Interesting point. So, since it’s “just a word,” would all the rest of you straight folk be ok if it be struck from the lawbooks? You know, since it’s “just a word?”
Esprix
How about you, Dewey?
Esprix
Listen, to be fair, I don’t think we ever said “no” to civil unions. But we (many of us, at least) say “no” to just civil unions. I celebrated like everyone else when Quebec got civil unions, but I celebrated more when Ontario got marriage.
Civil unions are fine as a start, but one shouldn’t stop there.
See, I’ve always said just the opposite, to the same end though. Marriage is obviously a civil construct; marriage entitles two people to certain legal rights and privileges which are not extended to unmarried couples, so in the interests of equal protection, we have to extend the ability to marry to any couple made up of unmarried, mentally competent, otherwise unrelated adults who wish to engage that protection for themselves.
And marriage, in my model, would be conferred upon those two people upon the signing of a certificate of marriage in front of two witnesses and whatever civil authority has the legal authority to validate that certificate, be that a county clerk, JoP, notary public, mayor, whoever.
If people wish to take vows of some kind in addition to the signing of the certificate of marriage which makes them legally wed, great, more power to them. But the words recited in the church/synagogue/holy grove of cedar trees wouldn’t have any legal significance, it’d be a transaction solely between the parties and their deity of choice. Also, if someone wished, for whatever reason, to have a ceremony but didn’t want the certificate that would be fine as well, but they would not be legally married in that case.
I’m not sure who it is who automatically thinks “religious” when they hear the word “marriage” but can only figure that it’s a group of people who never saw a Vegas chapel wedding (complete with Elvis) or a wedding performed by a judge, mayor, ship’s captain or other obviously non-religious person. Weddings and religion can go together but they just as often do not. Viewing marriage as a strictly religious thing is, IMO, just completely unrealistic.
Of course, it’s also unrealistic, ridiculous and wholly in contradiction of the spirit and wording of the Constitution to suggest that a person’s ability to have a recognized legal connection to the partner of your choosing is limited if said partner doesn’t have what are deemed to be the proper genitals, but that’s what current law says. It’s insane that we’re arguing this in 2003. Just insane.
And your support for this asinine statement is what exactly?
Oh, you’re so right. The battle for marriage rights has nothing to do with rights and equality.
The idea that the same people who are opposed to “gay marriage” are going to sweep aside the word “marriage” from every statute on the federal, state and local level is ludicrous. Instead of fighting 50 battles, you’re suggesting we fight 200.
The governnment wouldn’t be able to tell you that you were or weren’t married. It’s religous and the government shouldn’t be in the religion busineess. You would be married by whatever church you wanted to be. You would also have a civil union recognized by the government. You could easily have one without the other or both. Or neither.
Esprix
You seemed ok with the idea here. Have you changed your position? (Not that it’s a problem if you have…)
Matt
I kind of disagree. I think it should stop with civil unions for everyone, straight or gay. The government shouldn’t be acknowledging religious ceremonies. Whatever is done in church/synagogue/mosque/etc should be completely seperate from getting tax breaks and spousal rights from the government.
Sarcasm can be a powerful tool when wielded properly, young padwan. Perhaps someday, with practice, you’ll learn how.
As a start, take deep, cleansing breaths. Repeat after me “Calm blue ocean. Calm blue ocean. Calm blue ocean.” Wipe the flecks of spittle from your lips. Read the following words. I’ll type them slowly so you might understand:
If. everyone. GAY. OR. STRAIGHT. is. only. offered. civil. unions. by. the. government. and. no-one. is. “married”. by. the. government. you. DO. have. equality. and. equal. rights.
**
**
Huh. And here I’d swear that I remember Supreme Court ruling on First Ammendment, seperation of church and state cases.
Really Otto, as much fun as slapping each other is, we’re on the same side: you’re saying it would be more effective to use equal protection and I’m saying “church and state” would be better but we want the same thing: everyone having the same access to those rights that are currently granted by being “married” and no-one having “back of the bus”, second class citizen status.
Fenris
Actually, I was just hailing your greatness. 
In Fenris-topia, yes, it would be awesome if we could separate the religious aspect of marriage from the state-sanctified aspect, solving both the problem of equality and separation of church and state.
Living in the United States, however, doing away with “marriages” and replacing them with “civil unions” for one and all will never, ever, ever happen; therefore, I want a marriage, not a civil union.
HOWEVER, if I’m going to get equality with a civil union without calling it “marriage,” I’ll certainly be happy… but I’ll keep fighting for the word nonetheless.
I’m not stupid, after all. 
Esprix
And. since. this. will. never. happen. what’s. your. point?
Congress is not going to change the law to remove the word “marriage.” The legislatures of 50 states are not going to change their laws to remove the word “marriage.” The thousands of local governmental lawmaking bodies throughout the country are not going to remove the word “marriage” from their ordinances. It’s not going to happen, it’s never going to happen, and suggesting that it’s a workable solution is ridiculous.
Huh. And since the Supreme Court has already rendered any number of decisions on “marriage” that do not involve the First Amendment, your point in dragging it into this discussion is what exactly? Every major marriage case of which I’m aware turned on the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of due process and equal protection, with the exception of the bigamy cases, in which SCOTUS ruled that banning multiple marriage was not a violation of the First Amendment. Hey, if the First were going to be useful here I’m all for throwing it in but it’s not going to be useful.
And that’s all I’ve ever advocated. As I’ve said before, as long as I get the same rights as heterosexuals, you can call it Clyde for all I care.
