Let's just call them all civil unions. If you want to get married, go to a church.

[Shakes]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Or internationally. If Bob and Carol get a civil union in one country, that union isn't going to be recognized in many if any other countries, even those with civil unions of their own. Marriages are recognized everywhere. This idea would mean that Americans would no longer be married in the eyes of the rest of the planet, which would no doubt be constantly irritating to any couples that travel out of the country.

Hmm, you may have a point here. But I'm not entirely convinced there could be a work around to this.

No, they'd be using the argument that homosexuals have destroyed marriage instead. There'd be a massive backlash. The name matters, both legally and emotionally. As has already been said, that's why "civil unions" were created; as an insult, and as a second class, ghetto alternative to marriage.

I have no doubt the extremist would do this. However, one could easily use their own dogma against them. As in: "Really? What the government defines as marriage trumps the word of god? Do go on." I think a big problem here is 'Marriage" has a monolithic meaning. As far as the evangelicals are concerned, marriage only means one man one woman. Forget about civil marriage and religious marriage. There is only marriage as decreed by god.

CUs would no longer be second class if that's the tittle given to everyone from the government. In the proposed OP, there is no separate but equal. Everyone gets the same.

Because it outlaws marriage. It's the state, not churches that have the authority to declare whether or not someone is married. Churches just perform empty rituals and make declarations that no one outside of their church takes seriously. That's a major reason why homosexuals are pushing for SSM; they can get religiously "married" now in gay-friendly churches, but it isn't the real thing and they know it.

It only precludes the word marriage. None of its benefits. If people want to get all butt hurt because the government no longer calls their marriage a marriage; that's just asinine.

I mean, what are we really protesting here? Equal rights or semantics?

[Shakes]

Originally Posted by Eliahna

Shakes, I'm honestly curious to know: how would you feel about it if ceremonies performed by clergymen were called religious unions and were not called marriages? If marriages could only be performed by civil servants but religions could perform religious unions, would that be an ok alternative to your proposal? Do you not feel that "religious union" somehow carries a connotation of being lesser, the same way many of us feel that "civil union" is perceived as lesser?

Nobody is trying to force laws on to the church that they must call marriages religious unions.

However, if they decided on their own to start calling them all RUs, that's on them. And if that's the tittle they gave to all of them, there would be no second class. Second class to what?

In order for second class to work, there would have to be a group of people getting first class.

[Alan Smithee]

What do you think the religious people are protesting? They don't want gay couples given the same level of sanction by society as straight couples. They want the government to hold up straight families as ideal and to disregard gay families or denigrate them as inferior and degenerate.

The fact that a few of them are willing to let it go at mere token semantic denigration, by having the government say, OK, gays can't use this special word that straights can but they can have all the same rights doesn't mean they'd be any happier if no one got to use "marriage" in a legal sense than they are about the prospect of everyone getting to use "marriage" in a legal sense. Their whole point is that government should treat gay and straight couples differently, and making them use different words is the absolute minimum they're willing to accept in that direction.

[Shakes]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

What do you think the religious people are protesting? They don't want gay couples given the same level of sanction by society as straight couples. They want the government to hold up straight families as ideal and to disregard gay families or denigrate them as inferior and degenerate.

The fact that a few of them are willing to let it go at mere token semantic denigration, by having the government say, OK, gays can't use this special word that straights can but they can have all the same rights doesn't mean they'd be any happier if no one got to use "marriage" in a legal sense than they are about the prospect of everyone getting to use "marriage" in a legal sense. Their whole point is that government should treat gay and straight couples differently, and making them use different words is the absolute minimum they're willing to accept in that direction.

I know what the bigots are protesting. I'm asking what are we (The non bigots) protesting?

[Maserschmidt]

I'm a little confused by the dialogue - what I imagined, reading the OP, was making available a standardized legal contract defining mutual benefits (including survivorship) congruent with whatever the legal definition of 'marriage' has been historically in a given state. I didn't picture a state-conducted ceremony at all...if you want a ceremony, go work it out with a church or some other sponsor, where that act alone would have no legal implications.

