Jetmech_63:Appease the minority and forsake the masses. It's kind of what i see as a culture shift in the US these days. Maybe a better way of putting it is institusting change so as not to offend a minority even though the greater mass feels otherwise. Examples: The masses of CA voted against gay marriage, overturned. Lets change the logo of the washington redskins because it might offend Native Americans. Lets pull boxes of soap from shelves because the numbers "18" or "88" appear on them and could be construed as Adoplh Hitlers initials(to be fair this occured in germany, but by an american company) So now numbers are off limits? Should we ban 88, 14, 18 and 311? Lets pull items of christian religious institution from not only public grounds but general public view(such as nativity scenes on private property getting shut down) so as not to offend those of other religions. Lets allow muslim soldiers, sailors and marines be able to have beards and wear turbans in at all times in uniform(this happens...food for thought,what if that offends me?) When was the last time you saw a "Christmas" sale? I could go farther on....I agree with amos on a broader scope, not just gay marraige wording in and of itself but the whole culture shift as a whole.
SleevePlz:Assuming that gay marriage becomes legal in CA at some point, this seems like a pretty obvious change to make. Not sure I would view it as the slippery slope that some others have. Also, doesn't everyone see the gay marriage debate as this generations Civil Rights Movement or Women's Suffrage? 50 years from now people are going to look back at this issue much the same way we currently look back on those two issues now.
The3Stogies:Husband and wife traditionally means man and woman.
Jetmech_63:I should stay out of NCR, you'd think I would have learned my lesson a long time ago. I apologize if I offended anyone, not my intent. I'm out...
Amos Umwhat:Thanks for the responses, guys. The first two, Wayne and Ken, basically reiterated my own position, except that government can't keep out of a legal contract, or it wouldn't be a legal contract. I suppose that with the changing norms, the re-wording makes sense as a gender neutral term, equally applicable. I'd especially like to thank Jetmech for his contribution, for voicing the underlying slippery-slope fear that I suppose was nagging at me. If we're not able to voice these fears, thereby confronting them in an open discussion, I don't see how progress can be made. Too often today even the hint of political incorrectness is shouted down, suppressed if you will. Sort of the point of this thread that the new political correctness tends to become a new form of bigotry when people aren't allowed to express their thoughts. It's as though we're all expected to only make perfect statements, in sync, even as the ground below is changing. Which it always will do.Thanks for the discussion, guys.
Ken Light: Marriage is not a legal contract, it is a religious rite. It's a promise between two people before their chosen deity. In most cases it's a promise also to procreate and raise children in the service of that deity. There is nothing legal about it. Governments, ours included, got lazy in the search for some method of legally joining two people and have hijacked it and shoe-horned it into a legal contract. But now we see the trouble with that laziness: it just doesn't work in all cases. There are people who claim others cannot bind in the eyes of their deity. And perhaps they cannot, and shouldn't, but that's up to religious people to decide, not the government (and certainly not me). So the government needs to come up with something else, and I'd prefer it not be dependent on silly inanities like who those people live with, sleep with, and what genders they happen to be. We don't worry about those things when corporations are formed, why should we worry about them in this particular legal contract?
Ken Light: If I want to be legally bound to someone I can be. I don't have to live with them, I don't have to sleep with them, I don't have to love them, and I don't have to throw a party to celebrate it. But I can, of course, if the other consents to it. If the government wants to limit that to one person, ok. But now that I'm legally bound to this person we share things like debts, incomes, insurance, and can make decisions for one another in times of medical emergency.
Ken Light: Marriage is not a legal contract, it is a religious rite. It's a promise between two people before their chosen deity. In most cases it's a promise also to procreate and raise children in the service of that deity. There is nothing legal about it.
Amos Umwhat: Ken Light: Marriage is not a legal contract, it is a religious rite. It's a promise between two people before their chosen deity. In most cases it's a promise also to procreate and raise children in the service of that deity. There is nothing legal about it. Definition #2
Amos Umwhat: But, I must say that it seems like a new form of institutional bigotry to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't it seem like men and women participating in the traditional marriage vows should be allowed to continue to be Husband and Wife, as it's been for thousands of years?
Amos Umwhat: Wasn't the idea of "gay-marriage" to allow those of other sexual orientation to participate in the social norms? Because this seems more like the idea was to fundamentally disrupt the norm.
Amos Umwhat:Or, am I just overthinking this? I do that sometimes.
Amos Umwhat: When all of this was under discussion a few years ago, I thought George Bush had the right answer with the Civil Union, recognized by the state, because that's what matters as regards rights and privileges under law.
Amos Umwhat: So then, why the push to insist on the term "Marriage"?
