if a heterosexual couple goes before a justice of the peace

[ulysses]

and exchanges vows, we don't say that they have a "civil union". We say that they're married.

"Civil unions" for gay folks is semantic tomfoolery.

[KittyWampus]

1. We SHOULD Say They Have A Civil Union. That Is The Point.

And they should recieve a Civil Union Contract which has been filled in triplicate-

one for the state records
one for the couple
one for the couple's house of worship should they desire a marriage ceremony/ritual to mark the occassion as a sacred event.

[ulysses]

2. I get your point

but I don't see the necessity. Just make it legal for same-sex couples to marry under the law, whether in a church or not. (Of course, with the usual qualifiers that a church may choose not to participate.)

[KittyWampus]

6. But There's A Difference Between Sacred Ceremony/Ritual & Legal Contract

there is a very real difference between the two.

And it's a difference that means a lot to many, many people.

And there should be proper terminology developed and used to mark this difference.

You know, as societies evolve the language does as well.

Before Freud, the language used to discuss the Mind was esoteric and not as precise as it is today.

Seperation of Church and State is a fairly new developement. :)

IMO, using different terminology helps to strengthen an augment this seperation.

It honors the role of the state's ability to enforce legal contracts and honors the role of religion to bless and officiate our rites of passage.

[ulysses]

26. but it creates a de facto "other"

It's "separate but equal".

[KittyWampus]

27. The Church And State ARE Different. And Our Country Has Legal Means

to deal with Legal issues like LEGALLY joining households via contract.

The Church, on the other hand, has religious means to deal with religious matters like recognizing various rites of passage like birth, death and marriage.

[ulysses]

32. and yet a non-church marriage/union is no less a rite of passage

than a church wedding. Again, I understand the point of separating the two, but it seems to me like making this the issue lessens the focus on what we're really talking about.

[KittyWampus]

76. For Some Secularists, Union IS Purely A Legal Thing.

some people really don't give a crap about 'rites of passage' and would be totally happy to sign a legal form and be done with it.

:)

Not me, when I get married (sigh) I want to wear pretty clothes, have some friends over and have a great party.

You're invited!

Someday. :)

[gollygee]

83. Who cares what it is to *some* non-religious people?

I'm not religious and I wore pretty clothes (white even) and had a party. But we're also planning a Potty Party for when our daughter learns to use the potty. She loves to dress up for parties. Dressing up and having a party will not make her Potty Party sacred, and it will not make her more potty trained than anyone else.

[Djinn]

89. the church didn't invent marriage

it should stop pretending it has some kind of patent on it.

why is so hard that there be marriage and then if you're religious you can go have a church blessing ON TOP of that.

telling the gay community they should be happy with civil unions just sounds like more "seperate but equal" crap to me

[Ravy]

50. There is no "other", at least where the government is concerned.

They can civilly unite any two consenting adults (who are not otherwise engaged in a civil union). The state would only recognize and confer rights and legal responsibilities to civil unions, not particularly marriages, although a marriage would be a civil union if it was licensed by the state.

Any "other" would be performed and only recognized by any church that wishes to do so, like a Bar Mitzvah is now.

[ulysses]

51. so why call them different things?

:shrug:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

64. Easy:

Because a bill allowing gay "civil unions" would have a far better chance of passing than one allowing gay "marriage".

I quite agree with the original poster that it's semantic tomfoolery, but I think that a little semantic tomfoolery would be a small price to pay for getting an institution that was marriage in all ways but name onto the statute books.

[gollygee]

85. So that bigots can discriminate against gay people and athiests

in one fell swoop.

"Sorry, this apartment can only be rented to *married* couples, not to couples in civil unions."

I have an idea. How about instead of making a whole bunch of changes to laws that have worked really well, we make one tiny little change to the laws we already have to allow "two people" instead of just "one man and one woman"?

[ulysses]

53. as long as you're here,

mind explaining how gay marriage would threaten the sanctity of the institution?

[Ravy]

66. Sure thing.

Mind you, I am speaking of marriage as a RELIGIOUS institution.

Many religions believe that homosexual relationships are sinful. I don't care to debate whether they are right or wrong in their beliefs, but it is a religious belief so I will debate their right to hold that particular view.

