relationship, still raising their children together, still in love.
ReplyDeleteIs marriage really about the children? It seems to me that, on a legal basis, marriage is a civil contract that provides a discrete set of legal and financial privileges and obligations. On a sacred basis, marriage is a covenant between two (or more) people before their god(s). These are two very different aspects of marriage, with a different zeitgeist, different structure, etc. Why is the one treated, in this country, as if it were the other? As if these two very different entities were, in fact, one. As if the crown on one's tooth were a fancy hat, simply because both of them are termed "crown."
Gibberish. A couple getting a divorce to qualify for government assistance has nothing to do with trying to push your legal-vs-religious dichotomy onto the debate. At least you put the lie to the standard neutered marriage claim that government provides "benefits" to marriage as incentives to marry, as if there are a bunch of couples out there who say:
ReplyDelete"Hey, I want you to get all my stuff when I die so let's get married. After all, a form at the office supply store would set us back three bucks and change."
Or more to your example,
"Hey, I want you to be disqualified from receiving government assistance by having my salary taken into account when deciding your eligibility, so let's get married."
Op-Ed,
ReplyDeleteI think Seda's argument is much more exemplary than explanitory.
I mean, she gives us an instant of a couple divorsing just for the benefits, and uses that to support her supposition that it is just about awarding benefits.
But the example shows just what people do who feel that way, they simply divorce when the benefits are greater to do so.
I read Seda's comment a few times, and you are absolutely right that she is forcing a useless dichotomy in the debate. One that doesn't even make sense in light of the many gays seeking the label of "marriage" for their own relationships for the sheer emotional/spiritual value it brings even after the benefits are presented through Civil Unions.
But it does exemplify the really wrong thinking that people have adopted because out of the necessity of trying to convince people that marriage is something other than what we know marriage stands for.
What dichotomy? Do you say, then, that the license issued by the state is the same as the sacred vows made between a man and a woman before God?
ReplyDeleteWhy do individuals make the choice to marry? Or not to marry?
I count among my friends two heterosexual couples, with kids, who never chose to marry. One couple has been together over twenty years; two of their kids have grown up and left home. They're still together, still unmarried.
What dichotomy?
ReplyDeleteYours,
-- "These are two very different aspects of marriage, with a different zeitgeist, different structure, etc. Why is the one treated, in this country, as if it were the other?" -- Seda
Do you say, then, that the license issued by the state is the same as the sacred vows made between a man and a woman before God?
Here is what we said...
-- "A couple getting a divorce to qualify for government assistance has nothing to do with trying to push your legal-vs-religious dichotomy onto the debate."-- Op-Ed
-- "I read Seda's comment a few times, and you are absolutely right that she is forcing a useless dichotomy in the debate. One that doesn't even make sense in light of the many gays seeking the label of "marriage" for their own relationships for the sheer emotional/spiritual value it brings even after the benefits are presented through Civil Unions." -- Me
Why do individuals make the choice to marry? Or not to marry?
Individuals reasons are likely diverse. As mentioned above, there are many who think secular marriage and sacred marriage are the same commitment, and gladly join both. It is their right to do so as free expression of religion. Many do not, their understanding of marriage is different. And still within that many have very secular reasons for marriage which are compelling to keep them together, to promote the equality between both genders within every marriage (primarily their own). They can be the same, yet independantly derived from religion.
But as I mentioned before, your previous post was exemplary of the kind of marriages which can be produced when the couple believes marriage is just, "a civil contract that provides a discrete set of legal and financial privileges and obligations".
-- "I mean, she gives us an instant of a couple divorsing just for the benefits, and uses that to support her supposition that it is just about awarding benefits.
[....]
"it does exemplify the really wrong thinking that people have adopted because out of the necessity of trying to convince people that marriage is something other than what we know marriage stands for." -- Me
Marriage may have many diverse interpretations, but the government has a compelling standpoint of diversity, equality, and responsible procreation which it will continue to promote. For the sake of all of our humanity as previous children, and the fact that our future is nothing but children of the present or future.
Op-ed, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that a form at the office supply store will not provide exemption from estate taxes. Marriage will.
ReplyDeleteSeda, That's what we term as a 'natural marriage' in canon law terms compared to a 'sacramental marriage'. There's a natural marriage (consummation with the expression of mutual love) and then the religious aspect of it. Over at Wiki they do a good job explaining how a religious institution still recognizes a marriage, even though the couple may not be of the same faith.
ReplyDeleteRelationships are natural, we don't need a court to define them and tell us what is and isn't. But we do use language to communicate ideas of how we value relationships, including differing types of relationships.
I have in the past came to some thought about things being sexually active prior to marriage. I definitely knew there was a difference between my relationships prior to my husband, and the relationship with my husband even before we were married within the Church. I had a hard time discerning because isn't 'all premarital sex bad'. Well, I did really talk to a priest about it. Sex outside of marriage could be bad, because it lacks mutual love. Yet what about sex that is mutual and with love but not having 'the license', how could that be compared to selfishness?
I live in a culture that pushes marriage off, so even I agree mature loving relationships is a hard thing when you can't marry at a normal age at a normal point of a relationship when either you should make a commitment or move on.
When you first start dating someone, you need to break up when you realize this isn't the person. I think when talking about mature relationships, there is a concern for jumping in too quickly. It amazes me the couples who don't openly talk about the 'm-word'. I seriously thank God my ex-boyfriend for bring up the word marriage, I dumped him within a week!
We tell young adults, your too young to think about marriage, yet too many casual relationships or a drag out seven year that is dead on arrival doesn't help the person either.
Peter, Then we need to change our estate laws, not our marriage laws. Two unmarried siblings who never married, yet live together, if one dies why should the surviving sibling pay estate taxes?
ReplyDeleteOnlawn,
ReplyDeleteI know what you said. That's why I asked, "Do you say, then, that the license issued by the state is the same as the sacred vows made between a man and a woman before God?" And I'm really interested in hearing you answer that question.
"...the government has a compelling standpoint of diversity, equality, and responsible procreation which it will continue to promote."
Ah, the challenge of language. I'd agree with that statement fully - but I think we'd be meaning completely different things.
Renee,
"...we do use language to communicate ideas of how we value relationships, including differing types of relationships."
I think that's why so many gay people want to call their marriages "marriages." Along with the obvious legal and financial ramifications, of course.
Seda,
ReplyDeleteThe reason why I want to call my relationship called 'marriage' is because of the natural ramifications, just last week I posted a scientific study of the hormonal changes in a father when he interacts with his newborn child.
We're not just talking about a piece of paper or a difference of religious beliefs here at Opine. Here we're looking at nature, and seeing the way we communicate ideas and acknowledge them through public policy is deeply at conflict in our present time.
The legal and financial obligation of marriage had only arise, because we know through science that heterosexual activity makes babies. Without the natural event of a man getting a woman pregnant, marriage as a concept would never exist.
Seda,
ReplyDeleteI know what you said. That's why I asked, [restate omitted] And I'm really interested in hearing you answer that question.
It is dishonest for you to pretend that two answers (one repeated) is not an "answer [to] that question".
I'd agree with that statement fully - but I think we'd be meaning completely different things.
If you did, no doubt that different meaning is the one that exemplified the couple above.
And that is only if you did. That you have a different meaning of marriage equality (I assume) no doubt shows your animosity towards the real marriage equality that would promote marriage as something more important than the sum of the benefits.
How sad.
You see, to paraphrase "that's why so many gay people want to call their [mutual committed relationship] 'marriages'", because they hold marriage equality in such low esteem they want to replace it with their own segregated standard. One that, as Renee points out, ignores the obvious humanity in all of us.
Why let such an important goal, such as marriage equality (the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of the man, and the woman, and the child they potentially have together) go ignored? If marriage can't address marriage equality, what can?
