Personally, I would not mind bossing the churches around, but I see a small problem with it. " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In other words, the state cannot dictate dogma.
Now, if the state simply filled away all certificates of marriages, given to them by couples married by a church, then I would not have a problem. Still, this ducks the issue that the church is a newcommer to the world of marriages, and has no place dictating what is, or isn’t a marriage.
In Egypt? No. Two families would agree that their children should marry (often with input from the children; we have records of ancient Egyptian adolescent love/lust poetry), they threw a large party, and the children started living together, typically in or near the home of the boy’s parents. Divorces involved lawyers, who were often temple-affiliated because that’s where you get a lot of jobs for literate people, but that’s the closest one gets, really.
One could make the argument that the Egyptians, as a deeply religious people, involved faith in all of their actions; this can be supported from texts (such as an Egyptian woman reflecting on her application of her daily cosmetics as a devotional act to Hwt-Hrw) but is really stretching the point beyond recognisability. At that point, any action taken by a religious person becomes a religious act, and there are no meaningful distinctions to be made at all.
I don’t know specifics about the Greeks; not my religion, not my problem. They did have a god of marriage (Hymenaeus) who may have been invoked or offered to, but no priests or religious organisations were involved. If you like, I can go ask the Hellenic folks I know about the rituals and relevance of Hymenaeus to marriage solemnisations.
But many of them are indoctrinated by fairy tales, countless books and so on in which a marriage is between a man and a woman. It takes time from accepting that women are human too, to accepting that men and women have equal rights, that gays are human to, to accepting that gay are not only human, but exhibit natural behavior, to accepting that two men or two women can raise a child equally well to a man and a woman, to figuring out that the word marriage is not altered by the fact that we here have two sinning weirdos of the same sex doing revolting things together and then get to put on some kind of weird charade that makes your daisy-scented view of marriage welt and wither.
Do you understand what I’m saying? Rather than realising that they are putting gays in the part of the bus left vacant by Rosa Parks, they sense a primitive kind of irrational revolsion that does not make any sense whatsoever, is in fact horribly wrong and inhumane, but is still hard to overcome.
If limiting the word marriage to the religious world and making sure that on the state level equal rights are afforded to all helps overcome that initial revulsion, then imho, it is worth it.
It isn’t in what they are doing, but in the way they enact the laws, and the way they state it. The way it is posted in your law doesn’t sound harmful, but your exact quote, “There is nothing wrong with the government saying " All such unions that are defined as ‘marriage’<snip>” sounds like it could come from the motuth of the Great and Powerful Oz.
[/QUOTE]
What did you mean when you referred to dictatingdogma, if not telling them what to do? Is your only objection that it resembles bad movie diaslog? And how is accepting a religious definition of marriage less constitutional than forcing one?
I’m unwilling to stop calling a marriage a marriage and instead referring to it as a civil union. Granted you can certainly call a marriage a civil union, and in reality that’s pretty much what it’s always been, but the specific name for that civil union is marriage. I’m all for homosexuals getting married but I’m not going to entertain changing laws to call them civil unions instead.
It’s not that I think you’re wrong about any of this… it’s just that I don’t see the relevance to anything I’ve said in here. People who oppose SSM want to make sure that what they have, no matter what it’s called, is kept seperate from what gays have. It’s not the word marriage they want to keep away from gays, its the institution. Even folks like magellan, who say they think gays should have the rights of marriage, are still very adamant about not having to share the same club with us. Changing the name of marriage isn’t going to affect that: what needs to be altered is the underlying idea that gay relationships are so radically different from straight ones that they need an entirely seperate taxonomy. Until that’s adressed, we’re wasting out time in dancing around what we call marriage. Whatever neologism we come up with, if it applies equally to gays and straights, will just lead right back to the exact same fight.
Except that it won’t. All it will do is give these people a concrete reason to support their bigotry, something they can point to and say, “This is why I oppose gay rights, because I don’t want to lose my marriage.” And, for once, I can’t say I’d blame them.
No. It’s what you want it to mean. And over time you amy win the battle, but I will fight it as much as you advocate it. To imply that there is NO difference between the two is ridiculous. Or do you need to buy you a biology book.
Why are you so confident that you can get the religious types to go along with taking marriage out of the hands of the government in the first place? The folks that are opposed to SSM usually aren’t super keen on the seperation of church and state in the first place. What stake would they have in changing the status quo? Why would they go along with you, when they already have what they want: marriage for themselves, and not for gays?
You may think what you like. But for me it would be like getting rid of the words man and woman or boy and girl or cat and dog. There are similarities, yes, the similarities may even dwarf the differences, but still, some differences are blaring.
Can you imagine a world without “man” and “woman”? I think that’s the road you’re heading down and it’s just nonsensical.
They will still have their marriage. The only folks who will lose marriage, as Cliffy pointed out, are atheists who do not want to avail themselves of the religious option. Religious folks will still have marriage. Now, I do take your point that a large segment of the population wants whatever they have to be ‘not what gays have.’ I really do. But when I asked you how to change that, you gave me an ironic answer. Is it literally unattainable?
So marriage is legalised fucking? How about answering theses questions.
Well, I’m not confident at all. If your objection to my theory is that it would be difficult to enact I fear I cannot launch much of a defense. I really meant it as more of a thought experiment than a call for action. I do feel that, as SentientMeat and jsgoddess have pointed out, that over time all ‘unions’ would eventually be called marriage. I have no idea how to get from A to B.
To be sure I understand–If you were to be married, (or are already married) you would refuse to have it done by a church? And insist on a government ceremony? I apologize for any misunderstanding.
They did have a god of marriage (Hymenaeus) who may have been invoked or offered to, but no priests or religious organisations were involved. If you like, I can go ask the Hellenic folks I know about the rituals and relevance of Hymenaeus to marriage solemnisations.