Amos Umwhat: For me this is a good example, regarding the civil union "marriage" contract between same-sex couples. That's their business. If this is to become a new norm, then gender neutral language in the civil documents makes sense.
raisindot: Ken Light: Marriage is not a legal contract, it is a religious rite. It's a promise between two people before their chosen deity. In most cases it's a promise also to procreate and raise children in the service of that deity. There is nothing legal about it. Governments, ours included, got lazy in the search for some method of legally joining two people and have hijacked it and shoe-horned it into a legal contract. But now we see the trouble with that laziness: it just doesn't work in all cases. There are people who claim others cannot bind in the eyes of their deity. And perhaps they cannot, and shouldn't, but that's up to religious people to decide, not the government (and certainly not me). So the government needs to come up with something else, and I'd prefer it not be dependent on silly inanities like who those people live with, sleep with, and what genders they happen to be. We don't worry about those things when corporations are formed, why should we worry about them in this particular legal contract? I don't know about your religion, but in mine marriage IS a legal contract that can be signed either with or without religious rituals. In this tradition, the contract is signed in a private ceremony with only a few witnesses present (and the cleric whose signature makes it official). The ceremony itself is just window dressing; the contract is what seals the marriage vows, not the ceremony. And, by the way, there's nothing in MY contract that says anything about procreation. And thousands of couples get married in civil ceremonies (the old courthouse marriage) either because they're of separate religions, they don't want to have to fork over money for a cleric to marry them, or they simply don't feel the need to have an institution dictate to them their marital obligations. The need for marriage contract issued by state is necessary, BECAUSE of the religious diversity of America and the need to protect the rights of both parties (particularly the woman). For example, in one religion the marital contract might give the husband total power over the woman and forbid her from divorcing him or owning or inheriting property (as is the case in countries where Sharia law rules). A state marriage contract overrules these religious restrictions, and thank goodness it does.
Ken Light: raisindot: Ken Light: Marriage is not a legal contract, it is a religious rite. It's a promise between two people before their chosen deity. In most cases it's a promise also to procreate and raise children in the service of that deity. There is nothing legal about it. Governments, ours included, got lazy in the search for some method of legally joining two people and have hijacked it and shoe-horned it into a legal contract. But now we see the trouble with that laziness: it just doesn't work in all cases. There are people who claim others cannot bind in the eyes of their deity. And perhaps they cannot, and shouldn't, but that's up to religious people to decide, not the government (and certainly not me). So the government needs to come up with something else, and I'd prefer it not be dependent on silly inanities like who those people live with, sleep with, and what genders they happen to be. We don't worry about those things when corporations are formed, why should we worry about them in this particular legal contract? I don't know about your religion, but in mine marriage IS a legal contract that can be signed either with or without religious rituals. In this tradition, the contract is signed in a private ceremony with only a few witnesses present (and the cleric whose signature makes it official). The ceremony itself is just window dressing; the contract is what seals the marriage vows, not the ceremony. And, by the way, there's nothing in MY contract that says anything about procreation. And thousands of couples get married in civil ceremonies (the old courthouse marriage) either because they're of separate religions, they don't want to have to fork over money for a cleric to marry them, or they simply don't feel the need to have an institution dictate to them their marital obligations. The need for marriage contract issued by state is necessary, BECAUSE of the religious diversity of America and the need to protect the rights of both parties (particularly the woman). For example, in one religion the marital contract might give the husband total power over the woman and forbid her from divorcing him or owning or inheriting property (as is the case in countries where Sharia law rules). A state marriage contract overrules these religious restrictions, and thank goodness it does. I'm agnostic, I wasn't married under any religion. I did have a ceremony for friends and family to make vows to my wife and then got legally bound to her by signing a contract and then threw a killer party afterwards to celebrate it. I made no promises to a god though. I don't know about your country, but in mine church and state are separate, and the law is part of the state. Therefore nothing sanctified by any religion can influence any matters of the state, so a marriage in any religion is not a legal contract in the United States of America. A vast majority of people get married both religiously and legally at the same time and so it gets confusing. But those laws and rights you're talking about come from the legal marriage, something I think should be simply renamed to avoid confusion and debate. Clearly any two people should be able to get legally 'married' (please insert new word in the quotes). They should have all rights and responsibilities we've come to associate with legal 'marriage.' But we have no business asking where they live and who they have sex with. It's simply not relevant.
