Should the government drop the word "marriage"

[Pangloss]

Well I don't really have a problem with calling them all "unions" instead of "marriages" as a compromise, but it seems a bit silly. I guess if that's what it takes to remove the objections, then that's the way to go -- people can call it whatever they want on their own.

 

And of course they'll all call it "marriage", and the gay and lesbian community will have gotten what it wants, and the religious right won't have realized that it didn't actually accomplish anything, so everyone goes home happy.

 

Sounds like a plan.

[Mr Skeptic]

Edit: Wow, lots of posts since I last visited.

 

No one is asking you to change your definition of marriage. You can define it however you want - the only thing anyone is asking for is for you not to push your definition on others.

 

It's not OK when the majority want to do so, but it's OK when the GLBT crowd wants to do so?

Edited March 20, 2009 by Mr Skeptic

[mooeypoo]

If "Marriage" is the ceremonial custom, I'm not sure I want it.

If "Marriage" is the social conception, I'm not sure I need it.

 

Call it whatever you will and take it if you want or not, as long as you give me the same rights as the rest of society.

 

Really, I don't see the big deal here.. The government "decided" to give certain privileges to couples who share their lives together. This entire ceremonial weddings that define marriage (or, rather, the more effective [by law] less-ceremonial contract-signing that follows the ceremony [or comes without one]) is just a way of making these agreements to "share your life with someone" official.

 

The government decided it gives certain privileges to such couples.

Gay couples already live together, whether people like it or not. They already sleep together, share a bank account and effectively act as a married couple no matter what definition you use for it, or what word you choose to pronounce for it.

 

By stating that these couples are excluded from these rights, the law is, effectively, bigotted.

 

I don't see the problem here - call it whatever the heck you want, that doesn't change the realistic situation of what goes on in this "definition" of married couple. That also shouldn't prevent the homosexual couples that otherwise act married to receive the rights that their heterosexual counterparts receive by *law*.

 

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

But you'd outlaw it. Even thought it has no impact on you.

 

Or maybe it's already outlawed but a minority does not realize it. You aren't allowed to marry your lamp post either, regardless of whether or not it harms me or anyone else. I'm still waiting for someone to show that gay marriage was legal in the first place. Or that gay marriage isn't an oxymoron.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Should the government drop the word "marriage" No, they should continue using the word, and however they may choose to do so, its use should include same sex couples.

 

Just keep in mind that when it comes to definitions and passing legislation, popular opinion has a significant impact. Considering what sort of definition seems to be popular enough to pass constitutional amendments, I don't think that the government will define marriage the way you want them to.

---

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.

 

I agree with this. To the concerns of others, the replacement word should include the same rights as marriage currently has, and should include same sex couples. And anyone can call their relationship marriage if they like, it will just have no legal bearing and no one will be forced to accept other people's definition of it. As to the use in forms and other legal documents, perhaps we could use a shorter replacement word (or abbreviation).

 

---

 

In any case, the only really good argument against gay marriage that I've seen is that that isn't what marriage meant, and that changing laws by changing definitions without legislation is a horribly dangerous idea at best. (There are other sound arguments, but not good enough IMO to restrict rights to such a degree)

[Pangloss]

Or maybe it's already outlawed but a minority does not realize it. You aren't allowed to marry your lamp post either, regardless of whether or not it harms me or anyone else. I'm still waiting for someone to show that gay marriage was legal in the first place. Or that gay marriage isn't an oxymoron.

 

Dismissing it as an "oxymoron" doesn't make it any less of an imposition of one group's will upon another without being injured by what they're doing.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well I don't really have a problem with calling them all "unions" instead of "marriages" as a compromise, but it seems a bit silly. I guess if that's what it takes to remove the objections, then that's the way to go -- people can call it whatever they want on their own.

 

And of course they'll all call it "marriage", and the gay and lesbian community will have gotten what it wants, and the religious right won't have realized that it didn't actually accomplish anything, so everyone goes home happy.

