I'm coming late to this thread but just to add I find this fixation on the term odd. Marriage as a term isn't the domain of a particular religion or government and your line of argument to me amounts to trying to copyright a term that is already in common usage. To give a religious example it would be like me saying that "meditate" is solely a Buddhist term and it is hateful that non-Buddhist are try using that term to describe a similar act. It seems to me like you are making the word "marriage" to be some sort of cult term that only has meaning to those who are of the religion. "Marriage" isn't a sacred word, as it isn't even a proper noun, like "Ramadan" or "Hanukah" but it is in common use. If you find it to be so sacred that its use outside of a religious context is so offensive as to be hateful to you get upset then when say an economist describes the merger of Chrysler and Fiat as a "marriage"? Or since you are an engineer to get offended if a set of instructions said to marry connection A to connection B?
This raises a number of interesting questions but I’ll try to be brief. Most non-religious people I know, whether they are hetero or homosexual, don’t care about the word marriage. Some don’t even use it. They use terms like partner or significant other, and others just use it for the sake of convenience. These people understand it as a religious term and they reject what it represents, at least as far as their own relationships go. And there’s nothing at all wrong with that. That’s a right that they should and do have. It starts to get quite odd, however, when people who reject the religious traditions that the term came from feel strongly about using it for their own relationship. If you reject the tradition then why would you feel strongly about wanting to use the term, and what does it really mean to you? Whatever it means to them, however, the rights of the people who are already using the term need to be considered as well. You can’t just open up an all pork restaurant and decide to call it a kosher restaurant, after all. A legitimate argument, even if doesn’t answer the questions about the meaning of the term for these people, is that government already uses the term for heterosexual relationships. If the government already uses the term for hetero relationships then there is an argument that it should use the same term for same sex unions. The problem with that solution, however, is that it compounds a problem. The way to eliminate the problem, instead of compounding it, is for the government to stop using the term marriage altogether.
Governments don't give out licenses but they certainly do regulate things like dating. For example a 40 year old can't date a 16 year old.
That’s interesting, but it doesn’t really support your conclusion, and your conclusion doesn’t really address the issue. This issue perhaps could be boiled down to this. Do you respect the right of these religious and cultural traditions - which incidentally make up the majority of the people in the US - to not have their terminology and traditions appropriated and redefined? Note that this right need not infringe on anyone else’s rights. There is no necessary conflict of rights here. This is really just about tolerance and respect for a certain significantly large group of people and their traditions, and no more than that.
The problem though is that your solution isn't taking government out of using the term "marriage" but asking for government to enforce the use of the term since your argument would mean that term could only be applied to a heterosexual unions as sanctified by a religious institution but not anything else. I think your example though of the term "kosher" though provides an example though of how the government could still recognize and even use an acknowledged religious term while leaving it flexible in its definition and respecting religious views. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_laws_regarding_Kashrut [rquoter]Historically, the statutes of some states in the USA[1] attempted to define kosher, and make it a felony to sell a product which was called kosher if, in general, it was not processed in accordance with the Jewish religion. However, challenges were made to such laws on the basis that they appear to be establishment of a religious practice by the states in question, which would constitute a violation of the constitutional rule that there should be no law respecting an establishment of religion. Although earlier courts upheld some of these laws, courts have since determined that the laws would establish religious practice, and therefore struck the laws down; opponents of this decision had attempted to argue that kashrut was simply a set of standards for food preparation, and therefore there would be no difference between labelling something as kashrut and labelling it as low sodium, high-fiber, pasteurised, calcium-enriched, or contains no cholesterol. The legal rulings include: The ordinance of Baltimore City which created a kosher law being found to be unconstitutional[2] New Jersey's Kosher laws being found to violate the Establishment clauses of both the New Jersey state constitution and the First Amendment[3]. The opinion was affirmed by the New Jersey Supreme Court in which it found that the State's use of "Orthodox Jewish law" as a basis for the definition of kosher was an adoption of substantive religious standards which violated the State and Federal constitutions[4]. The State's response was to create a new law which avoids any definition of a what is or is not kosher. Instead, establishments which claim to be kosher must provide details about what they mean by kosher, and the State will check to ensure that this standard is adhered to. For example, kosher restaurants must display a poster (provided by the Kosher Food Enforcement Bureau) on which they display the name of their rabbinic certifier, how often he inspects the place, whether or not he requires all ingredients to be kosher-supervised, and so on. In this manner, government enforcement becomes a consumer-protection issue, and avoids the problems of advancing any particular religious view. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit finding that the challenged provisions of New York's Kosher Fraud law on their face violate the Establishment Clause because they excessively entangle the State of New York with religion and impermissibly advance Orthodox Judaism[5]. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, and denied certiorari[6]. The statute has since been revised and a new statute, The McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law Sec. 201-a, has since been passed.[/rquoter] Under the New Jersey's law the compromise they have taken is that as long as the establishment states its standards then they enforce those standards but the state isn't providing them. In that regard then the definition of kosher is a flexible term and not a fixed term from the state's standpoint. In regard to marriage this would mean that the state cannot define what marriage is but still recognize it as an institution. Whether gay or straight from the state's standpoint it is still marriage since that is up to individuals to define what it is.