Too simplistic? Missing the point?

[Alan Smithee]

We're protesting the notion that the government should treat gay and straight couples differently. Would your proposal result in the government treating gay and straight couples identically? Sure, but it would also do nothing to bring bigots (or even people on the fence) over to our side (because it would clearly be a victory for us if your proposal became law). On the contrary, if your proposal were seriously floated by politicians or opinion makers it would galvanize the bigots and hand them a powerful piece of rhetorical ammunition. It would be less likely to become law than any current proposal, and would therefore set back the march towards gay equality. And it would do so at the cost of depriving gays and atheists (and I suppose everyone else) of the practically meaningless but emotionally important goal of having the government recognize their unions in the same language by which all other unions since the beginning of time have been recognized.

So it would make the goal of equality harder to reach and it would deprive our side of something emotionally valuable. Why is this a good idea?

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by Shakes

I know what the bigots are protesting. I'm asking what are we (The non bigots) protesting?

Protesting the fact that single-sex marriage is not legal, I would guess.

[Shakes]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

We're protesting the notion that the government should treat gay and straight couples differently. Would your proposal result in the government treating gay and straight couples identically? Sure, but it would also do nothing to bring bigots (or even people on the fence) over to our side (because it would clearly be a victory for us if your proposal became law). On the contrary, if your proposal were seriously floated by politicians or opinion makers it would galvanize the bigots and hand them a powerful piece of rhetorical ammunition. It would be less likely to become law than any current proposal, and would therefore set back the march towards gay equality. And it would do so at the cost of depriving gays and atheists (and I suppose everyone else) of the practically meaningless but emotionally important goal of having the government recognize their unions in the same language by which all other unions since the beginning of time have been recognized.

So it would make the goal of equality harder to reach and it would deprive our side of something emotionally valuable. Why is this a good idea?

Listen, we have no right to force bigots to think like we do. We just don't. Don't get me wrong, I would love for them to come over to our side. But I don't feel I have that right.

Originally Posted by Arnold Winkelried

Protesting the fact that single-sex marriage is not legal, I would guess.

Great. Why are we arguing semantics?

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by Shakes

Listen, we have no right to force bigots to think like we do. We just don't. Don't get me wrong, I would love for them to come over to our side. But I don't feel I have that right.

Who said anything about forcing bigots to think like us? What would that even mean?

And what's the point of your proposal, if it isn't to be more appealing to the other side than our current goal (gay marriage) is? Just to make our side less happy? To score a meaningless rhetorical point against the other side ("You said you didn't want the government to recognize gay marriage and it doesn't! But we still won, mostly! Ha ha! In your face!")?

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by steronz

How many billions of dollars would it cost to rewrite all of our laws and forms to say "Civil Union" instead of "Marriage?" How is that better than just telling the religious holdouts out to get over themselves?

I used to espouse the same idea, but it's just not politically feasible, especially when there's a much, much simpler solution on the table.

Global search and replace. No problem. As documents age out of use, replace them with new, and mail everybody a case of the little printer pages of stickers and a file that prints the page to say 'civil union' on all the little stickers. They can sticker over the word marriage until they need to replace teh document with a freshly printed one that says civil union.

[Farmer Jane]

If the religious right wants to define marriage, than any two people shacking up should be able to receive the benefits of a legally recognized union. That's biblical marriage right there.

[Shakes]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

Who said anything about forcing bigots to think like us? What would that even mean?

And what's the point of your proposal, if it isn't to be more appealing to the other side than our current goal (gay marriage) is? Just to make our side less happy? To score a meaningless rhetorical point against the other side ("You said you didn't want the government to recognize gay marriage and it doesn't! But we still won, mostly! Ha ha! In your face!")?[/quote]

From your quote:

Sure, but it would also do nothing to bring bigots (or even people on the fence) over to our side

We don't have to make them embrace gay marriage. Just accept the fact that the government will not take part in your religious agenda.