So, to them, the idea of gay marriage being sanctified by their church is distainful. If their church were to change its doctrine to do so, many would think it affects the sanctity of their marriage, since the sacredness was derived from their belief in the church.

As a GOVERNMENT institution, I don't believe marriage has any sanctity to begin with, nor do I believe it should.

The issue is that by binding religious and civil marriage when put up for a vote of the people, the Repbulican's have gotten many states to ban gay marriages. We need to make them unbind it.

[foreigncorrespondent]

93. Sooooo...

...where does that leave those religions that do accept gay relationships and would like to perform marriages for gay couples? What happened to freedom of religion?

If I went to the MCC tomorrow and married my partner, I would like it to be called a marriage blessed by God. Not a civil union because the Catholic religion, Evangelical religion, and all other religions against my right to marry a person I am IN LOVE with forget that there is such a thing as religious freedom.

Now here comes the hard lesson for you and every other person against gay marriage because of so called religious morality, I am not asking for YOUR church to marry me. I am not asking for YOUR religion to bless my marriage. I am asking to have my birth right recognized by the government and have it called marriage, so it IS EQUAL and not some bullshit separate but equal crap.

[SidDithers]

44. But if one religion decides to marry gay couples...

in a religious ceremony, is that marriage recognized by those attending other religious institutions?

Sid

[Ravy]

52. That would be up to them.

We shouldn't dictate what religions believe. The church that married the gay couple may wish not to recognize heterosexual marriage.

I am not concerned about what various churches recognize. They all believe differently. I am concerned about what the state recognizes.

[AP]

13. Why impute any kind of religious frame onto the arrangment?

Don't we believe in separation of church and state? And what about all the people who are put off by any kind of ceremony, whether religious or sham-religious (ie, civil ceremony)?

I guarantee you there are a lot of people who'd sign up for the civil uinion if it were basically a marriage license without any kind of ceremony requirement, and don't we care about those people being able to live easier lives and have tax burdens that make more sense, considering they're working and living as an economic unit?

Why do you want to make policy to make only religious "marrying" people happy when you can drop the "marriage/ceremony" bs and have civil unions and make so many more people happier. The people who want a marriage can still go to any church who will marry them and have that part if they chose to -- they lose NOTHING from having governments which are only in the business of conferring legal (and not spiritual) status.

[Ravy]

62. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

The reason for the change is to limit the religious arguments against the state marrying couples.

The Republicans are capitalizing on the fact that marriage is both a term with religious overtones, and will civil overtones.

When people look at marriage as solely a civil committment, then I believe legislation would pass to allow gays to marry. However, many people do not look at this solely as a civil committment. The terminology trips up any effort with religious rhetoric.

To strip the religious rhetoric away, I think using different terms for civil marriage and religious marriage are required.

Since we can't legislate what the church does, we should focus on changing the term for civil marriage to advance this cause.

It is a pragmatic approach.

[ulysses]

63. ah, of course. it's the pragmatism.

If seperate but equal were actually equal, it might suffice.

[Ravy]

67. I don't see how it isn't equal.

The government wouldn't license or recognize anything other than civil unions. All civilly united couples would be equal in the eyes of the law.

And, it isn't separate either. There would be only one thing as far as the state is concerned. Civil unions.

[sandnsea]

3. Kulongoski

"I want you to understand: It is the policy of my administration – and my deep personal belief – that creating civil unions for gays and lesbians is no less important than ending discrimination against gays and lesbians. As far as I’m concerned, they stand on the
same moral plane." Kulongoski

Tomfoolery? Kulongoski a bigot? Not according to Basic Rights Oregon who said:

"Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski delivered a moving speech to Oregon's business community at the Oregonians Against Discrimination Luncheon. But his words are really for all of us. Read here about the Governor's commitment to our fight for equality."

http://www.basicrights.org/

Ending slavery didn't guarantee full equal rights either. But should we have not ended slavery anyway?

[ulysses]

30. I think you're overstating the issue.

The correlation is not one of slavery, but rather Jim Crow laws. Gays are not being enslaved, they're being denied full rights of citizenship, and that shouldn't be accepted any more than we (eventually) accepted laws decreeing who could use what water fountain.

