Should the government drop the word "marriage"

[ParanoiA]

scrappy... Your arguments seem to be predicated by this insistence that we honor some majority opinion beyond the obligations to law. If you're going to argue on details, the constitution benefits from pedantic debate. Otherwise, we're arguing opinions and your rebuttals have been reminders about the majority. At this level of discussion, I'm not sure I understand why their opinion should matter to me.

 

I was actually looking forward to your answer to this question, by Pangloss:

 

You know what happens when the majority of the country believes something that, by its own definitions, isn't fair to a minority of the country, right?

 

And I was anxious when you answered back about the courts, since that misses the point. It's the reason why we're not a democracy, scrappy. There is a scope of freedom inalienable by the government and this may well prove to be in that range. And there is a strong enough plurality to sustain that reconciliation.

 

Your rights end where mine begin. It's not up to me to prove I should have a right, but rather up to you to prove I should not. Our liberties are a non-blocking design. By default, it's cool, until something bad happens - until someone's right is being infringed. Then laws get drafted and our liberties get restricted to preserve the rights of others.

 

How does same-sex marriage violate the rights of others? There's a reason this question keeps coming up and it's because it's relevant to the philosophy of our legal structure. If you are to restrict that liberty, it must be because someone else's right is being infringed. Please share.

[DrDNA]

Scrappy,

You remind me of an awesome debater from the past.

Are you from Canada?

[scrappy]

Now wait, you've already established that you didn't want to impose your beliefs, or principles if you would, on other people based on the fact that it's your principle. I'd like to see less of "the rest of the 94% notwithstanding" statements, nobody is arguing the majority is against Same Sex marriage - what we're arguing is that they're imposing their own beliefs on the minority of the population.

It's a question of whose beliefs are to be imposed upon whom. I believe pot should be legalized, and I see no harm to society by doing so. In fact, I see a huge net benefit. But I sill have to live in a society where it is illegal. The majority of public opinion on that matter runs counter to mine. But, hey, that's life in a constitutional republic that operates on the principles of democracy. Why should SSM be treated differently?

 

But why? What have they [same-sexers] done that's so intrusive?

Because they've intruded on the definition of marriage. That's my opinion on the matter. How have they intruded? By offending the DOMA. If you don't agree with the DOMA then you won't feel any intrusion. Do you think the DOMA people have intruded on the SSN people? Same question in reverse. DOMA doesn't bother me, so why should it bother you?

 

Frankly, the courts can prove as biased as the people they represent - the justices were once part of the average citizenry too. I would trust them to read into the laws and try to leave their personal prejudices at the door much more than I would trust anybody I could speak to on the street, but it doesn't make them perfect.

Dudde, are you forgetting that even the SCOTUS is a body of human beings? Sure there are biases. What would you expect? And if those biases ran in your favor, would you be out banging the gong for unbiased court opinions?

 

I'd like to see less of what you see in others and society and hear why you're really opposed to same sex marriages if you have one, you're kind of running this discussion in circles by referencing the same numbers to every response.

I hold an opinion on the matter. You hold an opinion on the matter. Why should your opinion be any better than mine? And if you reject the courts' opinions after they have made their interpretations of the Constitution, why is your opinion any better than theirs?

 

Bottom line: SSM v. DOMA is a battle of hearts and mines. I don't see how the SSM people can win this battle with any of the arguments put forward here or elsewhere. Time to change your battle plan.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

scrappy... Your arguments seem to be predicated by this insistence that we honor some majority opinion beyond the obligations to law. If you're going to argue on details, the constitution benefits from pedantic debate. Otherwise, we're arguing opinions and your rebuttals have been reminders about the majority. At this level of discussion, I'm not sure I understand why their opinion should matter to me.

Then maybe you ought to go look for a country that operates differently from the US of A. I know it's a hard reality to face, but majority opinion matters in this country. And if the same-sexers want to change that they need to cop a different attitude, one that isn't fueled by self-righteous indignation.

