A Modest Proposal: Religious Conservatives Back Gay Marriage; Gays Back Covenant Marriage

All these ideas for making couples aware of the seriousness of marrying are worthwhile, if, it is their choice to do any of them. I know two gay couples who married between June and Aug. last year in CA, they had been couples for 15 and 17 yrs. They deserve to be married, because they are couples who have lived together with love and respect all those years, and they wanted to be married and live the way their parents, sisters, brothers, and friends have had the priviledge of doing so. Not because they revere the institution of marriage. My husband and I will be married 56yrs. soon, and we wanted to marry because that is what two people do when you love each other and want to share your lives. It's so simple people, don't make it so hard.

This is an interesting proposal. My one question is, it seems like you're assuming that gays will oppose the ideas for preserving marriage that you've suggested - why do you think that gays are any more likely than straight people to oppose these? This is in contrast with the very reasonable assumption that conservatives tend to oppose gay marriage. I just don't like to see conflicts assumed to exist where there don't have to be any.

"the most dramatic step would be for gay marriage activist to endorse the concept of Covenant Marriage. This is an idea promoted by religious conservatives and usually mocked by folks on the left."

Steve, I'm as left as it's possible to be and I have never once "mocked" such an idea. I think it would be terrific if heterosexuals started taking the institution of marriage seriously. They're called marriage vows for a reason. When my husband and I married,it was in our Church, so those vows were taken before not only my faith community but also before God. We both took (and still take) our covenant relationship very seriously, unlike Britney (55 hours) Spears, Rick Rockwell & Darva Conger's tv game show prize "marriage", Mickey Rooney' eight, etc.

"a minimum of four hours of marriage preparation" (Florida) - oooooooooooo, four whole hours! 'Magine that!

"The Iowa Senate recently passed a bill to increase the waiting period for a marriage license from 3 days to 20 days for couples who decline premarital counseling."

and

"require engaged couples to undergo at least four months of marriage preparation"

My husband and I had to "wait" through 19 years of 'marriage preparation' to get our license. Amateurs.

"this drive for same-sex marriage really assumes a reverence for the institution". Well, DUH! Hate to be the one to tell you this, but when Mr. Bush kept yammering about wanting to protect the sanctity of marriage", clearly he weren't talkin 'bout us fags. As usual, he was lyin' thru his teeth. And the fundagelicals lapped it up.

Seriously, Steve, howzabout suggesting that drunk couples who met in the hotel's elevator can't get "married" in Las Vegas by Elvis impersonators 2 hours later. Let's 'illegalize' those shining examples of heterosexual marriage, Frankly, the marriages of most gay couples I know were all taken far more seriously than the average het wedding.

Good luck on your mission, though.

And a P.S. Howzabout a clean-up on the other thread? It seems to have been hijacked (90+% of the posts are by Mr. Incredible.

The same gender folks I have talked to about marriage have a far more serious approach than some of the opposite gender couples I have worked with. For many of them it is the result of dealing with oppression and fear. Many of the gay couples are also older and have had experiences that make them both wary and hopeful. I applaud anyone who proposes marriages are more than weddings (that are in turn more than an excuse for a big party).

I begin by working with them through the entire wedding service. No part of it is taken for granted - there are no "plug in " words. Then we work on composing vows. The vows each couple composes are never all that different from wedding to wedding, but only I and the organist know that. As far as each couple is cincerned, their effort and the product of our conversations is uniquely their own, and my task is to help them celebrate that. By takingthe wedding more seriously, I have learned couple take their marriage more seriously. This also eleminates some of the family interference and keeps my Still Married record over 25 years well above 80 percent (you can't anticipate every problem).

Though it is still illegal in our little backward Banana Republic, I look forward to the days when I can work with same sex couples on their wedding in anticipation of their marriage.

"this drive for same sex marriage really assumes a reverence for the institution of marriage, something that ought to be encouraged, not discouraged."

