I received a mindblowing email today from a friend

[Mike 03]

This is a woman who voted for Prop 8, so I assumed this person was beyond hope, but she wrote to me three weeks ago and told me about the awesome time she had had at the marriage of a gay couple. She cared about one of these people and she rejoiced in their union.

So I wrote back to her and I was, like, "That's beautiful that you could enjoy and be a part of that experience, but what is the deal with Prop 8? How could you support it and have a close friend who is gay, whose wedding you would be invited to and attend?" I wrote, "you are a tolerant person? So what is the deal?"

She said, "I am tolerant. It's just that word, 'marriage'."

I just offer that without judgment.

This community knows how much I support all of you, and how I'm very new at this struggle.

But here it is: a "spiritual" woman, middle age, in a horrible marriage where she does not even sleep with her husband, who has many GLBT friends and is even invited to the weddings, but can't bring herself to support the idea of gay marriage.

I have no clue whatsoever what to make of this.

She knows I support the GLBT community with my words, body and money. But that is her view. She just hates that word "marriage."

How do we persuade this group of people? There is hope, but I can't figure out how to help her turn the corner on the 'civil rights' aspect. She is just stubborn.

I can't believe she knows and loves GLBT people, to the point where she is invited to and attends weddings, but can't vote for marriage... It is confusing, and I'm not sure how to convince her or approach this paradox.

[Happyhippychick]

1. I'm curious what her definition of "tolerant" is. And her definition of "marriage".

Those who don't support gay marriage are threatened by the idea of gay marriage. I don't know if you can do much if somebody is fearful.

[Mike 03]

11. Yeah, I don't know.

I know her marriage is almost torture for her. But I know she has loyalty for her friends, so it's very strange to me. A gay person cuts her hair. She cares about him, likes him, but she just stumbles when it comes to that word "marriage," even though for her, like me, it turned into nothing.

[MercutioATC]

2. See? It's all semantics. Change the word and there will be less resistance.

Throw out "marriage". Let religion have it. Marriage would no longer have any legal standing.

Everybody (gay, straight, blue, purple, whatever) would have to get a civil union to have legal status. They already do that in the form of a marriage license, so it's not a big deal.

Some modification of existing statutes to reflect the word change and we're done.


Why does this idea encounter so much resistance here?

[xchrom]

3. marriage under the law is not religious -- so you already won.

now what are your objections?

[MercutioATC]

6. It's not MY objection...it's the objection of the majority of the country...

Don't call it "marriage". Call it anything else.

Make it carry the same rights and responsibilities and make it the only path to legal status for ALL couples.

You get equality (not "separate but equal", but actual equality) and you pacify at least a good portion of the objectors.

[xchrom]

7. marriage is the only equality unless you re-write hundreds of laws. nt

marriage under the is STILL not religiuous -- you have no argument. sorry -- you fail.

[MercutioATC]

14. Fine. Get hung up on semantics and see where it gets you.

I'm not arguing the legal issue, I'm saying that the WORD is at least half the problem.

Change the word and gain equality or be stubborn and fail.

Your choice.

[xchrom]

15. it's not semantics -- it is the fuckin LAW.

what is your problem?

there is no need to re-write and re-classify huge numbers of laws -- it is secular under the law.

[MercutioATC]

19. It may be, but the average is hung up on the WORD more than the LAW.

What is your objection to calling it something else?

Contrary to your assertion, there IS a need to change the word. Many people will stop fighting it and it will have a better chance of passing.

[xchrom]

21. the LAW is not semantics -- that has already been settled.

the law is is constructed so that it can be applied both to the religious and non-religious -- otherwise your point would have something to do with atheists -- except atheists can get legally married -- right?

[MercutioATC]

24. You're technically right...but nobody cares.

Many people care about the WORD, whether it makes any legal sense or not.

Fer chrissakes, just change the WORD. Why is this an issue for you?

[xchrom]

25. can atheists ge married -- cause that is all you got to stand on. nt

the LAW IS NOT RELIGIOUS -- and your suggestion smacks of giving in to a pre loving v virginia mindset -- you are a bigot.

pure and simple.

[MercutioATC]

29. I understand that you have a personal investment in this...but I still disagree with you.

This is going nowhere...and calling me a bigot is just childish.

[xchrom]

41. it's not fuckin PERSONAL -- it is the LAW.

and yes -- you are a bigot.

[MercutioATC]

57. Whatever.

We have a difference of opinion. I don't feel any animosity.

Peace.