 

I was actually looking forward to your answer to this question, by Pangloss:

 

You know what happens when the majority of the country believes something that, by its own definitions, isn't fair to a minority of the country, right?

Maybe it's time to face up to the fact that there are many, many, many minorities in this country that pose the same question. Any minority so disfavored will make that claim. Even the nudists claim that current laws on nudity offend their rights. Why should nudity be intrusive to anyone? How does it harm them? And what about your neighbor who raises puppies for barbequeing purposes? Why should that bother you? Why shouldn't his minority opinion trump the majority opinion on that matter?

 

And I was anxious when you answered back about the courts, since that misses the point. It's the reason why we're not a democracy, scrappy.

I was uninformed on this important change in our government. When did we stop being a constitutional republic that operates on the principles of democracy?

 

There is a scope of freedom inalienable by the government and this may well prove to be in that range. And there is a strong enough plurality to sustain that reconciliation.

So, are you against putting this to a test by either popular vote or a court decision?

 

Your rights end where mine begin.

Why? Doesn't the Constitution apply equally to both of us?

 

 

It's not up to me to prove I should have a right, but rather up to you to prove I should not. Our liberties are a non-blocking design. By default, it's cool, until something bad happens - until someone's right is being infringed. Then laws get drafted and our liberties get restricted to preserve the rights of others.

Wrong attitude, if changing hearts and mind are important.

 

How does same-sex marriage violate the rights of others? There's a reason this question keeps coming up and it's because it's relevant to the philosophy of our legal structure. If you are to restrict that liberty, it must be because someone else's right is being infringed. Please share.

People who support the DOMA feel the same way. Who's right and who's wrong? Better to let the public vote decided, and then turn it over to the courts. If you can't abide with that then you're living in the wrong country.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Scrappy,

You remind me of an awesome debater from the past.

Are you from Canada?

No such luck for me; I'm a blood, guts, and glory American (except that I am still a hippie at heart).

Edited March 19, 2009 by scrappy
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

It's a question of whose beliefs are to be imposed upon whom. I believe pot should be legalized, and I see no harm to society by doing so. In fact, I see a huge net benefit. But I sill have to live in a society where it is illegal. The majority of public opinion on that matter runs counter to mine. But, hey, that's life in a constitutional republic that operates on the principles of democracy. Why should SSM be treated differently?

Because pot is a psychotropic substance which has a measurable effect on ones capacity to think and perceive clearly. It impacts cognitive and motor function, and the impact is measurable.

 

Same sex marriage is different because it involves human beings who simply have a different sexual preference than the majority. They are, however, humans, and not inanimate objects, so deserve the equal rights and protections guarenteed them in the constitution. Further, they have NO MEASURABLE IMPACT on others for being allowed equal rights and state recognized marriage.

 

 

 

 

Do you think the DOMA people have intruded on the SSN people?

Absolutely it has. It is a government act which EXPLICITY removes rights from people. That question is a no-brainer (also, I presume you meant "same sex marriage supporters").

 

 

 

And if you reject the courts' opinions after they have made their interpretations of the Constitution, why is your opinion any better than theirs?

Now this quote is classic, and spoken like someone who hasn't been paying a damned bit of attention.

 

The California Supreme Court ALREADY struck down as unconstitutional bans on same sex marriage when they ruled on Prop 22. Suddenly, now YOU'RE the one rejecting their opinion and supporting Prop 8, a ballot measure with the exact same wording as Prop 22 (which had already been ruled unconstitutional).

 

I asked you earlier in the thread to go look up the words "equality," and "bigotry." Now, it's time for you to grab that dictionary once more and look up "hypocricy."

 

 

 

Bottom line: SSM v. DOMA is a battle of hearts and mines. I don't see how the SSM people can win this battle with any of the arguments put forward here or elsewhere. Time to change your battle plan.

