Should the government drop the word "marriage"

[Mr Skeptic]

For ages, both government and religion have had their fingers all over marriage. In the US, we are supposed to have freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. Accordingly, the state has its own marriage "ceremony" related to the signing of papers, lawyers, judges, and whatnot, and there is a completely separate marriage ceremony that is generally done in some church or other religious setting. But these are two separate things, the legal portion of marriage and the religious portion. And they are independent of each other -- the religious ceremony is not legally binding, nor does the legal ceremony have religious significance. This immediately suggests that they ought to be called by different names.

 

Recently, the meaning of marriage has come under scrutiny. Gay people want to get married. Legislation is being proposed and fought over, over whether gays can marry. One side says that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and that therefore gays can't have the right to marry, nor is it taken away. The other side says that marriage is a union between two people, and that certain new legislation is taking away the right of same-sex people to marry. If the government wants to keep using the word "marriage", it is going to have to define it one way or another, which if nothing else will piss off one of these two sides. More than that, it will also require people to consider the new definition the legally correct one, and if their religion defines it differently, too bad for them. If this is restricting their rights of freedom of religion, the government may not be allowed to define it in a way that disagrees with their religion without having a constitutionally better reason to do so. On the other hand, different religions may have different definitions, so the government may not be allowed to define it at all. Again, the solution seems to be to have the government use a different word for the legal aspects of the union.

 

Yet another reason concerns the constitutionally defined process for passing laws. Were a word to change, the law cannot change since the law was made with the old definition of the word. To change the meaning of a word as used in law would require legislation, not lexicographers. Now I think that the word "marriage" as used in laws and especially the older laws were not intended to include same sex couples, based on how same sex couples were treated. It could be that the laws were intended to include same-sex couples, but I have never seen any evidence for that. Nowadays, many people accept that the word "marriage" includes same-sex couples and many do not. Any recent laws concerning marriage are either explicit or intentionally ambiguous about the meaning of marriage. In any case, I think it is clear that the word "marriage" is currently a legal minefield, yet another reason that the government should drop the word and go with a clearer, less emotionally, politically, and religiously charged word.

 

Another thing is the difference between rights and words. Some people want gay couples to have the same rights as straight couples, but don't think it should be called marriage. I don't think its the government's place to care what something is called, and that they should worry about what rights people have more so than what those rights are called.

 

On these grounds, I think that the government should give up on calling a union a marriage, and legally call it a civil union or some other word that is not controversial. The government should focus on the legal rights, not what it is called -- let the individuals, churches, lexicographers, or what not argue about whether or not it is called a marriage.

[YT2095]

yeah, in the UK it`s called a civil partnership (or something like that) and it seems to work hassle free.

[ParanoiA]

I voted yes, but I resent the implication that it's to use a "less controversial" word, rather it's to use a more clinically accurate word.

[Sayonara]

Now I think that the word "marriage" as used in laws and especially the older laws were not intended to include same sex couples, based on how same sex couples were treated. It could be that the laws were intended to include same-sex couples, but I have never seen any evidence for that.

I think it may also be in this particular case that although the word as used in law was never meant to include same sex couples, it was not necessarily meant to exclude them either. If it were, that would surely be unambiguously encoded in the legislation.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think it may also be in this particular case that although the word as used in law was never meant to include same sex couples, it was not necessarily meant to exclude them either. If it were, that would surely be unambiguously encoded in the legislation.

 

I agree with that. If they wanted to specifically exclude same-sex couples that would have been exceedingly easy to do. The reason I included that bit was because I was talking about changing laws by changing definitions, which implies a change of definition, so I had to throw something in as evidence that the definition may have changed. I don't want to argue whether it did in fact change, because it is unlikely either of us has enough evidence one way or another to convince the other. The main point, that the definition of "marriage" is a messy beast, and the government is better off without it.

 

PS: are intentionally ambiguous laws generally intended for the ambiguity to be resolved one way or another by the judiciary branch or additional legislation at a later date?

[Sayonara]

Well yeah, it's best to cover all possibilities.

 

As for the PS, I think it is usually down to poor drafting. It tends to happen less these days than it used to. The UK's Sexual Offences Act 2003, as an example, is a fantastic piece of legislation purely because it was intended to overwrite the shortcomings of the poorly-conceived previous version.

[padren]

I was thinking that the government should stick to "civil unions" and not cover marriage at all, though I resent it somewhat because really it is necessary.

 

I mean, I was married once, but God sure wasn't invited, and the idea of an atheist girl I know getting all excited and exclaiming "OMG! He popped the question!! I'm getting Civil Unioned!!" would be downright painful. But lets be honest, she won't say that, she'll say she's getting married. That's what everyone will say.

 

Us atheists have been getting married for ages - why should we give up the word now? We've always known that "Legal Marriage" is one thing, and "Religious Marriage" (well, Jewish Marriage, Christian Marriage, Hindu Marriage, etc etc etc) is another.

