UPDATE: Post is locked due to nasty flame war (hidden for your protection)
His rant is here, and somewhat predictably there are responses in the blogosphere ranging from laconic bemusement by Scalzi to rhetorical dismemberment on the Feminist SF Blog. I would like to add my own little can of lighter fluid to this raging bonfire by offering everyone who’s jumping on this OMGWTFTEHGAYS panicmobile a nice little clue:
Marriage defined by the state <> marriage as defined by the church (any church.)
Repeat this a few times every time you’re frightened by images of George Takai on his honeymoon.
Shall I defend my thesis with facts? (Oh please, not those.)
I’m married in the Catholic Church. They don’t believe in divorce, you know. If I got a divorce, all nice and legal, the Pope starts going “lalalalala I can’t hear you lalalala” and says I’m still married. Of course, if divorced me tried to continue filing my taxes jointly or keep my ex-wife on my health insurance, I’d have some legal issues. If I died without a will, she wouldn’t inherit. But in the church, I’m still married. I get another wife, the US Government says it’s just fine while the Church says I’m still married to the first one.
Another situation, a Muslim man can divorce his wife just by telling her he divorces her. Fine, his church says they’re divorced. But if he’s a US citizen and hasn’t filed the right paperwork, he’s going to be facing bigamy charges if he marries again— even if his wife says, “but he really did divorce me.”
There are common law marriages that aren’t properly recognized by any particular church, and pagan marriages that aren’t recognized by the state. There are sects of particular religions that explicitly allow polygamy that the US has never legally recognized. (That’s a particularly thunderous silence in Mr. Card’s article.)
Card’s thesis seems to be that if the State’s view of marriage in legal terms does not conform to a person’s view of marriage in religious/spiritual terms, it is a proper basis for succession and/or actual revolt. This might have been a cogent argument in the time of Henry V, nowadays it doesn’t particularly wash.
15 Comments
michelle · August 1, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I really wish the ‘legal’ version of marriage (government sanctioned, filing jointly, etc) was considered a civil union or basically called anything but marriage. Holy Matrimony is a spiritual bond and should have nothing to do with legal rights. Gay people and Atheists should be allowed to have a legally binding entity (civil union or call it what you will), but neither gays nor atheists should be considered married, since the true definition of the term married is holy matrimony and outside the UCC, the other Christian churches don’t accept homosexual marriage and obviously not atheists. But that doesn’t mean homosexuals and atheists shouldn’t be afforded all the same LEGAL privileges you and I have. If you want an argument for separation of church and state, here it is. I believe married people should also have to get a ‘civil union’ or whatever to be afforded the legal benefits of what is commonly referred to as marriage. But holy matrimony is a spiritual bond, entwining you forever in the afterlife. It should have nothing to do with taxes or being able to visit someone in the hospital, etc. Really, it’s not fair to atheists to recite vows to God to get legal benefits when they don’t believe in God. These 2 entities really should be separate, with marriage being solely religious.
On another note, Orson Scott Card is a Mormon, why would anyone be surprised by his opinion? It holds true to what the Mormon church teaches, so it stands to reason he’d have that opinion.
To Card’s other point – I agree, people should be allowed to pray or not pray in public. Unlike Card, I fully endorse abortion, wish a lot more women would have them and think it should be mandatory to get government handouts. But I don’t have a problem with someone saying a prayer in front of an abortion clinic – just don’t blow it up. Stopping prayer in public is suppressing the freedom of religion and free speech. The government should not dictate what comes out of my mouth and when.
Rebecca · August 1, 2008 at 4:26 pm
According to the Oxford English dictionary, marriage is defined as such:
marriage
• noun 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife. 2 a combination of two or more elements.
The term marriage is not specific to religious unions. Its used in card games, cooking and art terms.