I agree. It's time for me to start shooting stupid people in the face with a pistol.

 

 

You continue to assert some established definition of marriage despite your FAILURE to support that contention after numerous requests. I've got another word for you to lookup: Troll.

 

Oh, and lookup "hippy" too. Just because you smoke pot doesn't make you a hippy To be a hippy, you have to stand up for peace and equality, and the elimination of mindless biases in our institutions.

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

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.

[Dudde]

It's disappointing to see the same irrelevance and references to the same arguments as before, do you even think for yourself? - Seriously, same sex marriages are the same as an army of irresponsible adults who can't manage their own stress, and so get high and do damage to others? Don't argue this point, I know the BS legalized pot arguments come up with, and I have first hand experience as to why I know it's BS - the main point here, is that it's irrelevant.

 

Because they've intruded on the definition of marriage. That's my opinion on the matter. How have they intruded? By offending the DOMA.

 

You mean the definition and act that was explicitly enacted to infringe on the liberties of an arbitrary and minority group. That DOMA? That was another document that was set forward specifically to take rights away from others, America wasn't as always open-minded as I'd hoped it would be. (I would appreciate you not trying to reference marriages to inanimate objects and dead animals at this point. I think that point has been refuted enough, is irrelevant, and in no way symbolizes the union of two people. 1 person + 1 person = marriage.)

 

DOMA doesn't bother me, so why should it bother you?

Because it defines something that was for all americans to a more narrow definition, excluding a group of people not for legalities or reason, but for taste and opinion.

 

I hold an opinion on the matter. You hold an opinion on the matter. Why should your opinion be any better than mine? And if you reject the courts' opinions after they have made their interpretations of the Constitution, why is your opinion any better than theirs?

 

I don't remember saying my opinion was better than yours. You still fail to provide your own opinion and frequently refer to the same arguments, which leads me to believe it's all you might have. If that's all supporting the anti-same sex marriage side, it saddens me to see how long this national debate has raged.

[scrappy]

Because pot is a psychotropic substance which has a measurable effect on ones capacity to think and perceive clearly. It impacts cognitive and motor function, and the impact is measurable.

 

Same sex marriage is different because it involves human beings who simply have a different sexual preference than the majority. They are, however, humans, and not inanimate objects, so deserve the equal rights and protections guarenteed them in the constitution. Further, they have NO MEASURABLE IMPACT on others for being allowed equal rights and state recognized marriage.

iNow, can you differentiate a fact from an opinion? The point is that your opinion is fine and fair and fully justified, to you, but it may not be so to others. What is a "MEASURABLE IMPACT"? Who defines that? If what you say is a fact in truth, then why are so many states—all 94% of them—blind to this truth? What's the matter with everybody? Are they all nuts? Are we all Flatlanders living in a two-dimensional world when there's a much better third dimension for us to live in? And who decides that? (I happen to prefer the fourth dimension).

 

The California Supreme Court ALREADY struck down as unconstitutional bans on same sex marriage when they ruled on Prop 22. Suddenly, now YOU'RE the one rejecting their opinion and supporting Prop 8, a ballot measure with the exact same wording as Prop 22 (which had already been ruled unconstitutional).

I'm glad you agree that it's all about opinion.

 

I asked you earlier in the thread to go look up the words "equality," and "bigotry." Now, it's time for you to grab that dictionary once more and look up "hypocricy."

I don't think it helps your arugument to play those cards.

 

I agree. It's time for me to start shooting stupid people in the face with a pistol.

Now you're scaring me.

 

You continue to assert some established definition of marriage despite your FAILURE to support that contention after numerous requests. I've got another word for you to lookup: Troll.

Doesn't my opinion count for anything? Or is any opinion contrary to yours bigoted, hypocritical, and troll-like?

 

Oh, and lookup "hippy" too. Just because you smoke pot doesn't make you a hippy To be a hippy, you have to stand up for peace and equality, and the elimination of mindless biases in our institutions.