[xchrom]

58. not whatever -- you're a bigot and i am not oing to give on this. nt

[plantwomyn]

139. Hey hey wait a minute

I've read a lot of the posts in the last week. I've seen complaints from"supporters" who say basically :wtf: why are you calling me names when we are on the same side. This is the first time I've actually seen in happen WITHOUT any provocation of any kind. We complain when there is no dialog and we attack those who try to have a dialog? Explain why the word "marriage" is THE ONLY thing you will accept. If your explanation is answered with ignorance, TEACH. If it is answered with bigotry, well then you can call the poster out as a bigot.

Unless MercutioATC have shown his/her self to be totally insincere, his/her post should be answered/debated with respect. We HAVE TO STOP this shit. I know that many of us here feel like we are bleeding out, but we need to reach out to those offering to bandage our wounds.

So to the point of MercutioATC's post. Why not legislate that NO clergy can marry anyone? Only civil "officers" can perform a "marriage". If then a couple wants to "sanctify" their union they can have at it with their god.

[Chovexani]

143. We have been "teaching" for four fucking years on this site

And the same people keep bringing up the same, tired bullshit arguments.

We're sort of fed up.

[Gormy Cuss]

It's not a semantics problem.

Civil unions are separate but sorta equal and there's no need for it in the code.

The word isn't the problem, it's the uneducated people who can't separate the sacred from the secular meaning. These are the same people who love to point out that those of us hets who were married in a civil ceremony aren't really married in the eyes of God, yet they understand that in the eyes of the state we ARE just as married as they are.

It isn't about being stubborn and failing. It's about being persistent and winning.

[MercutioATC]

59. I agree that yours is the simpler solution....IF you can get it to pass.

"Being persistent and winning" loses a lot of its shine when it becomes "being persistent and losing", though.

[Gormy Cuss]

70. As someone who lives in Prop. 8 land, being persistent and winning is a better shot

than believing it's stubborn and losing. I stood with another DUer on a street corner in a decidedly moderate area of Northern California and showed supported for marriage equality and we as straight married people were far from the minority in the crowd of 500 or so. Making our presence felt will make a difference. Pandering to the lowest common denominator, not so much. YMMV.

[Luminous Animal]

73. Indeed! Hear! Hear! (n/t)

[Confusious]

23. When they let one man and one woman have the rights

It is. If they let any couple of legal age, M/M F/F any two people, then it will be EQUAL UNDER THE LAW

[Starbucks Anarchist]

93. Their objection is their own damn problem.

Civil rights should never be decided, in any form, by popular majority.

[Xipe Totec]

5. I'm with you on this point

I have no problem with gay marriage, my issue is with marriage in general.

As I have posted before, I am not married in the strict religious sense of the word.

I have a civil union with my wife; a ceremony conducted by a Justice of the Peace.

As far the Catholic Church is concerned (My putative church), my children are bastards, born out of wedlock.

If the church can refuse to recognize a civil union, I see no reason why the state should be obligated recognize a church wedding.

I am all for the absolute separation of church and state under the 1st amendment. Fuck the church, Civil Unions for everyone!

[eridani]

133. Legally, what you have is a marriage, period n/t

[Xipe Totec]

136. Absolutely true

Despite what the church says.

My point is if a civil wedding does not count, in the eyes of the church, why should a church wedding count, in the eyes of the law?

[eridani]

145. It counts if the officiator is also authorized by the state to witness the contract n/t

[Luminous Animal]

8. Because you would then deny marriage

to the non-religious. I am so tired of people advocating ceding our language AND the civil marriage contract to bigots.

As I said before, I want to be married. I don't want to be civil unioned. I invited people to my MARRIAGE to celebrate my MARRIAGE. The fact that it was not sanctioned by a representative of god should not make it any less of a marriage.

[MercutioATC]

16. Then you'l lose....because you're hung up on a silly word.

"Marriage" is just a word. So is "baptism".

Do you have the same problem with the fact that we've denied baptism to the non-religious?

[Luminous Animal]

26. It's the bigots

who are hung up on a word.

Currently, in this United States, any couple who is legally married in the eyes of the state are participant in a civil contract called "marriage". Clergy cannot perform a legal marriage without the state's approval. The religious want to take from the state that which already belongs to the state.

Your baptism analogy is stupid.

[bluedawg12]

27. We want what the law provides and that word is marriage.

[MercutioATC]

37. ...and if the word was "union", how would that be different?

...aside from the fact that gays and straights would both have the same rights under the law?

[Luminous Animal]

43. I don't appease bigots.

I am a woman MARRIED to a man. I am not civil unioned.

[MercutioATC]

51. Fine. You're hung up on the word.

That's your prerogative...I believe it's getting in the way of equal rights, though...

[Luminous Animal]

64. The bigots are getting in the way of equal rights. (n/t)

[mitchtv]

120. there are many.many. rules not just laws

that make allowance for spouses, be perared for thousands of lawsuits (insurance, bank loans, medical, etc that allow for the immediate family, that doesn't include domestic Partners. Ideally tho I think that the state should only perform civil unions, but that's never gonna happen.

