Re: Can there be same-sex union in Islam?

Inas,

Again, I think you bring depth to the discussion!

On February 22 in the "Week in Review" section of the New Your Times, 
Geoffry Nunberg did a piece that outlines some consideration of your 
question about why the word "marriage" is in contest. That's one place to 
look. There's also been stuff in the Weekly Standard (con) and The 
Economist (pro) that talk about the term itself - the argument that it 
legitimizes non-procreative same-gender unions which then lead poli-gender 
couples to devalue their own potentially procreative unions (WS-con) and 
the argument that term and the institution of 'civil union' itself would be 
separate and unequal principally, practically as well as because soon 
poli-gender couples would start to take advantage of this option of 
marriage-lite if it were available to them.

My mom and dad never 'married' on paper and in the eyes of the law, 
partially because my dad felt that spiritual law was above man's law (Can I 
get an "Amiin!"?) . . . but also because, well . . . let's just say that 
Brigham Young lost that battle more than a century ago. (LOL!) Having grown 
up the way I did, it was clear for me that 'marriage' in the eyes of the 
law has nothing to do with love and everything to do with property: Who's 
name gets put on the birth certificate (Not dad's! 'No license? . . . No 
claim to this son, pal!'), What happens to the home and cars when my dad 
died (Well somehow mom has possession of the ball but if dad's eldest 
daughter wanted to take possession, she could make an argument in court. . 
. "She's not his wife . . . where's the license"), who was responsible for 
his debts and a host of other issues throughout their common-law 
'marriage', during, and even to this day after his death . . . Yeah, I 
might CALL myself a MuQaribu but that's not what the birth certificate 
says. Heck, my mom's name may as well have been Mary, descendant of David 
as far as the records indicate! But I digress.

To address the question concerning semantics of the word 'marriage', I'm 
not sure how other countries operate but in the US, we have a bit of a 
messy situation as far as marriage is concerned. States determine who can 
get married and certain terms of the contract then the federal government 
makes it's own laws regulating marriage as far as how the contract is to be 
received when it's travels across state lines in addition to regulating 
wealth generated by and for married people (i.e. federal income taxes and 
social security benefits just to name a few). The point is just that I 
think that civil marriage it really about property (material property as 
well as children and spouses in so much as they require a certain level of 
care, responsibility, and even liability that is recognized by contract for 
the benefit of all of society.

Extending that to same-gender couples takes no rights responsibilities, or 
duties thereof from "marriage" of one man to one woman. Indeed ,it holds 
more people up to that level of the stabilizing responsibility of marriage 
as codified by it's monopoly in federal law.

To respond to your point on religiously guarding meaning in language, I 
think it's untenable to argue that one might extend the meaning of Allah, 
God to include spiritually minded people or animals: First off because some 
people already DO refer to spiritually-minded people or animals when they 
say 'God' and second, the notion of 'God' carries little if any weight in 
American civil law. I think it would be a fair parallel if "God" were an 
institution or aspect in the US legal system that regulated the lives of 
people or entities like corporations but 'God' does not. Besides, to define 
'God' in the US constitution would directly contradict the 1st amendment, 
which is why "God" is such a vague presence if/when at all continenced in 
US legal custom and practice.

The US General Accounting Office did a report in 1997, "Categories of Laws 
Involving Marital Status" that covers 13 areas of US law where that word 
'marriage" as it is commonly interpreted applies. The areas are outlined 
below and to see what a difference the word 'marriage' makes practically - 
Obviously municipal and moral law are two different things as are the law 
of the land and the low of the Lord . . . just because it's legal doesn't 
make it right and the converse, an unjust law is now law at all.

Check out the list or see the report itself (linked) below.

I guess if you were to think about a same-gender couple who cares for one 
another in an intimate, exclusive relationship that isn't protected by the 
law, then you basically have two strangers when it comes to the 
incapacitation or death of one partner. What happens to the property held 
by that partner (just like w/my mom and dad because they didn't get a 
license)? What happens if they have children they care for, either adopted 
(there are tons of them being cared for by same-gender couple and otherwise 
they'd languish in the system considering that married folks haven't 
stepped up to the plate) or from previous relationships (either before 
people came to grips with their sexuality) through in-vitro fertilization, 
or other avenues? It's quite a mess right now and it's only going to get 
messier with the court battles because people will make legal gains that 
will amount to a patchwork of rights, responsibilities, and benefits (some 
of which All couples pay for but only certain couples are eligible for).

To address defining 'marriage' for religious people, civil law doesn't 
define marriage for institutions of religion, it doesn't define marriage 
for ANYONE for that matter other than for civil ligal purposes . . . though 
it does deputize willing clergy. We don't force catholic churches to allow 
divorced people to remarry nor do we allow Muslims or Mormons to marry 
multiple wives concurrently (at least in the US). If this and my mom and 
dad's spiritual rather than secular sacrament don't demonstrate that 
people, religious and non-, define marriage on their own regardless of what 
the law has to say, then I'm not sure if I understood the point to begin 
with.

About clarity of meaning, we must remember that usage and not proscription 
is what influences and ultimately cements meaning: sure 'queer' USED to 
mean one thing as did 'gay' and 'semite' but it's clear that these and many 
other words will change regardless of what we write in our dictionaries, 
lexicons, and even our law books. I'm sure you don't worship language but 
the way you speak of it, it seems to me like it's a sacred cow or some 
disembodied idol. I wonder if we could find another way of talking about it 
that's not in that terrain.