Well, my hippie days are long gone and fondly remembered. One thing I remember is that all good hippies were philosophers at heart and questioned everything. I don't recall any subject that was off limits, otherwise we'd be hippie hypocrites.

[padren]

Scrappy:

 

* Blocking marriage from same sex couples = tangible impact on SSM couples.

* "changing" definition of marriage to allow SSM definitions to exist along side non SSM definitions = opinionated resistance without tangible impact on non SSM couples.

 

 

Right now SSM cannot be legally recognized, even though they still happen all the time and always have. That's a tangible impact of restriction. It affects those people's lives and that is not just a matter of opinion.

 

Recognizing SSM does not change a single non-SSM marriage. It has no tangible impact of restriction.

 

 

So how does your opinion trump tangible impact? At least when it comes to the legalization issue of marijuana it's the tangible impacts pro and against that get debated. Sometimes badly and not always by people that understand them well, but debated none the less. This allows progress within the debate, and allows the possibility it can be changed should new facts change the debate. In other words it's not a dogmatic decree of opinion.

 

No matter how uncomfortable something may be for someone, if it's about law it must be debated as a matter of facts. Tangible impacts. If someone has the "opinion" life starts at conception that's fine, but if they want to change the law on that basis, they need to back it up with more than opinion.

 

Facts are facts - it's a fact SSM's are discriminated against. Your opinion that they shouldn't exist anyway does not change that.

[scrappy]

Scrappy:

 

* Blocking marriage from same sex couples = tangible impact on SSM couples.

No. Blocking same-sex domestic partnerships would impact SSM couples. Blocking marriage would not be possible because marriage (the 94% definition) is a CU between one and one woman.

 

* "changing" definition of marriage to allow SSM definitions to exist along side non SSM definitions = opinionated resistance without tangible impact on non SSM couples.

No. Legalizing same-sex CUs would take care of the matter entirely. There's no need for the law to call them married, not as long as they are granted their legal rights.

 

 

Right now SSM cannot be legally recognized, even though they still happen all the time and always have. That's a tangible impact of restriction. It affects those people's lives and that is not just a matter of opinion.

 

Recognizing SSM does not change a single non-SSM marriage. It has no tangible impact of restriction.

I agree that you are entitled to your opinion.

 

So how does your opinion trump tangible impact? At least when it comes to the legalization issue of marijuana it's the tangible impacts pro and against that get debated. Sometimes badly and not always by people that understand them well, but debated none the less. This allows progress within the debate, and allows the possibility it can be changed should new facts change the debate. In other words it's not a dogmatic decree of opinion.

Wrong. In the end it will be a court's opinion, no matter how dogmatic your think it will be.

 

No matter how uncomfortable something may be for someone, if it's about law it must be debated as a matter of facts. Tangible impacts. If someone has the "opinion" life starts at conception that's fine, but if they want to change the law on that basis, they need to back it up with more than opinion.

 

Facts are facts - it's a fact SSM's are discriminated against. Your opinion that they shouldn't exist anyway does not change that.

Do you happen to have an opinion on how badly the polygamists are being discriminated against? The nudists? The atheists? The skinheads? The Hara Khrisnas? The mushroom foragers? We have no shortage of miserable minorities that squirm and yelp for attention.

[The Bear's Key]

Do you happen to have an opinion on how badly the polygamists are being discriminated against? The nudists? The atheists? The skinheads? The Hara Khrisnas? The mushroom foragers?

Not the same. They aren't being discriminated by government -- well, except the nudists.

 

And if they wanted to get married, no problem.

[padren]

No. Blocking same-sex domestic partnerships would impact SSM couples. Blocking marriage would not be possible because marriage (the 94% definition) is a CU between one and one woman.

 

No. Legalizing same-sex CUs would take care of the matter entirely. There's no need for the law to call them married, not as long as they are granted their legal rights.

