I refuse to use a different word for it because I'm gay. Are gay people who can get married in their churches and synagogues going to be not allowed to call it that?
I agree with you, dividing this out for everyone would be best, but I can't imagine that happening. Of course, at this point, I can't imagine anything good coming of this mess ever.
Approximately half of America would rather people like me be dead. That's the fact I hate myself for not being able to get used to.
wheras i think marriage is a word that has been used for both civil unions, and for religious ones. but since we HAVE a word for civil unions (that is.. civil unions) it makes sense to dump "marriage" out of the civil side, and continue its use for the religious side.
mostly because its going to be easier... and i dont think "gay people shoudl use a different word" i think ALL of us should use "civil union" for the paperwork and crp that means my taxes and next of kin and CIVIL law...... and marriage for religious stuff
and here we have part of the issue.. look how defensive you are getting over the choice of word.
i think we should divorce (pardon the pun) the CIVIL law governing the relationship between two people under CIVIL Govt....... and the RELIGIOUS ceremonies and beliefs.
i suggested the use of an existing term, "civil union" to be applied to all people, regardless of sexual orientation.. for civil law.
and people are getting angry that i might suggest that the GOVT not use one word, and instead use another.
will it change what you do? no will it change your legal status? no will it change your life? no
it would in fact put all of us equal under civil govt.. but people are angry and upset.. over what word to use. and THIS is the same position as the opponants of gay marriage.
how would changing what word the govt uses mean you were "not married" ? how would it change your relationship...... but you are willing to get upset and say it woudl... its the same thing form the other side
shrug i suspect the govt, with its love of legal language, will be easier to move to a new term, than churches its not "downgrading" anyone....not as far as i can see.
and i dont get that. if you get "maried" in civil court you can then not get "married " in church?why?
if we need to have different words for civil and religious unions. then *someone* has to give up the word married, and i doubt you can get the churches to give it up, but i think we could make an argument for the civil govt to do so.
the people who GET married would be able to use any term they like, the LEGAL term would be different for one than the other.
and you said "clerics should not be allowed to solemnize civil unions" and i ask why not?
Did you not understand my point that many faiths also have additional terms they already use?
They also DO NOT NEED to give up the term marriage IF clergy can't solemnize civil marriages in their capacity as clergy. (You could always have notary publics do it and then the clergy could also be notary publics -- or some other workaround like that.)
In Canada gay and straight people can get married. There aren't two separate terms.
Changing the word only allows people who are entrenched in their religion or hatred to go on thinking and pursuing validation of the belief that straight marriages are more acceptable than gay. Not only that, but it would leave the door open to legal differences. Being married entitles you to 'x', being in a civil union entitles you to 'y'. You can bet that the deeply conservative would pursue this sort of division in an instant, no matter the intention.
Not to mention, but being gay =/= being an atheist. I know many gay people who would be offended that though they are faithful, they can't call themselves the same as what their straight counterparts can.
and again.. if all couples..... straight or not... need to have a civil contract to be "married" under civil law... and teh govt has NOTHING to do with religious ceremony, how can the govt discriminate?
people who want to think your marriage is less than their marriage will do so regardless. the law will not change their minds.
Except that the churches are hugely powerful, and right now the term 'marriage' is tied with a lot of legal meaning as well. Completely separating the two would be a nightmare, not to mention that the churches and those who are conservative in the government would probably fight it every inch of the way, or push for the new term to give little to no recognition or legal rights.
Also, imo - I do not believe that churches should be encouraged to continue in their discrimination against gays and lesbians.
But - really - I get the idea and what it's based on, and the virtue of it. But I don't think it would -work-.
Also, upon review of what they did here in Canada:
The Canadian Parliament approved the granting and recognition of same-sex marriages by defining marriage as “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others” in July 2005 (<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada">Wiki</a>)
You can redefine the word, rather than switching to a different term. And it's my belief that this is what should occur. Introducing a new term only complicates things.
well if we divide the words out, then obviously if your church or what not permits mariages between people of the same sex, its a marriage.... but you take the CIVIL law right out of it.
do i think it will happen? sigh... no do i think it SHOULD be that i, a het married lady, have to deal with the fact that my churches opinions of my relationship... and my tax status are different things? yup. i think we really, desperately, need to divide out the religious marriage.... and the civil legal contract
and i will remind you that there are many many people who dont think you should be able to marry someone of your same gender...... who do not want to see you hurt, or dead.. or anything. they may or may not wish to DEAL with you at all, but most of the people i know(an admittedly limited sample) who oppose gay marriage... are totally opposed to the idea that anyone should be assaulted or harmed for their gender choices or what not.
my husband was against gay marriage for a long time...... and he is hardly in favor of harming you or anyone.... it wasnt until i pointed out the CIVIL meaning of a marriage, that we have... that our friends who are gay CANNOT get without jumping through hoops.... that he came around. it doesnt equate all the time.
i suspect the problem does end up with polarized sides...... since certainly SOME, (and the loudest) anti gay marriage folks are potentially dangerous.... it is a safety thing to assume that anyone anti gay marriage is potentially hazardous.
just remember, the vast majority...... the people who are the main body of voters. dont really CARE what you do as long as they dont have to personally deal with it...... the reason they vote against gay marriage is because they think they WILL have to deal with it, and they think it will involve their religion. the same people who are fine with "that nice gay couple across teh street" are voting against marriage because they are afraid of what it will mean for their church. .... because "marriage " is religious.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rm
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 12:50 am (UTC)I agree with you, dividing this out for everyone would be best, but I can't imagine that happening. Of course, at this point, I can't imagine anything good coming of this mess ever.
