Seriously, there is a lot of jurisprudence involved with the term marriage, including the interstate portability of same, what happens at separations, divorces, etc. Revision of all this to a new term would be a monstrous undertaking.
Secondly, and importantly, there are a great number of couples who may not have a while lot invested in religion but for whom the idea of their marriage is important. Telling them they’re not married, because the Religious Right has claimed ownership of the term, the Infamous Gay Agenda wants equality for their unions, and they’ve agreed that nobody can be married except those the RR approves of the marriages of, is going to cause a hell of a backlash. Joe Sixpack and his wife Marge will suddenly find they’re no longer married, because somebody gave away the term, and they’ll be pissed/…
Right, you want to single out churches because you do not find their service to be socially beneficial like you would education or charity. I understand.
Where on earth do you get that from? Where a church is performing charitable or educative services, those parts of it will be tax exempt. I would remove the blanket tax exemption for being a religious organization, not because I don’t find their service to be socially beneficial, but because such a tax exemption is freaking unconstitutional.
Marriage is a civil union. If the church wants to recognise some other kind of union which is only available to mixed sex partners, then let them call it something else.
OK - let me rephrase to pass full pedantry muster…
“I would remove the blanket tax exemption for being a religious organization, not because I don’t find their service to be socially beneficial, but because such a tax exemption is based on a freaking absurd interpretation of the constitution, should be unconstitutional, but at present is held to be constitutional, just as many absurd interpretations in the past have held legal sway.”
But I suspect you were absolutely clear that was what I meant, Mr Moto.
Anyway, if churches want to have the right to discriminate as private organizations, which I have no problem with them doing, they should stop lining up at the trough to take government money.
There’s nothing about the proposal that precludes non-religious people from getting married. Non-religious people already get church marriages as things stand.
And on top of religious marriages, private secular organizations could step up to offer marriages with the same legal standing as those from Church. Nothing stopping Vegas casinos, stately homes, resorts etc doing what they do now, and rolling the civil union paperwork into the package.
I’d rather see the term marriage expanded than attempt to shoehorn everyone into civil unions. I think on the surface it’s a good idea but I can see how a lot of folks would go nuts if the attempt were made to get rid of marriage completely and have everyone do civil unions instead…even if you grandfathered in all the folks who were previously married and left them alone. My guess is that the best way to get gay marriage as a reality is to start with allowing gays to have civil unions that parallel marriage from a legal perspective and then just keep chipping away until the two types of unions merge.
Think in terms of the civil rights movement and that we are somewhere in the 50’s right now…and hope they don’t resort to fire hoses and dogs and such before they finally give up and accept reality.
Some countries already have civil marriages followed by optional religious ceremonies. France & Mexico are examples: countries which have a history of religious strife.
I’m not saying that gays would object to it. I’m saying that straights would object to it.
Look, the best argument we have for SSM is that it’s not going to change anyone else’s marriage. That’s the drum we need to keep beating to get equality. Proposing, instead, a radical change to every marriage in America is going to absolutely cripple the gay rights movement. And I’m not talking about the Religious Right, here, who aren’t going to support any measure giving any sort of rights to homosexuals, no matter what you call them. I’m talking about all the moderates in this country, who aren’t necessarily raving homophobes, but are already deeply suspicious of any sort of change to something as fundamental to their sense of propriety as our marriage customs.
And speaking of the Religious Right, they’re going to hate this idea because they want to have as much religious meddling as possible in government. Expect them to use this as an example of Godless homos trying to remove God from the government of the United States of Jesus Christ, and they’re going to be furious about it. Which is normally a good thing, but all it’ll do in this case is get them energized, and make them look more attractive to the moderates. You’ll have fired up our biggest enemy, and given them plenty of new allies from the middle. A bad idea all around.
Plus, as a matter of principle, I don’t agree that marriage is a religious institution in the first place. It is as much a civil institution as a religious one, and I’m not willing to cede this sphere of the public entirely to the church.
But no one would be taking away the term marriage. Civil unions ought to be the law of the land – that is, legally binding and recognized contracts, or what have you. I would imagine for most of the people in those situations, they’d call themselves married. Probably moreso if they went through a religoius ritual to ordain it in their god’s eyes or whatever.
I just don’t get this hang-up on … you don’t get to use the word “married”. Why should two men, or two women, who have committed, legally to each other, be haranged for calling themselves married? Or calling themselves partners? Or calling themselves the Dynamic Duo? Or Fred and Ginger? Or Supercalifragilisticexpialidociously Combined to each other?
What’s it to the friggin’ churches in the first place?
Churches don’t have a monopoly on marriage, either. If two people say they’re married, then they’re married. The government has never had any say in that matter, and it’d be better for everyone if they stopped pretending that they did. Unfortunately, I agree with others in this thread that such a state of affairs is politically impossible.
There are two things that people value in marriage. One is the legal rights it entails. The other is the tradition. The “civil unions for everyone” plan takes care of the first thing, but at the expense of the second. I can call myself married right now, and I’m not even dating anyone. I can also call myself the King of Spain, but without broader social recognition, it’s a meaningless declaration. Taking government recognition out of marriage strips the term of any larger social meaning - particularly for those of us who have no interest in a religious marriage.
If its tradition you care about then we have to go back to the traditional marriage and civil unions for ss couples to encompass the two things people value in hooking up.