 

So as long as there's another water fountain for "coloreds" and they get access to water too, there's no discrimination going on there either? How is your solution any different?

 

I agree that you are entitled to your opinion.

That's a given, but we aren't talking about whether people are entitled to opinions. We are talking about tangible effects that can be measured and logically debated.

 

Do you happen to have an opinion on how badly the polygamists are being discriminated against? The nudists? The atheists? The skinheads? The Hara Khrisnas? The mushroom foragers? We have no shortage of miserable minorities that squirm and yelp for attention.

 

I'm not concerned with opinions, just facts and logic. If facts and logic support the contention those groups are being discriminated against, then it should be addressed. We aren't talking about those groups so it's completely irrelevant to the conversation, as already stated in many previous posts.

[john5746]

Do you happen to have an opinion on how badly the polygamists are being discriminated against? The nudists? The atheists? The skinheads? The Hara Khrisnas? The mushroom foragers? We have no shortage of miserable minorities that squirm and yelp for attention.

 

All of the above can be married. Next.

[Pangloss]

You continue to assert some established definition of marriage despite your FAILURE to support that contention after numerous requests. I've got another word for you to lookup: Troll.

 

I don't think he's trolling, iNow, I think he's responding politely to our questions. And I think declaring him a troll is just a way to marginalize his opinion. Let's bear in mind that our purpose here is not to make people change their minds through shame and ridicule. (Or to change them at all, actually.)

[ParanoiA]

Then maybe you ought to go look for a country that operates differently from the US of A. I know it's a hard reality to face, but majority opinion matters in this country. And if the same-sexers want to change that they need to cop a different attitude, one that isn't fueled by self-righteous indignation.

 

No, you missed it. I said "at this level" of discussion, I don't give a rat's ass what everyone else thinks. Here's why.

 

Majority opinion is made up of individual opinion. It's merely the sum of all individual's opinions. So, how does an individual form an opinion? Hopefully one doesn't adopt whatever is popular, but rather what they believe is right. This is the level I'm talking about.

 

We're in a discussion forum and we discuss our opinions, among other things. I don't care what the majority opinion is when I'm processing right and wrong and formulating my own opinion. Once that gets done, then my opinion gets tallied with everyone else's and then we have majority opinion, along with any number of minority opinions.

 

My point being that all of your arguments are appeals to majority opinion within the context of FORMULATING and discussing our own individual opinions.

 

No one has said majority opinion doesn't matter, they've said that majority opinion isn't enough to make laws. And they're right. Revisit the constitution if you need reminding - WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. So democratic arguments fail miserably.

 

If the majority wants to hang scrappy by the balls from an oak tree, they can't. Because scrappy is protected by our constitution. This marriage debate is about whether or not marriage rights fall into that same pocket of protection from the tyrannical majority.

 

Maybe it's time to face up to the fact that there are many, many, many minorities in this country that pose the same question. Any minority so disfavored will make that claim. Even the nudists claim that current laws on nudity offend their rights.

 

And they're right, it does.

 

And what about your neighbor who raises puppies for barbequeing purposes? Why should that bother you? Why shouldn't his minority opinion trump the majority opinion on that matter?

 

The majority opinion will always trump his opinion unless he can demonstrate a restriction of natural born' date=' inalienable rights, to be protected by the constitution.

 

I was uninformed on this important change in our government. When did we stop being a constitutional republic that operates on the principles of democracy?

 

We didn't. When did you stop paying attention to the "constitutional republic" bit and obsess over the "princples of democracy" bit?

 

What do you think is the function of the "constitutional republic" part? You only seem to revere the democracy part. If majority opinion is so valuable, then why is a constitution needed? We can all have opinions and count the number of hands all day long without that long winded document.

 

So, are you against putting this to a test by either popular vote or a court decision?

