No thats exactly the point its an end run around to not call gays married. If the government is going to give benefits to married couples then marriage does become the business of the government. The government has a huge, absolutely huge, infuence on social issues. A relationship that is recognized by law carries a much great weight in society than one that isn’t. Its simply a fact of how society works. By changing the terminology from marriage to civil unions to essentially spite gays will send clearly the message that while we will give you the benefits of marriage by no means do we think your marriage is acceptable and carries the same weight as straight marriage. Sending that message is more damaging, in my opinion, that the current denial of marital rights.
The state would not call anything a marriage. It would call what it sanctions a civil union.
Like I said, I am qualified religiously to perform a gay marriage in NC. It would be an illegal act.
I don’t recall saying anything about mainstream Christian demoninations sanctioning gay marriages. I said ‘churches.’ My assumption is that churches would be formed or amended as necessary to accomodate members who are openly gay.
Granting benefits to married couples is not the same thing as sanctioning marriage.
Can you explain from where in my OP ‘spite’ was listed as a motivation?
There is no reason that the government cannot grant benefits to ‘persons who are married’ as well as ‘persons who are civilly joined.’ In my scenario, ‘persons who are married’ is determined under the flag of religion, and ‘persons who are civilly joined’ is determined under the flag of government.
No, it would not. You can perform a purely religious cerimony, but it won’t have any legal validity. That’s a big difference.
Well, if your definition of “Churches” excludes all the mainstream Christian denominations, then you have a very odd definition of what a Church is. I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say “churches would be formed”. What’s stopping them from being formed now?
[/QUOTE]
Contrapuntal, I did read the links, and either I’m misunderstanding you, or I am not expressing myself clearly.
You say that government would be out of the business of marriage under your proposal, but I don’t see it that way at all. Government would still be in the business of marriage, it would just be calling it another name.
My view is that there are two institutions that currently exist which both happen to have the name marriage. You are proposing to change the names of one of them. I still am not seeing what the purpose of doing so is, although I don’t think it’s a huge deal if the name is changed.
That’s true. I stand corrected. Does it not seem odd to you, though, that an avowed atheist, who has no satnding in the government otherwise, is allowed to marry people in a purely religious ceremony and have it be legally valid, as long as the couple is heterosexual?
I sense a bit of hostility here. I hope I am wrong.
I have not defined churches in any way at all. I have referenced churches. And what is stopping them, as I have said before, is that marriages performed by them are invalid. When the government is out of the business of sanctioning marriage, then all mariage will have equal legal validity. Churches perform marriages. Governments perform civil uniuons. I have said nothing about whether government will recognise marriages. It simply would no longer have anything to say about what a marriage* is*, except that it be a union sanctioned by a church.
Raja, please consider the above to be a response to you as well.
John Mace–an amendment.
NC Family Law.
Since it is impossible for a same sex couple to obtain a marriage license in NC, it appears that I would have committed an illegall act if I were to marry same.
I think your basic error here, Contrapuntal, is that you’re trying to find a solution that is fair and equitable to both sides of the debate. Problem is, only one side of the debate wants a fair and equitable solution. Any proposal that puts gay and straight relationships on equal footing is going to be fought by the anti-SSM lobby. At its heart, it has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage, and everything to do with keeping the godless homos in their place. That’s the attitude that needs to be addressed, and once it has been, the issue of what to call long-term, government recognized gay relationships will be moot.
How do we do that? (You’re not afraid of Really Big Questions, are you? 
)
No doubt I’ll get slammed for this as it is not the majority opinion here, but doesn’t it makes sense that we would have a word to describe one of the institutions that has been fundemental to our society: the one that is defined by the union of a man and a woman which has acted and acts as an anchor for the family unit. I do not mean to imply that this is the only construct, only that it has been, and is, the definitive norm.
I do not object to gay marriage on religious grounds, and I am for civil unions with all the rights that come with it. But this desire/need to erase the concept of marriage as it has come to be understood irks me to the extreme. I understand why it might be desireable for those working for complete equality, but words are helpful to us when they have specific meanings. We all agree that (I assume) that men are equal to women. Yet, it serves us well to have words that allow us to speak of each independently: man, woman; boy, girl.
To attempt to erase all differences withiin the realm of unions is political correctness run amok. We need to afford gay couples who choose to formally commit to each other the same the same advantages that heterosexual couples enjoy. But we need a different word.
I offer this only to give a gauge of how strongly I (and many others) feel about this. If I had to choose between the state recognizing civil uniuons, as I have described and I advocate, and having the meaning of “marriage” obfuscated, I’d vote to not recognize civil unions. So in the desire that I see in some to contort reality, they lose an advocate of equal “rights”. You may think this position is harsh. And it may be. But I convey my honest feelings in order to be helpful in the discussion. I think the quicker that the insistence on the term “marriage” is abandoned, the quicker society at large will embrace the concept of equal rights for gay couples.