Should the laws take out the words "murder" and "steal" because it is referenced in the 10 commandments? Marriage is not exclusive to a religion, not sure where you got this notion.
It does address the issue because my point was that Christianity appropriated the terminology and tradition of "marriage" previous religious and cultural practices (passed down and likely originating before those crazy Babylonians but who knows?) in the first place and, further, that the modern conception of marriage has nothing to do with even that appropriation - so we are dealing with marriage simulacra of sorts - a copy of a copy with Victorian sentimentality and virtue wrapped all around it. Do you want to talk etymology? "Marriage" didn't exist in English until the early 14th century. It was taken from a French 13th century term which has an ultimate origin in the Latin "maritus". A word that simply means husband or lover. I neither understand the attempt to make the word "marriage" a Christian word, nor do I agree with the attempt to portray the history of marriage through modern, romanticized eyes (not saying that you are doing that part, just in general when people talk about preserving the beauty of marriage and all of that). Legally, it is already bastardized in places like Texas where Common Law comes into play and, again, with JPs. You can say that your friends shy away from the term marriage, but that makes no difference legally. They are treated the same as a couple married in a church, temple, etc. in the eyes of the government.
States have laws regulating sexual contact for minors, but I believe they can date anyone, as long as their parents approve.
How are you taking rights away from one group either way? If you ban gay marriage, you are denying gays rights that are already given to heterosexual people. But if you allow gay marriage, you are not violating anyone's rights. You don't have a constitutional right to not be offended, nor do you have a right to appropriate words and ban other people from using them.
That is a good point but in regard that that their might be sexual activity the state would still take an interests. Certainly a 40 year old dating a 16 year old, or cohabitating with a non-related 16 year old would be under a lot of scrutiny by the state.
Even if Christianity could claim that it somehow had a "right" to the word and concept of marriage (and I think rimbaud and others have demonstrated conclusively that this is not the case), I would say "no" to you. Nobody is going tell you or your church what you have to do with certain concepts. Not in this country. But that you think your notion, or your church's notion, of "marriage" should then permeate every state, county, and household in the land is really not defensible, IMHO. It's been said before, but your church will not have to marry gay people, and you yourself will not have to enter a gay marriage. Period, and congratulations. Let others have the same freedom to make these decisions and pursue their own traditions. Here's an example to your question of the "right" to not have "terminology and traditions" appropriated: freaking Christmas. Did any branch of Christianity create the image of "Santa Claus" and dress him in red and white, or no... did a certain corporation do that? And in fact, has Christmas (celebrating Christ's birth six months out of phase) not mutated into a broad array of traditions, including complete non-Christians buying crap and trading gifts? Many Jews I know like to have a little tree and play to many of the Christmas traditions just because they are fun and kids like them. They don't really care too much about the birth of Christ, but I don't hear anyone telling them they can't buy a tree. I believe it is obvious that Christmas has a much stronger tie to Christianity than the ancient and pre-Christ concept of marriage, but even that Budweiser Clydesdale has left the barn. I don't expect you to change your opinion, but I generally respect you as a poster, so I'm trying to really describe where people are coming from with this. I'll never truly understand why you think your concept of marriage should be imposed on any and everyone who wants to use the word. Keep it holy in your house, in your church. I wouldn't defend the word and concept of Christmas either -- not that I could protect it now anyway -- and you have a much stronger claim to the celebration of Christ's birth.