 

I'm against putting this to a test by popular vote, since that undermines the whole point of a bill of rights - a minimum set of rights that the majority cannot vote away. So why in the hell would I consult with that same majority to determine if my right is covered by that principle or not?

 

The courts need to do it. That's their job.

 

Of course, none of that precludes us from discussing the matter and sharing our individual opinions and parsing right from wrong.

 

Why? Doesn't the Constitution apply equally to both of us?

 

Pay attention. That IS the constitution, scrappy. That's the nature of our laws and how the constitution was realized. It was based on the notion that democracies oppress as much or more than solitary rulers. This republican experiment was designed with the intention of maximizing liberty; restricting behavior only when it infringes on someone else's "rights"...your rights end where mine begin. You can't exercise your freedom to stab me, since it violates my right to live. It's that simple.

 

And yes, it applies to both of us.

 

Wrong attitude, if changing hearts and mind are important.

 

You clearly did not understand what I said...at all. You might as well have asked if I like cream or sugar.

 

I described the mechanics of our system - the system you live under. And you don't even recognize it? That speaks volumes...

 

Your reply doesn't even fit in the same paragraph. Try again. Read, this time.

 

People who support the DOMA feel the same way. Who's right and who's wrong? Better to let the public vote decided, and then turn it over to the courts. If you can't abide with that then you're living in the wrong country.

 

Wrong. You got this all screwed up because you didn't understand my previous paragraph. You don't appear to understand how our government works.

 

It's up to those who want to restrict rights, to prove those rights should be restricted.

 

Our government doesn't say "No one will do 'X'" , unless of course you can convince us it's ok". No. Our government says "since 'X' damages the rights of others, no one will do X from now on".

 

 

 

That's why the majority opinion isn't incredibly valuable, even at the next level. It proposes to restrict the rights of those, that is currently being reviewed for "natural born, inalienable rights" status (the courts). So if it qualifies, majority opinion is irrelevant.

 

The onus is also on DOMA to show a violation of their rights in order to establish laws on the subject. Again, majority opinion isn't valuable or relevant for that argument.

 

If it's proven not to violate anyone's rights, then majority opinion will matter. Again, democracy is only valid so long as it doesn't step on the constitution.

 

And I don't think anyone in this thread has advocated a refusal to abide by law, so you can drop the flaming indictments. It won't recover your credibility anyway.

[iNow]

I don't think he's trolling, iNow, I think he's responding politely to our questions. And I think declaring him a troll is just a way to marginalize his opinion.

 

It was a factual observation. You're quite wrong here, Pangloss, but your the mod, so do whatever the hell you want.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

 

 

Show me again which post of Scrappy's was discussing Mr Skeptics original question "Should the government drop the word "marriage?" I must have missed it somewhere in all of his logical fallacies.

 

He looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. How DARE I call him a duck... I'm clearly just trying to marginalize his opinion.

[Pangloss]

I'm glad we agree. Now let's move on.

[scrappy]

All of the above can be married. Next.

So can the GLBT people. They, too, can get married, just like nudists.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Words matter. All along I've made it clear that I support same-sex domestic partnerships. I wouldn't call that "marriage" because it isn't, not according to my definition of the word. But what's in a word? The word "marriage" is causing all the problems on this thread. We'll never satisfy everyone. That is why the government needs to drop the word "marriage" from the laws. Let the separation of church and state be unambiguous from that point onward, and turn the job of marriage over to the private sector: churches, casinos, dog tracks, gypsy parlors, et al.

 

Then we'll look back and ask why. I'll say it was because the marriage institution was already in such a bad way from all the abuse by heterosexuals that we finally decided to share the misery.

[Dudde]

So can the GLBT people. They, too, can get married, just like nudists.

 

But the nudists will have legal rights, whereas the GLBT crowd will not, as long as the nudists are heterosexual.

 

Let the separation of church and state be unambiguous from that point onward, and turn the job of marriage over to the private sector: churches, casinos, dog tracks, gypsy parlors, et al.

