Comments on: Marriage Recognition

By: Ephilei

Ephilei — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:22:16 +0000

@Lynn David
Nicely done. I was going to write exactly that.

By: Jen

Jen — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 01:00:17 +0000

You are absolutely right the neighbors recognition of the marriage is what is going to make these changes snowball.

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:48:27 +0000

My hometown newspaper changed the “weddings” page to “celebrations”. . .all are welcome, so now it’s become: weddings, engagements, anniversaries, births, adoptions ..etc.

We registered at Macy’s and they were more than helpful. . .for a small town/suburb we truly expected the opposite or at least indifference.

By: AJ

AJ — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:19:13 +0000

In the words of Stephanie Coontz (author of “Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage”), “Heterosexuals were the upstarts who turned marriage into a voluntary love relationship rather than a mandatory economic and political institution … Marriage has been in a constant state of evolution since the dawn of the Stone Age … It is simply magical thinking to believe that by banning gay and lesbian marriage, we will turn back the clock.” She calls it “the heterosexual revolution.”

Here in Canada, we have same-sex civil marriage, opposite-sex civil marriage, same-sex religious marriage, opposite-sex civil marriage. We have Catholic marriage (religious and sacramental, not just legal), Protestant marriage (religious and legal, but not sacramental), and so on. There are at least half-a-dozen different kinds of marriage in this country. Within the near future, we may have polygamous marriage (religious and legal).

New definitions of marriage don’t eradicate marriage, they expand and extend it. If the fundamentalists want to cast blame, they should blame the Enlightenment: it was, after all, Enlightenment thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and the Marquis de Condorcet who argued that same-sex love should not be a crime.

By: cowboy

cowboy — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:15:49 +0000

I’m worried the same people who reacted so negatively to the printing of the same-sex wedding announcement in their local newspaper will next focus their ire at Macy’s and Pottery Barn and other gay-friendly businesses in Utah. These are the same small-minded folk that brought you the “natural family” resolution in Kanab, Utah…completely on the other end of the state but similar type of people.

It’s hard for rural gays sometimes.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:49:55 +0000

cowboy,

When the Supreme Court made its decision, Macy’s ran a full page add with the following text: “First comes love. Then comes marriage. And now it’s a milestone every couple in California can celebrate”

Macy’s registry is nationwide and each person can be bride, groom, partner, or registrant.

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:36:38 +0000

There are two types of marriage, conscience marriage, which is a combined declaration of fidelity which need not have a religious aspect, and legalistic marriage, which is a contractual agreement which need not have the auspices of a government. Both derive out of the desires of two parties but have been always had a greater social meaning and recognition. Thus religion commandeered the conscience marriage and governments have commandeered the legalistic marriage.

So I figure it all comes down to what is in the minds of those to be wed, a conscience marriage and what form – legalistic marriage – in which they should like to constitute their marriage. Thus I have always thought governments should get out of the marriage game except to register them and the contracts which people institute. So if a fundaChristian wants to write in a no-Divorce clause into their marriage contract, by all means DO IT! Want an open marriage, write it up. Want to constitute a marriage between 3 or more people do it. The only ‘law’ might be that a person could only be party to one marriage contract at a time (so none of the wild polygamy of some LDS sects would be legal). Oh well….

By: Bruce Garrett

Bruce Garrett — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:02:41 +0000

Great catch!

By: cowboy

cowboy — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:39:46 +0000

There was a comment from someone that said: Same-sex marriage may not be legal in Utah but it is NOT illegal. Therefore, the publication of the announcement is fine.

Some people need to carefully mull that distinction around in their brain before making a bigoted comment.

In the same vein: I’m wondering if Macy’s or Pottery Barn has same-sex registries at their stores in Utah? They may have to make up a different title; other than BRIDAL registry? No? […checking their website now…] Oh…I see they say: Wedding Registry. Bless their hearts…you’ve got to love Pottery Barn.

I hope to have invites to a lot of wedding receptions in the coming months.

By: Todd

Todd — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:11:47 +0000

I agree with theh California Supreme Court since it is my understanding that their ruling basically stated that there was value in the word marriage and it should be extended to same-sex couples as well. The truth is everyone knows what marriage is and the seperate Civil Union or Domestic Partnership terms do not hold the same value, if any, with most people.