Kinda puts the words of W. up to the light of truth. His old "protect the sanctity of marriage" mantra always did ring hollow. Every married gay couple I know actually does revere the institution (and most were married in their faith institutions, btw), and we all fought very hard to be allowed to participate in it. I only wish the same thing could be said of 53% of the heterosexual married couples that treat it like dirt.

(Besides, since when are rights doled out based on the "sanctity" of one's relationship?)

"if it's true that you revere the institution of marriage, put your energy and clout toward helping to strengthen it in a variety of ways"

"IF"??? Besides, I don't think any individual (gay OR str8) or couple (gay OR str8) can "strengthen" other people's marriages. Yes, we can (and DO) support some of your ideas - who says we don't? (apart from Tony Perkins, etc.) But it is up to the couples entering the institution to start treating it with more reverence. I/we cannot do that for other people.

"if you are truly concerned mostly about the future of marriage, here's a way you can insure that gay marriage will actually strengthen not harm that institution."

Again, what's up with the "IF"? Plus, in what way do our marriages "harm" the institution to begin with? There's some pretty big assumptions in your post, despite the fact that I know you're trying to be supportive.

Regarding the longer waiting periods for divorce, I support that with the exception for abuse. I have 2 (heterosexual) sisters who escaped abusive marriages via divorce, and I would not wish anyone to spend 1 more day in such a hate-filled environment, kids or no kids.

Re: premarital education, the Florida example you cite which "gives a discount to couples applying for a marriage license who attend a minimum of four hours of marriage preparation" - ooo, a whole four hours. How about the 19 years of it I and my husband had to go through? And the Iowa example wasn't much better, "increase the waiting period for a marriage license from 3 days to 20 days for couples who decline premarital counseling". Even your proposed CMPs that require "engaged couples to undergo at least four months of marriage preparation" pales in comparison to the 52 years that Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons had to wait.

Why not simply make it mandatory? This would eliminate those Las Vegas "weddings" performed by Elvis impersonators to "couples" who met 2 hours ago in the hotel's elevator while drunk out of their skulls. (Or maybe those could simply be made illegal to begin with.)

"In 2002, Michigan considered a bill offering a tax credit of up to $50 to cover the cost of a premarital or marriage education program."

Steve, if you're serious about this topic, why cite a State that only "considered" it? Again, why not make it mandatory? (And I'll bet that tax credit would not have applied to gay couples. Clearly not, since Michigan won't even allow same-sex couples joint health insurance - even if it's supplied by an employer! - or any of the other trappings that might "resemble marriage".)

"(How about making it illegal for 13 year olds to marry?)"

Yeah, Steve, how about it? I thought you heterosexuals 'revered' the 'sanctity' of marriage'. Guess Mike Hucklebee was wrong - it isn't gay marriage that would 'lead' to "marrying a child" after all. You heterosexuals already do that - in many States, apparently.

"But the point is that gays who want to get married because they revere the institution of marriage should have no problem endorsing such efforts."

Most of us don't 'have a problem' with your suggestions, Steve. But clearly the problem is with heterosexuals not taking the institution seriously, not gay couples.

"And conservatives who really are tolerant but fear for the institution of marriage, should view this as an outstanding deal, recruiting passionate new advocates for key parts of the sanctity-of-marriage agenda."

The trouble with the "sanctity" argument is it has connotations of religiosity. Way too many couples, gay or str8, do not see the institution as "holy" (certainly not church/faith related), which is why so many of them opt to get married by a Justice of the Peace, in City Hall or in a courtroom instead of a religious institution.
Sorry Steve, but even though I support your ideas, it is entirely in the court of heterosexuals to reduce the divorce rate and to take the steps required to strengthen not the "institution", but their own individual marriages.

An ironic note: last week in the St. Petersburg Times, there was a letter from a Republican touting John McCain as a "fine example of a family man". How is it that the 'right' have such short term memories? They always forget that McCain left his sick wife for a newer, younger, richer 'trophy' wife. Sorry, but the 'right' is wrong about same-sex marriage.