[plantwomyn]

140. Then legislation would pop up everywhere

to seperate "Union" rights and "Marriage" rights. I say no marriage in the church. Turn it around. Only "civil"
marriages are legal. Church=religious marriage is "sancified" but not legal under "civil" law. Leave them their "SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE", take away their "LEGAL MARRIAGE".

[RetiredTrotskyite]

128. I Didn't Get "Civil Unioned" In Canada

I got MARRIED! Why is it so fucking hard to get justice in this country. Oh yeah...got to keep the bigots happy!

[MNBrewer]

9. Do you think that approach would work better than gay marriage?

I don't think so. The bigots want their word and they want the government to enforce it.

[MercutioATC]

17. Let them HAVE their word.

What's more important, equality or a word?

[MNBrewer]

28. My point is that they'd NEVER let the government use the same word to describe

their "civil union" and a gay "civil union". THey want marriage to be legal and religious AND exclusive to hets.

They don't care about the word. They care about their heterosexual supremacy over homosexuals.

[MercutioATC]

63. I don't believe that.

Most people don't really care one way or the other, but they default to religious dogma. Even if you give EVERYBODY the same legal standing, the religious hardliners can still accurately claim that their "marriage" is unsullied.


You wouldn't get everybody on board, but I think you'd get enough to pass the law.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

129. Ding! Ding! Ding!

Give the poster a prie! That's EXACTLY why these people don't want the word "marriage" used if same-sex couples are involved. Well It's about time that heterosexist triumphalism got it comeuppance!

[Luminous Animal]

The word does not belong to "them".

It is not their word. It belongs to everyone. The religious, the nonreligious, and the irreligious.

[MNBrewer]

56. WORD!!!

:toast:

[plantwomyn]

141. Their word is "SANCTITY"

not MARRIAGE. Marriage is a legal definition. Sanctity is a religious definition. I could care less if any church sanctifies my marriage, as long as it is a legal marriage that is recognized by EVERY STATE and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

[IndyOp]

12. The word marriage is codified into 1,000's of laws at the federal level and in all 50 states -

we won't get all of those laws rewritten to recognize "civil unions" exactly as they recognize "marriage".

If we want or need to separate the concepts of "civil marriage" from "religious marriage" to clear up confusion then we can do that by consistently using the full phrase "civil marriage" to emphasize that all of the laws about marriage are part of our government and, as such, are civil rights. No religion or church is going to be forced to marry any couple that they do not want to marry in their church. Couples that are not welcomed in certain denominations are not going to go to such churches to ask to be married. Any adult couple has the right to a civil marriage by a justice of the peace or to a religious marriage by a loving pastor, rabbi, priest, imam...

Finally, separate is not equal. A "civil union" is not the same as "marriage" -- even if the only difference was the term, the difference in treatment, especially when the official policy of the state has a detrimental effect on the people perceived as the "lessor" class.

“Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group... Any language in contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. ” — Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

[MercutioATC]

22. There is NO issue of "separate but equal".

If all couples have to go through the same process and that process is called the same thing and it grants the same rights, there's just "equal", not "separate".

Straight couples would have to get a "union" too..."marriage" would lose all legal status.


That said, a single law simply requiring a word change to all legislation with a particular term (like "marriage") would quickly amend all applicable laws.

[bluedawg12]

36. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you in the desert.

Why don't you fight for marriage equality instead of fighting so hard against it?

Mass. and Vt. have it. Calif, had it.

It is not unreachable.

[MercutioATC]

42. I disagree. I think removing the word "marriage" would make the goal easier to reach.

If there's an issue on my ballot allowing gay marriage, I'll vote for it.

However, I'm not going to support "gay marriage" proponents over those who want to change the term...because I believe that changing the term stands a better chance of passing.

If it results in real equality, what difference does it make?

[Luminous Animal]

48. It is not a victory

when you cede the name of a centuries established civil contract because it makes bigots uncomfortable.

[bluedawg12]

49. Do you have any study, any polling, any evidence at all

about this idea you keep pushing to change the legal/secular word for marriage to another term for all comers?

[MercutioATC]

53. I was responding to an OP that raised the issue...

...with a woman who specifically stated that the word "marriage" was her sticking point. I personally know people with the same issue. Maybe this one woman and the half-dozen people at work are anomalies, but I don't think that's the case.

[bluedawg12]

67. I am asking you about your opinion. Then gay marriage is not your sticking point?

[MercutioATC]

69. Hell, I don't care what it's called. I just think that everybody should have equal rights.

I don't have a "sticking point", just an opinion on the best way to gain equal rights.

