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}
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.