A new thought for a new decade on marriage rights

[Roosesvelte]

The old strategy seems to fail in most cases, and the group think seems to be "let's keep trying the same thing until the bigots die off." While I agree to the likelihood of that as a long-term strategy, marriage rights are being denied now. Has anyone got any new ideas? I have a few thoughts, what if instead of specifically making it a gay issue, we made it a marriage reform issue?

One idea, first cousins don't have the right to marry across state lines. So what if we joined with them (as one example, and a large group of people) as allies? It is one possible suggestion in an alliance approach. I welcome other additions or a new approach. I don't want to wait 20 years or longer for this to happen, although I believe in the end we'll win. I just prefer sooner to later.

[LuvNewcastle]

1. States generally recognize first cousin marriages

when performed in states where such marriages are legal.

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266

[Roosesvelte]

2. You said generally

Any exceptions?

[LuvNewcastle]

5. I've never heard of any straight couples

who were married in one state being hassled by officials in another state, although I'm sure it's happened somewhere, some time. If a person has a marriage license issued by a state, that license is good for any other state (unless you're gay, of course).

Your idea would be a good one, but first cousins just don't suffer from the discrimination that gay people face. Also, there aren't enough people in first cousin marriages to make common cause with. They're a drop in the bucket, and we need much bigger numbers to help fight for marriage equality.

[Roosesvelte]

6. It was just the first thought I had

Mainly because, I read an article that said this particular group was becoming more vocal about acceptance. So that's one, no idea what the numbers are. If there were others, I think we could change the flavor. Not only do we get allies, but we change the language of the debate.

[SPedigrees]

3. I have a good idea, but no one seems to want to hear it.

My idea is to push civil unions through in all states, or as many as possible, let the homophobes realize that the sky won't fall if gay people marry, then and only then go for marriage equality. It worked here in Vermont and same sex VT couples were not denied their legal rights in the interim between implementation of our civil union legislation and same sex marriage a decade later.

Waiting 20 years will certainly work but it's the slow painful way to go.

[Roosesvelte]

4. I'd get behind that

I'd get behind anything that was a reasonable alternative to the current strategy.

[TheWraith]

20. My Senator suggested that awhile back, but federally instead of state-by-state.

Her recommendation (back when she was still a congressperson, not a Senator) was to push a national civil unions law and then move state by state on the use of the word "marriage." She specifically cited people of her mother's generation who might not be opposed to gay folks having the rights and privileges, but would be uncomfortable with the word.

Personally I think that the courts are a much more likely source of victory: the challenge by Massachusetts to DOMA, for instance, I still think has serious promise from the perspective of both the 14th Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Striking down DOMA would be a game changer, since then any gay couple would be able to go to a state where gay marriage is legal, get hitched, and it still be valid at home. That would not only be able to change attitudes, it would also start forcing states to give gay couples recognition.

[Ranger3230]

7. I like the idea of pushing civil unions, but in the meantime I think we

should privatize marriage on our own in the gay community. That would take the State out of the process. Any gay couple willing to make a marriage type commitment could enter into a contract (which is what marriage is) with the usual business arrangements and also the romantic angle.

If enough gays did this, and lived in stable relationships, it would help push the idea as we move forward.

If a "divorce" or ending of the relationship came about, the couple could stay out of the Court system by agreeing beforehand to binding arbitration, a private remedy.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. If the ceremony or the word was the point, you'd have a point

but of course, we can do what you suggest right now, many have for years, with Churches and ministers and the whole shebang.
The Federal Government is the whole of the issue. The rights that they refuse to give us. I'm in a relationship so old that we make the Obamas look like newlyweds. We are their age. There are millions like us. While we have been together, among our straight friends some 'married couples' have changed out partners three times.
If people were in need of ritual, or of public ceremony, that need could be and is met now, was met a decade ago, etc. It is about the Federal rights.
We could get married in a church tomorrow, it simply would not have any legal standing with the Feds of any kind. And that is the point. Equity. Justice. Equal treatment under the law.

[SPedigrees]

10. Nothing is stopping any couple, straight or gay, from "marrying"

in a non state-sanctioned ceremony, and many couples do this, but these ceremonies do not confer any legal rights. (Except for straight couples whose unions gain legitimacy years later in states where common law is recognized. But even then, it is the act of declaring themselves married for a certain time period unchallenged, and not the ceremony, that confers this married status.)

[ShadowLiberal]

9. I think the best shot would be separate religious marriage & government recognized marriage

You sort of the right idea that maybe a new strategy could work faster, but I don't think it's teaming up with other groups that can't marry. That if anything would probably backfire if we suddenly decided we want gay marriage and polygamy, as if people oppose one of those things strongly it could make them more likely to oppose the otehr thing you're linking to it.

The best alternative strategy I've ever heard suggested, but never really heard anyone try to impliement, is legally separating religious marriage with government recognized marriage. I've heard suggestions that to do this we ought to have government stop recognizing any marriages altogether, and instead give the government benefits of marriage to civil unions. This is sort of how it's like for Catholics I believe when it comes to a divorce, the church won't recognize your government divorce unless you go to them to get an annullment of your marriage.