[bluedawg12]

71. What is the best way to obtain legal same sex marriage rights?

[MercutioATC]

77. I believe the easiest way is to change the nomenclature.

Make a clear division between the religious and the legal...and make it the same for everybody.

"Marriage" would be the purview of religion. If a church wanted to marry a gay couple, that couple could be "married", but "marriage" would have no legal status for any couple, gay or straight.

"Unions" (or whatever you wanted to call them) would have NOTHING to do with any ceremony, religious or otherwise. They would be a legal contract and would be the only way to gain legal status...exactly in the way that the current marriage licenses are what makes a "marriage" legal. Any couple, gay or straight, would have to fill out the "union" paperwork to gain legal standing.

There's no "separate but equal" issue here...it's the SAME process for everybody and everybody gets the same legal status.

[bluedawg12]

79. Thank you, that's what I understood and that was the question I asked above

Do you have any study, any polling, any evidence at all as to the acceptance of heterosexuals, who hold the term "marriage" in all of its' forms, civil and religious,so dear, that they don't want it extended to s-s couples, and whether they would be receptive to changing the name from marriage to some other term?

Anything? Even a survey, or a teensy little movement afoot to change the word marriage to say civil unions for every single heterosexual married couple in the entire nation?

edit:typos and confusing text

[MercutioATC]

86. Nope, just anecdotal evidence and personal experience.

I'm not claiming that this is the holy grail...but 90% of the people I know who oppose gay marriage wouldn't fight something without the word "marriage" in it.

There's been spotty (actually, rare) success getting gay marriage legislation passed. If the goal is the status and not the word, this seems worth a try.

[bluedawg12]

88. Call it whatever you want, as long as the same term is used for all.

[MercutioATC]

94. I completely agree. "Separate but equal" is NOT equal.

Same word, same process, same rights.

[bluedawg12]

96. They are not going to give up any aspect of that word: civil or liturgical.

[MercutioATC]

101. They don't have to. "Marriage" is theirs.

Remove the word from the argument and I believe a lot of the opposition will fade.

[MNBrewer]

104. Marriage is civil AND religious

Look at the laws if you don't believe me.

[Luminous Animal]

109. Except there is no such thing

as a legal religious marriage without express sanction from the state. All marriages are civil. Some are solemnized by a religious ceremony.

[MNBrewer]

111. All religious marriages are religious

They don't require legal recognition. Some religious groups recognize gay marriage. Not the state.

The are separate, and neither has an exclusive claim to the term or who gets to define it IN THE TERMS of either side.

[Luminous Animal]

112. All legal marriages are civil...

even religious ones.

[MNBrewer]

118. By definition

So?

Legal=Civil

What's your point?

[bluedawg12]

121. My opinion is that straight folk will not agree to changing the word marriage.

I am only speaking of civil marriage, that civil right granted by States.

That is why I think that proprosal by mercutioATC is non-viable.

I know he feels that it is just a word, and has posted on this.

I got called away and now he had to leave, but, I hope we can all continue this with him as he feels strongly about something that in my opinion has zero chance, namely changing the word "marriage" for all State marriages for everyone str8 and gay.

[MNBrewer]

122. I concur

[bluedawg12]

91. Second question: your anecdotal evidence suggests str8's are willing to drop marriage as a term?

[MercutioATC]

100. Once the legal definition is made, people can call it whatever they'd like.

I have a friend who refers to his fiancee as his wife. They're not married, but he can call her his wife if he likes.

If asked, I say that I adopted my son. I actually claimed paternity (long story), but I can say that I adopted him if that explanation is easier.


Neither of these claims change legal status...but if a straight couple wants to refer to themselves as "married", who cares? The legal process doesn't make them "married", but they can later use the word if they want to.

[MNBrewer]

103. I can call myself the Emperor of the Moon

Doesn't make it so, nor does it mean the government will let me send an ambassador to Washington.

[MercutioATC]

105. Exactly. It doesn't change your legal status, but you can call yourself that if you like.

People can say they're "married" as if that has some legal significance, but it won't.

[MNBrewer]

107. Marriage is not going away.

civil Union does not equal marriage legally (by definition)
Marriage equality is the best (only?) approach worth considering.

[MercutioATC]

113. If only "unions" are legally recognized (for everybody), that's equality.

People can use whatever words they want in conversation...it's the legal status that matters. The people who care about being "married" will be...in a church. Those that don't care may use the word as a social convention, but that doesn't matter.

[MNBrewer]

116. How about NO unions

No marriages. Why does the govt need to recognize relationships anyway?

[Luminous Animal]

110. Oooh! Yes! Let's trick the bigots!

They're so stupid they'll never know!

