# Stop proposing no-government-marriages **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 11, 2010, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742 "2010-12-11T02:03:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/81 "2010-12-12T22:50:05Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > I have to say, coming from a country that has had civil unions for donkey years, seeing how people on the US get twisted in knots over the semantics of marriage is highly amusing. > > Seems so simple and obvious to me, a civil union is the legal framework seen by the state, the religious marriage is up to the beliefs of each couple. Whatever happened with “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” anyway? Because I am a married atheist and I do not admit that marriage belongs to religion. I will throw my homosexual brothers and sisters under the bus before I will give up my secular state marriage and settle for civil union. Fuck that. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/82 "2010-12-12T23:23:14Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t really want the government involved in the poetry business; I like my government sterile. Admit it: if the Senate were required to hold all of their debates in the form of sestinas, you’d have your DVR set to record C-Span 24/7. > [@](#): > > Those examples of what you declare yourself all have the same problem: you’d be declaring yourself had on an existent organization and expecting others to follow you. Of course that’s a meaningless declaration, but it’s also disanalogous. Marriage is different; it’s more like declaring yourself an enlightened guru. Yeah, without any social recognition at all, it’s meaningless–but if you can get yourself a bunch of students, that is, if you can find a community of people who are willing to support you in your declaration, suddenly the term has meaning. > > With marriage, in order for it to have meaning, the bare minimal social recognition is one other person: it’s pretty silly to declare yourself married if not even your spouse agrees. But my marriage is given meaning not only by my spouse, but also by the **community that I chose**. The poetry and emotion doesn’t come from the marriage certificate signed by the ordained minister, but from the marriage covenant signed by the people I love. See, I feel completely the opposite. I don’t need the word “marriage” to prove anything about my relationship to my immediate friends and family - or to my putative spouse. The relationship itself already speaks to that. The importance of the term “marriage” is what it signifies about my relationship to society at large. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/83 "2010-12-12T23:40:30Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Admit it: if the Senate were required to hold all of their debates in the form of sestinas, you’d have your DVR set to record C-Span 24/7. Nooo! Not sestinas! NOOOOOOO! > [@](#): > > See, I feel completely the opposite. I don’t need the word “marriage” to prove anything about my relationship to my immediate friends and family - or to my putative spouse. The relationship itself already speaks to that. The importance of the term “marriage” is what it signifies about my relationship to society at large. Yeah, I’m with you. Sex is private. Marriage is public. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/84 "2010-12-13T00:09:06Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Nooo! Not sestinas! NOOOOOOO! I’d want sonnets on Monday, blank verse Tuesdays and Thursdays, villanelles on Wednesday, and Friday Funday double dactyls. Under no circumstances should Congress be allowed to utter limericks or haiku. Sestinas and tritinas are for joint sessions only. Of course. > [@Miller](#): > > The importance of the term “marriage” is what it signifies about my relationship to society at large. I don’t think this is something legislation can really change. Sure, equal marriage rights will gradually change the social meaning of the word to a more inclusive one, but those rights won’t _cause_ that change as much as make it likely. Desegregation didn’t change anyone’s perceptions regarding racial differences; direct experience working, travelling, learning or living side by side has gradually changed that on a societal level. I’ll be ecstatic when marriage is not the exclusive province of heterosexuals. But I’ll just as enthusiastically support any legislation that guarantees the same rights but uses any other term lawmakers want to throw at it. Because I think it’d move us in the exact same direction at the exact same pace. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/85 "2010-12-13T00:22:15Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > I don’t think this is something legislation can really change. I agree - the legislation isn’t going to cause the perception of validity, it’s the perception of validity that will cause the legislation. In the post you’ve quoted, I’m not making an argument for the validity of SSM, I’m making an argument for the importance of government recognition of marriage as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/86 "2010-12-13T00:34:15Z")
I understand that, I think. My rejoinder was merely to give my own opinion that waiting for a perception change to force legislation is the long path toward equal rights. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/87 "2010-12-14T18:46:16Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Because I am a married atheist and I do not admit that marriage belongs to religion. I will throw my homosexual brothers and sisters under the bus before I will give up my secular state marriage and settle for civil union. Fuck that. Ditto for me. We had a nice ceremony in a hall, with no mention of God. If opponents of SSM really cared about marriage, the best thing they could do would be to adopt the civil union proposal. If gay couples could engage in civil unions with exactly the rights of married couples, except the name, the intensity of support for SSM would go way down. Sure some would want the name, but when there is no practical difference, many would not make a fuss. Pushing the civil union cause is going to get no new support from opponents, and lose support from proponents, like me, who like their marriages just fine. Marriage didn’t get imposed by government. The institution clearly evolved with us. It is good to extend it to others not historically included, but trying to eliminate it as a legal institution is going to make many people deeply uneasy. And there are other similar relationships. This of that of a child. Someone being your minor child gives you rights to direct care, etc. There is a default state of biological child, but you can adopt children and give them away. It is another type of package of rights. We could eliminate the class, perhaps to stop those who oppose SSCs from having parenthood rights, and try to make do with legal agreements, but it would be stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/88 "2010-12-14T19:03:29Z")
I am so with the OP. There is the theoretical discussion, I suppose, where you can declare how the state shouldn’t be involved, yadda, yadda, yadda. Or you can have the practical, let’s talk about what can actually be accomplished discussion, in which the discussion of getting governemnt out of hte marriage business altogether doesn’t even come up because, and I quote the OP,… IT.WON’T.HAPPEN. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/89 "2010-12-15T03:26:52Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > I am so with the OP. There is the theoretical discussion, I suppose, where you can declare how the state shouldn’t be involved, yadda, yadda, yadda. > > Or you can have the practical, let’s talk about what can actually be accomplished discussion, in which the discussion of getting governemnt out of hte marriage business altogether doesn’t even come up because, and I quote the OP,… > > IT.WON’T.HAPPEN. I guess I’m seeing some discussions happening in the halls of Congress. Those are what I’d call “practical.” And then there’s the discussion happening on the SDMB. That’s what I’d call “theoretical.” I don’t think anything we discuss here has much practical effect, so while I agree that it’s a hijack in threads about SSM, I disagree that there’s anything wrong with having the theoretical discussion here. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/90 "2010-12-15T03:47:17Z")
What annoys me about it is that the proponents keep stating over and over as fact the opinion that the word “marriage” is properly confined to a non-government, religious sphere. It’s not a fact. It’s an opinion, and a decidedly minority one. Yet, this assumption forms the basis of this argument every time. If your basic assumption is so faulty, it’s annoying when you keep building the same rickety argument on top of it. ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/91 "2010-12-15T03:49:58Z")
I’m so glad you said this, because I was beginning to think I was the only person who could see the obvious need to move in that direction. Stay out of marriage; put the time into registering parents. Citizenship and other laws will catch up fairly quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/92 "2010-12-15T03:56:16Z")
What annoys me about it is that the proponents keep stating over and over as fact the opinion that the word “marriage” is properly confined to a non-government, religious sphere. It’s not a fact. It’s an opinion, and a decidedly minority one. Yet, this assumption forms the basis of this argument every time. If your basic assumption is so faulty, it’s annoying when people keep building the same repetitive, rickety argument on top of it. And if you think that there is opposition to same-sex marriage now, then you will be knocked flat when you try to propose this “government-get-out-of-marriage” scheme broadly. Currently, anti-SSM folks have this bullcrap assertion that SSM harms traditional marriage. Well, you know what this “government-get-out-of-marriage” proposal _actually takes away my marriage_. I don’t see how anyone could consider this a reasonable solution. As I said before, I’m pro-SSM, but if you guys are going to actually propose taking away my marriage, then you’ve pushed me to the other side, and plenty more like me. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/93 "2010-12-15T13:00:48Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > What annoys me about it is that the proponents keep stating over and over as fact the opinion that the word “marriage” is properly confined to a non-government, religious sphere. It’s not a fact. It’s certainly not a fact that this proponent has ever said that. I’ve said over and over that I’d prefer “marriage” to be part of the private sphere of life, but I utterly denounce the idea that it’s only for religious folks. And I’ve given two reasons for this preference. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/94 "2010-12-15T13:40:51Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It sounds to me as though you’re using the phrases “social recognition” and “legal recognition” as synonymous–is that correct? > > If so, then sure–I agree that legal recognition of the relationship is important. But that’s very different, I believe, from the argument that **Miller** (I think) puts forth. I think that conferring the legal rights and responsibilities when they’re requested should be the government’s only role regarding marriage. “Social recognition” sounds to me to go beyond those legal rights and into some sort of attachment of cultural, not simply legal, importance to the relationship. I think there’s an argument to be made that social recognition is a shorthand for legal recognition, and in some senses may be the more practical of the two. Most people don’t know the legal ramifications of marriage, but they have an idea of some of them thanks to that social recognition. Even if you’ve never read the text of a law both married people and people who interact with married people have some idea of what that means. There’s much less of an inbuilt social understanding of civil unions, to use one example. Even if, in the end, all that that difference means is that some person confronted with a decision that rests on a civil union has to go and check the law, when they wouldn’t in the case of a marriage, that can cause problems. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/95 "2010-12-15T13:53:47Z")
So let me get this straight. All this stupid, pointless wrangling over ‘civil unions’ and the Government getting out of the marriage business still, basically, means I can’t fucking marry my girlfriend. Correct? Please show me how this is progress in the SSM debate? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/96 "2010-12-15T15:19:57Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > As I said before, I’m pro-SSM, but if you guys are going to actually propose taking away my marriage, then you’ve pushed me to the other side, and plenty more like me. Are you so insecure that you have to have government pat you on the head to reassure that you’re married? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/97 "2010-12-15T15:29:15Z")
Okay, say that to all the same-sex couples who are struggling for official recognition of same-sex marriage. “Marriage” means “social recognition of a couple’s legal and social commitments.” Government doesn’t “reassure” marriage; it creates it. Without recognition of some kind of societal body, marriage simply does not exist. If you don’t want societal recognition of your relationship, nobody is forcing you to get it. But without it, whatever you’ve got isn’t marriage. And in the modern, secular world, society acts through the government. What you all are proposing is that when it comes to marriage society will act only through churches and other religious organizations. As a secular, non-religious person, I reject that. ---
**Author:** ![Peeta\_Mellark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@Peeta\_Mellark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peeta_Mellark)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/98 "2010-12-15T15:45:46Z")
There’s this formerly home-schooled guy I know from college who is very intelligent, but doesn’t seem to grasp reality as other people experience it. He’ll make these lengthy and terribly logical arguments about how society should be restructured, and not a one of them takes history, precedent, or plain old human nature into account. He’s terribly convinced of his own superiority and intelligence, and yet is a complete idiot about human nature _but is incapable of realizing it._ I used to think he had some sort of disorder or learning disability, like Asperger’s syndrome. Now that I have seen people on the Dope argue in the exact same way over and over again, I must revise my theory. Clearly this is some sort of social isolation induced retardation. Someone spends so much fucking time being convinced of how “smart” he is that eventually he fails to realize his bizarre–and frankly, stupid–philosophical ramblings have absolutely no connection with the way the world operates or people act. It is pointless to argue with such a person, because while you’re talking basic human nature he’s talking “la la la, I am the only one S-M-R-T enough to see this!” ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/99 "2010-12-15T15:58:29Z")
That sounds like a description of libertarians in general. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742/100 "2010-12-15T21:31:32Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > If anything, it is religion that should get out of the marriage business. > > You want to have a ceremony that ratifies your religious beliefs about the marital relationship between two people, fine, knock yourself out. Feel free. > > You want to be legally married, drag yourself down to the courthouse. Um, that’s pretty much how it goes already. Getting a marriage license entails the trip to the courthouse in most places, right? The fact that the marriage may be solemnized by clergy has little to do with the civil aspects of it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-proposing-no-government-marriages/563742.md?page=6)