Should the government drop the word "marriage"

[DrDNA]

Every time the fed gov tries to define something, they screw it up and it turns out to be a bloody mess.

It should be up to the parties involved to decide what marriage is (or is not), and the gov should stay out of it. Far out of it.

Maybe someone could convince me that it should be up to the individual states, in which case the Supreme Court would probably screw it up, so I'm not leaning in that direction either.

 

Besides, the recent propositions to define 'marriage as between one man and one woman' are just an example of another lame attempt to deflect attention away from the real issues we face as country and as a species.

It serves one purpose and one purpose only- just to get people on both sides all riled up over nothing.

 

Personally, I don't care who or what you marry; nor do I care how many whos or whats you marry.

 

This goes along the same lines as me not giving a hoot what you do and who you do it with or to behind closed doors so long as it does not involve a minor, does not violate someone else's rights, and does not constitute animal cruelty.....eg, if the goat(s) likes it, good for you and the goat.

And if you want to make an honest goat out of the goat(s), go ahead and marry it.

Good luck to both of you.

 

The push for 'flag burning amendments' in the 80s were another quite similar example of certain parties trying to deflect attention away from the real issues we face as a country and as a people.

 

My flag is sacred only because I can burn it if I choose to do so. Take away that right and it becomes worthless.

 

Along similar lines, marriage becomes less sacred when the government becomes involved and attempts to legislate or define it.

 

PS:

mooeypoo,

I agree with you.

Forces in the gay rights movement share some responsibility for blowing this issue up.

Very good point you have made.

But also, the people fighting against them so vehemently share a portion of the blame as well.

Edited March 13, 2009 by DrDNA

[mooeypoo]

mooeypoo,

I agree with you.

Forces in the gay rights movement share some responsibility for blowing this issue up.

Very good point you have made.

But also, the people fighting against them so vehemently share a portion of the blame as well.

Absolutely, but when you're fighting such a large organization with something that is so deeply rooted in social consciousness, you have, basically, two generalized options: Use tactics that are bound to raise more opposition against you and make your fight harder, or take the higher road and fight for equal rights while avoiding as many bumps as you can along the way.

 

The bottom line is this: Take the "principal" road with less odds of winning, or the generalized road (specifically, fight for "equal rights for everyone", as opposed to "marriage for gays") and increase your odds.

[iNow]

Keep the word marriage. It's already defined as a union, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the gender of those united. One word. One set of laws. One recognition that anything else is unequal and grants special privilege to specific groups and is unconstitutional from the start. Keep the word marriage. It's already defined as a union, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the gender of those united.

[DrDNA]

I don't believe that anyone has mentioned it yet. If they have, excuse me.

 

But one major stumbling block to this has been insurance coverage.

 

For example, a Fortune 500 company that I used to work offered insurance coverage to spouses and to same sex partners.

 

That made gay couples very happy but left out heterosexual couples living in similar situations.

Unfortunately, unlike the same sex couples, unmarried heterosexual couples did not have enough momentum or clout to get the rule changed.

And they were simply told to get married if they didn't like it.

 

I believe that this rule was discriminatory.

 

This may have been an exception.

Some other companies that I am aware offer coverage only to "spouses".

[Mr Skeptic]

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 bottom line is this: Take the "principal" road with less odds of winning, or the generalized road (specifically, fight for "equal rights for everyone", as opposed to "marriage for gays") and increase your odds.

 

I absolutely agree with most of this, and said much the same in a different thread. After thinking about it more, I think there are two separate circumstances. When they push for legislation, they should IMO be pushing for equal rights rather than the word "marriage". However, in the current absence of legislation granting them equal rights, the only way they can currently get those rights is by claiming that the term "marriage" applies to them. Not the high road, but the only way to get their rights now and without passing legislation. Though I support their rights, I think that they must get them by passing legislation, not changing definitions.

 

As for the government, as you mentioned "marriage" is largely a religious term... the government has their version of marriage, but it involves paperwork more than ceremony, and there is no reason the paperwork and the ceremony need be called the same thing. I'm not suggesting the government give over the definition of marriage to any religion, nor to the gay rights movement, but that they get a different name for their paperwork and let everyone else worry about whether it is a marriage or not.