[sandnsea]

55. Fine then

Somebody who supported ending Jim Crow laws, but didn't advocate for a Civil Rights or Voting Rights Act. Would that mean we shouldn't have advocated ending Jim Crow laws?

Is Kulongoski a homophobe? Is Oregon Basic Rights wrong to try to get civil union laws passed? Why is his speech advocating civil unions moving, and he's considered a hero to the gay rights community in Oregon, but a DUer who suggests ways to implement fair civil union laws is a homophobe?

[ulysses]

58. how on earth would you support ending Jim Crow without

advocating equal civil and voting rights for African-Americans? :crazy:

And I don't think I've called *anyone* a homophobe in this thread.

[sandnsea]

60. Won't answer the question, interesting

I'll make it very simple this time.

If the gay community in Oregon celebrates Kulongoski and civil union legislation, why are people on DU bashed for doing the same?

[ulysses]

61. interesting how? it was a leading question.

I can understand why a gay community might celebrate civil union legislation, because it at least gives them some protections. Celebrating civil unions is not homophobic, and I don't believe I've bashed anyone for that. I do think it's semantic tomfoolery to promote CUs as the alternative to simply granting gays the right to marry under the law.

[sandnsea]

65. BRO doesn't think so

They're working their asses off to make it happen, I doubt they'd do that if they thought it was tomfoolery. Wouldn't it be more productive to help them?

[Warpy]

4. Of course it is.

However, straight couples in Canada where civil unions have been approved for gays have opted for the civil union rather than the traditional marriage, hoping to escape some of the social baggage.

Personally, I don't give a rip unless the rights conferred on one's spouse are different, and that's something that would have to be dragged through the courts at some point. After all, the whole purpose of the contract is to appoint a non relative into primary relative status, superseding all blood relatives. Although much can be accomplished by contract law, there are still a few things outside it, like visitation in an intensive care ward if the blood relatives are hostile and claiming a loved one's remains and planning a funeral under the same circumstances.

I don't honestly think it much matters, except that civil unions would be tested by the courts by the type of relative I used to run into when I did intensive care (My Johnny would have settled down with a nice girl if it hadn't been for THAT MAN). I think they'd survive the test.

You can't stop an idea who's time has come. Jim Crow laws were overturned one lousy state at a time until the USSC finally acted. I think the antigay marriage laws will be the same.

[JackintheGreen]

5. It depends on the couple

My wife and I had a civil union for a year before we "consecrated" the marriage before a priest (for her family - the the Officiant was a very liberal Jesuit uncle of mine, so I got the last laugh). We consider oursleves to have been married twice, but it was the civil one that "counts."

"Marriage" is a convenient othering word, and the semantic tomfoolery you mention only exists because people want MY THING (marriage, religion, language, etc) to be different from YOUR THING.

We should be able to make the distinction that 'marriage' is consecrated and religiously sanctioned (but by WHOSE religion?!?) and 'union' is legal and binding and entitles you to distinct rights.

Should but doesn't. Another convenient othering word to which I subscribe:

People are idiots.

Ah, but which is the othering word? 'People' or 'idiots'?

[KittyWampus]

8. This Is A Very Real Difference Between The State Issuing Legal Contracts

and Religions preciding over Sacred Rituals.

Would you argue there's not a difference between a birth certificate issued by the state and a baptism certificate issued by a church.

Is a death certificate issued by the state the same as the Last Rites performed by the Church?

[gollygee]

10. "Baptism" and "Last Rites" are religious words

"marriage" is not a religious word.

That's the difference.

I don't have any problem with churches coming up with their own word if they want some special sanctified version of marriage. But "marriage" is already taken and there's no reason non-religious people should have to give it up.

[gollygee]

11. And I'll add

not all religious even have "baptisms" - some have other special words they use for baby ceremonies. Each religion has their own kind of ceremony. Not all religions have hte same word for "last rites" or some such ceremony. All religions are differnet. Which is another example of how "marriage" isn't a religious word - if it were different religions would have different words.

[KittyWampus]

14. All Religions Have Ceremonies For Rites Of Passage. And Marriage

is the historical term for the RELIGIOUS ritual of joining two households.