 

I do see where you're coming from, and partly agree to an extent - but I doubt you'll get the currently married couples to give up the legal rights that being married permits them. There are some pretty shiny benefits endowed to two people becoming one in spirit (and law.)

That's actually what the name is all about too - same sex partners don't want to say they're married, they want the legal benefits that come along. I bet we could drop the divorce rate a bit as such

[padren]

So can the GLBT people. They, too, can get married, just like nudists.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Words matter. All along I've made it clear that I support same-sex domestic partnerships. I wouldn't call that "marriage" because it isn't, not according to my definition of the word. But what's in a word? The word "marriage" is causing all the problems on this thread. We'll never satisfy everyone. That is why the government needs to drop the word "marriage" from the laws. Let the separation of church and state be unambiguous from that point onward, and turn the job of marriage over to the private sector: churches, casinos, dog tracks, gypsy parlors, et al.

 

Then we'll look back and ask why. I'll say it was because the marriage institution was already in such a bad way from all the abuse by heterosexuals that we finally decided to share the misery.

 

What would be on your filing form for taxes, if not "Single/Divorced/Married" upon removing "marriage" as a legal term?

 

I've considered that approach and used to support it - but now I don't agree. Words may matter somewhat, but not as much as people. No one is asking you to call that "marriage" at all anyway. No one ever has. All anyone has said is "Why can't they call it marriage, if it means that to them and those that agree with them?"

To some "priest" has a definition that is restricted to a male, and to others it does not. It doesn't matter what the term "priest" means to you or to someone else. You can have a female priest preside over your wedding in lieu of a judge, because the law respects that some religions support women in the priesthood. No referendum can take that right away - if the majority tried to impose what they think a priest is, the supreme court would overturn it. Why should this be any different for the term marriage?

[ParanoiA]

Words matter. All along I've made it clear that I support same-sex domestic partnerships. I wouldn't call that "marriage" because it isn't, not according to my definition of the word. But what's in a word? The word "marriage" is causing all the problems on this thread. We'll never satisfy everyone. That is why the government needs to drop the word "marriage" from the laws. Let the separation of church and state be unambiguous from that point onward, and turn the job of marriage over to the private sector: churches, casinos, dog tracks, gypsy parlors, et al.

 

Now we're talking. I agree.

 

Emotion eats up all of the potential for rational logic on these subjects.

 

When you write a sentence, something technical or with any nod to accuracy you probably take care in the words you use to be sure you're understood. I think that's especially true with law and our laws have no business using words that are at odds with the public (here's a democratic idea we definitely agree on).

 

 

 

Something for all to consider... When we write laws, why would we use words that we know are ambivalent, or have enough flexibility that the law is no longer specific and accurate in its meaning?

 

I don't think we'd risk using the term "car", and presume that includes "trucks", even though the law in question might even suggest intention to include trucks. That's just ridiculous. Instead, we use "automobile", or maybe horseless carriage or something - we use the term that accurately states the meaning of the law. Free society can bat around the word car, truck, scooter, whatever they like. The government officially uses automobile.

 

And yet, I don't run around using that term (Padren). I say car or truck. And that doesn't conflict with the traffic laws of the land either.

 

This is no different. We need to drop the word marriage because it isn't accurate enough. It's meaning is entirely arguable and we should never use such sloppy verbiage like that. A Civil Union lacks the ambiguity required to make a stink about its meaning. You couldn't get an argument off the ground that attempted to say Civil Unions are exclusive one way or the other - provided the context doesn't ruin it.

 

That's not to say it never should have been used, but rather to acknowledge that society, like always, is changing - our values, our words, our legal intentions, everything. This word causes too many problems due to its newfound ambiguity and it's meaningless to the big picture.