[iNow]

Though I support their rights, I think that they must get them by passing legislation, not changing definitions.

 

I do hereby claim that you don't have the right to masturbate. You never did. It's not what was intended when the law makers wrote rules about our rights. I think you should have to pass legislation that says you're allowed to masturbate instead of trying to change the meaning of "natural rights" to include that.

 

Oh yeah, you also don't have a right to privacy. The government will be invading it all of the time until you "pass legislation" that says you do have a "right to privacy."

 

 

Let's see... what else do you need to "pass legislation" to allow you to do? I'll have to get back to you on this. The list is rather long...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The bottom line is this: Take the "principal" road with less odds of winning, or the generalized road (specifically, fight for "equal rights for everyone", as opposed to "marriage for gays") and increase your odds.

 

I know where you stand on this, but I disagree, and suggest that it's about more than just winning. When you take the long-term view, the principle is the ONLY thing that matters, and the only thing worth dying for.

Edited March 13, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[padren]

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.

 

I really feel that it's morally wrong to cave to people of that nature who are just throwing toddler style tantrums.

 

The origin of the word "Band-Aid" was a trademark, but it was not defended and now is one of the most famous cases of a company loosing a trademark when it becomes a common word.

 

Marriage has been non-religious ever since captains and judges have performed weddings without invoking God. Religious conservatives could have made a case then, but didn't defend the term for religiously exclusive use - it has since become part of our shared culture and they can't just take it back now.

 

Without even thinking about same-sex couples, the idea of conceding Marriage as a religious term is an idea I find disturbing. It also glosses over the rather ugly and entirely non-democratic mob definition where some define it as only marriage if there can be no divorce, others include multiple partners and minors, all only putting their differences aside to attack those they feel are vulnerable enough. Can they take on atheist heterosexuals that get "married" and win? Not a chance - but they can still rally just enough people to agree to keep the gays out.

 

The idea of religious people getting to define marriage is already a contradiction - they don't agree on the term. Enough of them agree on what a few facets should look like to shift the definition towards what the mob can agree on. But who's getting a word in here? Does the fact that those shouting "no gay marriage" are louder than those saying "hey God likes gay marriage too" mean they should get the defacto right to say how people of other views on faith can define it?

 

Marriage has come to mean something in atheist culture over the generations - I don't think any religious coalition has the right to take that away.

[scrappy]

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?

No, I wouldn't, because same-sex civil unions do not fit my definition of "marriage." I favor legalizing them, but I don't see any reason to call them "marriages." Why should I? I don't see any good reason to call married men "wives" or married women "husbands," either. It's a titular thing, arising from tradition. What's wrong with that? Why should we change the meaning of "marriage" if gays are granted legalized domestic partnerships and get all of bennies enjoyed by heterosexuals?

 

Because that might happen; there is no guarantee that you will like their definition.

They can call their civil unions "marriages" if they like; it won't bother me a bit, as long as the government doesn't call them that. I pretty much agree with mooeypoo on this matter:

 

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.

Edited March 13, 2009 by scrappy

[Mr Skeptic]

Keep the word marriage. It's already defined as a union, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the gender of those united. One word. One set of laws. One recognition that anything else is unequal and grants special privilege to specific groups and is unconstitutional from the start. Keep the word marriage. It's already defined as a union, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the gender of those united.

 

And what about you? Would you still support that the government keep the word marriage, if they define it in such a way that excludes same-sex couples? Because that might happen; there is no guarantee that you will like their definition.

[The Bear's Key]

I voted "no opinion". It feels like there should be another choice: "No, government needs to put its foot down on separating religion and government -- else liberties are trampled."

[john5746]

And what about you? Would you still support that the government keep the word marriage, if they define it in such a way that excludes same-sex couples? Because that might happen; there is no guarantee that you will like their definition.

 

well, they could also define civil unions as between only a man and woman, because as we all know, the arguments against homosexual marriage are not religiously based.