raisindot: Ken Light: raisindot: Ken Light: Marriage is not a legal contract, it is a religious rite. It's a promise between two people before their chosen deity. In most cases it's a promise also to procreate and raise children in the service of that deity. There is nothing legal about it. Governments, ours included, got lazy in the search for some method of legally joining two people and have hijacked it and shoe-horned it into a legal contract. But now we see the trouble with that laziness: it just doesn't work in all cases. There are people who claim others cannot bind in the eyes of their deity. And perhaps they cannot, and shouldn't, but that's up to religious people to decide, not the government (and certainly not me). So the government needs to come up with something else, and I'd prefer it not be dependent on silly inanities like who those people live with, sleep with, and what genders they happen to be. We don't worry about those things when corporations are formed, why should we worry about them in this particular legal contract? I don't know about your religion, but in mine marriage IS a legal contract that can be signed either with or without religious rituals. In this tradition, the contract is signed in a private ceremony with only a few witnesses present (and the cleric whose signature makes it official). The ceremony itself is just window dressing; the contract is what seals the marriage vows, not the ceremony. And, by the way, there's nothing in MY contract that says anything about procreation. And thousands of couples get married in civil ceremonies (the old courthouse marriage) either because they're of separate religions, they don't want to have to fork over money for a cleric to marry them, or they simply don't feel the need to have an institution dictate to them their marital obligations. The need for marriage contract issued by state is necessary, BECAUSE of the religious diversity of America and the need to protect the rights of both parties (particularly the woman). For example, in one religion the marital contract might give the husband total power over the woman and forbid her from divorcing him or owning or inheriting property (as is the case in countries where Sharia law rules). A state marriage contract overrules these religious restrictions, and thank goodness it does. I'm agnostic, I wasn't married under any religion. I did have a ceremony for friends and family to make vows to my wife and then got legally bound to her by signing a contract and then threw a killer party afterwards to celebrate it. I made no promises to a god though. I don't know about your country, but in mine church and state are separate, and the law is part of the state. Therefore nothing sanctified by any religion can influence any matters of the state, so a marriage in any religion is not a legal contract in the United States of America. A vast majority of people get married both religiously and legally at the same time and so it gets confusing. But those laws and rights you're talking about come from the legal marriage, something I think should be simply renamed to avoid confusion and debate. Clearly any two people should be able to get legally 'married' (please insert new word in the quotes). They should have all rights and responsibilities we've come to associate with legal 'marriage.' But we have no business asking where they live and who they have sex with. It's simply not relevant. Amazing as it may seem, I think we're both in agreement here. I don't think that any marriage carried out through a religious ceremony would be recognized as "legal" in any state (or in the country) without a corresponding "registration" of that marriage with a state through the use of marriage license. Personally, I don't care, from a state's legal point of view, whether you call it a "civil union," a "marriage" a "consensual personal legal partnership" or anything else as long as whatever the entity is it provides both parties with equal rights in terms of divorce, inheritance, ownership, raising of children, or anything else. Funny personal story to illustrate this point. When my wife and I were married back in the Cretaceous era, before the wedding ceremony itself we both signed a "ketubah," which is a traditional Jewish wedding contract. Our rabbi signed it as the "clerical authority" or whatever, The language is archaic and in Hebrew and no one really knows what it means but its legally binding from a Jewish standpoint, i.e., in the eyes of Jews it legitimizes our marriages, ensures that our kids won't be considered bastards by other Jews and so on. It has absolutely NO legal standing in a court of law. At this same signing, the rabbi also signed our state's wedding license as a legal witness, because, presumably, clerics are given the authority. Without his signature, the wedding isn't valid from a state POV. Anyway, when we came back from our honeymoon, we discovered that the rabbi had signed a copy of the marriage license, not the original. Thus, we were not technically "legally" married. That caused the first huge fight of our marriage (since I was the one responsible for taking care of the licenses). That very day (which happened to be a Jewish holiday) we chased around the city to find the rabbi and by luck happened to find him (in a deli, no less) and had him sign the real license. Nearly twenty five years later I can laugh very loudly about it now, but back then, it seemed like the en of the world (at least to my wife).
Ken Light: Under in that the real solution is for the government to get out of marriage entirely.
Gray4lines: Ken Light: Under in that the real solution is for the government to get out of marriage entirely. This is my feeling. There is no argument if the gov't just steps back and says. 2 people can be united in some manner and have certain privelidges under the law such as shared assets, tax benefits, inheritance, or whatever. would some people take advantage of it? Maybe. What if I wanted to be united with someone I dont even know for some kind of tax or asset reason? Honestly who cares. It's my choice and I accept the responsibility. But what role does the gov't have to assume that everyone who is "united" supports the christian ideal of marriage. Some do. I do. But also some dont. I do have a problem with calling evey kind of union a christian marriage. It's not.
jgibv: I don't care what it's called....but why can't all relationships fall under the same definition for a civil marriage contract. That's what you said it's all about anyways, to gain the same rights and privileges under law.