[MercutioATC]

114. I have an early morning tomorrow...I have to go but I'll hit this thread again in the AM.

We might not agree, but I'm enjoying the dialog :)

[bluedawg12]

119. Thanks - we'll pick this up tomorrow.

Good civil, or was it religious, discussion.:evilgrin:

[Luminous Animal]

123. I'm going for religiously civil!

[MercutioATC]

144. Didn't mean to blow this thread off this evening...I just got busy...

Shall we wait for an inevitable future thread on the topic of shall we continue here?

[Luminous Animal]

32. All recognized legal marriages are already CIVIL unions!

Why can't people understand this. There is no such thing as a solely religious legal marriage! None, nada, nope. People who have a religious ceremony are merely solemnizing, under the eyes of their god, a civil contract.

[MNBrewer]

34. That's funny. They call them MARRIAGES here in Minnesota.

<http://www.co.ramsey.mn.us/ph/vr/marriage_licenses.htm>

[Luminous Animal]

38. Yes they do!

And it is a civil contract and thus a civil union. No clergy can legally solemnize the civil contract of marriage without first being recognized as an emissary of the state.

[MNBrewer]

44. There are no "civil unions" in Minnesota.

The law does not recognize them, only MARRIAGES. THERE ARE NO CIVIL UNIONS IN MINNESOTA.

Search for "civil union" here and see what you find.

<https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/search/?search=stat>

No Minnesota Statutes Found Containing "civil union"

[Luminous Animal]

50. And marriage is a civil contract.

That is that!

[MNBrewer]

54. again, there are only "marriages" recognized by the laws of MN

civil unions do not exist. Look it up for yourself. The law is incapable of recognizing "civil unions" at the current time, either for straights, or for gays.

[Luminous Animal]

62. Looks like you are stuck on a word

rather than the legal definition of it. FACT, marriage is a recognized civil legal contract between two people. Simple partnerships are civil unions, LLCs are civil unions, corporations are civil unions, and marriages are civil unions.

[MNBrewer]

74. You keep throwing around the word "civil union" which has no standing under

the laws of Minnesota. As far as the law is concerned, there is no such concept!!! LITERALLY, IN THE STATUES OF MINNESOTA, IT DOES NOT EXIST.

I'm not stuck on the word. I'm FINE with civil unions for all under the law, I just don't see that happening any quicker than gay marriage.

Look, if the bigots were REALLY only wanted to prevent gays from getting "married" legally, that would be one thing, but what they REALLY want to do is block any legal recognition of our relationships no matter what we call them.

[Luminous Animal]

83. Okay, I'll try to explain again...

marriage is a civil contract to recognize the union of two heterosexual people of the opposite sex. "Civil Union" is any individual states attempt to recognize that which many religious find repugnant. It is an attempt by the state to confer similar or same rights civil to same sex couples who wish to create a leagal union that heterosexual couples enjoy under the civil contract of "marriage".

"Civil" - The body of laws of a state or nation dealing with the rights of private citizens.

"Union" - A combination so formed, especially an alliance or confederation of people, parties, or political entities for mutual interest or benefit.

Marriage is a civil union. Happily humans have developed language can take two concepts and join them in one word that is recognized by most people who speak it.

[MNBrewer]

84. Humans can. The Law can't.

The Law can only be what we write it to be, and currently it's not written that way.

I don't disagree with you on a logical level. The law is not logical.

[Luminous Animal]

98. The law is totally logical.

And it is totally written that way. It took two concepts and put them together under the title "marriage". In order to appease bigots, some states chose to muddy a clear legal concept and create a separate legal class called "civil union".

[MNBrewer]

117. No, the law is arbitrary, not logical.

[MNBrewer]

81. and, if I went to the Sec of State for MN and asked to register my business

as an International Conglomerate, the would look at me and say "there's no such category in the statues of Minnesota. You can't do that."

Now we all know that International Conglomerates exist, but they don't exist as such under the laws of this state.

[Luminous Animal]

115. But marriage, as a civil contract

the legally recognized the union of a man and woman, does exist.

[xchrom]

46. FUCK -- why can't i rec a reply! nt

[dsc]

13. because election after election shows it is total bunk

With two exceptions (Arizona and maybe California) the word marriage mattered not one whit in passing bans. Bans which stuck to only marriage and those which banned any and all legal constructs all passed and by similar margins. Only in Arizona, where elderly people voted their own self interest, did restricting it to marriage allow it to pass when it otherwise failed. In California I admit it likely would have made a difference.

[MNBrewer]

30. That's what laws ARE. WORDS. Words with specific definitions.

Ever read a law?

[MercutioATC]

33. Right. And everybody knows that laws can't be changed.

That's why women can't vote and blacks are still considered property.

