I think that the whole problem regarding this issue comes down to one thing. The term "marriage". Both those on the left and the right want to "claim ownership" of the term, and neither side will budge.
There are those on the right that see the term "marriage" and think about the traditional (and sometimes religious) meaning of the word as being a union
between a man and a woman.
There are those on the left that see the term "marriage" and think about a union
between two people, regardless of sex.
So the terms "marry", "marriage" and "married" is really what the fight is all about. The right doesn't want to give up the terms based on traditional and/or religious belief. The left doesn't want to give the terms up based on "equality".
Now keep in mind, the term "marriage" has both a religious or traditional meaning as well as a legal meaning. If a couple gets married (regardless if it's traditional or not) it must be recognized legally. Even if you get married in a church, you still have to sign a legal
document to make it "official" in our country.
As it relates to this particular topic, a simple solution would be to call the legal document a "Civil Union License" rather than a "Marriage License". Both sides are free to call such unions whatever they want, and the clerk would not be violating her belief by issuing a legal document for a Civil Union
.
Quote:I think that the whole problem regarding this issue comes down to one thing. The term "marriage". Both those on the left and the right want to "claim ownership" of the term, and neither side will budge.
There are those on the right that see the term "marriage" and think about the traditional (and sometimes religious) meaning of the word as being a union
between a man and a woman.
There are those on the left that see the term "marriage" and think about a union
between two people, regardless of sex.
So the terms "marry", "marriage" and "married" is really what the fight is all about. The right doesn't want to give up the terms based on traditional and/or religious belief. The left doesn't want to give the terms up based on "equality".
Now keep in mind, the term "marriage" has both a religious or traditional meaning as well as a legal meaning. If a couple gets married (regardless if it's traditional or not) it must be recognized legally. Even if you get married in a church, you still have to sign a legal
document to make it "official" in our country.
As it relates to this particular topic, a simple solution would be to call the legal document a "Civil Union License" rather than a "Marriage License". Both sides are free to call such unions whatever they want, and the clerk would not be violating her belief by issuing a legal document for a Civil Union
.
Why make a separate definition? The term marriage has been around a very very long time and there are many historical precedents where it did not carry a religious or traditional meaning.
In addition why are we picking and choosing which traditional definition to use? Some Mormons think traditional marriage is multiple wives. The simplest solution is, IMO to stop trying to keep people from marrying and if you still want to have a "traditional or religious" marriage no one is stopping you. The problem is the term marriage is like saying Q-tip. It's a ubiquitous word used for any types of unions. Why should the word be changed because some people are uncomfortable with two men or two women marrying? No one owns the word.
Quote:The fed is not defining a word. They are telling people they can't discriminate when issuing marriage license because of the constitution. With marriage comes basic legal rights that those discriminated against do not have. That's the way it is.
Funny info graphic.
The federal government is absolutely defining marriage. It's now a legal relationship contract between any two people. Not three, not four, not a dozen, not a man with his car. Specifically defined as two people. So there are many, many people who are STILL being "discriminated" against by the federal government's definition.
Quote:Why make a separate definition? The term marriage has been around a very very long time and there are many historical precedents where it did not carry a religious or traditional meaning.
In addition why are we picking and choosing which traditional definition to use? Some Mormons think traditional marriage is multiple wives. The simplest solution is, IMO to stop trying to keep people from marrying and if you still want to have a "traditional or religious" marriage no one is stopping you. The problem is the term marriage is like saying Q-tip. It's a ubiquitous word used for any types of unions. Why should the word be changed because some people are uncomfortable with two men or two women marrying? No one owns the word.
You are exactly one of the leftists that I was talking about. You refuse to give up the term "marriage". Look at the
legal
part of it.
Change the legal document to read "Civil Union" and be done with it. It solves the problem within the legal system. Anyone that is in a civil union can call it whatever they want whether it's a traditional marriage or a gay marriage.
It's called "compromise".
Quote:You are exactly one of the leftists that I was talking about. You refuse to give up the term "marriage". Look at the legal
part of it.
Change the legal document to read "Civil Union" and be done with it. It solves the problem within the legal system. Anyone that is in a civil union can call it whatever they want whether it's a traditional marriage or a gay marriage.
It's called "compromise".