I am a heterosexual female joined legally to a heterosexual male. We were married by a judge at the courthouse. I was raised Catholic and my husband is agnostic. Religion did not figure into my MARRIAGE in way shape or form. I don’t particularly care if you don’t want to call it a marriage nor do I care if some governmental force cares to redefine it as a civil union.
If a person belongs to a religious group that does not recognize gay unions, then that’s fine and dandy but if someone else does not subscribe to that religious group’s beliefs then why should they be bound by its laws and dogma?
My general feeling is that if you do not approve of gay marriage then don’t marry someone of the same sex. My marriage is special to me because I love my husband, he loves me and we cherish our children who were born because of our relationship and would not be any less special if the gay couple down the street were also legally bound. If you think your marriage would be threatened by gay marriage then perhaps you ought to worry more about what is going on in your own house.
Fathernye · August 6, 2008 at 10:06 am
Being an atheist only means you do not believe in God.
Marriage defined by the churchMarriage defined by the State.
A belief in God is not required for a belief in marriage. Given the divorce rate, it can seem as improbable but if you look hard enough, you can find one or two that exist. Still haven’t found god under any rocks though.
michelle · August 6, 2008 at 2:52 pm
As the last 2 posters proved, the point is, the arguing will continue on BOTH sides as long as the term for holy matrimony and the term that affords legally-binding status are the same. Holy Matrimony pre-dates the Oxford English Dictionary. It’s such a simple solution, change the name of the term that refers to filing jointly, survivorship rights, etc. Then the religious people would have no way of arguing that homosexuals shouldn’t have the right to this status. By changing the name of the term you deflate their argument. They can still have their holy matrimony and not feel threatened. The homosexuals can have all the legal rights that they should be entitled to and nobody would have to fight for those rights that should belong to them as human beings. It’s a win-win situation. But neither side is interested in solving the problem, just in being correct. As long as both sides are so sure ‘they’ are correct and the ‘other’ is wrong, then sadly, nothing will get done. To infer that a person is ‘threatened’ by homosexual marriage or ‘afraid’ of gay people just proves the point that they are only interested in furthering their own agenda, not solving the actual problem. Change the name of the legally binding status and the argument goes away, but then so does the agenda and the name calling. Apparently nobody wants the problem solved if they have to give up their right to name-call.
Fathernye · August 7, 2008 at 11:43 am
Or maybe we could just restrain ourselves from discriminating.
Marie Casey Stevens · August 7, 2008 at 11:54 am
I think there’s a very convenient way to resolve this “problem” while only using one name by which to call others.
“Americans.”
We are all citizens, created equal according to our government’s fundamental charter. We shall not deny others the right to marriage by virtue of gender, race, or religious affiliation. Should a person be spiritual while not adhering to belief in a deity, we shall not discriminate against him or her. Should others’ sexual orientations or proclivities differ from ours, provided they are legal we shall not discriminate either. When surveying the world around us, we shall see Americans– not Blacks, Jews, Pagans, lesbians, gays, Catholics or Protestants. We shall not judge others based on their decision to work while being mothers, to not be mothers, to be stepmothers, or by any of these standards when deciding what rights our nation shall afford them as equal adults and peers in the eyes of our country.
I fail, however, to see what problem we need to resolve here. I see no problem whatsoever in Atheists consecrating their love for another in a way they feels is acceptable and law-abiding. Would we need to institute tests for those claiming to be religious in order to ascertain that they “really” believe, and are worthy of the ceremony? To what end, to what purpose, and based on what authority?
Is a homosexual incapable of believing in God? I am absolutely certain that’s not the case. They simply do not conform to one of the rules in the Bible. I’m absolutely certain every single person I know who has gotten married and has been heterosexual has actually broken more prior to and after marriage. Is this to be our only yardstick for faith–and not the presence of faith itself? And is faith the only point of a wedding, or is the point to join two people in holy matrimony? Is only Christianity or organized religion holy? Many Native Americans would disagree, as would many from other forms of organized or personal forms of spirituality. Love itself is holy, and that is why it is a special form of matrimony.