I commented on the previous post on this topic, but I guess I'll post again here...I think it's an excellent idea. I didn't know anything about "covenant marriages" except that they were backed almost exclusively by figures on the religious right, so I assumed they were only about making it more difficult to get a divorce, which often hurts people in abusive or oppressive relationships. But you know what they say about assumptions. : ) I doubt my home state is looking at covenant marriages anytime soon, but if they do I'll support them.

I do think it'll be difficult to get support for this in the mainstream LGBT marriage movement because of the association of covenant marriages with anti-gay groups.

==...conservative Christians are not above lying to achieve their goal of continuing to oppress us. ==

Translation: "Conservative Christians don't agree with me and I'm right and that means they're lying and trying to oppress me."

==They have proved that they may not be trusted.==

Translation: "In MY mind, I have turned what they say into lies so that I can say that they cannot be trusted. Pretty neat, huh?"

==Seems 26 of the 39 posts are by a "Mr. Incredible". I think that's called hijacking the thread, no?==

No. I precluded no one from posting. I merely answered posts, as everybody and I are invited to do.

So, how many posts am I allowed?

Aren't all posts deserving of an answer? Isn't THAT what this is all about???

==Regarding gay marriage, my faith allows it...==

All faiths allow it:

A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.

==... but my government doesn't.==

Yes, it does. There is no requirement that the man be heterosexual. There is no requirement that the woman be heterosexual. they both may claim to be homosexual.

==Mr. Incredible,
Everyone is allowed to post but yes...==

Then, there's no problem. I'm part of everyone.

==... you are posting too often.==

What's "too often"? Is there a meter on this site?

How is one person supposed to answer 15 others, except he post answers to each?

== Please try to keep your points consolidated into a small number of posts. ==

I must answer what needs answering. Sometimes, it requires one post. Sometimes, it requires more than one. These options are available to all.

==This will make it less likely that your posts kill conversations...==

My posts don't kill any conversation. Everyone has the same opportunity to post. There are enough electrons for everyone. People, including me, are invited to post. They are invited to answer posts. Each person must make a choice whether to post, based on his perceptions, and other things. I'm not responsible for the choice people make. I can't force them to post, nor can I force them not to post.

==... -- I assume that's not your goal...==

It is not my goal. However, I can't force anyone to participate, and, likewise, I can't force anyone not to participate. They make their own choices. They have the Right to choose. They may blame me for their choosing not to post, but, bottom line, it's REALLY their choice. They must take responsibility for it.

At the same time, I am tolerant and not blaming anyone for posting, or not posting. They must do, or not do, what they say they feel they must do, or not do. I'm not trying to get anyone to stop posting. They, on the other hand, are not as tolerant as they would have everyone believe.

==... -- and will also be more likley to enable you to persuade people...==

I offer arguments in order to persuade. That's the nature of comments sections of blogs.

What THEY suggest is that I squelch those arguments. I'm not gonna do that. My arguments are what they are. Their arguments are what they are. Tolerance is a two-way street.

==...you are posting too often...==

Of course, you didn't answer my question.

Again, how many posts am I allowed? Is there a set number? Who sets that number?

Anyone who thinks he's knowledgeable in this area should be able to answer those questions.

Sorry, this is a bit late to be entering the argument. But what the heck.

I'm completely and 100% fine with "Covenant Marriages". My partner and I have actually already participated in counseling when faced with difficult issues in the past. I would also welcome any assistance we could get prior to marriage to help ensure that it is a success.

Anti-marriage people love to talk about how immoral gays are. no dobt they expect the typical gay wedding to involve an reception and S&M orgy down at the bathhouse, so long as we can fit in the desecration of the cross somewhere. The reality is that we want our relationships to succeed just as much as straight people want theirs to succeed.

The Tony Perkinses and the James Dobsons of the world aren't interested in building up marriage though. Our very existence is an affront to them. Here's Focus on the Family's position:

It deconstructs our understanding of marriage as an institution that solves the paradox of humanity: that we exist in two, male and female, and both need each other . . . and society needs them to need each other. It has no need of same-sex couplings. (Emphasis added)

The attitude could not be more clear. We're disposable people. The social benefit of encouraging long-term, stable relationships is zero when it comes to us.