:eyes:

I'm not suggesting that the word "marriage" doesn't currently carry legal status. I'm advocating changing the WORD.

[MNBrewer]

39. Of course they can, I didn't say that.

Your implication that "marriage is just a word" was what I was trying to take on. It's a specific word, with a specific legal meaning. Civil union does not exist legally in Minnesota, only marriages. How do you propose to deal with that situation?

[MercutioATC]

45. Change the law.

It's just a word change. The function of the law would remain unchanged.

[MNBrewer]

52. There are 211 statutes in MN with the word Marriage in it.

Plus, we have a DOMA law that would have to be repealed. It could be done, but I see more support for making the word "marriage" be equal that for changing EVERYONE'S legal status to "civil union". Just sayin'

[MercutioATC]

55. Yes, your change would be easier on the paperwork.

...but I think changing the word has a better chance of passing, nationally.

[MNBrewer]

61. I disagree

I think the same people who are horrified at the idea of government recognizing "gay marriage" would be equally horrified that their own "straight marriage" isn't recognized. Changing the word only works in the context of separate and unequal.

The people who are opposed to equality are opposed to equality regardless of the words used. They use the "changing the definition of marriage" argument as a fig leaf to cover their naked bias.

[MercutioATC]

68. Their "straight marriage" WOULD be recognized...it'd just be called something different.

To get "married", they've already done the legal part...a marriage license. Nothing changes for them except the legal word. They could still CALL it "marriage" if they liked...but the word "marriage" would have no legal standing.

[MNBrewer]

75. No, Literally their "marriage" wouldn't be recognized. Something else would be recognized.

Words have MEANING in laws and are deliberately defined. If marriage disappears from the law, then they're not "marriages" under the law because no such thing can exist. THey're something else.

Again, I have no problem making everyone undergo civil unification, or being civilly unified (however you want to phrase it). However, People with an objection to gay marriage don't have an objection to gay marriage as much as they object to legal recognition of our relationships no matter what they're called by law.

This solution would never fly, because they anti gay marriage forces are lying when they protest that they're just not wanting to change the definition of a word. They want to preserve bigotry by law.

[MercutioATC]

78. People are generally dumb. They think what they're told to think.

What's the argument against gay marriage?

"God forbids it and gay marriage would cheapen straight marriage"

That makes absolutely no sense to any thinking person, but the average person isn't a thinking person. They get hung up on silly things. If you remove "marriage" from the equation, it ceases to be about them and their "marriage". They no longer care.

I'm not suggesting that everybody would lose interest in the issue, but I think that enough opponents would stop opposing it to get it passed.

[MNBrewer]

82. I disagree

i believe that we're currently experiencing the last gasps of the anti-gay-marriage crowd, and in the near future gay-marriage will be accomplished.

No need to appease the bigots. Let them stew in their own rotten juices when gay-marriage is finally, and JUSTLY recognized by the government.

[MercutioATC]

102. Maybe you're right.

I'm just looking for the path of least resistance. Recent ballot initiatives have been mixed (most on the negative side), but maybe we ARE near a turning point.

Having marriage cover same-sex couples too would simplify the paperwork...

[bluedawg12]

87. MercutioATC Straight people will never agree to a name change for their marriage

civil and religious. Never. I thought I would make it easier for you, since we're having the same conversation up thread.

[Luminous Animal]

106. To be clear...

I am not advocating against the name change simply because I am in a civil "straight" marriage. I am advocating FOR gay marriage. I used the example of my marriage to point out a flaw in the OP's reasoning because, in reality, not only is the OP willing to cede the word "marriage" to homophobic bigots but, in effect, advocating that the unreligious no longer enjoy the tradition, as well.

[foxfeet]

124. Then they object to their marriages being "downgraded."

I have encountered this argument multiple times from multiple sources when the idea of universal civil unions is discussed. They are clinging to the existing context of the word "marriage," which implies something superior to "civil unions" (or pick your alternative term). BTW, I support the concept of civil unions for all with a religious "marriage" for those who choose it as an add-on. I just don't agree that it's going to be the relatively easier sell that you seem to imagine.

[Luminous Animal]

127. "They" (oh that "they")...

are not clinging to any "word". "They" are insisting that a civil legal institution already commonly known as marriage be available to "them", as well.

I wish DU or its equivalent was available prior to Loving. I can just imagine the the proposals put forth... "Well if Negroes want to marry Whites perhaps we should redefine all marriages and call them "Jumping Over The Broom" and reserve the word "marriage" for those unions of the same race.

