TheProgressivePatriot
Gold Member
What is this? Is there supposed to e a link showing that some states have replaced marriage w/ civil unions? The word matters.No the word marriage does not matter. It's just a word. And yes different words ARE USED ALL THE TIME. And no using a word IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY. It's called language. Yes since last Friday this is a done deal. FYI at my church when I got married they called it holy matrimony, nuptuals, and other words were also used for example joining of two people..Perhaps, you miss my point.Yeah well, though I'm a heterosexual, I'm all for same sex marriage. As for the marriage license thing.. The contracts are still needed and I'm not saying that should go away. I'm just saying call it a civil license so as not to mix the religious language thing. Thus marriage is more a anarchistic term used by religious folk and those who desire to call their government managed civil union a marriage. Whatever... but the government should not be implying that the civil union license (currently called a marriage license) is a religious construct. No need to make this all deep and shit.. just rename the damn thing at the state government level to make everyone feel better.Yes, I’ve heard that said before….mostly by people who have not really thought it through, who have not really considered what that would look like. They take this position as an alternative to the legalization of gay marriage and assert that in the absence of government regulation anyone can form a union-via contract- with anyone else who they chose to, and call it whatever they want. I suspect that those pushing this viewpoint are those who are opposed to same sex marriage, and will do anything to stave off the day when such nuptials are universally recognized by government. Other just hate anything that the government does. The idea it seems is to sink the ship in order to drown the rats. In addition, I have yet to hear any real explanation of how such a drastic change in marriage will in any way be better for us as a society.
I believe that it is wrought with problems and pitfalls, and promoted by people who do not really want it to come to that-indeed they don’t believe that it will-but who are also being coy about their opposition to equality or government regulation of anything. However, far be it from me-the Progressive Patriot- to jump to conclusions or rush to judgment so I decided to take a closer look.
First, let us consider why marriage is something that is regulated by the government in the first place. It is true that for centuries, marriage was in fact a private affair between families. However it is also true that the practice of requiring marriage licenses dates back more than 400 years in England. (When those opposed to gay marriage talk about tradition, I say, now there is tradition! A tradition that you might want to think twice about discarding)
This license requirement came about because ” It’s interesting to note that while marriage licenses came about in England at the behest of the state run church, and the church continued to have enormous influence in the colonies , once the United States came into being, there was no longer a state church and in fact a state church was specifically prohibited. However, concessions were made to the church such as granting tax exempt status, and most notable with respect to marriage, clergy were afforded the right to perform wedding ceremonies that result in a legally binding union under the law. Some would say that doing so blurs the lines between church and state.
So on the surface, it may seem at this point that government regulation came about for the wrong reasons or is no longer relevant:
But wait! What is a “private contract” Not being a student of midlevel history, I don’t know what the concept of “contract” was then. However, I know that in our system of government and law, a contract is a legal construct that is it is created by law. Its execution and desolation is controlled by statute, and only government creates statutory law. So I submit to you that to get government “out of marriage” is not a choice under the contemporary definition of contract
- Interracial marriage is no longer an issue
- There is no state sponsored church that has official influence on government so presumably, government could pull out of the marriage regulation business if chose to.
- Marriage licenses are probably not a significant source of revenue, it is restricted to local government and it is not a reason to require legal marriage that most people would endorse.
- Public health and vital statistics could be compiled by the census and through the registration of those private contracts
Ok, so some government involvement is inevitable. But you might say if those contracts are regulated by government, why can’t they just be like any other contract such as one you might enter into with an employer, or someone remodeling your home. What makes a “marriage contract” special? Why require a license to enter into a marriage contract, but not other contracts?
As it turns out, there is at least one supporter of traditional marriage who think that it would, in fact be a very bad idea to remove the government sanction and regulation of marriage.
They go on to say:
And:
In addition, for many people, religious or not, marriage is still a special covenant, a statement about commitment and a status that is still valued. It is a word and a concept that has universal meaning. While traditionalist rail against same sex marriage as devaluing marriage as we know it, while at the same time saying that marriage is no different than other contracts and not recognize it as special is the height of hypocrisy. The fact is that to reduce it to a simple contract would be the ultimate blow to the institution and its value.
However if it's too much work for a state to change the name to civil union... lol fine stop complaining about it.
Yes, A variation on the government out of marriage theme has been the suggestion that marriage be preserved only as a religious institution while all those who do not want a religious nuptial-both gay and straight- are relegated to civil unions Til Death Do Us Part The End of Government Regulation of Marriage and the Emergence of Domestic Partnership Contracts The People Ideas and Things PIT Journal
Now, I, like you am a heterosexual and obviously in favor of gay marriage. Unlike you, I am an atheist. I am also married, and enjoy the right to call it marriage because that is what it is. Marriage is a word that has meaning and is universally understood. Anyone tries to deny me the right to call it marriage is going to have a problem with me. Religion does not own the word “marriage’ , least of all at this point in history in the U.S.
While this might solve the issue of equality between gays and straights and avoid the issue of government recognition of same sex marriage, it sets up another dichotomy – that between religious unions and others. It would be just another form of discrimination. In short, it is just another unnecessary, pointless and losing proposition that nobody is going to go for. It would also appear that those –like me-who want to call their union ”marriage” without the religious aspects would have a strong case for religious discrimination.
Government manages a contract currently called a "marriage." The exact same contract could be called... fubar. Come and get your fubar licence, previously named "marriage" license. The story would go that the new name means the same but the people got all whiny about government using the name, we had to rename it to something that is non-descriptive as a substitute word to placate the bastards who can't stand thinking about same sex and plural marriages sharing the word marriage. Why? Because many people are fundamentally selfish.
If you prefer you can call it "the" license or pairing licence or nuputal licence. I really don't care what name you call your "coupling." Just because the government puts the word "license" on the damn piece of paper does not mean it's not the license you use for your "marriage."
Now when it comes to colloquial language, yeah most people will still call it a marriage, but I'd guess some gay folks would be proud to call their's a same sex marriage. But recognize that adjectives are just... adjectives. Hell some people call it your ball and chain license. Really what the hell does it matter? All these names mean the same thing... two or more consenting adults decided to stay together and share a life... potentially for the rest of their days.
I think that you missed my point. The word "marriage" matters and you cant use different terms for religious vs. civil marriage because that is discriminatory. The only thing that makes sense is marriage for all. I am not going to pander to the religious wing-nutters and call non religious unions anything else. This does not have to be complicated, and you know what? Since last Friday it's not. Everyone gets married and that is that.
My point was the states can still do stupid things to placate stupid people. For example, they can call marriages license in their state civil unions. Here watch..
CIVIL UNION LICENSE
aka. marriage license in the other 56 states.
I really want people to be free to make their own decisions regarding their own lives basically, without government interference.