So while I sincerely appreciate the suggestion, there's no way on God's green earth that Tony Perkins or James Dobson will go for it. They make far too much money and gain far too much influence from roiling the base over gay pride parades to actually encourage responsible behavior.

==... the conservative Christians have boxed themselves into a corner.==

We have???

Oh, here's the explanation, I guess:

== One the one hand, they claim the moral high ground, on the other, their lies and false witness are evil.==

Where is the explanation of how conservative Christians have "boxed themselves into a corner"?

In the handful of states in which they are available, covenant marriages have been very unpopular (low single digits). Any competent lawyer would counsel a couple to avoid opting for such a marriage. I also suspect that jurisprudence of no-fault divorce would re-emerge if someone in a covenant marriage sued to get out. Prior to no-fault divorce, faithful couples who wanted to end the marriage ended up having to lie about having committed adultery in court to get out of the marriages. No-fault divorce emerged because the fault based system didn't work well and was judicially difficult to administer.

In any case, I'm confused by the logic of the original post. I really don't see why gays should sign on to some hair-brained policy ideas like "covenant marriages" to secure their own marriage rights. The core anti-gay marriage folks aren't going to care in any case; their objections are to homosexuality as such.

It's funny that anyone would doubt that we would object to these things. We have fought so hard, for so long for the simple right to marry the people we love, why would we object to anything that would make heterosexuals have to respect it as much as we do?
My wife and I legally married last July 10th. We have been together 9 years. We finished raising my older two children together and now we share the parenting of my 12 year old son who is being raised to believe that marriage is a serious, lifelong commitment. What child who has seen his parents struggle for the right to be married and the joy with which we celebrate the ability to do so would not grow up to believe in the sanctity of marriage no matter whether he is gay or straight?
Like others here, I laugh at the idea that four hours of counseling represents a benchmark. Four hours? Wow. We spent many more hours than that in counseling to make our relationship better with never a thought that we might end it.
These are easy for us to say yes to because we get how important marriage is but Rod Dreher is already saying it won't work because we are inherently a threat to marriage.
Jackie

If either side would ever go for it, Mr. Waldman's idea is a brilliant one.

Ironically, the vicious cycle of backlash and nastiness will continue even longer if we continue to allow the gay marriage issue to be framed by all-or-nothing activists and protesters who dig their trenches deeper each year. This much is clear to me: gays cannot be expected to reverse their orientation any more easily than conservatives can be expected to sit idly while the historic understanding of marriage is redefined.

Calling for a culture war ceasefire would be noble, but also unrealistic without a forum for respectful disagreement and dialogue. As I see it, the only way out of this briar patch is through the thorns. Our best option might be to actually sit down and have a sober conversation about the touchy stuff: sex, religion, fear and anger. Slogans and sound bites won't work in a thicket this tangled.

All I want is the right to be by my partner's side in the hospital. We had the papers and all the legal documents. The VA went out of their way to be cruel. Our children and I sat outside a door while the sanctimonious nurses said we didn't have any right to be there, that our papers were not valid in Texas and my partner struggled with her illness in a hospital alone. 2003 Texas

Dan S.,

"Calling for a culture war ceasefire would be noble, but also unrealistic without a forum for respectful disagreement and dialogue."

I have seen absolutely ero evidence that the so-called "Christian" 'right' are interested in "respectful" - anything. Comparing gay relationships to necrophila, beastiality, "marryin' a plant" (or a "rock" or a "bicycle", etc.), child-molestation is not "respectful". They cannot leave it at "disagreement" - they do not wish to grant gay citizens any of the 1,176 federal benefits that come with marriage. They want our current legal marriages dissolved. They change State Constitutions to prevent gay citizens from ever having anything even "resembling" equality in marriage.

Screw 'em, say I. And tuff if that isn't "respectful". I've had it with discrimination. No more Mr. Nice Gay.