[foxfeet]

135. I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to have missed mine.

The "They" that you seem to find so loathsome in my post referred to the language of the post I was responding to, in this case, a subset of heterosexuals (happy now?), not same-sex couples. And this subset of heterosexuals most certainly cling to the context of the word "marriage" as implying some sort of status superior to civil unions, hence the difficulty in implementing civil unions for all as the legal standard. This subset of heterosexuals complain that their "sacred" marriages would, under such a legal standard, somehow be downgraded. I think their argument is utter BS, but they make it all the same.

[Luminous Animal]

40. Changing the word to appease bigots.

Let them be the appeasers and come up with their own damn word. Religious union comes to mind.

[MercutioATC]

47. So the word is more important to you than equality?

Who the hell cares what it's called?

[Luminous Animal]

60. The word is important to me

because I AM MARRIED to my husband. The invitation welcomed people to witness MY MARRIAGE. My family and friends came and celebrated my MARRIAGE. I got MARRIED at city hall and the next day, our 15 year old daughter conducted the ceremony that solemnized our MARRIAGE.

[MercutioATC]

72. Understood...but maybe the rights are more important to some than the word.

It's only my opinion...but I believe that the rights will be easier to get if we change the word.

[Luminous Animal]

76. It is my rights, too

as a partner in a straight marriage. I am sick and tired of the religious dominating the debate and I am sick and tired of self-proclaimed liberals and "progressives" willing to give over to their bigotry. The fact that "they" have a problem with ALL couples accessing equal rights under the civil contract called "marriage". It is up to them to carve out their own special ceremony with their own special name.

[MercutioATC]

80. Well, since our laws have their bases in religion, the law kinda stole the word...

They had it first. I'm just suggesting that we give it back to eliminate the grey areas.

The legal rights and responsibilities granted by today's "marriage" should have nothing to do with religion. I think it would be beneficial to stop using religion's word to define a legal status.

[MNBrewer]

85. THe law and religion were one.

In the split, neither side can claim priority of ownership of the word.

Spurious argument.

[MercutioATC]

90. When they were one, the word was the word of god.

The foundation of law is the law of god.

I kinda thought that we were trying to change that...

[MNBrewer]

97. We have

Governance comes from the consent of the governed. Inalienable rights. Etc.

If you want to get totally away from "marriage", then let's not recognize any relationships legally.

After all, recognition of couples is based on Adam and Eve (or Adam and Steve if we get gay marriage).

Let's go all the way in breaking from the religio-superstitious roots of the law and recognize NO couples.

Deal?

I'm ok with that, but it'll never fly! And your solution still doesn't get rid of that last vestige of religion in the Law.

[laconicsax]

65. Because it's an idea grounded in nonsense.

Religious fantasy, "Marriage is a religious affair."
Reality, "Marriage is a civil affair that can have a religious ceremony"

Try this:

A town had a spring that feeds into a public fountain and was used as the public water supply. An enterprising individual decided to bottle the water and sell it to people as a convenience and the bottled water is sold under the trademarked name, 'Water.' 'Water' is sold only in exclusive retail locations and after a while, the townspeople always associated the bottled product's name with what they got from the fountain.

Now the entrepreneur who founded 'Water' had some interesting ideas about who should and shouldn't be allowed to buy his product leading to certain people being refused service at any of the 'Water' stores. He also launched an impressive ad campaign that led people to rely on 'Water' instead of the town fountain. The town council also let the businessman set up a 'Water' location at town fountain. After a while, this arrangement led people to forget that the fountain and the spring belonged to the town and was only being leased to the 'Water' company.

Years later, some of the people who had been denied service at the 'Water' retail locations started complaining, saying that it was unfair that they were only able to get water out of town and insisted that since the spring and the fountain belonged to the town, they couldn't be denied access to it. The town council agreed with them and decided to restart the municipal water system so that everyone could have a drink. The 'Water' company launched a massive effort to prevent this, insisting that 'Water' is their product, and the city has no right to distribute it.

The town council had already decided that everyone has a right to be hydrated but was evenly split on the naming issue. The first group insisted that the town had a municipal water system before 'Water' came along and set up shop and shouldn't have to change the name because a private company wanted them to. The second group had always associated water with 'Water' and felt uncomfortable calling the municipal system by its original name--they wanted to change the name of the town supply to 'civil aqua.'

Should the town kowtow to private interests and call the water they distribute 'civil aqua' or should they stand up to the private organization and distribute water as they had before?

[Luminous Animal]

66. Haha! Good one!

Thank you!

[Maven]

126. Advocating for civil unions as an "alternative" to equal marriage is AGAINST THE RULES

[TomInTib]

4. Most folks have their "sticking points".

And, evidently, the "marriage" thing is one of hers.

[MNBrewer]

10. So she hates marriage in general, for everyone?

Or marriage in particular, for gay people?