Maybe though were talking about two different arenas, civil and sacred.

-Mudhillun

"Categories of Laws Involving Marital Status" 
<http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf>

1) Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps (Social 
Security retirement and Disability benefits, food stamps, welfare, and 
Medicare and Medicaid . . . "In many of these programs, recognition of the 
marital relationship is integral to the design of the
program." pg. 5 of 75)

2) Veterans' Benefits (pensions, indemnity compensation for 
service-connected deaths, medical care, nursing home care, right to burial 
in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing. "Husbands or 
wives of veterans have many rights and privileges by virtue of the marital 
relationship." pg 7/75)

3) Taxation (Joint/Separate filing options, marriage penalty/bonus, 
treatment of capital losses, credits for the elderly and disabled, taxation 
of Social Security benefits, tax liability, estate and gift taxes, property 
tranfer, etc. "The distinction between married and unmarried status is 
pervasive in federal tax law;" pg 7/75)

4) Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits (health, leave, 
retirement, survivor, and insurance benefits, reimbursements, etc.)

5) Employment Benefits and Related Laws (employer-sponsored employee 
benefit plans, continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits in event 
of death or divorce of the employee, the right to unpaid leave in order to 
care for a seriously ill spouse, death benefits, etc.)

6) Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens (conditions under which 
noncitizens may enter and
remain in the United States, be deported, or become citizens, special 
spousal employment status, spousal asylum,  exemptions to worldwide 
numerical limitations on immigration, "The law gives special consideration 
to spouses of immigrants and aliens in a wide variety of
circumstances." pg 10/75)

7) Indians (rights of children born to a couple including one or both 
spouses who are Indian, survivor rights, relocation benefits, health 
services, travel reimbursements, etc. "Various laws set out the rights to 
tribal property of white men marrying Indian women, or of Indian women 
marrying white men, the evidence that is required, and the rights of 
children born of marriages between white men and Indian women. The law also 
establishes Indians' rights to develop descent and distribution rights 
regarding their property as long as they include certain provisions." pg 
11/75)

8) Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property (foreign/domestic business 
and commerce concerning Bankruptcy, Banks and Banking, Commerce and Trade, 
Copyrights, Customs Duties,i.e. joint bankruptcy filing option, priority 
status of former spouses in making claims against a declaration of 
bankruptcy, protection of obligation to pay alimony or support from claims 
of bankruptcy, protection from due-on-sale clause in mortgage agreements, 
laws regulating investment companies, increased garnishment of wages to 
support a spouse, renewal and termination rights for widows of copyright 
owners/creators, duties on imported merchandise, calculations of annual 
sales of fresh cut flowers and greens, etc.)

9) Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest (Public disclosure of 
certain gifts, interests, and transactions of employees and spouses to 
prevent actual or apparent conflicts of interests, required recusal from 
presiding over council/board decision-making concerning a spouses holdings, 
anti-nepotism rules concerning spouses

10) Crimes and Family Violence (spouses as perpetrator vs. spouses as 
victim,i.e. threats to or killing of spouses of public officials, domestic 
violence, widower's entitlement to federal employee survivor payments 
ceasing upon remarriage, criminality of claiming marital status that does 
not exist in order to secure private data, grants given to encourage arrest 
of domestic violence offenders including current or former spouses), 
statutory right to bring civil action against those who commit acts of 
terrorism against one's spouse,

11) Loans, Guarantees, and Payments in Agriculture (accounting for spousal 
income in guaging eligibility and payout amounts in educational and housing 
loans as wel as veterans benefits and agri-price supports, educational loan 
consolidation, ed loan repayment based on adjusted gross income of both 
spouses, etc.)

12) Federal Natural Resources and Related Laws (easements for spouses after 
sale of land to the federal government, priority amongst buyers of federal 
lands, definition of a "surface mine owner", irrigation and expanded 
ownership of irrigable lands for surviving spouses,etc., "Federal law gives 
special rights to spouses in connection with a variety of transactions 
involving federal lands and other federal property." pg 16/75)

13) Miscellaneous Laws ("This category comprises laws that do not fit 
readily in any of the other categories and that in our judgment did not 
warrant a separate category." pg 16/75)


--On Wednesday, March 03, 2004 6:39 PM -0600 inas younis 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> But my big question is why are advocated of same sex unions so hung up on
> the word MARRIAGE..
>
>  A word which is laden with religious connotations.  How about using our
> creative energies to come up with a term that would be less threatening.
> It is not fair to ask religiously minded people of any religious
> persuasion to broaden the definition of something they hold sacred and
> who rely on clearly defined and confined meanings of marriage as a union
> of  male/female relationships.  Let them have the perk that comes with
> concrete definition and boundries that the word marriage affords them.
> Lets not get hung up on semantics.
>
> The point of organized religion afterall, is for it to be organized.
> Organized requires a strict allegiance to the inflexibility of certain
> terms.  Like the word God, Allah, You would not want someone to advocate
> the broadening of that term to include spiritually minded people or
> animals or objects.  We need to maintiain the clarity of meainging in our
> language.  some flexibility is okay as it pertains to words like FREEDOM
> FIGHTER.  But words that encroach upon peoples religious identity should
> be preserved to ensure that where everything else becomes more and more
> relative, OUR LANGUAGE DOES NOT.  Language is the vehicle for human
> communication and its what seperates us from the common animal.  The
> integrity of language should be religiously preserved.