Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is an interesting opinion that I've heard many times before. The thing that bothers me though, is that a single word on a piece of paper that nobody but the married couple will ever see is what's sending people into a tailspin. They will still refer to themselves as married, and in all probability they will refer to their civil union certificate as a marriage certificate.
Are people really getting up in arms about a word? Especially considering that marriage HAS evolved many times over the centuries (and before the bible...and many other religious texts) and will keep evolving in the future. Marriage used to be nothing but a man claiming a woman for her property and to have children to carry on his name. Child brides, polygamy, dowrys etc etc were all once a part of 'traditional' marriage. That all changed as people became wiser, and eventually marriage will be a union between consenting adults, and gender will not matter.
Really, it's only a matter of time.
The Christian religion doesn't own the word marriage, so why should they have the only say in what it means? Hell, my Atheist parents have been married for 27 years.
I agree with you completely, but I try to think in pragmatic terms and encourage compromise wherever I see potential for it.
To the right wing, the word "marriage" is a big deal. I recognize that and I respect their convictions even if I don't agree. This, to me, is a common-sense solution that would (most importantly) guarantee a minority group their rights without stepping on toes.
Absolutely. I think it's mostly people who equate "marriage" with religion who are afraid of letting the word go. They want their religious term enshrined in the law.
That's the beauty of this solution in my eyes. We simultaneously remove their ability to leverage their religion into law while preserving their right to call their relationship whatever they want.
Wouldn't you have to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act first though?
It wouldn't have to be done "first", but in order to have full equality, yes, eventually, DOMA needs to be repealed.
At the very least, the part of DOMA that holds backs federal rights from same-sex married couples needs to be repealed. The part that allows states to refuse to recognize other states' same-sex marriages may be left intact to appease the more conservative states on this issue.
Wouldn't you have to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act first though?
I don't think so. The Defense of Marriage act applies to marriages. If there are no more marriages, just civil unions, then it would be rendered moot.
The other great thing about this solution is it would force those who oppose marriage equality because they truly are bigoted to either admit their bigotry or give up on this debate because they would no longer be able to use terminology as a defense.
I agree with you completely, but I try to think in pragmatic terms and encourage compromise wherever I see potential for it.
To the right wing, the word "marriage" is a big deal. I recognize that and I respect their convictions even if I don't agree. This, to me, is a common-sense solution that would (most importantly) guarantee a minority group their rights without stepping on toes.
Yeah, I can see that. I used to be in the 'civil marriage for everyone' camp, but after prop 8 in California I changed my mind. The stranglehold that religion has on the nation needs to stop, and the use of the word marriage is part of that. I've never heard a large public outcry from religion that would demand that non-believers not be able to use the word marriage....so it doesn't make sense that they would freak out over gay marriage. If it was REALLY religious terminology, they would try harder to keep it in the group...
I know the Catholics generally won't marry anyone who isn't Catholic or anyone who has been divorced...but for some odd reason when money is involved (for the rental of the church and it's grounds) all prior convictions go out the window.
Yeah, I can see that. I used to be in the 'civil marriage for everyone' camp, but after prop 8 in California I changed my mind. The stranglehold that religion has on the nation needs to stop, and the use of the word marriage is part of that. I've never heard a large public outcry from religion that would demand that non-believers not be able to use the word marriage....so it doesn't make sense that they would freak out over gay marriage. If it was REALLY religious terminology, they would try harder to keep it in the group...
I know the Catholics generally won't marry anyone who isn't Catholic or anyone who has been divorced...but for some odd reason when money is involved (for the rental of the church and it's grounds) all prior convictions go out the window.
You have a good point...this debate does extend further from the immediate "should they or shouldn't they" to an indictment of the role of religion in our government.
Saldy, I think the separation of church and state struggle will never end because the evangelical nature of most religions requires followers to "spread the word," so to speak.
Yeah, I can see that. I used to be in the 'civil marriage for everyone' camp, but after prop 8 in California I changed my mind. The stranglehold that religion has on the nation needs to stop, and the use of the word marriage is part of that.
Same here. And for awhile, I thought there was hope that we could get the states out of the marriage business, but it's clear that a lot of Americans - religious or not - just can't let go of the word.
They won't give an inch on this issue. And really, even allowing same-sex couples to have civil unions is too much for many of them to handle. They say they're in favor of it, but then when it's up for a vote, they ban it. Even in Washington State on Tuesday, civil unions barely got passed. The opponents argued that it was "too much like marriage".
Same here. And for awhile, I thought there was hope that we could get the states out of the marriage business, but it's clear that a lot of Americans - religious or not - just can't let go of the word.
They won't give an inch on this issue. And really, even allowing same-sex couples to have civil unions is too much for many of them to handle. They say they're in favor of it, but then when it's up for a vote, they ban it. Even in Washington State on Tuesday, civil unions barely got passed. The opponents argued that it was "too much like marriage".
Excellent point. Remember when the 'slippery slope' argument was used by the yes on 8 people in CA? How if we let gays marry, then people would demand child marriage, dog marriage etc etc? Well...looks like this is a slippery slope in the other direction, isn't it? (For the record though, I HATE the slippery slope argument..) People conceded to let them have the word 'marriage' back, now they are starting to ban even civil unions!
Give em an inch, they'll take a mile I've become far more 'militant' about it in the last year or so, and I'm not backing down.
You have a good point...this debate does extend further from the immediate "should they or shouldn't they" to an indictment of the role of religion in our government.
Saldy, I think the separation of church and state struggle will never end because the evangelical nature of most religions requires followers to "spread the word," so to speak.
So true. Then, when you disagree they claim oppression and persecution
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