It's a compromise. I know it leaves a bad taste in our mouths to compromise with bigotry, but if it helps, neither side usually gets 100% of what they want in a compromise.

[Polycarp]

I will say the same thing to Shakes, Aruqvan, and anybody else who is after this utterly ridiculous semantic business -- if you do not want to be 'married' then don't enter into a 'marriage'. But don't deprive those for whom the word has meaning of using it for whatever silly reason you have. So far, I've seen Shakse insult Miller, an atheist gay man who wishes to enter into a marriage, by accusing him of wanting to placate a 'nonexistent sky wizzard [sic]"

And I am getting very uncivil, and fairly ionized, in wishing to defend my marriage, and those of atheists, gay coupies, and all and sundry, from people who cannot grasp the idea that language is meaningful to people, that words carry connotations that matter to people.

Further, just "running global search and replace" and "slapping stickers on things" without amending each and every one of the thousands of statutes that reference marriages, surviving spouses, etc., and promulgating and holding hearings on the regulations that authorize those forms, is quite literally a criminal act.

[Maastricht]

Originally Posted by Mama Zappa

Yep. Hell, a lot of countries do it this way routinely. You go to some kind of government office for the legal portion, then have the "real" wedding at the church (if you like).

That is how it is done in the Netherlands.

The courthouse offers some marriage venues that offer the festivity and practicality of a church. In my hometown Maastricht, the county official can perform the marriage ceremony in either the old county hall, the modern City Hall, (the ceremony is done for free on Monday mornings) a theater, an resort, a museum, a castle or another castle. . For a small additional fee, the county marriage offical will come to another venue of the couple's choice.

The county marraige offical will do the stuff a priest wil usually do, like meeting with the couple beforehand and holding a little festive speech at the ceremony tailored to the couples histories and circumstances.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Shakes

We don't have to make them embrace gay marriage. Just accept the fact that the government will not take part in your religious agenda.

If it wasn't going to take part in their religious agenda, it would simple let homosexuals get married and be done with it.

Originally Posted by Shakes

It's a compromise. I know it leaves a bad taste in our mouths to compromise with bigotry, but if it helps, neither side usually gets 100% of what they want in a compromise.

Bigotry shouldn't be compromised with, ever. Both from a moral perspective, and because it just doesn't work. This idea will strengthen the bigots, not weaken them. Pushing it would be more likely to result in something like an anti-same-sex marriage Amendment to the Constitution than it would be to give same sex couples anything they want.

[Hershele Ostropoler]

Originally Posted by Shakes

It's a compromise. I know it leaves a bad taste in our mouths to compromise with bigotry, but if it helps, neither side usually gets 100% of what they want in a compromise.

It's not clear to me why bigots should get more than 0% of what they want.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by Shakes

Great. Why are we arguing semantics?

I'm not arguing semantics. I'm saying that rewriting (rephrasing) every state and federal law is not necessary.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

Why do the religious deserve a monopoly on the word marriage? It isn't theirs to claim. The government has a tradition of using the term as well...

It took the Church a 1,000 years to make up it's mind whether marriage was a divine sacrament, a civil contract, or just a way for fornicators who couldn't stand celibacy to channel their urges. The Western wold's concept of marriage owes alot more to Roman civil law than it does the Bible.

Originally Posted by steronz

Did you not read the OP?

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Or internationally. If Bob and Carol get a civil union in one country, that union isn't going to be recognized in many if any other countries, even those with civil unions of their own. Marriages are recognized everywhere. This idea would mean that Americans would no longer be married in the eyes of the rest of the planet, which would no doubt be constantly irritating to any couples that travel out of the country...

Yeah, there's the distict possiblity, however remote, that this might put heterosexual Americans traveling abroud in the same nasty situtations that same-sex couples can find themselves in.

