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.
![[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}
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.