You and your ridiculous "let’s let the Fundamentalists define ‘wheel’ and we’ll call ours ‘rotatory transportation devices’ law.
I don’t see the connection between your first paragraph and your second paragraph.
To address the second paragraph:
Right. I’m not seeing how this would be so terrible. Amongst friends, family and just about anybody else; you could still tell people you are married. Nothing is stopping you. And for practicality reasons, you probably should use that word.
In fact, the only time I could see you ever having to use the term ‘CU’, is at the end of the year when you are filling out your tax forms.
Or you could just apply Occam’s Ravor and allow SSM.
Yeah, you’re going to have to be more specific as to what part of my OP, would prohibit anybody from getting married.,
The first paragraph was addressing Inner Stickler who interpreted you as saying that we should remove all restrictions on marriage. There are no restrictions on marriage now.
I don’t see any reason why it should be necessary. And it would mean rewording a lot of laws. Nowadays, in common terminology, when we say that two people are married, it generally means that they are legally married. So it would be appropriate for the legal verbiage to model the common usage of the word.
If a distinction is really necessary, it would be more appropriate for the religious ceremony to change its name to Religious Union. If a distinction isn’t necessary, then religous people can keep on using the word marriage if they want to.
I don’t see any rational argument for suggesting that all state and federal governments should reword their laws.
Does my impression that the question in the OP is “why hasn’t this been done?” mean I read it wrong? Because if it’s “why hasn’t this been done?” the answer is that it doesn’t matter what you call it. Anti-gay religious groups don’t care. They don’t want us getting marriage benefits. They don’t want us living together. They don’t want us sharing our lives with our partners. They don’t even want us having sex on the same planet they sadly inhabit. You could give them marriage and they’d still whine and cry. That’s the bottom line.
They probably think they did. We godless homos “don’t truly live” or some bullcrap like that.
The confusion here, as far as I can tell, is that you are using the word “married” in your new proposed sense of “religious union” whereas Polycarp is using the word “married” with its common meaning of “legal union”.
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.
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.
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.
A Swiss woman I knew was astonished that a clergyman was licensed to perform marriages. In Switzerland, you register a marriage with the local (gemeinde or communitè) office and then you are married. (They don’t call it a civil union or any other bullshit word.) You want a religious ceremony? Fine, you are on your own.
I suppose it might be possible for all 51 legislatures (one federal and 50 state) to pass blanket laws that say every reference to marriage will henceforth be interpreted to mean civil unions, but it seems to me that to allow SSMs is easier.
Does anyone know what happened to that idea in Louisiana to have a new type of marriage that wouldn’t allow divorce? Did they pass such a law. Has anyone chosen it? They surely couldn’t prevent them from getting a Reno divorce, could they?
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?
Hmm, you may have a point here. But I’m not entirely convinced there could be a work around to this.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
Protesting the fact that single-sex marriage is not legal, I would guess.
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.
Great. Why are we arguing semantics?
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!”)?
Global search and replace. No problem. :dubious: 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.