The OP's suggestion is completely idiotic and without merit. It's playing in to every insane reactionary argument that the gays are trying to destroy marriage. It solves nothing, there's no possibilty of any jurisdiciton on the planet adopting it, and if one did somehow it would probally result widespread ostracism and violence against gays & lesbians.

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by Shakes

And what's the point of your proposal, if it isn't to be more appealing to the other side than our current goal (gay marriage) is? Just to make our side less happy? To score a meaningless rhetorical point against the other side ("You said you didn't want the government to recognize gay marriage and it doesn't! But we still won, mostly! Ha ha! In your face!")?

From your quote:



We don't have to make them embrace gay marriage. Just accept the fact that the government will not take part in your religious agenda.

It's a compromise. I know it leaves a bad taste in our mouths to compromise with bigotry, but if it helps, neither side usually gets 100% of what they want in a compromise.[/quote]I can see the point of compromise if it gets you something you wouldn't otherwise get. What do non-bigots get out of this that they don't get by sticking to their guns? I've repeatedly pointed out that the answer is "nothing" and you haven't argued the point, yet you keep calling this a compromise. A "compromise" that doesn't gain your side anything isn't a compromise, it's a unilateral concession. Why suggest that?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

Yeah, there's the distict possiblity, however remote, that this might put heterosexual Americans traveling abroud in the same nasty situtations that same-sex couples can find themselves in.

Not that remote; I've already heard complaints about their relationship not being recognized by people in civil unions traveling internationally.

[Shakes]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Bigotry shouldn't be compromised with, ever. Both from a moral perspective, and because it just doesn't work. This idea will strengthen the bigots, not weaken them. Pushing it would be more likely to result in something like an anti-same-sex marriage Amendment to the Constitution than it would be to give same sex couples anything they want.

When Blacks were emancipated, how many hurdles did they have to leap before they got all the rights that they have today? I could ask the same question about women's rights.

Or heck, how about gays being able to serve openly in the military? Did we just go from 'No openly gays in the military' to 'OK, it's cool. Openly gays in the military'? No we did not, first we had to go through that whole stupid phase of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'

It was stupid, but look where it got us. Gays can now openly serve in the military. And as far as I can tell, the bigots were NOT empowered by DADT. In fact, they were weakened by it.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by steronz

How many billions of dollars would it cost to rewrite all of our laws and forms to say "Civil Union" instead of "Marriage?" How is that better than just telling the religious holdouts out to get over themselves?

How many billions of dollars will be spent on ballot measures as this issue see-saws back and forth? No one is going to just "get over" themselves just because it is the sane thing to do. Time for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Shakes

When Blacks were emancipated, how many hurdles did they have to leap before they got all the rights that they have today? I could ask the same question about women's rights.

Which demonstrates my point. All "compromises" ever did was write discrimination into law, so the fight had to start all over again. It just drew out the oppression and tyranny. "Compromise" often meant they lost rights, not gained them.

Originally Posted by Shakes

Or heck, how about gays being able to serve openly in the military? Did we just go from 'No openly gays in the military' to 'OK, it's cool. Openly gays in the military'? No we did not, first we had to go through that whole stupid phase of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'

It was stupid, but look where it got us.

What it "got us" was many years of worse treatment for gays in the military. It was a speedbump, not a stepping stone; it was put there to slow progress, and it succeeded.

And as far as I can tell, the bigots were NOT empowered by DADT. In fact, they were weakened by it.

Hardly; it gave them greater power to drive military gays into hiding and ruin their careers if caught. It gave them many years of fun tormenting their victims, and did irreparable damage to the lives of thousands of people.

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Time for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

Why should everyone else suffer in a futile attempt to placate the bigots? If anything it's religion that should get out of the marriage business, since it's so addicted to using it as a weapon.

[midnight-dreary]

Can you not understand this is segregation?

