Welcome to Gaia! ::

My cousin has lived with his girlfriend for twelve years. They got along better than most married couples I know, and as long as they have been together, they are still affectionate with each other. Last year, they announced that they were finally getting married and my first thought was: What a shame.

Granted there are the legal benefits of marriage, but was it something about the lack of legality that kept their relationship going longer than most married couples. Many lesbian and gay couples have been together for ten, twenty, thirty years or more, and they are still committed and loving despite the lack of legal benefits.

Perhaps there is an element to the lack of legal ties that makes a relationship stay romantic or emotional longer.

When a couple is married, in order for them to stop the relationship for any reason, including a loss of romantic feelings, they have to go through a divorce which can often be complicated. The prospect of divorce can do two things, I believe.

The first is to hold the couple together, especially if a fight is going on, the length of time it might take to get the divorce might be enough to let them calm down and see that the divorce is not worth it.

The second is to put the pressure of the forbidden on a couple. Unless one has an open marriage which some people do have, marriage confines you to one person romantically for the duration of the union. It's almost like those "Do not click here" buttons people have on their signatures here on Gaia. A lot of people are gonna be very tempted to click it.

Take away that "Do not click here," that "you HAVE to be with this person", many people might not question it and just accept it for what it is. Without marriage, the lack of restrictions might make the relationship more devoted.

In the case of gay unions, because of the lack of marriage, it might make the couple even more emotionally and romantically strong as a way of showing the heterosexual majority that the couple IS loving and devoted.

Because they do not have the option and perhaps desire the option to marry they are more driven to prove that they are worthy of it, and are less likely to abuse the right such as Britney Spear's 24 hour Vegas marriage, and possibly once (or if) they get the option to wed, more likely to appreciate it and less likely to divorce.

I think we might have talked about this in school. Anywho, i can see where your coming from.

The church has it ********. Marriage is a legal right mostly. Ceremony or not. You get a marriage license from the state not a civil union license

Marriage as it is propogated today does NOT exist with religious roots.

It was designed and refined as a method to ease the transfer of wealth and other possessions, as well as a way to keep track of biological trees and several legal/archival materials.

But it's not a religious institution always, it's about taxes and health benefits. Atheists get married, it's a SOCIAL institution.

As to "social institution": Funerals are a social institution, too - but you can't tell me that even average apathist-agnostic funerals aren't cut from a religious mold. The joining of two (or more) people in a recognition of their dedicated, exclusive relationship is a social institution. The common use of "marriage", on the other hand, refers to a ritual / institution heavily influenced by, if not directly lifted from, Judeo-Christian roots. The expectations surrounding a married couple in Western society are Judeo-Christian expectations. Even weddings (and funerals) which very specifically avoid Judeo-Christian phraseology are assumed to be Judeo-Christian just because of their cardboard blandness.

If that sort of cookie-cutter "social institution" marriage is fine by you, then gravy. I still don't see why the state has to be involved in anyone's marriage, be it straight, gay, TG, poly, or other. Get your union legalized at the county courthouse, then hold a non-denominational, areligious ceremony down at the gazebo in the local state park. Nothing's really changed here, except that civil unions are much more equitable for all, and the nebulous intertangling of church and state with "marriage" is removed.

Considering I'm well versed in all the federal marriage laws, what few of them there are, as well as the marriage laws in the states in which I've lived - and I mean the text of the law, not just hearsay on the gist - I think I understand just fine. You know what? Jim Crow laws were a lot more twisty and sneaky. I have a feeling they were ******** harder to rewrite. But thank the Good Lawd it happened, or I'd still be pickin' cotton for the man.

Once again: I am in favor of removing the state from marriage. This means that the state has no interest whatsoever in the romantic or spiritual status of two or more individuals. The state only cares as these matters bear on taxes, visitation rights, property, and so on. Everyone - of all races, sexes, genders, and creeds - would have available the exact same legal joining. There's no dobule standard. No "two different unions". No inequality whatsoever.

Marriage is, indeed, a social issue. One that has no bearing on the interests of the state. Therefore, the state has no right to be involved.

That is a very different way of looking at it. Go you! Anyhow I think that it is a good point to be made and that though I am all for the legal benifits of marriage, after reading this I can see your point and wonder why more people havent thought of it. I still want to push for everyone to have equal marriage rights but really only for the reason that if one person is incompetent to make decisions for themselves, that the partner may make the decisions for them.