i obviously question our country's fear of labeling same-sex unions as "marriage"...what is it about that word that is so sacred?

but at the same time, i question why we are so intent on calling it marriage also? i know this may sound controversial but why are we holding heterosexual unions as the standard that we are trying to achieve? by yearning for that "sacred" term to be used to categorize our relationships, we are buying into the idea that marriage IS sacred.

i personally think "marriage" should be outlawed...

because frankly, why should two people who decide to make vows have more rights or have their relationship deemed more valid than any other type of relationship? what about rights for poly relationships, or just people who are co-dependent but not in love or related?

i think thats where the queer movement has to go next....

The new law gives same sex couples the same rights of marriage without calling it, you know...a marriage. (Gawd forbid.)

Anyway. If we call it marriage and society as a whole calls it that... *shrug*

It bothers me to NO END that people refuse to call it marriage. Bigotry in general doesn't make any sense to me, especially in this day in age. I have never been able to understand why people think they're entitled to certain rights and privileges just because of their ethnic background, gender, class, sexuality, religion, or anything else like that. It frustrates me to no end, it really does.

Fatima,

I feel that the only explanation for why the GLBT community strives for equal "marriage" is because civil unions are considered seperate but equal.

Queer couples who wish to make vows together should be able to call it whatever they want to. Many people will say they believe that gay people should have rights as couples, but not call it "marriage." To me, that sounds as if civil unions are not looked at the same way marriage is.

I don't really believe that GLBT people see heterosexual marriage as a standard they should reach for. It's more about making sure each union is seen equally.

If a person believes in civil unions with the exact same rights as married couples, why would it be necessary to call it by another name?

Excellent points Fatima. As you said, marriage is by nature, an inherently discriminatory institution, as it places itself above all other manifestations of romantic love. I question why we want to dive in head first to an institution that is not (in my mind) far enough removed from its original purpose; the subjugation of women and control of female sexuality.

In more pragmatic terms, I have long questioned the prominence that the push for equal marriage has been given in the gay community. In so far as issues that affect the community on a global level, we have employment discrimination, gender identity and the non acceptance of divergent gender presentation, violence against gays and lesbians, gay youth support, gay senior care, and theres that pesky issue of a six times the national average rate of suicide in the gay teenagers. To name just a few.

Frankly, before I register in the china department and send out the invites, I'd like to see some fundamental progress for my gay brothers and sisters who don't share my urban, progressive and tolerant experience of gay life. An experience that the majority of gays and lesbians in North America do not share.

This makes me feel good. At least while we argue for the right for same-sex couples to call their unions marriage they can still get the legal benefits they need to live in a marriage.

I am glad that another state has signed on for civil unions. It's a good small victory and another baby step. There is still a long way to go.

Vermont was the first state to allow what has now become known as civil unions. 7 years later, the sky has yet to fall. And yet we still can't seem to allow for gay marriage.

The most important point to keep in mind is that civil unions are not synominous with marriage. It's not just the words, it's the legal definition. A marriage in any state is recognized in any other state and by the federal government (though this could be incorrect for Massachsettes's gay marriage). This means that civil unioned couples loose their legal protections as a couple if they leave the state or for any federal programs.

One example is completing income taxes as a civil union. Since the federal govenernment does not recognize a civil union, both partners must file federal taxes as if they are single. To complete Vermont's state taxes as a civil unioned couple, they must then complete a dummy federal tax form as if they were a married couple. This dummy form is then used to complete the state tax forms. The whole process would be so much easier if the federal government recognized a civil union as a marriage.

Personally, I like Fatima's suggestion that no couples be legally recognized as 'married'. I'd like to see all couples, both homosexual and heterosexual, be federally recognized as 'civil unions'. If you want to be 'married' you can have whatever kind of private religious ceremony you'd like.

With that said, I am always amused when people start trying to define marriage as between one man and one woman. I wonder how they define a 'man' and a 'woman'. Is it the biological definition, XY chromosomes for men and XX for women? What about transgendered people? Could a man identifies and is living as a woman marry another woman?

This is a HUGE victory for gays & lesbians in NH. Bravo to their lawmakers!

Personally, I like Fatima's suggestion that no couples be legally recognized as 'married'. I'd like to see all couples, both homosexual and heterosexual, be federally recognized as 'civil unions'. If you want to be 'married' you can have whatever kind of private religious ceremony you'd like.

My thoughts EXACTLY.

But furthermore, while there are many debatable points about where we should be going as a movement in regards to marriage (same-sex or het), I'm very pragmatic, so anytime that same-sex couples get access to the 1600+ protections, rights, and benefits of legal marriage, I'm excited! :)

My state was supposed to have the same today, but a judge decided, hey, not so much.

http://www.basicrights.org/?p=124

While I share in some of Fatima's sentiment, I can't agree with her conclusion.

The word marriage is important because of federal rights (far outnumbering the state level), yes.

On a symbolic level, it's more than just the use of "sacred terms" or some such thing. It's the acknowledgement that gay and lesbian people are not lesser beings than straight people, and do not make lesser commitments. Marriage is, in many people's eyes, the beginning of true adult life, the creation of a family seperate from the family of origin and into the family of one's own making. By refusing to grant the term marriage, gay and lesbian people are permenently regarded as "less than" and child like.

*happy dance* My state!

Unfortunately, though, this will further the "NH shouldn't represent the nation with one of the first primaries" arguments. Which is unfortunate, because to be honest this isn't an argument about how great our lawmakers are, it's an argument about how hard it is to change our state constitution. The lawmakers were really not happy about having to accept civil unions.

Just to point out for those who don't know, HRC also recently supported passing ENDA (employment non-discrimination act) sans any mention of gender identity. Which convinced me once and for all they've got their priorities all wrong.

A victory! Hooray!

I think however, that the major fault in history concerning this issue is the transition of "marriage, the church institution" to "marriage, the political/socioeconomic institution." That's where we should have called marriage something else, when it moved to the political/economic realm. A marriage in a church is not recognized by civil society if a marriage license has not been granted. This awkwardly and inextricably ties "marriage" the political institution to the church with the argument against gay marriage then stemming from ideals of christianity and the notion of the "sanctity of marriage." We need to wake up as a country and just admit that we do not have anything close to a separation of church and state. And I hate the propaganda that says we do.

This is very good news.

However, as someone who is doing just this, I feel compelled to point out that it's easier than ever to immigrate to Canda. :)

I cant believe society has such a problem calling unions between homosexuals marriage. The world will not crumble! We will not marry goats, cattle, fish, apes! I am however, against polygamous marriage. We dont need to look like Saudi Arabia.