[MyFootsZZZ]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

Do we have to retroactively change all the songs and poems and movies and stuff? "Peggy Sue Got Civil-Unioned," etc.

My Big, Fat Civil-Union.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Why should everyone else suffer in a futile attempt to placate the bigots?

How does getting government out of the marriage business hurt anyone?

If anything it's religion that should get out of the marriage business, since it's so addicted to using it as a weapon.

Perhaps if you stamp you foot harder.

[Shakes]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Which demonstrates my point. All "compromises" ever did was write discrimination into law, so the fight had to start all over again. It just drew out the oppression and tyranny. "Compromise" often meant they lost rights, not gained them.

What it "got us" was many years of worse treatment for gays in the military. It was a speedbump, not a stepping stone; it was put there to slow progress, and it succeeded.

Hardly; it gave them greater power to drive military gays into hiding and ruin their careers if caught. It gave them many years of fun tormenting their victims, and did irreparable damage to the lives of thousands of people.

I couldn't disagree with you more. You see them as speed bumps, I see them as a necessarry process of the evolution of equal rights.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

How does getting government out of the marriage business hurt anyone?

It forces people to give up being married, which is what they want, for a "civil union" that they don't want and which will be inferior. It demonizes homosexuals even more than they already are, inflames the homophobes even more than they are, and solves nothing.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Shakes

Great. Why are we arguing semantics?

Because that's all there is.

Either a civil union is less than a marriage, or it isn't.

• If it is less, then the anti-SSM people are correct that SSM proponents want to denigrate marriage by degrading it into a civil union.

• If a civil union is the same as a marriage, then it doesn't do any harm to have "marriage" for heterosexual couples, and "civil union" for gay couples.

ISTM that the insistence by SSM proponents on the term "marriage" to refer to SSM is based on two things -

1. An attempt to get SSM thru the back door by pretending that SSM is in the law already, and
2. An attempt to force everyone to agree that SSM is just as good as heterosexual marriage by forcing them to use the same term

Regards,
Shodan

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by Shodan

An attempt to get SSM thru the back door

N/M, too easy.

[Shakes]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

It forces people to give up being married, which is what they want, for a "civil union" that they don't want and which will be inferior. It demonizes homosexuals even more than they already are, inflames the homophobes even more than they are, and solves nothing.

Nothing besides, property rights for the spouse, insurance, tax benifts, etc...

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

It forces people to give up being married, which is what they want, for a "civil union" that they don't want and which will be inferior.

Nonsense. Plenty of churches perform gay marriages:

Faiths Allowing Same-Sex Marriages

• United Church of Christ: The United Church of Christ was the first mainstream Christian church to fully support same-sex marriage and perform marriage ceremonies.
• Jewish: Reform Judaism embraces same-sex marriage and rabbis can perform ceremonies.
• Quaker: The willingness to perform gay marriages varies by meetinghouse, but there is some acceptance and performance of same-sex marriages among Quakers.
• Metropolitan Community Church
• Unitarian Universalist

Faiths Allowing Limited Same-Sex Marriage

• Episcopal: In the Episcopal Church, priests are authorized to bless same-sex wedding ceremonies but not declare the marriage official or sign the marriage license. Episcopal priests in Eastern Massachusetts can fully marry same-sex couples without conditions.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Thanks for the link to the previous thread. I still think that government abandonment of the word "marriage" is the utopian ideal, but it's become clear since that thread that the train has left the station, that same-sex marriage has won the key battles, and that the end of the war is in sight with a victory for same-sex marriage. Which is freakin' awesome, far better than I suspected it would be just a few years ago. The marginal benefits to government abandonment of "marriage" would require a major shift in focus now, one that's just not going to happen, and I'm fine with that; there's no reason to go for a different strategy for equality, now that the marriage-equality strategy is proving so effective.

(If folks want to know what I mean by "marginal benefits," go to that other thread--I don't think I can express myself more carefully than I did in that thread.)