Still, even I admit that I don't think this one would be much easier to enact into law then our current gay marriage strategy.

[SPedigrees]

11. Religious and civil marriage ARE separate now. The only legal part of marriage is the civil part.

Religious ceremonies are optional trimming. Hubby and I were married by a justice of the peace in a law office 40 yrs ago, no mention of god or religion. Ours was a civil marriage, as was my parents' before us.

[mitchtv]

12. Civil disobedience, disruption

Is the next step, rock the boat. Enough of begging the dominant majority for rights. A national movement has to occur

[SPedigrees]

13. Oh yeah. That'll work. nt

[mitchtv]

14. beats asking places like Alabama for your rights

How do you think its gonna happen ? by knowing your place?

[allanrbrts]

15. Empowering Spirits Foundation - Great approach

Personally I like what the Empowering Spirits Foundation is doing. They've been around for about a year, but in that short time have held events across 36 states.

They go out in conservative communities and do community service work. They do this so that they can work side-by-side with the locals (usually against gay rights) so that those people can get to know more about the gay community in a positive manner.

For those that are interested you can learn more here - http://www.facebook.com/empoweringspirits

[SPedigrees]

16. Now that actually sounds like an excellent plan of action.

Much how the unions gained access to the workplace, by getting into the trenches with the workers and gaining their respect. (A pity that labor's battles have been been swept under the rug of obscurity.)

[Roosesvelte]

21. I like this one

I'm going to look further, thanks.

[Meldread]

17. I support stripping marriage from the government entirely.

The root of our problem is not the bigots who seek to deny us the right to marry. The root of our problem is that the government attempts to define what a family looks like through marriage laws, and thus the bigots are empowered (by the government) to deny us the right to marry.

My solution to this problem is to remove marriage from the government entirely. Previously married couples would not be impacted, similar to how LGBT people remained married in CA after Prop 8, however they'd be able to redefine their "marriage" arrangements if they so choose.

Instead of marriage the government merely offers certain contractual benefits. It puts no stipulation on those benefits, and you as an individual are empowered to create a contract with whomever you want. A list of benefits, for example, would include filing a joint tax return, next of kin status, shared healthcare benefits (counts as a "family"), the ability to transfer social security benefits, etc. In general, basically all of the benefits of marriage removed from marriage.

Why create these as contractual benefits? Because it allows each individual to define what their "family" looks like without the government intervening. Maybe you've just started college, and you've joined a Fraternity. Everyone lives in the Fraternity House and pools their income. To make their lives easier, they could go to a lawyer, and draft a contract allowing them to claim each other as sharing an income and co-dependency. This allows the Fraternity to file a single joint tax return, without having to complicate things with all the other obligations of marriage.

What about the Hippy Commune or the Monks in a monastery? They benefit as well, allowing them to draw up contracts that best suit their needs based on the benefits of shared income and co-dependency. The same is true for two elderly sisters, who've moved in together to take care of one another and pool their resources. The same is true for the Muslim who has multiple wives, the traditional gay couple, or the traditional straight couple.

In the end, the government does not define marriage, but rather offers a system that grants benefits to people who depend upon one another for whatever reason. Families are very diverse; too diverse for the government to ever define. Restricting marriage and its benefits to one man and one woman, shuts out every single person listed above including thousands of others of every possible configuration.

Why advocate this over our current methods? Two reasons. The first is philosophical. I don't believe the state should determine what a family looks like. The second is pragmatic. By taking this approach it allows us to broaden our coalition, including cutting deep into the ranks of our foes as it benefits them as well as us, and this ensures that we'd be more likely to achieve a total nation wide victory. Expanding our coalition is critical to that, because even among the LGBT community there are many who simply don't care about the marriage battle.

[marginlized]

19. They're called cooperatives.

Meldread, these are interesting points. But we already have such organizations. They’re called cooperatives, and American has a long history of using them. My personal favorite American cooperative is called REI. Maybe you’ve heard of them? They sell sporting goods.

I'd personally like to explore creating a housing cooperative with other aging in place glbt folks. Maybe I'll start a blog on the subject.

[Roosesvelte]

22. I like this too

Some good stuff coming out here.

[marginlized]

18. Outreach takes everyone

My parents were married by a JOTP in 1946. No church or religion required. It’s the civil marriage license that legitimizes the religious ceremony, NOT the other way around. For those stuck on the word “marriage”, just remember that “catholic” was a perfectly good word before the Christians got their hands on it. I suppose it’s too bad that when the license was first proposed they called it a “marriage” license, but that’s history.

The license merely offers contractual benefits. For those who would be happy with something else, try hauling 5 pounds of paper everywhere you go: the hospital, the school, your employer, your insurer, etc. and then convincing non-lawyers that your “legal documents” actually do what you claim they do. Just saying I’m married is so much simpler.

The more people actually know us, the more they recognize our common humanity. Its all about outreach. It takes everyone.