We are Americans. If the right to marriage exists, the opportunity to succeed or fail at it exists equally for all consenting adults. The fact that our government hasn’t yet acknowledged that is only an error similar to those which once prohibited our nations minorities from doing so. We are Americans, and I’m confident we shall evolve.
michelle · August 7, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Exactly, John! People need to stop discriminating against those who hold their religious beliefs strongly. The founding fathers intended us to have freedom of religion, free from government control. Holy matrimony should not give you any kind of legal government perks.
Marie Casey Stevens · August 7, 2008 at 3:03 pm
The benefits of holy matrimony (which isn’t entirely monopolized by organized religion) are:
–the joy of sharing love with a gathered group,
–the formal acknowledgment of a bond and commitment, and
–the conferral of legal authority in order to carry out those vows.
No one should be denied holy matrimony, and to permit everyone to attempt to attain and live up to it should not be monopolized by those who simply state that they deserve it because they’re members of a group while other Americans should be denied it based solely on religious beliefs. Homosexuality isn’t the reason for denying homosexuals the right to marriage. The perception of that act in a religious framework is, and that’s discrimination based on religion.
Changing the name is a ludicrous idea. “They” can still have what, exactly? Ah, yes, they can drink from another fountain, separate but unequal, because if it was precisely the same thing we wouldn’t need it, now would we?
I don’t believe anyone in this country ought to draw the religious line for others to follow in this manner. We would need to discuss whether a homosexual marriage is more or less deserving of holy matrimony than one which has involved abortions, Protestants, children or a number of other issues.
God shouldn’t give anyone here any special perks, either.
Fathernye · August 7, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Hi Michelle,
I’m not certain where you’ve drawn your conclusion that I’m discriminating against people that hold strong religious beliefs. I believe my responses have advocated that we do quite the opposite and respect everyone’s right to get married.
Feel free to believe in whatever you choose and get married. I’ve only said that maybe you should respect everyone else’s right to do the same.
Please read my posts before responding. That would make this debate a little less like a personal attack and more like a lively intellectual debate.
I hope this clarifies my position for you.
Take care,
John
S Andrew Swann · August 8, 2008 at 8:11 am
Well the debate here sort of proves my thesis, that in a pluralistic society, conflating the legal definition of marriage with the religious/spiritual one is a bad idea. “Rights” are a legal construct. Homosexuals, Atheists, Pagans, Buddhists, Roman Catholics and Mormons have the “Right” to the legal definition of marriage. (In the case of homosexuals, only in particular states, but there you go.)
However, no one has the “Right” to demand recognition of the religious/spiritual nature of that marriage from anyone. A Catholic Priest can refuse to recognize a common law marriage, a devout Mormon can refuse to accept that George Takai is no longer single.
The reason people like Orson Scott Card are so opposed to the former is because, due to the conflation of the two, they believe it leads inevitably to the latter.
Continuing the exact same confusion on the opposite side of the argument only bolsters Card’s wacky succession argument.
Fathernye · August 8, 2008 at 9:44 am
True enough. Still, if the answer is to draw a line in the sand and say that the legal ceremony is strictly a civil union and whatever you do on the other side is your business, then it should be civil unions for all.
To have a “marriage” for some and “civil union” for others and say that those stuck with the latter should be fine with it since they have the same thing on paper ignores the connotations and associations that go with the words and as all of us here probably acknowledge, the words are important, otherwise no one would care. To separate out various groups and give them different legal ceremonies will be discrimination and create a situation where one is considered better than the other. God knows I wouldn’t want to drink out of the fountain those soulless darkies do, right? Wrong. We’ve left that behind, now maybe it’s time we left behind the notion that Homosexuals are less than human and deserve better than being hung to die on fences.
From what I understand, Homosexuals would be happy to have a Civil Union on the books but that’s only because they see that as progress toward the goal, the goal being accepted without distinction or discrimination in society as equals to everyone else.