[Sparky the Wonder Spirit]

Originally Posted by Shakes

Atheist here: I have no affinity for the word marriage. That word means nothing to me. As long as I can get my government benefits; I'm good.

You're not the only atheist/agnostic in the world. I would like to be married, and I am not a church-goer of any sort. Why should I be punished so that the government can placate bigots?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Sparky the Wonder Spirit

You're not the only atheist/agnostic in the world. I would like to be married, and I am not a church-goer of any sort. Why should I be punished so that the government can placate bigots?

You're not being punished; you have the same opportunity to marry as any believer.

Regards,
Shodan

[Dr. Drake]

Shakes, why do you believe that religious institutions have a prior claim on the word "marriage"? Others have pointed out that marriage is practiced by non-Christians the world over, but you should also remember that the church only got into the marriage business in a big way during the middle ages. Don't make the mistake of assuming the way things were in 1620, or 1776, was the way they had been since the beginning of time or even the beginning of Christianity.

As for "Civil Union," I think it's a pretty good example of Orwell's Newspeak.

And on a personal note, as a married gay man, I feel unreasonably attacked in that now that I've obtained this right, it looks like people are trying to take it away from me by destroying the word. It's sort of dog-in-the-manger logic. If gays are going to marry, then the institution is tainted and we might as well do away with it altogether. Sort of like if I bought a house in your neighborhood and all the straight people suddenly move out.

There's a proverb: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Nothing wrong with the word "marriage," or "wedding."

Here in Vancouver, BC, it's Pride Weekend. All of the stores and banks, including the state-run liquor store, are getting ready for it with rainbow-coloured decorations. People greet each other with "Happy Pride!", whether straight or gay. It's just another ethnic holiday with a parade, in which politicians and businesses march along with clubs and organizations and people in silly costumes. It's so god-damn normal it would make heads explode from Idaho to Florida. I know people resisted gay marriage when it was brought in, but less than ten years later we've moved on. You should try it.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Sparky the Wonder Spirit

I would like to be married, and I am not a church-goer of any sort.

I am an athiest, but I would like to have an eternal soul and be forgiven for all my sins. Am I being discriminated against by organized religion because I don't believe in god?

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Time for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

This line is the silliest supposedly-reaonable comment I know of. Remember all those injustices that gay people hold up as having happened because gay marriages (or even gay relationships at all) are not recognized?

What you're saying, whether you realize it or not, is let's be fair: let's deprive everyone of protection against them. Government being in the marrriage business is what makes those legal protections, well, legal, enforceable at law.

IMO a marriage should exist when two people contact it before witnesses and register this with some Keeper of Vital Statistics -- normally, I'd think, a city or county clerk. The idea of licensing them is less than 120 years old -- My maternal grandparents were so opposed to the idea of the state presuming to license who might and might not marry that they moved up their wedding date and married on New Years Eve, three hours before the licensing law went into effect, to snub their nose at it.

If the churches need a special name to show how ultra-super-duper-special their god-blessed marriages are, they already have that too: Holy Matrimony. Means a church marriage, nothing more or less.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

This line is the silliest supposedly-reaonable comment I know of. Remember all those injustices that gay people hold up as having happened because gay marriages (or even gay relationships at all) are not recognized?

What you're saying, whether you realize it or not, is let's be fair: let's deprive everyone of protection against them. Government being in the marrriage business is what makes those legal protections, well, legal, enforceable at law.

Wrong. Government can protect the rights afforded to civil unions, the same as they do for marriage now. If everyone was subject to the same state recognition and legal status, there could be no discrimination on the basis of marital condition. Any law that referred to marriage would be changed to civil union. Marriage is a sacred union conferred by churches, and will carry no weight as far as civil rights. Civil unions are conferred by the state, and are the legal basis for decisions regarding family law.

And never the twain should meet.

[Polycarp]

And prcisely what is the problem with the term "civil marriage" already in law in 51 jurisdictions that it needs to be replaced with a new term "civil union" in order that gays may be civilly unionized under it (and what about gay believers? Can they have a religious marriage?)?