 

So really, I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it was as simple as the State involvement in a marriage is you have to get a civil union license (no marriage licenses) and then you can go get married by a judge, ship captain, priest, or whatever floats your boat.

 

So, as long as it doesn't "give" marriage to the religious and you can still get married as an atheist (and be considered married, check the 'married' box off on forms, etc) I'll be happy.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

More than that, it will also require people to consider the new definition the legally correct one, and if their religion defines it differently, too bad for them. If this is restricting their rights of freedom of religion, the government may not be allowed to define it in a way that disagrees with their religion without having a constitutionally better reason to do so. On the other hand, different religions may have different definitions, so the government may not be allowed to define it at all.

 

For the record, the legal definition is already irreconcilable with all religious definitions, as all religious definition include God as part of a marriage, and atheists have been getting legally married for ages.

 

Second: It would only restrict their rights of freedom of religion if a given church was forced by the state to perform a marriage they did not want to - which has never been suggested. If a same sex marriage before a judge effects the religious rights of Christians, then a Christian's decision to eat a ham sandwich in his own home effects the religious rights of a Jewish person up the street - and that would be silly.

Edited March 12, 2009 by padren
Consecutive posts merged.

[ParanoiA]

I mean, I was married once, but God sure wasn't invited, and the idea of an atheist girl I know getting all excited and exclaiming "OMG! He popped the question!! I'm getting Civil Unioned!!" would be downright painful. But lets be honest, she won't say that, she'll say she's getting married. That's what everyone will say.

 

Sure that would be downright painful, and not practical. You're right, she'll say she's getting married. And same-sex couples will say the same thing. And neither will have any legal leverage over the other. They'll have to persuade each other, or leave it be. Personally, I'll never look back. I could care less.

[Mr Skeptic]

So really, I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it was as simple as the State involvement in a marriage is you have to get a civil union license (no marriage licenses) and then you can go get married by a judge, ship captain, priest, or whatever floats your boat.

 

So, as long as it doesn't "give" marriage to the religious and you can still get married as an atheist (and be considered married, check the 'married' box off on forms, etc) I'll be happy.

 

That's exactly what I meant. The government should give you your rights, and you can call it what you like. The alternative is, the government defines marriage, and in doing so pisses off about half the population or more.* Or the government doesn't define marriage, and people's rights are in lingo. They absolutely cannot give the word marriage to any particular religion, as that would be flagrant violation of everyone else's right to religious freedom.

 

*some religions or individuals won't consider you married if you allow for the possibility of divorce, "open marriages", etc. I'm sure there are multiple definitions of marriage, though most of the current controversy is whether it includes same-sex couples or not. So a definition might go against what more than half of people want, yet still be the most popular definition.

[ecoli]

That's exactly what I meant. The government should give you your rights, and you can call it what you like.

This statement infuriated my libertarian sensibilities. Governments don't give rights, they merely protect them (or violate them). Human rights are "natural."

 

... continue

[ydoaPs]

This statement infuriated my libertarian sensibilities. Governments don't give rights, they merely protect them (or violate them). Human rights are "natural."

 

... continue

 

o.O

 

I thought rights were endowed by social contract of your peers.

[Sisyphus]

It wouldn't be "giving marriage to the religious." Nothing would be stopping anyone from saying they're "married," just the meaning of the word would have to be self-defined and not legally defined. For a religious person, it could mean "married in the eyes of God" or whatever, and for the rest of us it would just be a traditional formal pledge of love and commitment. Or whatever. While a "civil union" (or whatever) would be the legal agreement granting rights of shared property, power of attorney, child custody, etc.

 

Similarly, there are several people I refer to as my friends, but there's no legal definition of "friend" anywhere. Yet somehow people manage to understand what I mean, and I don't feel particularly oppressed by the lack of official recognition.

 

(On the other hand, if there was some religious group that managed to get "friend" legally defined according to their own standards which would come with legal priveleges, then that would greatly annoy me.)

[ParanoiA]

o.O

 

I thought rights were endowed by social contract of your peers.

 

Not in our republic. In our country your peers cannot deny you rights simply because they outnumber you. Unless of course you're considering our repubic as the social contract. In that case, I'd argue that the philosophical methodology is that your rights are inalienable, and that government's job is to protect them.

 

I admit, I frequently violate that association when I get caught up in discussion. But ecoli is right on the money.

[ydoaPs]

Not in our republic. In our country your peers cannot deny you rights simply because they outnumber you.

They can when they're the military.

 

Unless of course you're considering our repubic as the social contract.

Indeed.

[ParanoiA]

They can when they're the military.

 

 

Indeed. Can't really argue with that one.

[Dudde]

I voted for the government to change the word, as the arguments are compelling to do so. Most simply, I agree with the fact that the government can issue a certificate or license to make the union legally binding, and then let the masses decide what to call it.

