Marriage

[Nightingale 0]

This is something I posted on another forum in response to a gay marriage debate. I was wondering what the take on it here would be.

__________________________________________________
Honestly, I think the biggest issue here is that we have one word, "marriage", with two legitimate definitions, both of which are currently correct.

We have the religious definition, which is considered sacred, and has historical roots attached to it, and tends to bring some very strong emotions to the table.

Then, we have the legal definition, which brings along with it 1138 federal legal rights, benefits, and protections, and a whole slew of state rights and benefits as well. This definition also brings some very strong emotions to the table, particularly from the group of people who are denied legal recognition of their relationships.

The issue isn't so much that people want to deny legal status, it's that the religious definition they've always associated with the word doesn't fit if the legal definition is expanded to include same-sex couples, and the other side wants inclusion in the legal part of the definition, not really caring if their status is recognized by particular churches. The issue is recognition by the government.

It seems as though the simplest solution is to separate the two issues. The government, if it remains in the business of recognizing relationships at all (which is another issue entirely), ought to provide "civil unions" to everyone, straight or gay, because the government is recognizing a civil status, and providing legal rights, benefits, and protections based on that civil status, therefore, the words "civil union" are more appropriate. That way, everyone can have the same thing under the law.

This would leave individual churches able to provide the sacrament of "marriage" where they feel it appropriate, leaving "marriage" where it belongs: between God, the individuals involved, and their community, keeping Uncle Sam out of it entirely.

People would then be free to have a marriage, a civil union, or both, as appropriate for their situation. Is this a solution people would find acceptable?

[billvon 2,426]

I've been saying this for about five years now. Let churches deal with marriages, and let the government deal with setting up the legal agreement between two people.

I suspect many fundamentalists will oppose this, though, as it removes governmental backing of one of their religion's institutions.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

I've been saying this for about five years now. Let churches deal with marriages, and let the government deal with setting up the legal agreement between two people.

I've only been saying it for four years, but I agree 100%.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Agree 100%.
When I've tried to explain this approach to very conservative/religious types, I've found most to be hostile to the idea, at least at first. They think it involves taking something away from them.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kbordson 8]

If the government wants to grant certain "privileges" to CONSENTING ADULTS for being in a long term (relative term there... "long term" - what about marriages that only last 6mos) relationship, I don't think that they (the governing body) should be allowed to control between whom that relationship is made. The local, state or federal benefits should be the same across the board.


Religions shouldn't either... but that's not likely to change.

[matthewcline 0]

I agree.

But will we ever see it? I dunno.


Marriage is the "Church's" and Civil Unions is the "States", to many have clouded this issue though.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[rehmwa 2]

absolutely - and REALLY minimize the benefits that accrue to the civil union

seriously, the list of benefits to a pair of adults in a 'governmente sanctioned' legal arrangement should be pretty small and easily defined - simple list - inheritance; medical decisions; not much else

or take that the final level - I'd question the validity of most benefits that only a couple get that isn't also offered to the individual

if a couple notes difference in the benefits of what's currently allowed to married couples - I'd first look at the benefit for deletion from traditional couples, rather than expand the currently unfair cost to even more people

if we are a country of individuals, why should there be any form of partnership sponsored by the government? - let anyone live with anyone and let partnerships be outside of government completely.

Why should two individuals get any better, or worse, treatment than two others that have some kind of agreement?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Marriage is the "Church's" and Civil Unions is the "States"

Really?
I have a marriage certificate, not a certificate of civil union.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Marriage is the "Church's" and Civil Unions is the "States"

Really?
I have a marriage certificate, not a certificate of civil union.

did you miss the point of Kris's post? you just highlighted her issue - people being obstinate because of semantics

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 3]

While I agree with billvon about using the word (and its variations) "marriage" for religious purposes and "civil union" for government issues, the fact is that the word "marriage" is defined and embedded pretty deeply in a lot of laws across the US involved in everything from property rights to healthcare.

The most economical thing to do would simply use the word "marriage" for both meanings, apply the concept to both straight and gay and and be done with it.

Unfortunately, what efforts like Prop 8 do is just waste money and deny people rights. It's silly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Marriage is the "Church's" and Civil Unions is the "States"

Really?
I have a marriage certificate, not a certificate of civil union.

did you miss the point of Kris's post? you just highlighted her issue - people being obstinate because of semantics

I believe that it would damage if not destroy the meaning behind the document that people already have.

Edited for clarity.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Marriage is the "Church's" and Civil Unions is the "States"

Really?
I have a marriage certificate, not a certificate of civil union.

did you miss the point of Kris's post? you just highlighted her issue - people being obstinate because of semantics

I believe that it would damage if not destroy the meaning behind the document that people already have.