In addition to which, see any of the dozen or so threads where Magellan01 argued the point you're making for in-depth refutation of why it wouldn't work.

This "compromise" differs in no discernible way, AFAIAC, from a complete unconditional surrender.

[Dr. Drake]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Marriage is a sacred union conferred by churches, and will carry no weight as far as civil rights. Civil unions are conferred by the state, and are the legal basis for decisions regarding family law.

And never the twain should meet.

How about "sacred union" is a sacred union conferred by churches, and will carry no weight as far as civil rights. Marriages are conferred by the state, and are the legal basis for decisions regarding family law. This has the benefit of not requiring any changes to the law or the language.

[Shakes]

Originally Posted by Sparky the Wonder Spirit

You're not the only atheist/agnostic in the world. I would like to be married, and I am not a church-goer of any sort. Why should I be punished so that the government can placate bigots?

How are you being punished? AS I said up thread, the only time I can think of when you would actually have to use the word CU, is at the end of the year when you are filling out your tax returns.

Is that really so bad? Would the quality of you life take a nosedive because of it?

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

Shakes, why do you believe that religious institutions have a prior claim on the word "marriage"? Others have pointed out that marriage is practiced by non-Christians the world over, but you should also remember that the church only got into the marriage business in a big way during the middle ages. Don't make the mistake of assuming the way things were in 1620, or 1776, was the way they had been since the beginning of time or even the beginning of Christianity.

As for "Civil Union," I think it's a pretty good example of Orwell's Newspeak.

And on a personal note, as a married gay man, I feel unreasonably attacked in that now that I've obtained this right, it looks like people are trying to take it away from me by destroying the word. It's sort of dog-in-the-manger logic. If gays are going to marry, then the institution is tainted and we might as well do away with it altogether. Sort of like if I bought a house in your neighborhood and all the straight people suddenly move out.

There's a proverb: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Nothing wrong with the word "marriage," or "wedding."

Here in Vancouver, BC, it's Pride Weekend. All of the stores and banks, including the state-run liquor store, are getting ready for it with rainbow-coloured decorations. People greet each other with "Happy Pride!", whether straight or gay. It's just another ethnic holiday with a parade, in which politicians and businesses march along with clubs and organizations and people in silly costumes. It's so god-damn normal it would make heads explode from Idaho to Florida. I know people resisted gay marriage when it was brought in, but less than ten years later we've moved on. You should try it.

Yes, the history of the word marriage is very interesting. Thing is most people aren't history scholars. The fact is, in this day and age, when one says married, others relate it to the religious. For the most part.

Besides that, I'm not letting anybody lay claim to the word. Let the people continue to have that philosophical debate. I was suggesting the word be precluded from the government so that the politicians stay out of it.

And let's not kid ourselves, if we continue to allow politicians to have this debate. We know whose side they will be on.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

How about "sacred union" is a sacred union conferred by churches, and will carry no weight as far as civil rights. Marriages are conferred by the state, and are the legal basis for decisions regarding family law. This has the benefit of not requiring any changes to the law or the language.

Because the state has no authority to tell churches what to call their sacred rites. If they want to preserve traditional marriage as described in the bible, I say let them. But the state is under no legal obligation to recognize them, and may require civil unions for anyone wanting the protection of the law in civil matters.

[Dr. Drake]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Because the state has no authority to tell churches what to call their sacred rites. If they want to preserve traditional marriage as described in the bible, I say let them. But the state is under no legal obligation to recognize them, and may require civil unions for anyone wanting the protection of the law in civil matters.

You've put the cart before the horse. Why do people keep doing that? The word "marriage" is not in the Bible, only in translations of the Bible. It is an English word based on a Latin word which existed before the Bible was put into either of those languages. The government does not have the power to define church terminology, but it DOES have the power to define its own terms and let the churches react as they will. Which is in fact what's going on.