[gollygee]

21. Have you ever researched the etymology of the word marriage?

no - it has no religous significance. It simply means "to join together in a union." "Marry" was one of many words to enter the English language from French. The original English word is "wed".

There are words that come from religious words. Church comes from the word Christ. But marriage is not one of those words.

[KittyWampus]

31. I Researched Marriage And Found You Have To Go Back To Ancient

Egypt to find marriages NOT being a Religious Institution.

Yes, there were legally recognized 'civil unions' but they were not the Ideal.

And the word Marriage absolutely has Religious connotations.

To argue otherwise is absurd.

[gollygee]

43. Whose ideal? and why do you capitalize "Ideal" ?

and why do you think the word has religious connotations when the etymology shows otherwise.

I think your argument is absurd. Marriages in ancient Egypt weren't religious. At some point religion became intertwined. The word's background isn't religious. And yet you think it's absurd to think marriages are products of the state and are not specifically religious.

Reality shows that marriages are primarily state ceremonies since that's where you get a marriage license.

[Zhade]

68. You just proved the opposite of your point.

Indeed, marriage was around long before organized religion co-opted the word. Your own post gives an example of this, yet you argue against this fact? Weird.

[Djinn]

90. sorry you're wrong

marriage existed before the Church

[Ravy]

73. You can call it whatever you want.

However, by using a more descriptive and alternate term (civil unions) in our legislation regarding the legal union of the couple we can effect the change with a vote of a legislature and a signature of the executive branch. You will not get churches to change that quickly.

Who cares if you or anyone wants to call civil unions of the future "marriage" or not. It is the current legal terminology that is somewhat responsible for preventing the advancement of legally recognized gay unions.

[KittyWampus]

12. Marriage Traditionally Does Have Religious Connotations & WAS

a religious institution.

One more time, seperation of church and state is a fairly recent developement.

[gollygee]

17. Why would you take that to mean marriage was religious?

why would the fact that church and state used to be related mean marriage was more a religious ceremony than a state ceremony?

[KittyWampus]

34. Simply, Because That's How Americans See The Word Used Today

hence, the reason so many oppose Gay "Marriage".

As I said upthread, to continue suggesting the word Marriage has Religious Connotations is fruitless/myopic.

[gollygee]

47. I'm American and I don't see it that way.

so in a couple of generations when more bigots have died off and most Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage, you'll agree with me because most Americans will?

[Zhade]

70. Because Americans see it that way, the origin of the word changes?

No, that's not how reality works. As much as you seem to wish otherwise, "marriage" is not and never has been solely a religious institution.

Or are all those married atheists and agnostics not really married, in your view?

Just because Americans see the word one way, that does not mean that's actually how the word evolved.

[Zhade]

69. "Wishful thinking" would be my guess.

NT!

[AP]

One deals with legal relationships, the other with spiritual.

[AP]

20. One deals with legal relationships, the other with spiritual.

[AP]

7. A justice of the peace is supposed to be a civil priest. When you get....

...married, every state requires two steps: a license and a ceremony. The ceremony can be either civil or religious. A civil ceremony is simply a fucking waste of time sham bullshit excuse for paying people to do something that has no social value.

The government should only be interested in the license part and it should not have a ceremony requirement, and they should call that a civil union whether you're a same sex or opposite sex couple.

And considering all my friends who don't get married because they don't like the religious implications, but pass up on the valuable tax benefits because of their secularism, you'd think more heterosexual and non-religious same-sex couples would be arguing that there should be civil unions for EVERYONE, and that the ceremony part should be optional, and that their time tax money shouldn't be wasted supporting the sham "civil ceremony."

[KittyWampus]

9. Thanks AP, Can We Call The Justice Of Peace A Civil Officiant Rather

than a civil priest? :)

[AP]

15. My point is we don't even need a JoP wasting 2 hours of our time with a

sham ceremony. Why isn't it enough just to go the town or county registrar during business hours and file paperwork which you've downloaded from the internet?

I wonder how much tax money goes into supporting JoPs and how much opportunity cost there is by making people take both steps (the Registrar and the JoP)?

Seems like we're paying a lot as a society just so that we can hold religion up on a pedestal saying that a religious ceremony is so crucial that, even if you're not religious, you have to have a civil equivalent.

