Kaitlin plainly was using “divorce” broadly, to mean the breakup of any long-term sexual and domestic partnership with a person who is at least the primary, or possibly exclusive, partner. In that sense, divorce is not created by marriage and any person could reasonably wish to have the protections of divorce law when going through such a breakup. Think of Toni and Clarice. Their breakup was reasonably amicable, at least as far as it got before the strip ended, but suppose it hadn’t been? There would have been questions about property and about custody and visitation with Raffi. That’s divorce! (And their civil union, of course, had no bearing since they weren’t Vermont residents.)

Second, you seem to be conflating the history of marriage with its present function. Presently, women (theoretically) have an equal right to earn a living and hold property, and fornication, adultery, and sodomy are not punishable by law. (I’m not sure what a “civil crime” is. I think adultery can still be the grounds of a fault divorce.) Presently, marriage does permit individuals to make a certain kind of claim on the state — that they should have certain rights and protections with respect to their dealing with each other that non-married couples do not have. Presently, Kaitlin is right about this. It’s important to know about the past, but you can’t read the past directly into the present. We don’t celebrate Christmas in late December so as to disguise it as part of the Saturnalia and avoid getting thrown to the lions. In fact, quite a lot of us who celebrate Christmas, including me, aren’t even Christians.

I support gay marriage purely on equal rights grounds. In fact, one of the things I like about it is that it forces people to confront the extent to which marriage is just a contract. I agree with you about the fundamental unfairness of making goods like access to health care dependent on state recognition of a sexual relationship. But so long as that privilege is available to straights, it seems to me it should be available to gays.

Kaitlin Duck Sherwood — if you were right about civil marriage then it would have to be extended to everyone. Like Alison wanting to move to Vermont: I don’t want to have another person permanently and legally stapled to me, but I want legal protection in case I die, get sick, or get divorced! And “divorce” is not the best example for you to give — “divorce” is created by marriage, not something that marriage protects you from. A person should not have to get married to have health care, a pension, etc. Having marriage guarantee benefits to a spouse is a hangover from the days when married women were wholly dependent on their husbands — and that was an intended function and result of marriage.

In Nancy Polikoff’s good book “Beyond (Gay and Straight) Marriage” she describes two English sisters in their 80s who’ve shared a house for many years. When one of them dies, the other one will lose the house. Should they be allowed to get married to each other? (That would be incest! Eeek! Gaak!) Inheritance and such considerations should be handled fairly whether a couple is legally married or not. Many women in the 70s and after voted against marriage with their feet, which is one reason why so many heterosexuals live together without being married. There are other ways (domestic partnership, civil unions, etc.) besides marriage to protect partners’ welfare

“that’s actually backwards.” No, it’s not. In the not-so-old days, marriage WAS legal permission from the state to copulate and cohabit — fornication and adultery were civil crimes, to say nothing of sodomy. “Marriage is you saying to the state, ‘Hey! I demand that you treat this person specially!” As I pointed out before, that’s not an accurate account of marital ‘protection’ of a wife. The more I hear propaganda like yours from gay-marriage advocates, who are sounding more and more like Christian-right marriage advocates, the more I’m sure I’m right not to support the same-sex marriage project.

And note to those who think “they don’t need permission from the state” — that’s actually backwards. Marriage is you saying to the state, “Hey! I demand that you treat this person specially!”

Well, you’ve had nearly 35 years to work on your shofar-blowing skills.

De-clique-ification note, the shofar is a real ram’s horn sounded on Rosh Hashonah, the Jewish New Year, and ten days later on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. It’s a very tricky thing to do correctly, and even trickier to do well.

Aside: Many years ago I was in Mexico at the Chichen Itza ruins for the vernal equinox. At the exact moment of the vernal equinox, the sunlight hits the Mayan ruins such that the body of a snake appears at the base of the stairs and extends up the stairs, lasts for a few minutes, and then disappears. The process is reversed for the autumnal equinox, the body of the snake appears, then shrinks downward to the stone snake head. At the moment of the equinox, these kids in loincloths blew conch shells. I asked my traveling buddy, “Who’s blowing a shofar?” The conch shells sounded almost exactly like a shofar.

Hmmmm… now that we’ve taken over Vermont, maybe we need to start working on another New England state. Maybe we should take over their next door neighbor New Hampshire?

PS – love that hat, AB.

Well that’s good news. I am confused about the necessity for having a military service inclusion in the local rights ordinance. Employers can’t discriminate on the basis of a person having a military obligation, but I suppose they could discriminate AGAINST someone who didn’t serve. Does the ordinance protect against that kind of discrimination?

Or perhaps it’s more geared toward housing discrimination? While some landlords in military communities like to rent to military (they won’t have trouble collecting rent, the military makes soldiers pay up), others don’t like the classes/races that are often associated with enlisted personnel, and might use military membership as an excuse not to rent. Or perhaps the transient nature of military renters turns off landlords?

As for religion being a choice… uh, look at WWII European history. Not everyone sees it that way.