[iNow]

Why should we change the meaning of "marriage" if gays are granted legalized domestic partnerships and get all of bennies enjoyed by heterosexuals?

 

As already conceded by Mr Skeptic in the OP, neither side has established a confirmed original definition, nor if that definition was intended to include or exclude any groups. Ergo, your premise is baseless, and your conclusions faulty.

[waitforufo]

Modern people reviewing the history of marriage law have much to cringe at. Today the focus is on gays. In the recent past and extending into today, feminism was the focus. The words marriage, husband, and wife are all very politically charged words. If you doubt this, read what Blackstone had to say about marriage. Much of marriage law today is based on his opinions.

 

The central concept in marriage is that when a man and woman become married they become one person in law. Many modern people, particularly feminists, object to this. This concept has advantages and disadvantages. For example one spouse cannot be compelled by law to give testimony against another. Since they are one person in law, this would denying them their right not to self incriminate. If your spouse is a tax cheat however, you may loose your property or even go to jail.

 

Do I think people in the present should be saddled with obsolete legal concepts of the past? No, I think they should be able change them. Our system provides several methods for changing legal concepts. The two most important are legislative means and constitutional amendments. When legal concepts are changed by these means, the changes are supported by the will of the people. Using these methods is often not a pleasant experience. It can also be painfully slow.

 

Another method of changing legal concepts is through the courts. I am generally not in favor of this method. I am particularly not in favor of the courts pretending that modern definitions of words have always existed. In fact, often times the modern definition of words are not widely accepted. Permitting courts to choose the definitions of words based on personal preference, in my opinion, is a very bad thing. Can liberty survive such a system?

 

With regard to the conjunction of marriage, law, and religion, I think this linkage is very weak. Proof to this is that the Supreme Court has ruled that "religious belief is not superior to the law of the land", particularly with regard to marriage. The only linkage religion has on legal marriage is its influence on the definition of words that have been incorporated into law. Legally redefine the words, (marriage, husband, wife, spouse) which I support, and you change marriage law. Ignore the meanings that existed and were used when creating present law only undermines law.

 

Finally, the present organized resistance against changing marriage laws is dominantly religious. This should not be surprising since religious institutions, like political parties, provide a formal structure to organize social opposition. (This by the way has often been beneficial to society. Think Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce and many others.) I think it is naïve to assume that the religious leaders guide their members like sheep on the issue of marriage. People hold strong opinions about their marriages and on how marriages impact family and social structure. They hold these opinions independent of their religious beliefs. If their church is the only social institution willing to promote their opinion, it is their that they express their opinions and organize to resist change.

[Mr Skeptic]

well, they could also define civil unions as between only a man and woman, because as we all know, the arguments against homosexual marriage are not religiously based.

 

I think that the strongest argument against gay marriage is based on the definition of marriage. Civil union is more clearly defined, and less controversial,* and is more likely that it would exclude opposite-sex couples than that it would exclude same-sex couples. Ie, some of the definitions exclude opposite-sex couples, and some of the definitions include both, kind of opposite of how marriage is sometimes defined.

 

*Less controversial as religions have no claim at all to it, being purely a government construct with no religious significance.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil%20union

 

civil union

noun

a voluntary union for life (or until divorce) of adult parties of the same sex; "parties to a civil union have all the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under Vermont law as spouses in a marriage"

 

civil union

legal recognition of the committed, marriagelike partnership of two individuals. Typically, the civil registration of their commitment provides the couple with legal benefits that approach or are equivalent to those of marriage, such as rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decision making, differential taxation, adoption and artificial insemination, and employee benefits for partners and dependents

[scrappy]

As already conceded by Mr Skeptic in the OP, neither side has established a confirmed original definition, nor if that definition was intended to include or exclude any groups. Ergo, your premise is baseless, and your conclusions faulty.

Based on what principles? Who said I had to agree with the OP, anyway? It seems pretty clear to me that the American majority views marriage as a CU between one man and one woman. Why are they wrong? Their definition of marriage does not exclude any group: homosexuals have the same access to it as I do. I'm sure we've been all over this before.

