Is it the end of marriage?

[crboltz]

It's been a while since I've gone on one of my Prop 8. rant, while, there have been a handful of things that have prompted me to get off my butt and rant away.

Comments

[the_celestia]

Let me try to explain it this way: It's no different than if I told C&J they could have a domestic partnership but not a marriage

Re: Ok, I agree to disagree.

[stacymckenna]

I couldn't care less which groups refer to joinings using which words, whether it be marriage, domestic partnership, sealing, or snarfblat. YOU'RE the one who's desperately attached to the word "marriage" and refuses to give it up one way or the other. *Chris* proposed the option of making all legally recognized joinings called something else and giving the word "marriage" back to religion, so I've been discussing the issue based on his proposal. I have just been confused as to why you care WHAT the state calls it as long as everyone's using the same form and getting the same legal rights. Essentially, what does the word "marriage" mean to you that you're so afraid would be removed from your relationship if it were called something else?

I think you're basically telling me I can't get 'married' (under these proposed changes we're discussing) because I don't belong to or believe in religion.If the word "marriage" was reserved for only the religious ceremony and had no legal/state usage, yes. Just like you couldn't be called baptized

[the_celestia]

OK, you win the Internets.

Thanks for the discussion, it's been interesting.

[the_celestia]

Reading back through these, I think you've got what I'm trying to say, and have said it better...the part about it not being right to reserve the word 'marriage' for the churches. What I've tried to explain below is that it is ALSO not right to reserve that word for anyone else (by presenting it as why not switch it around, reserve the word for the state). I don't seem to be doing a really good job on that though, I better stick to taxes.

You're also probably right that it won't remove the religious-wacko objections either.

I don't think we can achieve the sense of equality if we reserve that word...regardless who it is reserved for.

At any rate, you can be assured I'll be doing what I can to preserve the rights of ALL couples, regardless of gender, sexual preference, or religious belief, to be MARRIED.

[crboltz]

WOW! I didn't expect to cause this huge debate. What my comment basically ment was a need to separate in the people's minds the difference between the legal rights conferred by the government to family units with the term "Marriage", and the ceremony that many religious institutions do to join two (or more) people for religious life which they call "Marriage

[the_celestia]

Sorry, I didn't mean to take over your LJ.

One question I have, though...is it possible you just don't know that many honestly non-religious people? We're fairly quiet, most of us. The absence of belief isn't a popular discussion topic (unlike the atheists and the religious extremists, both of whom tend to be more outspoken).

[crboltz]

It's true that most people I know are at least twice a year religious (we call them C&E (christmas and easter) christians -- I don't know the Jewish equivalent). I know very few (but more than just you), non-religious people. I probably know more "anti-religious" people than "non-religious" (and the anti- ones are rarely quiet about it). My suggestion of changing the word had less to do with taking the word away from anyone, but trying to make the rights equal across the board (and removing -- from a governmental point of view -- seperate but equal). i attempt of try to find solutions, and not all of them are good -- but at least unlike most politicians that are paid to find solutions, I'm actually trying.

And there is no issue with having a spirited discussion, i'm just not used to my LJ geting so much traffic.