What compromise is necessary? Literally nothing changes for anti gay marriage people. Nothing. Why should people that have wanted to get married not be allowed or be treated differently as if they were a different class of citizen? That's the crux of their issue.
In addition why would any person compromise with a group of people who treat them as second rate?
Quote:The federal government is absolutely defining marriage. It's now a legal relationship contract between any two people. Not three, not four, not a dozen, not a man with his car. Specifically defined as two people. So there are many, many people who are STILL being "discriminated" against by the federal government's definition.
I'm not sure I follow here. Marriage has been a government institution for a long time and thought that time people have tried to restrict who could marry whom. All that has happened is that laws prohibiting gay marriage are now unconstitutional.
I'm not sure what your argument or problem is, if you have one.
Quote:What compromise is necessary? Literally nothing changes for anti gay marriage people. Nothing. Why should people that have wanted to get married not be allowed or be treated differently as if they were a different class of citizen? That's the crux of their issue.
I guess you still don't get it. Change the legal document from a "marriage license" to a "civil union license" and it solves the whole problem which is the premise of this thread. If gay people want to call their civil union a marriage, then they are certainly free to do so, and at the same time, people can have a traditional marriage and call it the same. What don't you get?
Quote:I guess you still don't get it. Change the legal document from a "marriage license" to a "civil union license" and it solves the whole problem which is the premise of this thread. If gay people want to call their civil union a marriage, then they are certainly free to do so, and at the same time, people can have a traditional marriage and call it the same. What don't you get?
I get where you're coming from and, actually, I agree. The government's biggest misstep was legalizing the term "marriage". IMO, the right verdict by the Supreme Court would have been that government-sanctioned marriage is illegal going forward. Governments may only issue certificates for civil unions to any two people, and all federal code (particularly as it relates to taxes) would be changed to address that. The term "marriage" should be restricted to the private sector.
JIB's called this one. One side of the argument sees only the religious connotations of marriage, ignoring the legal aspects of the term. The other side has latched onto the legal meaning of the term, and believes it to be a right afforded to everyone as a result. Short of the Supreme Court taking government out of the business of marriage, the verdict that came down was the second-best thing, strictly imo.
The polygamy, bestiality and "marrying a car" arguments are total bull, and I think those making them know that.
Quote:I guess you still don't get it. Change the legal document from a "marriage license" to a "civil union license" and it solves the whole problem which is the premise of this thread. If gay people want to call their civil union a marriage, then they are certainly free to do so, and at the same time, people can have a traditional marriage and call it the same. What don't you get?
Oh brother. You made a claim that both sides want ownership of the word so you presented a compromise of one side getting to own it!!!! Hurray all is fixed!!! Why don't the religious just change from marriage to purely matrimony. Or they can go with the civil union term if its so good. They are the ones that have a problem that sends them into a tizzy after all.
Or even better they can just get over it since it doesn't effect them at all.
Quote:Oh brother. You made a claim that both sides want ownership of the word so you presented a compromise of one side getting to own it!!!! Hurray all is fixed!!! Why don't the religious just change from marriage to purely matrimony. Or they can go with the civil union term if its so good. They are the ones that have a problem that sends them into a tizzy after all.
Or even better they can just get over it since it doesn't effect them at all.
Can you explain what I said that makes one side own it? Did I not say that both sides are free to call a civil union whatever they want? Please be specific.
Quote:Oh brother. You made a claim that both sides want ownership of the word so you presented a compromise of one side getting to own it!!!!
I don't think that's what JIB is doing. I'll try to avoid putting words in his mouth, but I think he's talking about privatizing the term marriage. Privatizing it does not necessarily mean surrendering it to the right. It wouldn't stop anyone from marrying any couple, and I think you'd find that many, many people legally allowed to do so would continue marrying same-sex couples. It would also not force someone who has strong beliefs against same-sex marriage to perform one, but those two people would still have all the tax and legal benefits of a civil union even if they didn't want to go somewhere else to get married.
There are places of worship that are LGBTQ-inclusive and will marry same-sex couples. You can do some research on that yourself if you're interested. I'm inclined not to go any further because of the religion rule.