[KittyWampus]

18. Ohhhhhhhh. Hey, You Just Got Your Point Across To Me!!!!

:think:

[More Than A Feeling]

16. Here we go again

last time it took 136 posts to get locked. How many this time? Place your bets. I'll say 45.

[johnaries]

22. How do you win? Exact number or closest?

What does the winner get? I'll bet 50.

[More Than A Feeling]

24. Closest. The winner gets to be the first witness at the Bush impeachment

trial! :bounce:

[johnaries]

29. Then I'm DEFINITELY in!

:bounce:

[johnaries]

23. Oh, and no fair hitting the ALERT when it gets to your number!

:evilgrin:

[KittyWampus]

35. Why Should This Discussion Get Locked? You Must Not Be Following It.

[Ravy]

54. I don't understand why the other post was locked and I complained

to the admins about it. I didn't see a single deleted post or any personal flaming.

The bulk of it was discussion of the issue. Many agreed with my original post and even some that disagreed came around after a bit of disussion by other DUers who understood my point.

If we won't discuss new or controversial ideas, we shouldn't complain about our Democratic leaders being sheep.

[More Than A Feeling]

56. I know, I was just happy I guessed

the number of posts the other one would get before it got locked, and no I did not alert on it. I wanted to see if I could duplicate the feat.

I agreed with you, so I am glad others who didn't changed their minds. Who was it?

[ruggerson]

19. Face it

the subtext for this entire marriage debate is that some straight people feel that gays getting married somehow "demeans" their marriage.

These straight people who oppose marriage for gays, on some level, deep down, whether they admit it or not, think that gay couples are LESS THAN straight couples. That gay relationships are not as valuable nor as legitimate as straight relationships.

That's the crux of it. All the religious crap is just window dressing and evasion to hide the deep seated bigotry at the core of the issue.

[KittyWampus]

38. No, The Subtext Is Society Has Evolved. We Now Seperate Church & State

and Legal Contracts are very different things then Religious Ceremonies.

Hence, our language needs to evolve to reflect this.

[ultraist]

59. Legal marriages vs. Church marriage ceremonies

Church marriage ceremonies are not legally binding. Personally, I don't care what the churches do in this regard. They are free to marry or not marry whomever they wish.

The State should NOT discriminate against Gays in any area, including marriage. Marriage was not originally a religious ceremony and still today, is not just a religious ceremony.

Marriage became intermingled with the State when the Roman Catholic church decided to take control of marriages at a time they were struggling against governments for control.

Here in the US, we have ALWAYS had State AND church marriages. In the late sixties, interracial marriages became legal. Let's hope that within the next decade, Gay marriages become legal.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=567

The origins of marriage
The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin—and why?

How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.

When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

Men who married men
Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”

[Zhade]

71. Yep, the fact is that marriage is not a religious institution.

Thanks for introducing some badly-needed reality to the discussion.

[Karenina]

74. It's SUCH a non-issue all puffed up into hysteria...

"equal protection under the law..."

2 people desire to enter into a binding legal contract to share property as it affects their social and economic lives. The state gives them forms. They fill out the forms and sign them in the presence of a clerk who wishes them all good things in life. VOILA!! They get a file in the courthouse to which all additions and addendums are added. Fertig.

EVERYTHING ELSE is elective.

WHAT is the big deal??? :shrug:

[Zhade]

75. Honestly? A feeling of superiority.

Seriously.

Those who believe marriage is solely a religious institution that wasn't around until organized religion (a completely false view not actually based on history) seem to emit a glow of smug self-satisfaction when arguing that belief.

I think it has to do with the inaccurate idea that marriage is something special to religion, an exclusive club that only the 'right kind of people' are allowed into.

I really do think those who cling to the idea that marriage is a religious institution under attack from GLBTers somehow think they are better than everyone else. It's simple arrogance and hubris, IMHO.

I like your idea better.

[Ravy]

79. I disagree.

Regardless of history, marriage is a religious institution. Churches have their own doctrine about which marriages they recognize, who they will marry, etc.

That makes it a religious institution.

It is not ONLY a religious institution, however. It is also a name given a social or civil institution. That even predates the religioius institution of marriage, but that isn't the point.