Why would a family composed of two men (or two women) and their children not act as an anchor for the family unit? What do you think of the fact that I, a straight male atheist, am legally empowered to create, under the banner of religion, the union you describe as such an anchor? Does it not suggest that the word is compromised already? How about the fact that there are roughly half as many divorces as marriages each year in the U.S.? Is it possible that marriage is not quite the anchor you think it is?
When a man goes out for a romantic dinner with a woman, it’s “dating.” When he goes out for a romantic dinner with a man, it’s “dating.” When he kisses his date goodnight, it’s “kissing.” He might be someone’s “boyfriend” or “lover” or just a “date” or a “friend with benefits.” If he spends the night, it’s “spending the night,” or “having sex,” or “screwing,” or “sleeping together.” If they ride around in a car, they “ride around in a car.” If they breakfast together they “eat.”
We don’t change most terms based on the sexes of the parties involved.
Say I hit on a guy in a bar. He says, “I’m seeing someone.” Does it matter if the “someone” is male or female? He says, “I’m married.” Does it matter if his spouse is male or female? He says, “Sure 'nuff, hot stuff.” Does it matter that he’s obviously crazy as an outhouse rat?
You want to organize an office party for employees and their spouses. “Mary’s married,” I tell you. So, you know there’s another invitee.
If two people of whatever sex are in a long-term committed relationship and they want to be called “married,” I’m calling them married. It’s what the word means.
Just curious; I’ve seen nothing whatsoever in the news about the gay couple in Durham that tried to get a marriage license and, when denied, challenged that law’s constitutionality in court. Know anything about it?
Which is annoying to more than atheists, by the way; I don’t belong to a religion that has marriage as a matter of religious significance. I see no good reason for the government to promote that particular religious perspective.
No religious marriage in ancient Egypt or ancient Greece. I suspect it wasn’t the case in Rome either, but I don’t know that for certain.
I disagree. First of all, there are people on both sides who do not find a compromise acceptable. Secondly, it is partly an emotional / psychological matter that makes it hard for people to overcome their own bigotry. A willingness to recognise that does, I think, afford people a smoother mental transition, and will make it easier for them to do the right thing. Don’t forget that many of the countries that now recognise SSM went a similar path.
Frustration maybe, but not hostility.
THey will have equal validity, but they’ll also have no validity. Try and sell that to the anit-SSM crowd. Many people want their church wedding to be the wedding of record and for their priest/minister/rabbi/whatever to be licensed by the state to perform weddings.
But at this point, I’m just repeating the same argument. We’ll have to agree to disagree, but you might note that no one has agreed with you so far.
Sure they will. There is nothing wrong with the government saying " All such unions that are defined as ‘marriage’ by religious authority shall be recognised as marriages, and have equal standing, with respects to rights and priveleges, as civil unions."
Fair enough. Did you note, however, that it is illegal for me to marry a same sex couple in N.C.?
Polycarp,
Nada. Google yields an Independent afrticle from 3.4.04. That’s it. Must notta happened.
Lalairen,
Enlighten me. Was there offering to the gods, or appeal for a fortunate marriage? I seriously don’t know.
But marriage is only a word. It’s just a word! The meaning of some words in fact changes with time. Only a handful of decades ago the word “gay” meant something completely different. Watch a movie from the 40s or 50s and you’ll hear “Why you’re acting quite gay this morning Bill!” Or how about the word boner to mean mistake? “That was quite a boner you pulled this morning Bill!”
Come on, marriage is a word. Are you really afraid of word meanings drifting with time? I think it’s something deeper.
Electro-shock therapy.
First, gays don’t want to “erase” marriage, they want to participate in it.
Second, how does allowing to men to amrry in anyway obfuscate the meaning of the word “marriage”? If a woman tells you she’s married, it means she’s in a committed relationship with another person. Why do you need to know if it happens to be a relationship with a woman? What other words normally associated with heterosexual relationships do you think need their own special word when applied to gays? Do I need a different term to refer to my boyfriend, other than “boyfriend”? When we go out on a date, are we doing something other than dating? What do I call fucking him? Why is marriage such a special word that it absolutely must have a different term when practiced by homosexuals? What is it about relationships between two people of the same gender that is so different that a new term is required?
So you’re saying that you consider semantics more important than treating other people equally and making sure they have the same rights, priveledges, and opportunities as their fellow citizens?
I really cannot describe how revolting I find that sentiment.
Oh, you’re absolutely right about that. I, for one, am never going to compromise my own civil rights so people like magellan can feel better about themselves. But I didn’t say anything about “compromise.” I said “fair and equal.” One side of this debate supports equality for all citizens in this country. The other doesn’t. Simple as that.
The evolution of language shows that, like the evolution of species, statistics ultimately confound superficial taxons. If a partner has the same legal status as a wife, then if most people simply call it marriage, it will eventually be called marriage.