Quote:I guess you still don't get it. Change the legal document from a "marriage license" to a "civil union license" and it solves the whole problem which is the premise of this thread. If gay people want to call their civil union a marriage, then they are certainly free to do so, and at the same time, people can have a traditional marriage and call it the same. What don't you get?
I think you don't get it.
Quote:I don't think that's what JIB is doing. I'll try to avoid putting words in his mouth, but I think he's talking about privatizing the term marriage. Privatizing it does not necessarily mean surrendering it to the right. It wouldn't stop anyone from marrying any couple, and I think you'd find that many, many people legally allowed to do so would continue marrying same-sex couples. It would also not force someone who has strong beliefs against same-sex marriage to perform one, but those two people would still have all the tax and legal benefits of a civil union even if they didn't want to go somewhere else to get married.
There are places of worship that are LGBTQ-inclusive and will marry same-sex couples. You can do some research on that yourself if you're interested. I'm inclined not to go any further because of the religion rule.
You are pretty much right in what I am saying. I guess "privatizing" the word marriage is the right way to put it. I'm looking at the term from a legal standpoint and saying that in a social standpoint, any civil union can be referred to with whatever term a couple wants to use. Take the term "marriage" off of legal documents and change it to "civil union" is a compromise. It then becomes a "social issue" rather than a "legal issue".
Think of it this way. I personally refuse to call Bruce Jenner by his chosen new name or refer to him as a she. That's a social thing not a legal thing.
Quote:You are pretty much right in what I am saying. I guess "privatizing" the word marriage is the right way to put it. I'm looking at the term from a legal standpoint and saying that in a social standpoint, any civil union can be referred to with whatever term a couple wants to use. Take the term "marriage" off of legal documents and change it to "civil union" is a compromise. It then becomes a "social issue" rather than a "legal issue".
Think of it this way. I personally refuse to call Bruce Jenner by his chosen new name or refer to him as a she. That's a social thing not a legal thing.
Really? Even if she legally changes her name, you'd continue to call her Bruce? Would you be as stubborn with anyone who legally changed their name?
I'll go one step further. Let's say you're at a social function and the hostess is a transwoman. Is it so important to you to not recognize her choice that you would call her by her birth name and refuse to treat and refer to her as a woman?
Quote:Can you explain what I said that makes one side own it? Did I not say that both sides are free to call a civil union whatever they want? Please be specific.
I take it back as I misread what you posted. However, I do not understand the point in changing the name because let's be honest this is not about a word. No, it is about people not wanting to allow two men or women to get married based on beliefs. It is as simple as that. They are still getting married whether you change the name or not and that is what people are upset about. In addition you would be sending the message that marriage is now only a religious thing. What's the point in that other than to appease only some of the people that are anti gay marriage?
Quote:You are pretty much right in what I am saying. I guess "privatizing" the word marriage is the right way to put it. I'm looking at the term from a legal standpoint and saying that in a social standpoint, any civil union can be referred to with whatever term a couple wants to use. Take the term "marriage" off of legal documents and change it to "civil union" is a compromise. It then becomes a "social issue" rather than a "legal issue".
Think of it this way. I personally refuse to call Bruce Jenner by his chosen new name or refer to him as a she. That's a social thing not a legal thing.
I think you are looking at it the way a reasonable person would. That, however is the problem. The people that are anti gay marriage are not looking at it from a legal standpoint htey are looking at from a religious one pure and simple. To try and make this about the definition of the word is just not accurate because that is not what it is about. To them it's about not wanting to men or women to be together in marriage.
Quote:I take it back as I misread what you posted. However, I do not understand the point in changing the name because let's be honest this is not about a word. No, it is about people not wanting to allow two men or women to get married based on beliefs. It is as simple as that. They are still getting married whether you change the name or not and that is what people are upset about. In addition you would be sending the message that marriage is now only a religious thing. What's the point in that other than to appease only some of the people that are anti gay marriage?
One could argue that "marriage" should have remained a religious term in the first place.
Quote:So what don't I get?
There is no need to change what it is called. There is no reason why Christians or those who don't believe in gay marriage care what others do. It isn't their right to judge. How can we have religious freedom if religion is going to dictate marriage? It's ludicrous. Less Government? Really? Republicans want less government until it suites them and that is my biggest pet peeve.
Keep in mind there are things that bug me about democrats as well or the "party".