Both institutions exist, and the Republican's count on people not being able to differentiate when they kick our ass on this subject.

Many churches also give their name for the religious institution "holy matrimony". If only the state would use an alternate term, such as "civil unions" for all civil marriages (whether there was a ceremony or not, or if the ceremony was done by holy matrimony or by a ship captain or justice of the peace), we could get some legislation passed in our favor.

[Zhade]

86. You don't disagree.

We actually agree. My point was that 1) marriage is not solely a religious institution and 2) it came way before organized religion, and was not an idea created by religion.

[Charon]

92. Legally Binding

I would disagree with you on the statement that Church marrage ceremonies are not legally binding. In officiating a marrage, the priest/minister/deacon/shaman is acting as an agent of the state.
Once the ceremony is finished, he witnesses the couples signatures and signs state mandated paperwork to make the marrage "legal" paperwork wise. At least that was the procedure in California during the early 70's. OBTW, the minister that married my wife and I was a Navy Chaplain, on a Navy Base, acting as an agent of the State of California.

[Mandate My Ass]

41. Yup - they reek of faux moral superiority

It is implicit in their arguments that a gay union can never be a sanctified one, only a legally recognized one. The condescension of such a suggestion is appalling.

What difference does it make what two people want to call their union? It has no impact on anybody else. Why prevent gay couples from using the term that has always been used by straight people whether or not they ever married in a church?

And good lord, more than half of the straight marriages I know of are just short of a train wreck, which correlates to the national divorce statistics. Attend to that, I say, before looking for nonexistent threats of the sanctity of marriage.

[ruggerson]

48. Yep, the religious "elite"

another way we should be framing the debate. The arrogant religious "elite" trying to tell the average American how to live their private lives.

You can bet your ass Republicans would be framing it that way if it was reversed.

[Ravy]

57. I haven't seen a single person suggest that gay marriage could

not be sanctified.

I am sure it wouldn't be considered a marriage by many denominations, but I am equally sure it would be by some.

Why would you concern yourself by what other doctrines believe. The sanctity of your marriage would come from YOUR beliefs. not mine.

The state should have no role in it, either way.

[Mandate My Ass]

78. Why would I concern myself with what other doctrines believe?

Well, for the exactly same reason you felt it so necessary to pronounce that you believed that the institution of marriage was strictly for the union of a man and a woman.

For the same reason that you argued that gays should content themselves with the second class option of civil unions because Apple-pie-eatin Americans by and large felt the same way you did.

[Ravy]

80. But I clearly stated that I was referring to the religious institution...

.. not the civil institution.

You can believe I am good, or evil. That is your right and you are entitled to your opinion. I am also entitled to mine.

But we don't have the right to legislate this. We cannot pass legislation that would make you think of me always in the highest regard. You may believe that my marriage is second class, and I may believe your marriage is second class. Your beliefs are what they are, and mine are what they are.

What we can insist is that the GOVERNMENT treats people equally without regard to race, gender, or sexual orientation. If I want to believe that my church sanctified marriage trumps someone else's because it wasn't performed in the church or in MY church, that is my business. Likewise, if anyone wants to consider their union inferior or superior to one that was performed in a particular church, that is their business.

The government should only recognize civilly united couples. There is no second class there.

[Ravy]

81. Also, I never stated that gays should "content themselves" with anything.

I said that ALL couples should be civilly united, and that gays could also be married (engaged in holy matrimony) if they go to a church that will perform the ceremony.

Churches on a whole cannot agree on who the savior is, or who carries the word of their God, or even the same God for that matter. Why should they have to agree on who they consider married?

Getting the states to agree on who is civilly married (united), and that said, without any discrimination, should be our goal.

[ultraist]

49. Religion is the main source for their entire belief system

I don't think the religious part is just window dressing. The religious dogma is the architecture of their worldview. SOME religious rhetoric provides the justification to spread hate, oppress and discriminate.

Certainly, there are some anti gay bigots who are not religious, but the majority of anti gay bigots are religious.