And frankly, if we reserved the term "marriage strictly for relgious ceremonies, I’d love to see the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Wiccans argue about which religion’s rituals define a marriage.
I agree it would be funny, but since it under my hypothetical system the word would have no force of law, who’d care?
Otto: I disagree. All that would be needed (this is a big “all”, granted) is a Supreme Court decision saying that since marriage is an inherently religous institution, it’s a violation of church and state. (Granted, under your scenario, all you need is a Supreme Court decision stating that marriage laws don’t give equal protection under the 14th amendment. The problem is that there’s an argument (a moronic one, granted, but there’s a lot of morons out there) that marriage can only happen between a man and a woman and that gays do have equal protection since (I’m NOT advocating the following) gays are free to marry any woman who’s willing. :rolleyes:
As to how likely it is, all I can say is that the second highest court in the land just tossed out the Pledge because of the words “Under God”. Granted, it’ll be overturned, but the tide is moving in that direction, IMO. I don’t see too much of a stretch to see marriage laws rewritten under the same reasoning.
Fenris
A couple of things:
As a Christian, marriage has for me a very important and significant meaning in my faith-based understanding of how God intended people to love their lives, and as a married man, I know that my union with my wife is something very deep-seated and qualitatively different than a business partnership or a sexual liaison. Unlike many Christians (but by no means all!), I see no reason why two gay people cannot have the same sort of relationship and the same sense of deep-seated meaning in that relationship with each other. For personal reasons I’ve detailed in other threads, I’m convinced that God has led me to that understanding. For that reason, I stand foursquare for the right of gay people to plain vanilla marriages, not some it-walks-like-a-duck-and-quacks-like-a-duck-but-we’ll-call-it-an-anhinga second-class relationship for them.
Second, a nitpick with a point in Fenris’s analogy: The Ninth Circuit explicitly declined to consider the constitutionality of the Federal statute enacting the Pledge of Allegiance with the “under God” clause. What they did do was to declare unconstitutional the school board regulation that mandated the regular recital of the Pledge in a public school as an unconstitutional establishment of religion by a government body. There’s a significant difference there. I love the Nicene Creed, and would bristle at any attempt to restrict me from saying it. But by the same token, I would object to any regulation that required zev or gobear to recite it, or even to stand reverently while the rest of us do. Freedom to believe – or not believe – as one feels led is what “the Republic for which it stands” was founded on, and the right to choose whether or not to affirm that it is “one nation under God” is an important part of “liberty and justice for all.”
Many of you have recognized RickJay’s solution as rational, and, therefore, unlikely to happen. Too bad.
If marriage is a sacrament, it’s a strange one, since it’s the only one requiring a license from the government in order to take part.
And, if the Constitution is going to regulate the “sacrament” of marriage, let’s add amendments regulating baptism (infant or adult? sprinkle or immerse?); communion (with or without confession? with or without fasting? grape juice or wine?); extreme unction (just how near death do you have to be? one doctor’s opinion or a second?)
This country gets stupider by the day.
Marriage, at least modern day marriage, is NOT inherently a religious institution. I’m getting sick of hearing it. Repeating it a bunch of times doesn’t make it true.
Even if, at one time, it did have exclusive religious overtones, in this day and age it doesn’t.
Perhaps I can illustrate this by turning the problem on its head. I’m an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church. When the novelty was still new, I horribly abused my God-given authority by “marrying” friends and strangers, sometimes without their knowledge and/or consent.
The ULC tells me that just by coming to them, I have become a servant of God, with its attendant powers including, apparently, the ability to wed people (although they recommend the $129.00 “Ministry in a box” set to be a true professional).
However, I also need to apply to my Commonwealth in order to make the union legit outside of the eyes of God.
Now I ask you: if marriage is so such a religious institution, how come the state won’t just take my word for it as The Reverend Sofa King? And if the state has a such vested interest in overseeing this religious ceremony, why hasn’t someone shut down the ULC and sent me up the river for irresponsibly damning souls to Hell?
'Cause that ain’t their line of work, that’s why. The situation which remains is entirely contained within the letter of the law, and right now it’s discriminatory against any two people of the same sex who wish to enjoy the benefits accorded married couples.
That’s not my name. Why don’t you just say what you really mean? C’mon, you know you want to.
My apologies. I guess I got used to typing “Strom” and I screwed up. Again, no insult was intended.
I have no desire to fihht with you, so please don’t start.
All right.
Speaking as a Discordian Pope as well as an ordained ULM minister, I’ve got to agree that going against what that man said would be Sofa King We Tard Ed.
Seriously, it’s an interesting point, and I can’t find a valid rebuttal.
Fenris:
Nope. It’s no good for me. I’m married. That’s what it say on my taxes, that’s how the govenment currently recognizes me. I don’t want to be in a civil union. I don’t want the government identifying me that way. Marriage is the word, and I see no reason why it needs a euphemism.
Again I see the same problem. I’d be pissed to have the government changing anything about marriage, even the word. it’s fine as it is, and it shouldn’t be changed to satisfy some idiots.
The people against gay marriage have no reason that I can see other than their personal prejudices. I see no reason at all that those prejudices should be catered to in the slightest degree.
If they don’t like it, they can call their marriages something else.
I hate and have always hated attempts at language reconstruction. It’s a good word, and it works fine.
Scylla is not in a heterosexual monogamous permanent civil union. He’s married.
Scylla may also be suffering from shell shock. Combat fatigue. Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome…