I did make the point that I’m the type off person that may never want to get married anyway. I know people quip about; “If they want it let 'em have it. It’s their funeral”.
I felt it would help the cause to bring it up.
legal definitions don’t necessarily have to comport with the “generally accepted meaning” of something, which is the meaning you’re concerned with when you’re making an argument over the “definitionalist” concept of marriage.
Gays are not allowed to have funerals, they are legally known as “Civil Memorials”.
But what’s the value of setting up a new term, a new institution, when using an existing one avoids all that bother?
And that’s without getting into the “separate but equal” stuff.
True, but the lexicon trickles down from somewhere, right? And the legal vernacular does shape the common parlance. For instance, sex with a minor is now commonly known as statutory rape.
again, not the point of my post. I’m merely attempting to correct a misunderstanding about the interpretation of laws when a superseding definition is written into the code - you don’t need to go back and change every instance of “married” to “married or in a civil union” when the new law states “in this jurisdiction, everywhere iwhere the term married is used, it shall be interpreted to mean married or in a civil union”
Which changes the point of the OP how?
My example illustrates how calling ‘marriage’ by a different term matters and is not so easily hand-waved away.
As for what marriage entails we have done that here before. Notably, there is no mention of marriage as a means for reproduction anywhere in US law that I am aware of.
It should also be noted that homosexual couples certainly can and do reproduce and raise families.
Yes, but you’re asserting that because it’s been legally defined in a few jurisdictions, the definition has now changed as it’s understood in common language. Which is definitely not the case.
They aren’t dolls, they’re action figures.
This is depressing. It’s sad because the people who think it’s *JUST *about the name would otherwise not be against everything else marriage entails… so who are they most likely to vote for? Even if they don’t have a problem with the cost of benefits.
I wasn’t disagreeing with you. I was merely stating that a consequence of “separate but equal” is that it lends itself to making distinctions down the road. While it would be possible to pass the law you envision, it lacks a level of permanence that changing the definition would give. The affect today would be the same, but it’s not clear that would hold down the road.
I grant you that the legislature could just as easily pass a law redefining “marriage” at any time, regardless of how it is handled today. I wasn’t arguing against anything you wrote.
And I’m saying that it matters a whole lot when you’re describing a “different” marriage where the characteristics that make the marriage different are a) only of a modern creation and b) relatively irrelevant to the fundamental basis of the concept. When you’re describing a “different” marriage where the characteristics of the difference are completely opposite to the historical notion of the term, however, many people may not be uneasy about using different terminology. It certainly isn’t an effective analogy for the two points I raised.
It matters when you call a different-skin-color marriage one thing and a same-skin-color marriage another because the thing that makes those marriages different (skin color) has no grounding in history (point 1, it’s a 20th century concept) and has no grounding in the fundamental underpinning of the institution (point 2, people of different races still have dicks and va-jay-jays)
The social concept didn’t just appear in 1776, you know? We don’t have preambles in all of our laws explaining exactly why historically society chooses to do something or the other.
But why create an entire new term for a distinction that you agree up front doesn’t matter? Isn’t that taking a far *more *activist position toward changing the language?
The motives of someone pushing the “civil unions” thing are necessarily going to be the subject of scrutiny.
OK, so get that passed at the Federal level, and then we can talk.
About what? Your abject misunderstanding of how new laws modify old ones?
To paraphrase from Der Trihs, Bob and Joe got married in Massachusetts, one would know by the definition of Massachusetts state law that they were legally bound together. The definition of marriage has now been changed and would be recognized by any who knew Massachusetts state law. There would be no need to quantify it by saying “Bob and Joe got same-sex married in Massachusetts” as it would be redundant.
I’m not sure who would be confused by the current definition, **especially **since it’s been legalized in certain jurisdictions.
Moreover, it’s not that marriage has always meant one man and one woman. If a person said “that mormon guy down the block married his two wives down at the tabernacle last Sunday”. The definition of marriage wouldn’t be questioned, although the legality of the actions might be. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 and Edmunds Act of 1882 pretty much said that marriage was limited to two people. Marriage has already been defined to understand what marriage means without the law. Just like sex, there are laws against certain types of sex, but that doesn’t mean that those acts are no longer called sex, they are actually helped to be defined as sex because of those laws.
The law, however, is a catalyst for definition since the law is part and parcel to its understanding.
Marriage has changed and morphed many times over the millenia and in societies. Its current form as an outgrowth of romantic love is rather new (was not even common in colonial America so we should go by the definition of the country’s founders).
So, since history matters to you so much I think we should not call our current marriages “marriage” either. That word should be reserved for pawning off your 12 year-old daughter to some old dude which has far more historical precedence behind it.
If you’re asking me personally?
The word “marriage” has far too much of a root structure in the history and culture of heterosexual unions that to just completely changing the terms of its use means that acceptance of it may be difficult (I would like to think that it shouldn’t, but I’m pragmatic in the sense that I recognize it does). It’s also got an extremely trenchant use in the laws of this country. My compromise would be to remove the law’s usage of the term so the law doesn’t have to fight against certain people’s desire to adhere to word’s history.
So no, I don’t think it’s far more activist. It rightly provides for equal treatment amongst all people, regardless of sexual orientation, while attempting to diffuse the problem of the dual usage of the word “marriage” (and for reasons alluded to above, you can’t have both of them sit in the statutes simultaneously)
Really? And even assuming that was true, what’s to stop civil unions from being changed afterwards into something inferior? Having two instiutions means one can be changed to persecute the less favored one without affecting the other.
Which is the real problem. Ultimately, it doens’t matter if they can be made equal; they won’t be. That’s the whole point of civil unions in the first place; to create a ghetto.
Yes, but over the millenia, it’s always been between people of opposite genders. I mean, are you really arguing this or are you just trying to salvage your poor analysis?
(ok ok, maybe there was some polynesian tribe that existed for a hundred years where marriage was actually amongst people of the same sex, but you get the point)
Did you even read the post that prompted this specific post of mine?