[Pangloss]

Ah.. so you're saying that we need words or terms that are more specific than "marriage", like "gay marriage", "straight marriage", etc? That's interesting, but how do you do that without applying negative connotations to some of the forms?

 

Also, ultimately this is about benefits (both corporate and governmental). In that sense I'm not sure I see the benefit of splitting it up into multiple forms.

[iNow]

Ah.. so you're saying that we need words or terms that are more specific than "marriage", like "gay marriage", "straight marriage", etc? That's interesting, but how do you do that without applying negative connotations to some of the forms?

 

No. He's not. He's arguing that the word "marriage" itself is what needs to be changed. He's arguing for "civil unions" as the label for both same and opposite sex couples. I know this becuase he's said as much repeatedly in this thread.

 

 

To Padrens question, I'd like to know what we will check on the tax forms ("Single, Unioned, Divorced") and how it will do anything in common parlance... "Oh my god, I'm getting unioned on Saturday. We have to go down to the courthouse and get a union license. Hopefully, 20 years from now, we won't need union counseling to make our union better."

 

Hmm... Would we even still have divorce, or would people become deunionized? Wow, the layers on this onion are deep.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You know, as I think more about this, I think I'm slowly coming around to the whole "precision of language" approach.

 

We should call it "A mutually agreed upon adult-level consent for the monogomous relationship of two partners to be recognized by the government and acquire the 1138 distinct rights and priveleges which come with that based on existing statutes."

 

It just rolls right off the tongue. For those who have difficulty reading, we could shorten it and call it a "MAUALCFTMROTPTBRBTGAATEDRAPWCWTBOES."

 

Yeah... I'm coming around to this "precision of language" thing. Marriage is too fuzzy and easily understood.

 

 

 

"Civil Union Counseling: We're here for you when the civility of your civil union is lacking."

Edited March 20, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Dudde]

I actually kind of like the way that would break down as was my original thought on the process, but I actually switched midway for a few reasons. I think the main reason is because most unions of this type in the United States is called a Marriage, as opposed to anything else.

 

I'm not saying that's all there is, and if there are already a lot of religions or groups that get married in the U.S calling it something different, somebody let me know, I'd be interested to check it out -

 

As far as I know though, there's only marriage - since this is the term that's been coined for a very long time and is inclusive of the act of getting married, I wouldn't opt for a new set of definitions to usher forth so the same thing can apply to slightly different groups of people.

 

To Padrens question, I'd like to know what we will check on the tax forms ("Single, Unioned, Divorced") and how it will do anything in common parlance...

 

I think even if the government went the CU route, it's a term long standing in society, and I doubt the common populace would have problems calling it as a marriage still

[ParanoiA]

So we use "car" to mean automobile in our laws? Really? I've never seen it used that way, and yet I've also never heard my friends say "hey let's take your automobile". Or, "which horseless carriage is yours?"

 

What's with the pretend ignorance to realizing a difference between legalease and common usage?

 

Interesting also that 95% of that rebuttal was Jon Stewart style appeal to ridicule. Funny, but just as worthless.

 

Ah.. so you're saying that we need words or terms that are more specific than "marriage", like "gay marriage", "straight marriage", etc? That's interesting, but how do you do that without applying negative connotations to some of the forms?

 

Gay or straight isn't accurate legal speech either. If the word marriage must be used, I would think Homo and Hetero Marriage would be fine. Mainly because most negativity is inferred, not implied, so it's not a problem for lawyers to be too concerned with. Accuracy is more important here, more of a scientist's precision I'd say. Just ask yourself...What Would Science Do?

Edited March 20, 2009 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

Well, I was going for funny, so I'm glad to have achieved my goal. If I managed to make a larger point while doing so, well... then that's just icing.

[padren]

We should call it "A mutually agreed upon adult-level consent for the monogomous relationship of two partners to be recognized by the government and acquire the 1138 distinct rights and priveleges which come with that based on existing statutes."

 

Why are you so prejudiced against open marriages?