Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Another Wacky Proposal About Marriage

Timothy Kincaid

May 26th, 2009

A state has an obligation to protect the interests of its citizens. And California has long determined that bigamy is contrary to the state’s interest.

California has a need to ban a current type of marriage that is resulting in bigamy: eternal marriages. Those marriages that are eternal and extend beyond this life into the next leave widows and widowers that remarry in a state of bigamy. This should be stopped.

Therefore, the constitution should be amended so as to make immediately invalid any marriage based on the belief that such marriage would be eternal and any church, institution, or religious body that purports to offer eternal marriage should be “narrowly” excluded from the equal protections provided by the California State Constitution.

That Mormons are the only church to offer eternal marriage is purely coincidental. We are not anti-Mormon-marriage. We simply support the way marriage has been defined for 5,000 years: marriage of living people on earth until death do us part.

All we need to make this important protection of traditional marriage and defend our cherished institution from radical revision and bigamy is the signature of 8% of voters in the last gubernatorial election (695,000) and a majority vote of the people.

Anyone want to start collecting signatures?

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

AJD
May 26th, 2009 | LINK

If only I lived in California, I’d be in front of Safeway with a stack of petitions before I finished reading this.

cowboy
May 26th, 2009 | LINK

Wacky is right.

However, I do think we could try to make the State (or the Courts) review the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and their secret weddings. The LDS/Mormon weddings in their highly restricted Temples (non-members are not allowed in) should be null and void because they are performed in a highly secret ordinance room(s) inside the Temples.

We might need to specify in the law that marriages can only be performed in a building where the public can witness such weddings.

Even with my “connections” I can’t get my foot in the door at a Mormon Temple. At least at a Cathedral or at a Synagogue the general public can get inside and witness a wedding…but not in a Mormon Temple.

Jason D
May 26th, 2009 | LINK

“We might need to specify in the law that marriages can only be performed in a building where the public can witness such weddings.”

I really don’t have to tell you what a really bad idea that is. Two names:

Shirley Phelps-Roper
&
Ronald Gay

No, I think weddings should be as public or private as the couple wants them to be.

cowboy
May 26th, 2009 | LINK

But that’s still a problem, Jason D. There are Mormon couples who would dearly love to have their family (parents of the bride/groom) as part of the wedding. But a lot of the time Parent(s) are not “worthy” members of the Mormon Church and they can’t get inside the LDS Temple.

I have several gay friends whose children were married in the Temple but they (because they’re gay and living with a partner) are not allowed in the temple to witness their children getting “sealed” for all time and eternity.

I must add, it cuts down on the chances of anyone objecting at that one point during the ceremony: “If anyone here objects to these two joining in holy matrimony….”

And Mormons can never have that kind of wedding that Maria Van Trapp (ala Sound of Music) had in that grand Austrian church. (No long aisle to the alter with a flowing gown. No organ playing a theatric piece of music.)

I have to say, I have never been to a gay wedding. Do both walk down the aisle together?

Jaime
May 26th, 2009 | LINK

You know what we should do, is we should get signatures to vote for all Churches in California to start paying taxes so we can get out of debt. If churches have enough money to be donating to things involving the state (like Prop 8) then they should pay taxes.
Or get signatures to vote for churches to stay out of all things involving the State of California. Separation of Church and State.

Ephilei
May 26th, 2009 | LINK

You know, in all the US, any same-sex couple can throw a wedding and a pastor can say, “I now pronounce you married.” Totally legal. We have that freedom of assembly and speech. Newspapers can even announce the marriages. I don’t understand why couples don’t do this now. Sure, it’d be nice to have the legal title to boot, but it’s way better than, “I now pronounce you domestic partners.”

That’s essentially what LDS does. It’s not like they include their dead wives when filing state taxes.

Bruce Garrett
May 26th, 2009 | LINK

Just file a simple, straightforward proposition declaring that a marriage ends with the death of the couple. Additionally, I would file another proposition making it illegal to convert dead people to another religion without, at minimum, consent of all the living relatives. That last one may actually get some traction.

Emily K
May 26th, 2009 | LINK

Ephilei, people do that all the time. There are tons of gays getting married here in PA, which probably won’t have marriage equality til at least 2012 if that.

Ephilei
May 26th, 2009 | LINK

@Bruce

The government does not officially record a person’s religion. This is quite wise and necessary in a separation of Church and State. If not, the Pope could sue me to recant claiming to be both transgender and a Christian. I have the freedom to believe what I wish. The LDSs likewise to believe deceased persons are Christian and you have the freedom to believe they are not. If it’s any consolation, you also have the freedom to create a library saying so, just like the LDSs. The government wisely stays out of religion. I hope one day government will be wise enough to stop officially recording people’s gender too.

@Emily
I’m glad! I only wish we heard of them more often.

Lou
May 27th, 2009 | LINK

Tax the church! Dismantle the tyranny that is religion!

Ben in Oakland
May 27th, 2009 | LINK

To answer your question, cowboy:

When Paul and I got married last year, we came in together.

When my clients got married this last weekend, following Jewish tradition, Groom 1 came in with his folks, followed by Groom 2 with his.

The lesbian wedding we did two months ago– each girl came in with her father.

cowboy
May 27th, 2009 | LINK

Thanks Ben,
I’m glad the protocol was not done by a flip of a coin: Who gets to be the groom and who gets to be the bride. Tails = bride. Heads = groom.

It’s good to see or be the genesis of this new social protocol. We really have no rule-book do we? We are all individualized. However, eventually, maybe someone should write the definitive book on gay wedding protocols. BRIDES magazine could do a whole special section?

I think every religious wedding should be performed outdoors. If anyone is not worthy of marriage then God would smite the offending couple with a bolt of lightning.

Perun
May 28th, 2009 | LINK

5000 Years. Not really. I would like to suggest you read Mr. John Boswells’s “Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. The concept of marriage, as it is understood today, is very different that that of MUCH less than 5000 years. These little “factoids” are conveniently ignored, rejected or denied. The “opposite marriage” people have very little to go on considering this.
Wouldn’t it just be easier and more equal to throw the whole “marriage” idea out altogether and make everybody register their partnerships? Should they need/want a religious organization’s blessing they would be free to do so sans “legal” substance. These groups are spiritual in nature after all aren’t they?
My 2 cents.

Timothy Kincaid
May 28th, 2009 | LINK

Perun,

5000 Years. Not really. I would like to suggest you read Mr. John Boswells’s “Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe.

Think “satire”.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.