My marriage was 100% secular, and it's just as valid as anyone else's until I travel internationally, at which point it starts swinging wildly between "marriage" and "nothing".

[Curiosity Kills Her]

A fundamentalist, anti-SSM Tea Partier I come into regular contact with told me that according to "that book I follow" when he got married he didn't just get married, he created a covenant with God.

Well, I'm perfectly ok with consenting adults having marriages recognized by the state and the religious having marital covenants with God. In fact, I encourage it. Win-win.

I don't think the person in question would go for that, but I thank him for inadvertently giving me the solution to the semantics.

[jayjay]

This would be a lovely idea if the anti-SSM people were really motivated by the things the OP thinks they are, but they're not. The fact that civil union laws (even ones which DON'T confer marriage-level rights) are protested just as hard as marriage equality should prove that. It's not the word they object to, though that's the claim of those who realize that they look like the 21st Century's Bull Conners and Orval Faubuses, it's the concept that two homosexuals can possibly have a relationship equal to theirs.

As long as non-bigots swallow the bigots' facade because they want to believe the bigots are actually reasonable people underneath it all, we'll get nowhere on rights.

[Hershele Ostropoler]

There seem to be two separate proposals that are being conflated here, or, at least, people seem to be making one and getting responses that apply to the other:
1. There should be no mechanism for two people to register their relationship with the State.
2. The process of registering your relationship with the State, and the outcome of that process, should no longer be called "marriage".

MaxTheVool discussed (1) two years ago, and I largely agree with that analysis, though I don't think all of the famous 1100-odd rights attached to marriage (i.e., to relationships registered with the State) need to be. The OP seems to be about (2), which does seem to me to be conceding -- needlessly and falsely -- that marriage qua marriage is a purely religious thing, and complicating the whole thing in the process.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

I will say the same thing to Shakes, Aruqvan, and anybody else who is after this utterly ridiculous semantic business -- if you do not want to be 'married' then don't enter into a 'marriage'. But don't deprive those for whom the word has meaning of using it for whatever silly reason you have. So far, I've seen Shakse insult Miller, an atheist gay man who wishes to enter into a marriage, by accusing him of wanting to placate a 'nonexistent sky wizzard [sic]"

And I am getting very uncivil, and fairly ionized, in wishing to defend my marriage, and those of atheists, gay coupies, and all and sundry, from people who cannot grasp the idea that language is meaningful to people, that words carry connotations that matter to people.

Further, just "running global search and replace" and "slapping stickers on things" without amending each and every one of the thousands of statutes that reference marriages, surviving spouses, etc., and promulgating and holding hearings on the regulations that authorize those forms, is quite literally a criminal act.

Christ on a fucking crutch, put on your big boy/girl panties and deal with a joke.

And actually, if nobody in the US has fucking noticed, you are NOT married until that little piece of paper that gets filed by everybody Justice of Peace, Elvis Imposter or Catholic priest fills out. Why yes, marriage in the US is actually a nonreligious activity that the state permits religious or nonreligious people to be allowed to perform. I challenge you to get married in the US without that little piece of nonreligious paperwork being filled out and filed.

[Guinastasia]

Whoa, switch to decaf!

[Dr. Drake]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Whoa, switch to decaf!

Caffeinist. "Decaf" is just as deserving of the label "coffee" as straight coffee is. Separate is not equal (and equal is not sugar). I will not rest until people are more concerned about the quality of coffee than whether it happens to contain caffeine. What two (or more) people do in the privacy of their own café is their business. I know people THINK coffee is a religious issue (I'm looking at you, Mormons), but it's really a social issue that all societies practice, regardless of religion.

Yes, I drink diet coke, which isn't "decaf" OR straight coffee. Who are you to judge my caffeinality or anyone else's? I'm proud to live in a country where both caffeine and decaf, coffee and tea, soda and pop, are all treated as equal under the law.