 

Sounds like a plan.

 

Well, have you seen any other arguments against gay marriage that carry the same weight as the definition of marriage argument?

[mooeypoo]

But the words define the rights you receive.

 

If same-sex partners would recieve the same rights as heterosexual couples without the use of the word "Marriage", then I would agree with what you say, but quite frankly, they don't, because the rights are not accompanying the effective lifestyle (living together, sharing a bank acct, etc) but they are accompanying the contract by law, which is defined by the *word* marriage.

 

Should we get rid of that word? Whatever; yes, no, personally think that it doesn't matter. Saying that the word itself matters but there should be no "equivalent" word (that give EQUIVALENT RIGHTS!) for homosexual couples is a bit naive. The bottom line is that they're NOT getting the same rights, just like unmarried heterosexual couples are not getting the same rights as married heterosexual couples.

 

The only difference between these and homosexual couples is that heterosexual couples are given the option to choose whether or not they want the legal rights or not.

[padren]

It's not OK when the majority want to do so, but it's OK when the GLBT crowd wants to do so?

 

Can you please explain exactly when the GLBT crowd asked to redefine your definition of marriage?

 

 

Where are you getting this "not OK when the majority want to do so, but it's OK when the GLBT crowd wants to" from? All anyone has asked (as I stated in the very post you quoted) is that you respect their right to have a slightly different definition. We already exist as a society with very different definitions of what it means to be a priest for instance, and we can all agree to disagree without fighting over who's definition of "priest" is "super-duper right" to the exclusion of all others.

 

Am I completely off base here? If some church allows women to be priests and the state will recognize a wedding performed by one just the same as a male priest or a judge - even if the majority of the population believes a priest must be a man - then why all this fighting over exclusive ownership to the term marriage? Is this logic sound, or am I so off base that it's not worth addressing? If it has a big giant hole in the logic let me know because I must have a blind spot and I need to get those wires to uncross.

[ParanoiA]

Can you please explain exactly when the GLBT crowd asked to redefine your definition of marriage?

 

 

Where are you getting this "not OK when the majority want to do so, but it's OK when the GLBT crowd wants to" from? All anyone has asked (as I stated in the very post you quoted) is that you respect their right to have a slightly different definition. We already exist as a society with very different definitions of what it means to be a priest for instance, and we can all agree to disagree without fighting over who's definition of "priest" is "super-duper right" to the exclusion of all others.

 

Am I completely off base here? If some church allows women to be priests and the state will recognize a wedding performed by one just the same as a male priest or a judge - even if the majority of the population believes a priest must be a man - then why all this fighting over exclusive ownership to the term marriage? Is this logic sound, or am I so off base that it's not worth addressing? If it has a big giant hole in the logic let me know because I must have a blind spot and I need to get those wires to uncross.

 

I don't think you're off base here at all. And it's partly why I don't like the term marriage used for legislation since it's essentially a lexicographical battle that each side wants to pretend is the government's responsibility to decide. I think it's ridiculous. The government is the last entity that should be defining our words for us.

 

The only reason the government is the least bit valid for this kind of decision is because they have laws that use the term. If they happened to use Domestic Partnership instead of marriage, then our courts wouldn't be tossed in the middle of this definition fight (because it would still be a fight...but there would be no official arbiter, which is exactly how it should be in a free society).

 

It seems obvious to me if we established the first ever marriage laws today, we wouldn't even use that term in any of the legal documentation. And, if we did, it would likely start out with a detailed definition of the word to be applied to the whole document. Either way, it wouldn't stay ambiguous by merely using the term without any attempt at specificity.

[Dudde]

Or maybe it's already outlawed but a minority does not realize it. You aren't allowed to marry your lamp post either, regardless of whether or not it harms me or anyone else. I'm still waiting for someone to show that gay marriage was legal in the first place. Or that gay marriage isn't an oxymoron.