 

As has been pointed out, it shouldn't matter how the government defines it, it should be an encompassing term that defines the legal aspect

[john5746]

I voted to keep the word marriage and define it, although if it would be much easier to pass the civil union legislation, it would be fine by me. I think most of the boundaries that define marriage today are secular, not religious in nature. Age of consent, race, number of people for example.

 

People of various religious backgrounds and even atheists get married, without trampling on anyone's religious rights. People also get blood transfusions and other medical procedures without trampling on religious rights. People use electricity without trampling on religious rights. And people speak without trampling on religious rights(well, some think not being offended is a right).

 

Marriage has a legal and spiritual definition. I think all people have no problem with that separation, until it comes to homosexuality. So, I say it should be legally defined as the union of two adults and that it should be a federal issue, not a state issue.

 

 

 

Not in our republic. In our country your peers cannot deny you rights simply because they outnumber you. Unless of course you're considering our repubic as the social contract. In that case, I'd argue that the philosophical methodology is that your rights are inalienable, and that government's job is to protect them.

 

Bah, rights without protection is like money without trust. These "inalienable" rights had to be fought for several times and will be fought for in the future. Choosing not to put them up to an easy vote still doesn't guarantee that they will always exist.

[waitforufo]

I think dropping the word marriage would be impractical. What about all the existing marriage licenses? It's a political non starter. The current common law definition needs to be replaced with a specific legal definition.

[Dudde]

I don't necessarily think the general consensus is to have the law do one thing, and the people do another (although it may be) - what I was referring to was more of defining the act so to speak. Any two adults who become legally bonded in the eyes of the law, such as a marriage does now.

 

We don't really want to drop the word itself, just the legal definition of the word. The previous and past marriages would still be defined and legal under such a definition, civil union would work perfectly if that's what they decided on

[padren]

This statement infuriated my libertarian sensibilities. Governments don't give rights, they merely protect them (or violate them). Human rights are "natural."

 

I agree 100%. A government "recognizes" what are seen as inalienable rights, and as part of it's duty to protect it's citizens, also protects its citizens' rights - when it's doing it's job correctly. Recognizing innate human rights and even putting them into language effectively is imperfect in practice, and will continue to be refined long into the future, but I do believe there is a philisophical truth of sorts at the core of them.

 

/sidetrack

[Pangloss]

Keep the word, define it, give it to everyone, and move on to more important matters.

[scrappy]

While I would like to see the government get out of the business of marriage, I don't believe that action will ever be practical or possible. I voted for the last option: keep the term and define it. The definition of marriage should be "a legalized civil union between one man and one woman."

 

Now, what to do about gays? I say let them get their legalized civil unions, but don't call it "marriage" in any legal context. Call it a "domestic partnership" and let that be enough for them. If all of their domestic-partnerships rights are protected then it doesn't matter if the term "marriage" applies or not. If the gays want to call their civil unions "marriage," let 'em. Why should the straights care what they call their domestic partnerships, so long as the legal definition of 'marriage" is maintained?

 

In Lake Erie you can go out and catch a walleye and call it a pickerel, even if it isn't. Nobody cares what you call your fish. Your fishing license makes a precise designation that will be useful if any law is violated.

[Sayonara]

Now, what to do about gays? I say let them get their legalized civil unions, but don't call it "marriage" in any legal context. Call it a "domestic partnership" and let that be enough for them.

So why not say that straight partners are in a "domestic partnership"?

 

I think it would be better if we kept the gay marriage discussion in the latest of the many gay marriage threads.

[Mr Skeptic]

Scrappy, would you also support that the government keep using the word marriage, if they define marriage in a way that includes same-sex unions? Because that might happen; there is no guarantee that you will like their definition.

[mooeypoo]

To be honest, I don't think the it's the government that should drop this term, but rather the Gay Rights movement. The Gay Rights movement(s) want equal right, and instead of fighting for the rights they seem to drudge in the mud while arguing against religious fanatics for the definition of "marriage".

 

Who the hell cares what it's called - as long as all citizens receive the same rights without regard for gender, religious beliefs, skin color, ethnicity, economic status or sexual orientation, it really doesn't matter.

 

The problem is that when the religious fanatics claim "marriage" is religious in origin, they are right. It is religious in origin, that's the point -- but the government decided to take a cultural/religious practice and support it with rights and benefits. If one argues about marriage, then the argument is *bound* to go into religion and get dirty. If one switches a definition and argues for the equality of all citizens under the laws without regard of skin color, gender, religious views or sexual preference, then the religious claims become much less relevant.

 

It's about time the Gay Rights movement take a bit of the responsibility on themselves and stop banging their heads in the wall or fighting windmills. It's very easy blaming the extremist opposition, but that doesn't help the cause at all.