Unsafe practices.

[Inquartata]

I notice that on The West Wing tonight someone wanted to introduce a bill into Congress which would get government out of marriage entirely. Does one of their writers lurk on this forum? I want credit!

[annacattiva]

I'm fascinated that this debate (at least the intelligent parts of it) seems to have turned more into a linguistic debate than a political one.

My view is that in today's language, the word "marriage" can mean either a civil or religious commitment. I think most of us agree that a religious ceremony is legitimately called a "marriage", and most of us wouldn't actually ask someone if their male/female union was sanctified before we were willing to call it a marriage. To me this means that, although Soldier is right in saying that historically, marriage is religious, the word is no longer limited to religion. How would one go about changing the common use of a word? France has an institution devoted to preserving the purity of the French language, but I'm sure that eople still use words they don't approve of. There are also certainly words that have a more specific legal meaning than their common usage, but this seems to be an argument that tries to cross that boundary as well. If we allow, say, civil unions between same-sex couples, are people still going to argue about whether you can call them married? The legal term would be civil union, but I suspect there would still be debate (and probably outrage) if it became common parlance to refer to it as "marriage".

Just a thought.

[Soldier]

Call it whatever you want in common parlance; I don't care if gays are "married", so long as it's legally/technically a civil union. Because I'll still know the difference in my mind. And for the religious debate, that's enough for me - it lets each person decide for themselves whether the union is religiously legitimate.

[keith]

*snip*

And for the religious debate, that's enough for me - it lets each person decide for themselves whether the union is religiously legitimate.

which is why constitutional amendments about the subject are such a bad idea - you are starting to get close to a state religion (or a state definition of religion).

You don't want to be like the UK where the anglicans run the country!

[Soldier]

Agreed.

Now, tell me again, why is it so bad to redefine the current set of two people getting hooked up with all sorts o' legal benefits an' shtuff as "civil union" so that we can just leave marriage out of it entirely? It would be exactly the same for heterosexuals - if they want the benefits, they can go to the courthouse and sign the contract. If they want the religious recognition/condonation, they can go to the church next (or first, or whenever). The courthouse has no right to deny anyone the contract; each church can pick or choose who they want to recognize or not.

[Black Jeebus]

Agreed.

Now, tell me again, why is it so bad to redefine the current set of two people getting hooked up with all sorts o' legal benefits an' shtuff as "civil union" so that we can just leave marriage out of it entirely? It would be exactly the same for heterosexuals - if they want the benefits, they can go to the courthouse and sign the contract. If they want the religious recognition/condonation, they can go to the church next (or first, or whenever). The courthouse has no right to deny anyone the contract; each church can pick or choose who they want to recognize or not.

This would seem to me to be the perfect solution. Seperation of church and state shouldn't just be something we espouse when it comes to school children.

[keith]

the problem is only that legislators are lazy (in every country) and have co-opted the term for marriage as the term used to define legal benefits between consenting adults in long term relationships.

I have no problem with the term marriage being limited to those whose unions have been blessed by a church. Although this would require qualifiers (catholic married vs jewish married vs unitarian married) - we could limit us civil folks to unionized.

Lets face it though, it ain't going to happen. Can you imagine congress going through every law where the word marriage is used and reinserting a new definition?

At the moment although same sex couples want to enter into the legal obligations of marriage (unionization) they are not allowed to. Or have to make sure they are carrying a large sheath of documents should a situation were next of kin is required for consent etc.

So while I am sympathetic to the idea that people would like a separate wording for same sex unions it isn't going to happen. After all most people dislike being categorized with excessive adjectives, especially if some of those adjectives have prejudicial meanings.

[lochinvar]

the problem is only that legislators are lazy (in every country) and have co-opted the term for marriage as the term used to define legal benefits between consenting adults in long term relationships.

Let's consider for a moment the origins of this, and maybe we won't be so hard on our legistators...

Back in the misty beginning when marriage first arose, the state was the church. The king was the chief priest--if not a god--and no one ever conceived of a separate civil vs. religious union. It wasn't until the 18th century that the concept was even considered, much less practiced.

Lets face it though, it ain't going to happen. Can you imagine congress going through every law where the word marriage is used and reinserting a new definition?

Yes, I can. They have before, and they will again when it suits their purposes. All it would take would be a single declaration: Henceforth, wherever the word "marriage" occurs, it will be understood to be identical in meaning to "civil union" as defined in Act blah-blah-blah. There; done.

At the moment although same sex couples want to enter into the legal obligations of marriage (unionization) they are not allowed to. Or have to make sure they are carrying a large sheath of documents should a situation were next of kin is required for consent etc.

As a resident of one of those states that made the monumental blunder of passing a marriage definition amendment to the state constitution, I find it inexpressibly sad that the document intended to protect the rights of all individual has been transmogrified into a document that denies certain rights to certain individuals. I can only hope that this is not the first step on the slippery slope that leads to totalitarianism.

[keith]

oh I see no reason not to be hard on legislators - its not like they are honest hard working folks just trying to do the best they can .

The history is the laziness, which makes it even less excusable in the US, but as you say the change would be easy. Since marriage has become such a hot button issue even if it only took one short pork free bill, it's still a long way off.

Any attempt to allow gay couples equal access to say, social security benifits, would be met with squeals from the reactionary right. The problem being that the sanctity of marriage is only expressed by the state in the benefits it confers to the married.

If there is no difference in benefits between man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman couples then the state sees no moral difference between these relationships.

... so the question still is; is this an area where the state should be making a moral judgement?

[Soldier]

oh I see no reason not to be hard on legislators - its not like they are honest hard working folks just trying to do the best they can .

The history is the laziness, which makes it even less excusable in the US, but as you say the change would be easy. Since marriage has become such a hot button issue even if it only took one short pork free bill, it's still a long way off.

Any attempt to allow gay couples equal access to say, social security benifits, would be met with squeals from the reactionary right. The problem being that the sanctity of marriage is only expressed by the state in the benefits it confers to the married.

If there is no difference in benefits between man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman couples then the state sees no moral difference between these relationships.

... so the question still is; is this an area where the state should be making a moral judgement?

No, it is not an area where the state should be making a moral judgement, since, well, it is the state. Hence the conundrum of it being wrapped up in a religious practice, which requires a moral judgement.