[iNow]

It seems pretty clear to me that the American majority views marriage as a CU between one man and one woman. Why are they wrong?

 

A few points, my friend. The "American majority views" have not been established or measured in any scientifically credible way. That is the first baseless assumption you made in that post, and it does not support your point since you could very well be wrong. Two, the majority view has zero relevance to the law or its application. That's a pretty major one right there, but I'm not done yet. Now, three, nobody has established what those who wrote the laws originally intended. The issue of whether or not they meant to have any groups either included or excluded is still being debated, and neither side has shared any definitive evidence one way or the other.

 

It's the third point to which I was referring.

 

You simply continue to assert that there was this "original meaning," yet you have not established this as a valid fact. It is fine that it is your opinion, but we can all see that it is precisely this which is under dispute. I hold that the original intent was to describe the relationship, not the gender of the parties united in said relationship. However, even I can concede that we simply don't know if that's the case. The point is, in much the same way, you CANNOT know if YOUR opinion is accurate either, and the "majority American view" is completely irrelevant to this.

 

Further, asserting that "whether you're homosexual or heterosexual, you can still marry someone of the opposite sex" is somehow equal is (at best) an ignorant assertion. You're arguing that there is no inequality because both have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, despite their sexual preference. However, this approach ignores the fact that a law of this nature is IMPLICITLY discriminatory. Sorry, thanks for playing. Would you like to take the conciliation prize home with you?

 

IIRC, the "majority American view" was for discrimination against blacks, too. Fancy that, it was still illegal and inequitable, so struck down.

Edited March 13, 2009 by iNow

[DrDNA]

It seems pretty clear to me that the American majority views marriage as a CU between one man and one woman. Why are they wrong?

 

The majority's views are irrelevant in many cases.

Hence the Electoral College system, Congress, Executive powers, the Supreme Court, etc.....

Sometimes for better; sometimes for worse.

 

Their definition of marriage does not exclude any group: homosexuals have the same access to it as I do. I'm sure we've been all over this before.

Maybe I misunderstood your statement, but are you saying that gay couples are included because they can marry someone of the opposite sex?

[doG]

I used to advocate simply using the term civil union but now I'm leaning more toward the U.S. adapting to the rest of the world. Other nations are starting to redefine marriage to include same sex couples so why can't the U.S.? The only places where it is strongly opposed is in areas where the government is strongly influenced or even controlled by religion and I disagree with those areas. Religious belief should not be imposed on anyone anywhere. It's time the church quit forcing the masses to adopt its rules and definitions.

[waitforufo]

I hold that the original intent was to describe the relationship, not the gender of the parties united in said relationship.

 

Have you ever provided any support for this opinion?

 

However, even I can concede that we simply don't know if that's the case.

 

The fact that opposite sex marriages are and have been pervasive in the United States from its founding and same sex marriages are non existent doesn't give you any help at all?

[Dudde]

There's actually a fairly interesting same-sex marriage thread, more geared toward proposition 8 in California, but it has a lot of interesting input on the topic besides. I'm still interested in the subject, but it's like creating it in another thread, now I have to look two places

 

Have you ever provided any support for this opinion?

 

I encourage you to check out the thread about Proposition 8, there was a substantial amount of support going both ways

[Severian]

I find this slightly amusing. I have been advocating that governments should not recognise any marriages (and instead just recognise legal secular contracts) for years. But when I started saying this on these fora, I was attacked from all sides. It is interesting to see how people's views change.

[scrappy]

A few points, my friend. The "American majority views" have not been established or measured in any scientifically credible way. That is the first baseless assumption you made in that post, and it does not support your point since you could very well be wrong.

Does Prop. 8 count for anything?

 

Two, the majority view has zero relevance to the law or its application. That's a pretty major one right there, but I'm not done yet.

But you haven’t made any points yet. Your biggest fear is majority opinion, and rightly so.

 

Now, three, nobody has established what those who wrote the laws originally intended. The issue of whether or not they meant to have any groups either included or excluded is still being debated, and neither side has shared any definitive evidence one way or the other.