 

Oh for the love of Darwin, go back and read the posts to what Scrappy's been saying, I don't feel like re-hashing. A lamp post is not a person, dead people and animals are not a person, and family members is genetically harmful, though I'm sure they could get married if they tried hard enough.

 

It may be outlawed already, but only by amendments and acts put in place to outlaw a minority rights to do something everyone else can, as said above. I think "a legally binding contract to wed two people" should be fine - define 'people' to exclude dead ones and artificial if you need to. I agree with Mooey's point above - I doubt anybody cares what the law defines it as, so long as everyone is defined equally.

[iNow]

I'm still waiting for someone to show that gay marriage was legal in the first place.

The laws as written do not explicitly restrict marriage marriage to one man and one woman, and did not until 1996 when an unconstitutional measure known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was legislated.

 

The existing/original laws describing marriage had no explicit statements mandating the exclusion of same sex partners, as you yourself stipulated in the OP.

 

To support the point that it was legal, I reminded you that the laws did not explicitly exclude same sex couples, and also pointed you in the direction of the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution. To paraphrase, it says that just because a right is not explicitly protected by the constitution does not mean that the citizens of our country are not afforded that right... It suggests that we are all born with basic natural human rights, and that those are not removed unless explicitly spelled out in our laws.

 

As you yourself conceded, the marriage laws spell out no such thing. This is relevant because, unless the right is explicitly removed, the default position is to assume we have it. My logic is further supported by the fact that DOMA was ever needed to make this clarification, even though I challenge DOMA as unconstitutional (as have others, but SCOTUS has yet to hear any of those cases).

 

 

I've demonstrated this fact for you repeatedly. All you've got going for you is this ASSUMED existing defintion of marriage which is unprovable, and an argument resting ENTIRELY on that assumption that we're trying to change some UNPROVEN definition.

 

It's a load of horseshit, and I can't believe it's 2009 and we're still arguing about this. Give the people their rights. Treat them equally. Stop pretending this has anything to do with a stupid word, and let's move on to stuff that matters. If we didn't have to spend so much time battling back the encroachment of idiocy and bigotry in our laws, we might actually be able to move ourselves forward as a people and focus on issues that have merit, like energy and climate and health. But, instead, we have to engage in these ridiculous fights with these ridiculous asshats just to prevent our existing rights from being further removed and restricted.

 

A marriage describes the relationship, not the sex of those involved. The laws do not explicity exclude same sex couples, and they are therefore protected as per the 9th amendment.

Edited March 20, 2009 by iNow

[scrappy]

The laws as written do not explicitly restrict marriage marriage to one man and one woman, and did not until 1996 when an unconstitutional measure known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was legislated.

 

The existing/original laws describing marriage had no explicit statements mandating the exclusion of same sex partners, as you yourself stipulated in the OP...

 

A marriage describes the relationship, not the sex of those involved. The laws do not explicity exclude same sex couples, and they are therefore protected as per the 9th amendment.

Do any existing/original laws explicitly state that you can't marry your pet frog or your dead aunt?

[iNow]

Dead people no longer meet the definition of "person." The same holds true for your "pet frog." The term "person" is the text used in the laws, so yes... Original laws prevent you from marrying a lampshade. This has been explained to you repeatedly. I'm sorry you're having too much fun trolling to care about the fact that this irrelevant question of yours has been already addressed numerous times and by numerous posters.

 

So, in sum, not only do you have no reasonable arguments for your position... not only do you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of our laws and constitution... not only are you posting irrelevant tripe at every turn, but the only thing you've managed to do successfully is to waste everyones time.

 

Did you ever go look up the word troll like I suggested?

[scrappy]

I'm sorry you're having too much fun trolling to care about the fact that this irrelevant question of yours has been already addressed numerous times and by numerous posters.

 

...

 

Did you ever go look up the word troll like I suggested?

Your insecurity is causing you to lose your cool. I think you've gone hysterical:

 

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

[Dudde]

While I don't necessarily find that getting angry is the most helpful - iNow does have a point. I have pointed out a great number of times in the past why everything you just said is irrelevent, and it's getting annoying for you to employ the same arguments while blatantly ignoring my posts.

[scrappy]

While I don't necessarily find that getting angry is the most helpful - iNow does have a point. I have pointed out a great number of times in the past why everything you just said is irrelevent, and it's getting annoying for you to employ the same arguments while blatantly ignoring my posts.

Dudde, I didn't intend to ignore all the good points in your posts. I understand where you're coming from. I'd actually like to help you with your argument, because I think it needs fixing. But, please, ask me a specific question and I'll try to answer it specifically.

 

Personally, I think the gay cause, which I mostly support, is going about its equal-rights business the wrong way. The gay cause, especially the SSM cause, would succeed much better if it did a few simple things: Emphasize what I will call the Barney Franks of the gay movement, including the children being adopted from stressed-out places like Romania by gay foster parents, add anything else that makes a positive case for gays in the hearts and minds of all those stupid Americans, and deemphasize the need to call their fully legalized domestic patnerships "marriages."

 

Here's a sneaky idea: The gays declare their support for DOMA and come up with a name that's even better than "marriage."

 

Follow my plan and see where they go. And don't make anymore movies like "Milk."

[ParanoiA]

He's got a point. It does appear the cause is more about forcing the majority to accept them than it is to fight for their rights.

 

I got no issues with that, except methodology. Keep fighting the majority to continue the movement for equality, that needs to happen and persuasion is the mightiest tool for that.

 

Fighting for their rights should be done tactfully, otherwise it will fail. It pins accessibility to their rights to forcing the majority to accept them. I don't think it serves them well to do without their rights throughout the extra time it's going to take to get the majority to change.

 

Don't let one block the success of the other. Just a suggestion.

[iNow]

Your insecurity is causing you to lose your cool. I think you've gone hysterical:

 

Having read your posts to this thread, and the surplus of logical fallacies they all contain, I must inform you... I couldn't care less what you think. You've done the exact opposite of earning my respect.

 

Your out of context quotations only magnify and reinforce my intened point.

[padren]

It seems obvious to me if we established the first ever marriage laws today, we wouldn't even use that term in any of the legal documentation. And, if we did, it would likely start out with a detailed definition of the word to be applied to the whole document. Either way, it wouldn't stay ambiguous by merely using the term without any attempt at specificity.

 

As much as I'd like the word "Marriage" to go away legally, it really won't any sooner than "In God We Trust" will get off our money. The whole DOMA deal came about out of fear of "attacks on marriage" and I don't think we'll be able to get rid of the legal version of that word without that crowd going hysterical.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

He's got a point. It does appear the cause is more about forcing the majority to accept them than it is to fight for their rights.

 

Maybe black people would have had an easier time getting integrated schools more funding, instead of forcing integration in white only schools. Not saying that would have been the case but had it been, should we fault the civil rights movement for "stirring things up" more than they needed to?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Dudde, I didn't intend to ignore all the good points in your posts. I understand where you're coming from. I'd actually like to help you with your argument, because I think it needs fixing. But, please, ask me a specific question and I'll try to answer it specifically.

 

If that's a generally open invitation, please see my post regarding the definition of "priests" and tell me how it's different than the definition of marriage.

[ParanoiA]

As much as I'd like the word "Marriage" to go away legally, it really won't any sooner than "In God We Trust" will get off our money. The whole DOMA deal came about out of fear of "attacks on marriage" and I don't think we'll be able to get rid of the legal version of that word without that crowd going hysterical.

 

I think you're right on the money about that. But I also think it's the most appropriate solution. It's the only way to treat any combination of the institution equally and denies victory to either camp. It also allows continued debate on the definition of marriage, and further on the tolerance of same-sex couples, without trampling on each other's rights. Both can use the word all they want since there's no legal authority associated with it at all.

 

And what will happen is same-sex couples will call it marriage. Hetero couples will still call it marriage. The DOMA crowd will bitch about how it's ruined their institution, even though they still can't support the notion despite repeated requests to do so. Without any legal consequences they will eventually shut-up and we'll all be left to explain to our kids why, once upon a time, we made a ridiculous stink about a freaking word.

 

But yeah, you're right, that will never happen. Instead, we'll keep doing this tug-of-war ownership of the word marriage, and same-sex couples will continue to do without their rights as the extremists of their cause ruin any chance of incremental advancement in law. The DOMA crowd will...well, they'll be themselves in typical form with the same tired arguments and unsupported appeals to their rights.

 

Maybe black people would have had an easier time getting integrated schools more funding, instead of forcing integration in white only schools. Not saying that would have been the case but had it been, should we fault the civil rights movement for "stirring things up" more than they needed to?

 

Oh no, I don't fault them for anything. I don't fault the same-sex marriage crowd for attempting to force the majority to accept them in fighting for their rights either, and it's a similar matter of equality here. I just don't think it's a wise strategy. I think they would better serve their cause if they would achieve access to rights separately from the battle against bigotry. Bigotry is a mountain compared to the wall of our government. We can attain rights long before we stamp out bigotry. It would seem wiser then to pursue Domestic Partnerships, Civil Unions, whatever, even if they disagree on principle, so that they can get relief in their lives while the bigger battle against bigotry is waged.

Edited March 20, 2009 by ParanoiA

[padren]

I think you're right on the money about that. But I also think it's the most appropriate solution. It's the only way to treat any combination of the institution equally and denies victory to either camp. It also allows continued debate on the definition of marriage, and further on the tolerance of same-sex couples, without trampling on each other's rights. Both can use the word all they want since there's no legal authority associated with it at all.

 

That would be like, in the face of having a "coloreds only" water fountain for the "help" at a business, they decided to have a "patrons" and "staff" fountain with a wink-wink allowance for white staff to use the patron's water fountain so they don't have to suffer the humiliation of drinking from the same one as black people. Since it's technically a "staff" fountain the quality would have to be equal - so they'd get the same quality out of it - but push the bigotry just a little further out of sight.

 

To me that would be parallel to this issue, and a solution that I feel "could work" but not one I'd be proud of. The civil rights movement was more than just rights, it was a rejection of bigoted indignance as public policy. It was established that regardless of people's views or how offended they may be by things such as integration, that the state cannot indulge those views at the expense of a group of people. That's what I want to see come out of this struggle - not some mutual face saving way to brush the issue under the rug for another ten years.

[ParanoiA]

That would be like, in the face of having a "coloreds only" water fountain for the "help" at a business, they decided to have a "patrons" and "staff" fountain with a wink-wink allowance for white staff to use the patron's water fountain so they don't have to suffer the humiliation of drinking from the same one as black people. Since it's technically a "staff" fountain the quality would have to be equal - so they'd get the same quality out of it - but push the bigotry just a little further out of sight.

 

How in the world did you interpret that from my post? Wink-wink?? You're not understanding. There is no "wink wink" when the word marriage has no legal function at all whatsoever. Kind of like the word "friend". Friend means different things to different people and none of them have any legal appeal at all.

 

Why does the word marriage need to be legally charged? It's a stupid word. It's meaning is arguable and that kind of ambiguity is entirely antithetical to the nature of our laws. We write laws where meaning is clear. We don't purposely choose words that obscure the meaning - that's entirely contrary to the mission statement of writing law in the first place.

 

I'm advocating that everyone be legally the same. Even if we all agreed on the word marriage, it's still an inaccurate word that carries too much extra baggage. (Religious Ceremonies? Intimacy? Two people? Those are irrelevant descriptors also attached to its meaning). And since no one can agree on "marriage", then the word is doubly useless in the face of a dictionary full of superior verbiage.

 

I don't get it. I'm arguing for total equality. No one gets to trump anyone else. And they all get to call it whatever they want. How can you be any more equal under that arrangement? Where's the wink-wink waterfountain, under-the-table bigotry in this arrangement?

 

To me that would be parallel to this issue, and a solution that I feel "could work" but not one I'd be proud of. The civil rights movement was more than just rights, it was a rejection of bigoted indignance as public policy. It was established that regardless of people's views or how offended they may be by things such as integration, that the state cannot indulge those views at the expense of a group of people. That's what I want to see come out of this struggle - not some mutual face saving way to brush the issue under the rug for another ten years.

 

Right, which is why I prefer to solve problems the right way. The wrong way is to take a word the public is arguing about and force a definition on them. Then the "winner" gets to gloat and rub it in the noses of the "loser", as if they've achieved something. How's that going to help their cause if DOMA gets their way and the entire right wing empire rubs it in their face. How's that a big win for anybody?

 

For what? To force feed lexicographical conclusions on the masses? That's our job now? To rule on dictionaries? Our charge is to write laws, not settle dictionary disputes. We use words that are established to write laws, we don't pick words that don't say what we mean. It's that simple. Marriage is a sloppy word to use to describe two peope in a legally binding committment.

 

Remember, government has no business in marriage. The only thing government has any business mediating, is the legal consequences associated with that institution - like inheritance laws, tax laws and such. The government has no business granting privilege or recognition beyond the legal implications of partnerships. The word marriage provides a lot more than a mere legal recognition of a partner.

 

I saw another good title somewhere else, Registered Partnership. That's another good one. Again, this has to do with the government's jurisdiction. They should not be allowed to see us beyond our legal existence. We are free to worship god, but the government isn't supposed to recognize or endorse god, right? And we don't enjoy it much when they forget that, do we? Why can't we be free to "marry" without the government endorsing such?

Edited March 20, 2009 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

I apologize if my introduction of the "lamp post" into the discussion caused additional stress. I obviously could care less about actually marrying one and don't have a problem with the law being limited to actual persons.

 

Relax, everyone, it's just a discussion.

[padren]

How in the world did you interpret that from my post? Wink-wink?? You're not understanding. There is no "wink wink" when the word marriage has no legal function at all whatsoever. Kind of like the word "friend". Friend means different things to different people and none of them have any legal appeal at all.

 

Why does the word marriage need to be legally charged? It's a stupid word. It's meaning is arguable and that kind of ambiguity is entirely antithetical to the nature of our laws. We write laws where meaning is clear. We don't purposely choose words that obscure the meaning - that's entirely contrary to the mission statement of writing law in the first place.

First, I completely understand you didn't mean that and didn't intend to give you the impression I thought you did. I wasn't saying you see it that way and support that solution, I was saying I somewhat support that situation but unfortunately see it that way which makes the solution unappealing.

 

The thing is you are right that the word marriage should not be legally charged. If we could do that - it would be the best result possible. The problem is it has become inextricably legally charged in our culture.

 

I'm advocating that everyone be legally the same. Even if we all agreed on the word marriage, it's still an inaccurate word that carries too much extra baggage. (Religious Ceremonies? Intimacy? Two people? Those are irrelevant descriptors also attached to its meaning). And since no one can agree on "marriage", then the word is doubly useless in the face of a dictionary full of superior verbiage.

 

I don't get it. I'm arguing for total equality. No one gets to trump anyone else. And they all get to call it whatever they want. How can you be any more equal under that arrangement? Where's the wink-wink waterfountain, under-the-table bigotry in this arrangement?

 

I'll try to explain it but I am admittedly having a bit of trouble formulating it. Essentially, a section of the population says they have the right to use their definition of marriage to limit other people who do not share that definition because their own definition is more sacred and holy and traditional and special. That is the sort of attitude that makes me want to reach for a can of RAID. We can step back and say "alright, lets just put that word on the shelf, and drop this issue" and yes, a lot of arguing and bickering would stop, and we could take the much needed opportunity to move forward with our lives. I do agree with that.

At the same time however, I want to see any group attempting to do that get their goal crushed without a hint of remorse or reservation. My libertarian side gets very edgy when any argument like this comes up from any group. The foundation must be "live and let live" even if we don't all agree on the best way to live.

 

Right, which is why I prefer to solve problems the right way. The wrong way is to take a word the public is arguing about and force a definition on them. Then the "winner" gets to gloat and rub it in the noses of the "loser", as if they've achieved something. How's that going to help their cause if DOMA gets their way and the entire right wing empire rubs it in their face. How's that a big win for anybody?

 

For what? To force feed lexicographical conclusions on the masses? That's our job now? To rule on dictionaries? Our charge is to write laws, not settle dictionary disputes. We use words that are established to write laws, we don't pick words that don't say what we mean. It's that simple. Marriage is a sloppy word to use to describe two peope in a legally binding committment.

 

Remember, government has no business in marriage. The only thing government has any business mediating, is the legal consequences associated with that institution - like inheritance laws, tax laws and such. The government has no business granting privilege or recognition beyond the legal implications of partnerships. The word marriage provides a lot more than a mere legal recognition of a partner.

 

I saw another good title somewhere else, Registered Partnership. That's another good one. Again, this has to do with the government's jurisdiction. They should not be allowed to see us beyond our legal existence. We are free to worship god, but the government isn't supposed to recognize or endorse god, right? And we don't enjoy it much when they forget that, do we? Why can't we be free to "marry" without the government endorsing such?

 

I think RP is a good term actually. As I was saying I really am split on the finer points:

1) I am against having legal Civil Unions and legal Marriages (Though I wouldn't oppose them, I just think it's the wrong tact)

2) I am largely for having just Registered Partnerships and ditching the legal definition of marriage, but I see that as likely as dropping "In God We Trust" from money.

3) Going straight to #2 still bothers me because I feel like the ideology of "controlling other people's lives by forcing your definitions on them" needs to be stomped on. I find it a sickening and dangerous mindset and I really don't like letting it off the hook so easily.

 

 

 

Regarding "That's our job now? To rule on dictionaries?" I do want to make a point:

 

I argument is an emphatic no it's not, but I see the DOMA as an attempt to hijack the dictionaries much like Prop 8 and use that to promote bigotry by claiming their bigotry is somehow tied to an absolute (re)definition of a word and thus beyond reproach. My arguments regarding "ruling the dictionary" is more along the lines of saying it has to be a defacto demilitarized zone. I have no interest in forcing DOMA supporters that the definition of marriage includes same sex couples. I want DOMA supporters to accept that the whole damn world doesn't revolve around them and their petty definitions and that there are entire subcultures within this country that have completely different definitions all that have respectfully allowed them to live their lives their way without interfering and it's about time they afford others the same respect.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I apologize if my introduction of the "lamp post" into the discussion caused additional stress. I obviously could care less about actually marrying one and don't have a problem with the law being limited to actual persons.

 

Relax, everyone, it's just a discussion.

 

Obligatory:

[Dudde]

I apologize if my introduction of the "lamp post" into the discussion caused additional stress. I obviously could care less about actually marrying one and don't have a problem with the law being limited to actual persons.

 

Relax, everyone, it's just a discussion.

 

I was actually focused toward other posters, as I've been arguing about the validity of the lamp post for a week or so on two threads I don't find a problem if someone wants to marry one, and honestly would be the first to try, but my definition has been inclusive exclusively of people.

 

Honestly, I don't think a good compromise should make anybody happy, as that saying goes. I wouldn't mind changing the legal definition to CU or RP - they're both fine, as long as they're defining everyone equally in the term, and the government steps off all the individual definitions and maintains it's umbrella. This way the ceremony can be a personal marriage, and the legal whathaveyou would take place separately.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Obligatory:

 

btw, NICE!