Just to follow up on B-Bob's post. One of the problems I see with Grizzled's and other defenders of traditional marriage argument is that they are arguing that the government is interfering in the institution of marriage when actually by allowing the homosexual marriage the government is actually interfering less with the institution. Saying that gays can marry isn't more regulation it is less regulation.
I contemplated bringing up Christmas but decided against it because it does have an absolute origin in Christianity regarding the word. The one thing I was going to point out was that Christianity appropriated the festival and certain traditions from prior winter solstice celebrations. Specifically, grizzled's argument could be consider akin to saying that non-Christians should not be allowed to buy something called a "Christmas tree" even though it comes from a tradition of "solstice tree" and even if the purchaser wanted it to be a solstice tree. Because of the boom and expansion of Christianity, though, you can't really go anywhere and buy a "solstice tree". The real trees are in lots labeled Christmas and the fake come in boxes labeled Christmas. I don't know, it is still a clumsy argument but I see where you were going.
I don't really think that is a fair statement because: 1. By definition all Christians should believe that. 2. grizzled is passionate about and firmly entrenched in his religious beliefs, but he is honest and intellectual about it. I think his argument here is particularly strange, but I like that he is always willing to engage and exchange. Like B-Bob said, at this point this discussion isn't about changing anyone's mind, it is about exchanging information and worldviews. Obviously, I think grizzled should at least concede part of my point, but if he doesn't I have still gotten something out of this. 3. He is nowhere near as bad as others who shout empty and superficial religious rhetoric and thus deserve one-liners of scorn. As an atheist I can talk religion all day with people like MadMax, grizzled, twhy..., and anyone else who is open and honest and isn't afraid of ideas from any angle. But in general I don't want to offend thegary. I fear thegary. I sense that thegary can bring thehurt.
fear is healthy. and i agree grizzled is usually a very reasonable poster but he is wrong, narrow-minded, and unfair as regards this topic. signed, thegary/thehumanist/thehurter
I agree that it became clumsy when you took it up and added some historical mumbo-jumbo about pagan festivals to it. But seriously, the date of Christ's birth was moved so that it could take over the pagan winter festival -- is that true? That's what I've been told (like in Sunday School.)
Yeah, that is true. They appropriated the holiday as a recruiting tool "see - we are like you already!" Easter also originated as a pagan holiday when it was an Anglo-Saxon celebration of their fertility goddess Eostre (who, by the way, often appeared in rabbit form...later brought back in the modern world's commercialized Easter Bunny). Again, it was a recruitment tool and was not celebrated on the same day for the first few hundred years. My memory is fuzzy but I think early Christian scholars estimated the birth of Jesus to be in January or February. So they fully acknowledged the point of moving the birth to follow pagan cycles of agricultural festivals.
The government wouldn't be enforcing anything. Despite the fact that they currently use the term, the government has no interest in marriage. For example, here is part of the definition of marriage according to the Catholic Church as written in 1055: MARRIAGE (Cann. 1055 - 1165) Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM The government’s interests, otoh, are very different. It is not at all interested in the religious and traditional aspects of marriage. It is interested in the practical matter of grating certain legal rights and responsibilities to certain kinds of couples. Governments originally wanted to grant these rights to married couples, and that’s how they came to be known as marriage rights. Then governments rightly decided to extend these rights to other kinds of couples who were not married, but they neglected to change their terminology to reflect that change, and therefore couples who were not married were granted “marriage rights”, and this led us down this slippery slope to where we are today with much confusion about the meaning of the word marriage. Since the government is not interested in marriage, however - and never was, at least in countries where there was a separation of church and state - the solution seems quite straight forward, imo. The government should stop using the word marriage.