Edited for clarity.

I have a marriage certificate. I am an athiest, as is my wife. We were married by an elvis impersonator wearing a catholic priest outfit at a hotel in Vegas.
I guess I have destroyed the meaning behind your marriage certificate.
You're welcome.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

I believe that it would damage if not destroy the meaning behind the document that people already have.

Edited for clarity.

I don't think so... Marriage is a covenant between two people, God, and their community, and a change in legal status shouldn't affect that at all.

Current marriages would be recognized as valid civil unions. All it would require is a simple grandfather clause. The church ceremony no longer bestows legal rights, your trip to the courthouse to get your civil union license does that.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

The church ceremony no longer bestows legal rights, your trip to the courthouse to get your civil union license does that.

Isn't that exactly how it works now, except with a marriage certificate instead of a civil union license?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

The most economical thing to do would simply use the word "marriage" for both meanings, apply the concept to both straight and gay and and be done with it.

Yep. And I think this is the most practical thing to do for many reasons.

There are already lots of people in this country (myself included) who have non-religious "marriages," so I'm not really seeing how allowing same-sex couples to "marry" would change anything other than giving those people the same rights that I have.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

The church ceremony no longer bestows legal rights, your trip to the courthouse to get your civil union license does that.

Isn't that exactly how it works now, except with a marriage certificate instead of a civil union license?

Yes, but a court officer would legalize the union, not a church official. A church official would perform a marriage ceremony if the couple wished to have one and the church agreed.

[jumper3 0]

Marriage has changed many, many, many times over the course of history. People become so attached to their own tradition and beliefs that they feel ownership over it, but the term and concept of marriage is not owned by religion.
A bit of history for those who are interested:

[http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html]

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

There are already lots of people in this country (myself included) who have non-religious "marriages," so I'm not really seeing how allowing same-sex couples to "marry" would change anything other than giving those people the same rights that I have.

It would remove the tidy pc package they wrap their homophobia in.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The church ceremony no longer bestows legal rights, your trip to the courthouse to get your civil union license does that.

Isn't that exactly how it works now, except with a marriage certificate instead of a civil union license?

Yes, but a court officer would legalize the union, not a church official. A church official would perform a marriage ceremony if the couple wished to have one and the church agreed.

If people want their church official to sign off on their union as they sometimes do now, I don't see what purpose will be served to take that away in order to level the field, so to speak.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

The most economical thing to do would simply use the word "marriage" for both meanings, apply the concept to both straight and gay and and be done with it.

Yep. And I think this is the most practical thing to do for many reasons.

I agree that it's the most practical. However, it doesn't take into account the emotionally charged aspects of the issue. I'm looking for the fastest way to get people rights with the least amount of protest.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

If people want their church official to sign off on their union as they sometimes do now, I don't see what purpose will be served to take that away in order to level the field, so to speak.

There wouldn't be any "taking that away." They can have a religious marriage ceremony too. Nothing is taken away. The right of churches to marry who they wish is preserved.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I agree that it's the most practical. However, it doesn't take into account the emotionally charged aspects of the issue. I'm looking for the fastest way to get people rights with the least amount of protest.

you are correct in terms of logic - but, as you see here, it's so emotionally charged, that a practical solution like yours is rejected by both sides. Thus a 'fair' solution actually creates more protest...

mainly, because each side wants to cram their viewpoint down the throats of the other side - they don't want a solution - they each want to 'win'

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I agree that it's the most practical. However, it doesn't take into account the emotionally charged aspects of the issue.

I suspect that the emotionally-charged aspect of the issue actually has very little to do with any particular word, even though that is what a lot of people choose to focus on in their arguments.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Marriage is the "Church's" and Civil Unions is the "States"

Really?
I have a marriage certificate, not a certificate of civil union.

did you miss the point of Kris's post? you just highlighted her issue - people being obstinate because of semantics

I believe that it would damage if not destroy the meaning behind the document that people already have.

Edited for clarity.

I have a marriage certificate. I am an athiest, as is my wife. We were married by an elvis impersonator wearing a catholic priest outfit at a hotel in Vegas.
I guess I have destroyed the meaning behind your marriage certificate.
You're welcome.

I am glad you take joy in this. It says alot about your character.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

you are correct in terms of logic - but, as you see here, it's so emotionally charged, that a practical solution like yours is rejected by both sides. Thus a 'fair' solution actually creates more protest...

For me, it has nothing to do with whether this is a "fair" solution or not. Sure it's fair, but... In my opinion, it's very impractical, and likely doesn't solve the "real" problem.