Oh, come on. Do you really believe that any law addressing marriage was promulgated originally to include “same-sex marriage”? More original consideration was given to including polygamy. “Same-sex marriage” is an out-of-the-closet devise to celebrate homosexuality. It’s only a titular thing anyway, because I and many others do support legalizing domestic partnerships for gays.

 

 

You simply continue to assert that there was this "original meaning," yet you have not established this as a valid fact. It is fine that it is your opinion…

Is there anything other than opinions on this matter? Differing opinions can be settled by public vote, ya know. Why does that scare you?

 

I hold that the original intent was to describe the relationship, not the gender of the parties united in said relationship.

You can hold it if you like.

 

The point is, in much the same way, you CANNOT know if YOUR opinion is accurate either, and the "majority American view" is completely irrelevant to this.

Didn’t seem to be so irrelevant to the voters of Prop. 8.

 

Further, asserting that "whether you're homosexual or heterosexual, you can still marry someone of the opposite sex" is somehow equal is (at best) an ignorant assertion. You're arguing that there is no inequality because both have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, despite their sexual preference. However, this approach ignores the fact that a law of this nature is IMPLICITLY discriminatory. Sorry, thanks for playing. Would you like to take the conciliation prize home with you?

So much fuss and bother when many like me already agree to legalizing same-sex domestic partnerships. You seem a bit hysterical, as is evidenced by this statement:

 

IIRC, the "majority American view" was for discrimination against blacks, too. Fancy that, it was still illegal and inequitable, so struck down.

This is not a good argument for you to make. It defeats your position because any discrimination against blacks where marriage was concerned always embraced the true definition of the marriage contract: a civil union between one man and one woman.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Maybe I misunderstood your statement, but are you saying that gay couples are included because they can marry someone of the opposite sex?

Yes. They are perfectly welcomed to do that. Anything that would prohibit them from doing that would be a blatant act of bigotry.

[padren]

Here's a thought:

 

Let the "legal" definition of marriage reflect that there is no legal definition of marriage: to some parties it may not be subject to divorce, to others it means only heterosexual couples, and others includes same sex couples as well: then people can live as they wish without any concern for the legal definition.

 

The only factor then, is that to acquire legal recognition for the couple, they have to get a civil union license - not a marriage license. This license would have no religious connotations and be open to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

 

I think that would be ideal, but I get hung up on one factor:

 

When you file your taxes, are they really going to change the word "married" to some cumbersome new term for "civil unioned" or just leave it as "married" and have that mean "legally married via a civil union" - in which case what has changing the terminology really done?

 

I think marriage has already come to mean "or civil union" whether we want to admit it or not - people get married for all manner of legal reasons that have nothing to do with traditional marriage.

[DrDNA]

When you file your taxes, are they really going to change the word "married" to some cumbersome new term for "civil unioned" or just leave it as "married" and have that mean "legally married via a civil union" - in which case what has changing the terminology really done?

 

I believe that you are hinting at a very good point.

 

There are some "co-habitating", unmarried couples that file joint tax returns.

To my knowledge, no tax auditor has ever asked to see these couples' marriage certificates.

 

If someone knows of a case where a tax auditor or some official from the IRS has asked for such a document, please correct me.

[padren]

It seems pretty clear to me that the American majority views marriage as a CU between one man and one woman. Why are they wrong? Their definition of marriage does not exclude any group: homosexuals have the same access to it as I do. I'm sure we've been all over this before.

 

The vast majority of Americans may feel that a priest must be a man. Most religions in the US also believe that. Since a priest can perform marriages, that means they have some special state recognition.

 

However: Some churches allow women to be priests, and some religions always have. So what does the "views of the majority" have to do with this - should we ban women from being priests in the eyes of the law, because of some "majority" feeling that it threatens their own religion's priesthood traditions?

 

The fact is they are perfectly happy to allow other religions to do their own thing most of the time. If they want female priests - as long as they don't claim it's their church that endorses it, they respect that other church's right to do things their own way. That means to me they get it.

 

So please, what is the difference with same-sex marriage? No one is asking their church to endorse it, anymore than they'd have to endorse female priests if their church disagrees.