[seabeyond]

25. i am a compromising find a solution kinda person, civiled unioned

at a justice of peace 11 years ago. my husband and i are more than willing to allow our coupling be called a civil unions as opposed to marriage. leaving marriage with the church wedding religions. we both declared last spring with the huge to do in marriage ammendment, that we will join the rank and file of the athiest, the gay and people like us in civil union and not even own the name marriage

[AP]

36. I think it's more apt to think of it this way: you were civily unionized..

...by a Registrar, but they also made you go to the JoP to get married.

It should have been enough just to go to the Registrar, and when people start thinking of marriage like that, we'll all be better off -- ie, the government gives you the civil union by registering your union. If you want to, you can go to a church for the spiritual union, but, so far as the government is concerned (viz taxation, rights of survivors, etc) the registration is enough, since the government only cares about legal relationships.

[seabeyond]

37. works for me and sounds so .......

civil, lol lol what a union should be

so lets do it

[KittyWampus]

42. Agreed, AP Really Managed To Nail It Rhetorically.

[ulysses]

46. do most people even work that way?

Seems to me that what you're describing is akin to renewing your car tag, and I think most people look for a little more in the way of ceremony (exchanging vows, at a minimum) in this kind of situation. It's sort of what we do.

[AP]

87. It's your choice if you need something spiritual.

But, considering the benefits and burdens created by getting unionized are so beneficial for people and their children, the government shouldn't be creating hurdles for people who want to sign on. It SHOULD be easy.

When you close on a house, we don't make people have a civil closing and then a religious closing as well. However, I agree that people should know what they're getting into when they get married. It shouldn't be like paying for a parking ticket. But I don't think requiring a quasi-religious or religious ceremony in addition to regsitration achieves that purpose. It's not like everyone married by a priest doesn't get a divorce, and common law marriages and civil unions all end in disaster.

Obviously, the job of convincing people marriage is important needs to be done before they say "I do" and before they apply for the marriage license.

[Zhade]

72. Nice, but those who wrongly think marriage is a religious creation...

...will NEVER settle for calling their 'sacred covenant' a civil union.

[Ravy]

77. That is why they should make their sacred covenent in a church

of their choosing.

Agreed, the word marriage was usurped by the church. Too late to change that.

But we can use an alternate term for more clarity in our legislation.
Not only in the part about forming the union, but in all legislation that currently gives rights and resposibilites to currently married couples.

That can be changed by a simple majority of a legislature and a signature from the executive branch.

[Zhade]

82. Are you talking about the government dropping the word "marriage"?

I would consider that to be a good idea, but you'd still run into arguments from those who will refuse to accept that their union is a civil union, and not a state-recognized marriage.

Many of those who argue this way have lots of money and power, and will make this another wedge issue.

I personally don't care WHAT word is used, as long as all couples - straight, same-sex, religious and non - get the exact same rights.

[AP]

88. Then let them go to a church. And also ask them what's so sacred about

a lower tax burden for married couples, or what's so sacred about tax-free transfer of assets to surviving spouses. There's nothing sacred about those things, so why have a spiritual relationship be the trigger?

Render onto Caesar what is Caesar's (the legal relationships a civil union ought to trigger) and render onto God what is God's (the spiritual relationships a religious ceremony should confer, if you think you need to get god involved in your spiritual relationships). But don't make Caesar take his cues on when to grant legal rights from God. It's not God's business which box you check on your 1040. And it's not Caesar's business what you feel, spiritually.

[justgamma]

28. Hubby and I have been civil unionized for 36 years. n/t

[ulysses]

33. ok, most of us then.

:)

[Ravy]

39. My thread was not about what we do, it is what we SHOULD do..

.. to move the issue forward.

I believe most Americans and even religious leaders would support my idea if it was framed properly.

Times change, language changes. I have no doubt that someday, even if the terms do not change, that all states will recognize gay marriage. I think that may take decades. I am suggesting a way I believe it could be accomplished much sooner.

[KittyWampus]

45. Your Message Was Well Taken And Stated. Your Thread Was Unfairly Locked

Some people are reacting through bias.

The old kneejerk thing.

Heck, sometimes I catch myself doing that on some topics.

:)

[Stinky The Clown]

84. Ravy, I agree with you

And I also think locking the previous thread on this was a bit of a stretch. It was a spirited discussion, but I don't think it was a flame war. This is a sensitive topic and emotion runs high on all sides of it.