Approximately half of America would rather people like me be dead. That's the fact I hate myself for not being able to get used to.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 01:07 am (UTC)I agree, and I'm straight. I think the word "marriage" has been sullied by the bigots who don't want to let gays in love share the word.
Let THEM use other words for their ceremony: sealing for the Mormons, holy matrimony for them that cares, etc.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 03:24 am (UTC)but since we HAVE a word for civil unions (that is.. civil unions) it makes sense to dump "marriage" out of the civil side, and continue its use for the religious side.
mostly because its going to be easier... and i dont think "gay people shoudl use a different word" i think ALL of us should use "civil union" for the paperwork and crp that means my taxes and next of kin and CIVIL law......
and marriage for religious stuff
all of us
straight or not
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 03:33 am (UTC)Since my husband is essentially an atheist in all but name, that would mean I wasn't married either.
and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 03:47 am (UTC)i think we should divorce (pardon the pun) the CIVIL law governing the relationship between two people under CIVIL Govt.......
and the RELIGIOUS ceremonies and beliefs.
i suggested the use of an existing term, "civil union"
to be applied to all people, regardless of sexual orientation.. for civil law.
and people are getting angry that i might suggest that the GOVT not use one word, and instead use another.
will it change what you do? no
will it change your legal status? no
will it change your life?
no
it would in fact put all of us equal under civil govt.. but people are angry and upset.. over what word to use.
and THIS is the same position as the opponants of gay marriage.
how would changing what word the govt uses mean you were "not married" ? how would it change your relationship...... but you are willing to get upset and say it woudl...
its the same thing form the other side
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 03:56 am (UTC)Most faiths have their own terms, and they can also use marriage if they wish.
My bigger idea: don't let clergy solemnize civil marriages.
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 04:02 am (UTC)i suspect the govt, with its love of legal language, will be easier to move to a new term, than churches
its not "downgrading" anyone....not as far as i can see.
and i dont get that. if you get "maried" in civil court you can then not get "married " in church?why?
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 04:09 am (UTC)That's a downgrade to me.
Maybe you're not thinking about those of us who don't go to church. I'm a solitary pagan.
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 04:17 am (UTC)the people who GET married would be able to use any term they like, the LEGAL term would be different for one than the other.
and you said "clerics should not be allowed to solemnize civil unions" and i ask why not?
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 04:20 am (UTC)They also DO NOT NEED to give up the term marriage IF clergy can't solemnize civil marriages in their capacity as clergy. (You could always have notary publics do it and then the clergy could also be notary publics -- or some other workaround like that.)
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 04:56 am (UTC)Changing the word only allows people who are entrenched in their religion or hatred to go on thinking and pursuing validation of the belief that straight marriages are more acceptable than gay. Not only that, but it would leave the door open to legal differences. Being married entitles you to 'x', being in a civil union entitles you to 'y'. You can bet that the deeply conservative would pursue this sort of division in an instant, no matter the intention.
Not to mention, but being gay =/= being an atheist. I know many gay people who would be offended that though they are faithful, they can't call themselves the same as what their straight counterparts can.
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 05:01 am (UTC)people who want to think your marriage is less than their marriage will do so regardless. the law will not change their minds.
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 05:11 am (UTC)Also, imo - I do not believe that churches should be encouraged to continue in their discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 05:17 am (UTC)no, no one wants to "encourage" prejudice.... but you can LEGISLATE civil behavior, not religious beliefs. thank Gd.
Re: and here we have the crux of the issue
Date: 2009-12-04 05:25 am (UTC)But - really - I get the idea and what it's based on, and the virtue of it. But I don't think it would -work-.
Also, upon review of what they did here in Canada:
The Canadian Parliament approved the granting and recognition of same-sex marriages by defining marriage as “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others” in July 2005 (<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada">Wiki</a>) You can redefine the word, rather than switching to a different term. And it's my belief that this is what should occur. Introducing a new term only complicates things.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 04:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 03:21 am (UTC)do i think it will happen? sigh... no
do i think it SHOULD be that i, a het married lady, have to deal with the fact that my churches opinions of my relationship... and my tax status are different things? yup. i think we really, desperately, need to divide out the religious marriage.... and the civil legal contract
and i will remind you that there are many many people who dont think you should be able to marry someone of your same gender...... who do not want to see you hurt, or dead.. or anything. they may or may not wish to DEAL with you at all, but most of the people i know(an admittedly limited sample) who oppose gay marriage... are totally opposed to the idea that anyone should be assaulted or harmed for their gender choices or what not.
my husband was against gay marriage for a long time...... and he is hardly in favor of harming you or anyone.... it wasnt until i pointed out the CIVIL meaning of a marriage, that we have... that our friends who are gay CANNOT get without jumping through hoops.... that he came around. it doesnt equate all the time.
i suspect the problem does end up with polarized sides...... since certainly SOME, (and the loudest) anti gay marriage folks are potentially dangerous.... it is a safety thing to assume that anyone anti gay marriage is potentially hazardous.
just remember, the vast majority...... the people who are the main body of voters. dont really CARE what you do as long as they dont have to personally deal with it...... the reason they vote against gay marriage is because they think they WILL have to deal with it, and they think it will involve their religion. the same people who are fine with "that nice gay couple across teh street" are voting against marriage because they are afraid of what it will mean for their church. .... because "marriage " is religious.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-04 08:45 am (UTC)Not to take away from what you are saying, but to say that there is a lot of stupid in America.