[xchrom]

18. good question -- i missed that. nt

[Confusious]

20. Maybe we should get gov'ment out of marriage

The gov'ment only issues civil union licenses, and leave marriage to the church of your choice. Of course, civil union license means all the rights of a marriage license today, but to any couple ( Human and of legal age ).

[Luminous Animal]

35. The government issues marriage licenses...

which is a civil contract. If the religious want something separate from the civil contract, then it is up to them to create their own ceremony and word to describe such.

[bluedawg12]

31. For anyone who wants govt out of marriage or CU's be my guest...

go work on that. Just keep the gays out of it.

Marriage is part of government because of laws about inheritance and over 1,000 other Federal laws that give benefits to married couples.

Some want to change it to CU's --have at it. The same sex married couples don't even want gays associated with the word, now you want them to give it up? That is a loser idea. But those who think it's a winner, have at it.

Just keep the gays out of it.

[MNBrewer]

89. Once and for all! They don't care about "marriage"

They care about continuing the oppression of gay folk, and the supreme status of heterosexuality, BY FORCE OF LAW.

Changing the word will have no effect.

[MercutioATC]

108. I disagree, but that's only my opinion.

The people I know who oppose gay marriage don't really have anything against gays personally...they just feel that their god has dictated that "marriage" is an exclusively man/woman thing.

I think there are enough people who view it this way to get legislation passed. Maybe I'm wrong, but the "gay marriage" approach hasn't been working so well...

[Creideiki]

125. This post has been brought to you...

by the letters A and J, the number 4, and the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

[customerserviceguy]

92. It's really simple

Straight people who would vote for marriage inequality just feel that what they have is 'special'. This is no different from what bigoted white people thought they had in whites-only clubs and restaurants, or what sexist men thought they had with men-only organizations. They may justify in it terms of five thousand years of tradition, or some misguided idea about reproduction, or just a squeamishness about gay sexual activity that they will not recognize as the equal of heterosexual activity, but they've got this stuck in their craw.

But in the examples I've given, we had leadership either from legislatures or courts that said, "No, what you have is not 'special', other people get to partake of it." And that leadership led to a functional equality that matched the legal equality.

Our problem is that there's no leadership willing to oppose adding the stain of sexual bigotry to the constitutions of, at this count, thirty states. Hell, we cannot even get a Northern Democratic Presidential nominee to say something other than, "Marriage is between a man and a woman." Let's hope that his tune changes after he's raised his hand and sworn to be the President of all the people. My personal hope is that he's invited Rick Warren just so the cameras can see his bearded jaw drop.

[glowing]

95. You don't.. You take the decision away from her so that she has no

"moral" misgivings about "marriage" and her "god". That's what our lawmakers and court system is supposed to do. Its the reason we are a democratic republic. Sometimes you have to rule by the outlines of the constitution.. and leave that democracy thing on the ground when it affects other people's rights pre-ordained by the laws established by the constitution. Equality, justice, and rights to privacy are a part of that.

[MNBrewer]

99. That's where Jerry Brown is headed

Thank goodness!

[WVRICK13]

130. What About

making a distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. The state sanctions one and the church sanctions the other. After all this is really what happens. There is a religious ceremony but until a licensed minister signs the certificate it isn't a legal marriage in the eyes of government. In marriages outside the church a licensed civil official can already sign off on the legal documents without a minister. Let the churches decide who gets a religious ceremony and let government decide who gets a legal ceremony. Separation of church and state. Now that's a concept.

[MNBrewer]

131. How about NO unions

No marriages.

Why should the government "recognize" relationships?

[WVRICK13]

132. Because

as things stand with our legal system it affects property rights, insurance coverage, family medical rights, etc.

[MNBrewer]

134. I think we've already gone over the problem of civil union vs. marriage

upthread.

Civil union for everyone sponsored by the state = Legal
Marriages for whomever a religious institiution chooses to consider married (note this would also include some gay marriages, as some religous groups recognize gay marriage) = not recognized as legal.

[plantwomyn]

142. Let's take away the licensed minister

No religious marriage, period. Only the state can "sanction a licensed civil official" to "sign off on the legal documents". If they want their minister to "sanctify" their "marriage" so be it. But their minister CANNOT make it legal.

[kenny blankenship]

137. I wonder if she still talks to straight friends of hers who're divorced?

[Veruca Salt]

138. I've been thinking about this...

And someone else said that for religious reasons it is called 'Holy Matrimony'. Maybe if we approach it in such a manner as to say "But you have holy matrimony and marriage is just the legal term that applies beyond religion"? I'm still not sure yet, hopefully someone else has some input into it.

And yes, I am looking at this only when dealing with people such as you describe. Hell, there are churches who will marry us so the point is really moot. That's probably another conversation altogether though.