Ambivalence towards real marriage equality is one thing, but your war against it shows more than ambivalence, it shows animosity.
Good morning, Onlawn,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you call me dishonest? You say that separating the legal and sacred aspects of marriage is a "useless dichotomy." Fine. I get that. So I ask you, if you think the two are one and the same. You repeat the statement that generated the question; your answer, then, is a non-answer, is it not? So I ask again, giving you another opportunity to answer, and you call me dishonest. Why?
I take it that this second reply is a refusal to answer. Very well. I can accept that.
Why do you call me dishonest?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you ask questions that have already been answered...
-- "It is dishonest for you to pretend that two answers (one repeated) is not an "answer [to] that question"."-- Me
You say that separating the legal and sacred aspects of marriage is a "useless dichotomy." Fine. I get that.
Yet you say, "I'm really interested in hearing you answer that question" when you "get that".
So I ask you, if you think the two are one and the same.
Which was already answered...
You repeat the statement that generated the question; your answer, then, is a non-answer, is it not?
Note that I didn't just repeat it. I also added a lengthier explanation which included...
--"They can be the same, yet independently derived from religion." -- Me
Your dishonesty is uncovered yet again. Sometimes I honestly wonder why you think such tactics will work on us. Your dishonesty hasn't worked in the past at Opine, why would it work now?
I take it that this second reply is a refusal to answer.
How awkward that statement makes as a punctuation on your attempt to pretend it wasn't answered.
Yes, I'm laughing as I write this.
Seda, In many ways I can and do sympathize with these relationships, it would be much easier I think as a matter of public policy if we had real cultural terms for same-sex relationships. Who would say 'I'm civilly unionized' in a matter of social conversation? I think that is why the Samoa study of gay uncles seems to significant in figuring this all out. They had a specialized terms for gay relatives that was culturally positive, yet a way express a difference.
ReplyDeletePete: I'm pretty sure that a form at the office supply store will not provide exemption from estate taxes.
ReplyDeleteIdiocy. Nobody worried about the impact of the estate tax, married or not married, is doing their estate planning at OfficeMax. If you got married because it was the only idea you had for getting around the death tax you need to hire a different estate planner. It shows the same level of ignorance as marrying to game intestacy laws.
Seda: You say that separating the legal and sacred aspects of marriage is a "useless dichotomy." Fine. I get that.
ReplyDeleteNo. No, you don't.
So I ask you, [sic] if you think the two are one and the same.
Because if you did understand the meaning of the word "useless," you wouldn't keep trying to explore your useless dichotomy.
Onlawn,
ReplyDeleteI was about to apologize for missing it, when I noticed that I could not find your clarifying statement (--"They can be the same, yet independently derived from religion." --) in any of the previous comments. Thank you for your answer.
I was going to ask you and Op-ed why you think it's a "useless dichotomy," but I think I'll pass. It's not that much fun to have one's sincere questions dismissed as "gibberish" and "dishonest," and it doesn't seem to add much value to the discussion. So I'll leave you with this:
May God keep you and bless you both, and your families; and may the end result of this contentious issue, whatever that end may be, bless all the citizens of this country, Mormons, Catholics, Christians, Pagans, gay and straight, trans and cis; and all our children unto seven times seven generations.
Renee,
Thank you for your respectful approach and sincere efforts to support your position, while honoring the humanity of those you see as your opponents. Blessings on you and your family.
Seda: I could not find your clarifying statement (--"They can be the same, yet independently derived from religion." --) in any of the previous comments.
ReplyDeleteThen you need to (re-)read this comment. In general one is well advised to read the comments to which one is purporting to respond.
I was going to ask... why you think it's a "useless dichotomy,"...
Because whether the dichotomy exists or does not has no bearing on how government should process requests for student aid or whether marriage is about children.
It's not that much fun to have one's sincere questions dismissed...
Then you are involved in the discussion for the wrong reasons. One should not ask questions for "fun," but rather to gain understanding. Truth frequently is not "fun."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete