Grizzled: Religious marriage, as defined as by a man and a woman, is indeed centuries old. So is religious (and non-religious) bigotry toward gays and lesbians. You can't hang on to one without the other. There is a growing force in this country and in the world that is finally ready to rectify that centuries old bigotry and consequent discrimination. You can rationalize against that for as long as you like. Call it religious if you like (since certainly God wouldn't want his gay children to lead happy, fulfilled lives) or use one of the other traditional arguments for discrimination against gays. People have been doing so for, as you point out, centuries. But it's going to change. And you are standing on the wrong side of history. Progress always favors equality in the end.
Not in the short term. But this is one of the few issues where the rational arguments are extremely one-sided. You see very little movement on issues like abortion, death penalty, taxes, etc because there are good arguments on both sides. But civil rights stances change much more quickly over time. Part of that is because the opposition to equal rights isn't rational. Over time, good people with good intentions realize that their position doesn't make sense after all. The more it is discussed the more likely and more quickly they become aware of that.
Let me come at this from the other direction. The institution that should not own the word marriage is the government. The word is part of the millennia old traditions of most religious and ethnic groups, and therefore the government should stay well away from the term. The government is interested in a certain kind of legal relationship, and it should pick a neutral legal term for that relationship. The word marriage, with all the religious and cultural history attached to it, is not at all appropriate for the purpose.
I think many people - including my relatively non-religious mother who out of the blue had an issue with my brother’s first marriage, which was performed by a JP – did have an issue with the way a marriage was being defined in such unions, but the issue wasn’t big enough then to generate enough momentum for widespread call for change. Even now I see most people talking past one another and not really digging into it to try to find a solution, or to even find the root of the problem. I think the root of the problem is that there is one word, marriage, which has different meanings to different groups, and the result is that the groups end up talking past one another. I think most religious people are fine with equal rights, but they don’t want the government trying to redefine their traditions. On the same sex couple side I think most want equal rights, but I don’t understand why the ones who are attached to the word marriage are attached to it. Unfortunately I think many of them just want to stick it to the church, and that’s not the right motivation, and it’s one that will lead to failure, imo.
I was married in the Catholic Church without a marriage license authorized by the state. I'm a really married?
Ok, so you'd prefer the state not issue marriage licenses at all, correct? I think that's an entirely fair position. Is it safe to assume, then, that as long as the state was issuing marriage licenses, you'd be in favor of them not discriminating based on the definition of marriage by some? I mean, there's no chance of removing state licensed marriage any time soon. The current question is whether it should be apply only to the definition of a specific group as long as it's around.
I have a solution. I posted it on the first page of this thread (post #18): This solution would work well, and I believe it would be widely supported.
this may be the most absurd post i've ever read on cf.net. Language, vocabulary, does not belong to any one person, group, country, or religion, any more than music does. would you deprive jazz of chet baker? opera of leontyne price? rock of Hendrix? did Paul Simon steal Graceland from South Africa? Culture, and religion itself, is mutable, or do you advocate we all go back to ****ing each other in the ass like the ancient greeks, who got this particular western party started. and christian religions themselves, while they may be monotheist, are not monolithic- there are plenty of gay episcopals, for instance, and the issue of ordination of gay priests and bishops has split the anglican communion. as both sides are self-professed episcopals, under your definition, do they not have equal "rights" to the word "marriage?" and what of atheists, or agnostics? i am profoundly a-religious, but still want to be "married", and it has nothing to do with state sanction, and has everything to do with professing, and having society sanction our union. gay couples are no different from my wife and me. and no one "owns" the word marriage, certainly not the catholic church, which annulled my parents marriage after 20 years and 5 kids. yes, in the eyes of the catholic church, i am a b*stard, however glorious.
EXACTLY! If we have to admit the gay folks, let's just disband the club. Religion shared the term long ago -- no taking it back now. And Grizz -- your contention that gay marriage is just about wanting 'equal rights' -- like it's some sort of legal agreement and no more (not like a real marriage, afterall) doesn't explain why thousands of gay couples who live in states that do not recognize gay marriage and offer none of those equal rights go to jurisdictions that allow gay marriage to get married when that marriage offers them nothing tangible. Archive these posts guys. Your kids will shake their heads at the way their parents thought back in the old days.
This is not a valid argument. Lots of things are centuries old, but that doesn’t mean that they are related to one another. An injustice against one is an injustice against all. I would say that this is a core belief of the genuine progressive movement. Unfortunately on the more extreme edges of the “left” there are groups who try to take advantage of others to advance their own rights, and this really makes them no different than groups on the more extreme right. If you genuinely want progress you have to consider everyone’s rights. You cannot look at the issue from only one side if you wish to be progressive. On some issues that can be challenging, but I don’t think this is one of them. The word marriage is strongly associated with a number of long standing religious and cultural traditions, and it is not at all necessary to achieve equality for same sex couples. If one is truly looking at this issue from both sides the solution should be pretty obvious, imo. One form of bigotry is no better than another. It doesn't stop being bigotry when the roles become reversed.
Sure, it's a good first step. But there's no logical reason not to call it marriage. And unless you drop the term "marriage" for heterosexual unions, it would be a separate-but-equal solution which would really not be equal as it would imply that homosexual unions aren't worthy to be called "marriage". See above. Separate but equal is not equal. Take the word away entirely if you must (although again I believe that's silly), but you can't give it to one group and not another. Wait, what? Please explain the reverse bigotry. How are the rights of anti-gay marriage folks being affected?
That depends on your definition of marriage, and that's the problem. You've narrowed in on it very well here. Whatever it means, however, it's not the state's concern. Do you agree? Otoh, the state is interested in a certain legal arraignment between two people. As far as the state is concerned you either are or you aren't, and what that means is described in clear legal terms. Attaching the word marriage to that union, however, as you have illustrated in your post, is not at all appropriate and leads to all kinds of confusion and problems.
my definition is broad enough to allow any two people who love each other to form a union with all due rights.