My personal opinion is to leave the name of the legal ceremony alone and just become inclusive. Just keep in mind that marriage recognized by the state will never be more than a legal ceremony and that a true marriage will always be between the two people themselves.
The legal definition of anything will never exactly match any specific persons. It just the best we can do as a society at any given time. It would be nice if Homosexuals could be included in the legal definition of two people in love and given the right to join the rest of us in legal recognition of that as a married couple and it does seem to be making headway in some places.
I certainly will fight anyone who wishes to downgrade my legal rights because I’m an Atheist. It’s just going to be that way. I’m not a second class citizen.
While I have no apologies for my message, I do apologize to all the Theists for delivering it earlier in the form of a punch to the nose. I’d like to go to Hell peacefully and it bothers me when someone tries to make that journey more difficult than it needs to be. :p
michelle · August 8, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I’ll repeat my last sentence from a prior comment: “Holy matrimony should not give you any kind of legal government perks.”
If we called the legally binding entity something else, like Civil Union or Shortbread or whatever, and gave no legal perks to those who entered into Holy Matrimony, as I’ve suggested prior, the debate would be over and homosexuals would have all the rights they are entitled to. But neither side seems interested in solving the problem, only in being correct. I don’t actually see any difference in Orson Scott Card’s opinion and the ones that feel it’s discrimination. I guess perhaps the difference is that those that feel this is discrimination would rather continue to allow the government to withhold the rights from homosexuals than bend enough to call it a Civil Union. So who truly is discriminating against the homosexuals?
If for no other reason, the bond of Holy Matrimony is really cheapened by the thoughts of filing jointly 🙂
Steve Buchheit · August 13, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Well, for me “Holy Matrimony” does not necessarily mean “Marriage” or vice versa. Marriage is the correct term for the state, changing the name to Civil Unions cheapens the institution. A marriage can be performed without any religion or religious people involved for heterosexuals at this very moment. They can fly to Vegas and be married by an Elvis Impersonator if they wish.
Also, to change the term would require overturning many of our laws that include the term “Marriage.” For an example you can look to our own state (Ohio) and the problems being incurred with wanting to change the laws from the term “Retarded.” Really, thousands of laws (including our Constitution) needs to be changed (well, to be fair, Ohio’s Constitution is a friggin’ mess).
And just to defend the UCC (as a former member) the Anglican Church has also “blessed” same sex marriages. They had to make a rule to stop bishops from doing so.
I’ll also point out that in “Holy Matrimony” the phrase “Till death do us part” is still a part of the ceremony (at least in the last four church weddings I have attended). The classic dogma of most churches recognize that the marriage bond only exists here on Earth.
fathernye · September 3, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“So who truly is discriminating against the homosexuals?”
This implication is clear. Michelle, you can’t be serious? I’m the one drawing a difference between same sex marriages and heterosexual marriages?
Come on, you can’t be serious?
John
S Andrew Swann · September 3, 2008 at 2:35 pm
John, Michelle was stating that those who resist the idea of “Civil Unions” (either as an addition to or replacement for legally defined marriages) were in essence being as discriminatory as Mr. Orson Scott “Teh Gheys R After Meh” Card. She has a point.
Those on the pro-marriage side who dismiss the idea of Civil Unions as a solution complain that gays should have the same marriage rights as straights. But they get hung up on the same stupid points of language that Mr. Card does– a gay couple is never going to have a Catholic “marriage,” or a Mormon “marriage,” or an Islamic “marriage,” no matter what laws are passed to the contrary. Likewise, in a world of “Civil Unions” no one outside of the lawyers are going to call it anything other than marriage.
I agree with Michelle that excising the word “marriage” from the legal lexicon would be the perfect way to solve this problem. (Civil Unions for all)
I unfortunately agree with Steve in that it ain’t going to happen.
Stupid words.
Comments are closed.