It seems to me the way to go after this is to change the civil aspects of it. Essentially, take away the specific word 'marriage' from the civil side. There's virtually no chance we'll ever get churches to agree to give the word up. And to be honest, it isn't worth the effort to even try. No matter where the word came from, no matter its current meaning, no matter the perceptions it has, let them have the word. We can't, as a practical matter, change that.

We *can* however, change the civil side of it. We the people *are* the civil side.

My suggestion is to make it such that every human pairing is called, by the state, a civil union, or some other word, if that term has a bad taste to it (the specific word is unimportant). It can be anything at all ... except 'marriage'. For this discussion, I'll continue to use 'civil union'.

Now, we give everyone a civil union. Gay and het, it matters not. Bob and Dorothy have a civil union. Steve and Adam have a civil union. Carol and Mary have a civil union.

If you're still with me, what we've done is take the word 'marriage' *away* from hets. We've added a new phrase to the legal lexicon - 'civil union'. And we've given that phrase to everyone. Along with all the civil rights, civil privileges and civil responsibilities that were formerly given to marriages. Total, unambiguous equality. For everyone. Period. Unequivocal.

In practice, this could be accomplished with the simple signing of documents by the parties involved and then having a civil agency attest to that signing. No ceremony is needed. (A ceremony *could* happen if the couple so chooses, but it isn't necessary. More on that later.)

Now .... marriage. This becomes the province of churches. Without a doubt, some denominations will forbid gay marriages. But we all know there are many who will welcome it. If a couple (gay or het) chooses to be 'married' they need only find an institution to perform the ceremony. Marriage would confer absolutely no civil right, privilege, or obligation. It is legally neutral.

Now let's go back to the practices. Right now, every marriage performed outside the auspices of clergy is done by a person 'vested' by the state to perform the ceremony and affirm the legal bond. This could be a Justice of the Peace, a judge, a court officer, a court clerk, a ship's captain ... whatever. The point is, they were vested by the state to perform a ceremony and affirm a legal bond *by the state*. So, too are clergy. The state chooses to vest them with the same authority they vest into civil agents. In return, the vested clergy agrees to do the job in line with the legal requirements set out by the state.

None of this needs to change. Clergy could (and probably should) continue to be vested by the state to join couples together. But now, no one gives up anything. Gays, I have no doubt, will have fairly easy access to a religious marriage if that's their desire. A strict, bigoted, narrow minded religiously extreme couple would also be able to do what they do now ... marry in a way that affirms their view of the 'sanctity of marriage' by excluding specifically gays; the difference is, the state does not make the exclusion.

From a legal perspective, the only part of the ceremony that has weight is the signing of the legal document making the civil union. This is probably best done immediately before or after the religious ceremony, in private, but in reality, it doesn't matter. It is the ten seconds it takes to sign the paper that makes the 'marriage' legal. All else is religious trapping that matters to whoever chooses to allow it to matter.

Please .... I am fully in favor of complete and unequivocal equality for gays to marry (and do any other thing their heart desires!). But we have to move this forward in a way that's palatable to everyone. To try to change the definition and common use of the word 'marriage' has so much intractability on all sides that it is simply a non starter.

I'd much rather see us make a way forward where no one gives anything up and everyone gets what they want. So rather than screw around debating endlessly the word 'marriage' ... just take it out of the legal and civil side. No one gets it unless they choose to use it. Take all legal aspects of it away.

To me, this seems reasonable.

Doesn't it? :shrug:

I'm not affected by this and admit that I may well be missing something. But to me, this seems a good way forward. I'd love to hear others' views.

[libodem]

40. Do they have to sign

an oath not to have butt-sex? No goin' down, either...you know that can bring the sex police to your bedroom in most states. Man, I can't wait for those right-wing religious nut-jobs to take over the Judgeships, everywhere. And the resentment over half of them damn babies under one gittin' them, WIC, checks for formula... man they should be jailed for lack of abstinence. They been teachin' it in skhool,now. Why ain't they lernin? That's half the babies under one, ON THE DOLE. SEX is just BAD ...if you ain't merried in the Church, dammit

[orleans]

91. (marriage smarriage) i say anyone who wants to risk getting married

well--they're braver than me.
let 'em have at it!