I'm not sure whether this should be put up as a referandum or not. I tend to believe those that say that very few equal rights questions would have been approved in this manner. But is this really a civil rights issue. Anyway how would you vote if it was put on the ballot and why?
POLL: GAY MARRIAGE
- Thread starter Piratefan1
- Start date
There are many important issues facing our country and state and I do not see gay marriage as one of them. It is not a make or break issue for me. But having said that I would definitely vote yes if the issue came up for a vote on a referandum. Everyone should be treated equally and if it makes a segment of the population happy without harming anyone else I'm all for it. I know many opposse this on a religious basis but I can not understand why they want to impose their religious views on others who do not share those beliefs.
Tom K
Tom K
I'm not sure its a civil rights issue as much as folks are saying. NJ is one of the few states that has a civil union law so we are considered progressive. Most states do not even have that. Because it will take a while to sort out, we should strengthen our civil union law to make sure that gay couples get all or most of the rights hetero couples do.
I would probably vote yes as I did in the poll but I really do not think this should be our top priority. It's political on both sides now. Dems pushed it to the top of the legislative priority list to try and make Christie look bad. Christie vetoed it because he has political aspirations. Do we have bigger fish to fry? Yes absolutely.
This post was edited on 2/21 10:58 AM by Section112
I would probably vote yes as I did in the poll but I really do not think this should be our top priority. It's political on both sides now. Dems pushed it to the top of the legislative priority list to try and make Christie look bad. Christie vetoed it because he has political aspirations. Do we have bigger fish to fry? Yes absolutely.
This post was edited on 2/21 10:58 AM by Section112
You would think it would be easy wouldn't you? Just address the equality of it, so a +100 to you SPK!
So you're not for equality and liberty for all? You want to continue to discriminate? Why should there be separate statuses for consenting adults? Heterosexual adults are no different than homosexual adults who are no different from any other consenting adults.
Christie has offered to amend the Civil Union laws, to give gay couples the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. He believes, as I do, that all unions should be civil unions, and leave the sacrament of marriage to those desirous of a religious union. You'd think THAT would be easy enough, and most reasonable homosexuals would sign up for that in a second. It's the activist lunatics like Steven Weinberg and Garden State Equality that want the whole enchilada: the word "marriage." They want this to shove it down the throat of the conservatives, and particularly the religious.
Christie has also recommended it be put to a vote, which I don't agree with; however, what are the Democrats afraid of? NJ is a progressive state, why wouldn't it pass?
Christie has also recommended it be put to a vote, which I don't agree with; however, what are the Democrats afraid of? NJ is a progressive state, why wouldn't it pass?
How is that shoving it down the throat of conservatives and the religious. No one is forcing them to partake in a same sex marriage so why do they want to impose their religious views upon others who do not share them?
So hypothetically if there is a religion that would perform a religious service conferring their sacriments of marriage on a same sex couple would you still object to it being called a marriage ?
Tom K
This post was edited on 2/23 8:02 PM by SnakeTom
So hypothetically if there is a religion that would perform a religious service conferring their sacriments of marriage on a same sex couple would you still object to it being called a marriage ?
Tom K
This post was edited on 2/23 8:02 PM by SnakeTom
So why not just accept full and equal rights under a civil union if Christie's willing to go that route? Certainly would be easier and faster. Turning that down and demanding that "marriage," and nothing else will do, belies the true intention.
And yes, if some congregations are willing to perform a token "ceremony," I would consider that a sham.
This! Even the most Thomistic Catholic admit there is one and only one thing that God cannot do. He cannot do the antithetical. He cannot make a square circle.
Communication has meaning only if the words in the language have meaning. For at least 2,000 years the word ''marriage'' has been religious and has been defined as the joining of one man and one woman as a family unit for bearing and raising children.
The religious word was adopted as a convenience to foster civil rules and laws that promoted such unions. These civil rules did not and could not change the meaning of the word, itself. Now many seek similar support from civil rules and laws. I for one have no problem at all with any two people contracting with the state to fulfill specific civil obligations in order to obtain similar rights and privileges (e.g. tax and health insurance, to name a few). Why is that a problem?
Donnie and OA stated my position on all of this perfectly. Get government out of the business of marriage, a sacrament, and only deal with its own civil contracts, a union, for things like taxes and health insurance.
The term marriage has made its way into the civil lexicon. (e.g., Sinatra's hit with "Love and Marriage"). It's no longer exclusively associated with religion. New Jersey refers to the word marriage in its civil code. The State of New Jersey grants marriage licenses to its citizens, not the Church. Why shouldn't the State of New Jersey grant marriage licenses to same sex couples in the same manner it grants marriage licenses to non-gay couples?
The legal definition of marriage in the State of New Jersey is within the province of the legislature, the governor and the courts. They can formulate and impose any definition they deem appropriate.
Going back to your definition of marriage, do you think it proper for heterosexual octogenarian or sterile couples to legally marry since it is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, for their joining to result in the birth of children?
The reasons for marriage frequently have nothing to do with having children. By your definition those who do not want children, are not capable of having children or are beyond the child bearing years should not be granted marriages. That is not the definition set by the laws of our state or nation.
Tom K
Tom K
Where to begin? Well, I guess at the beginning. At the risk of sounding arcane if not anachronistic, more than 2,000 years ago the primary derivation of marriage was as a divinely inspired Holy Sacrament, just like the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist promulgated under canon law.
I am neither a sociologist nor a legal historian but here is my understanding of how marriage might have evolved into civil law.
For at least 7,000 years, and more likely for millions of years, women, as the weaker sex, had virtually no rights at all. (And the weaker males --- the large majority --- had merely a few, themselves). The bestial pecking order still prevailed in which might made right.
Then Jesus formed His Church, and it promulgated almost every characteristic that modern society now deems to be ‘‘admirable’’ behavior. After Constantine abandoned Rome and made Catholicism the official church of the empire, there was virtually no civil government in Europe; there was only the Church. Therefore, Canon Law was not only the de facto civil law but it set the social norms, as well. The Church preached many practices which at that time were totally foreign, such as monogamy, chastity, sharing with the poor and it also became the very first school system and the first public health provider in history.
It was only many hundreds of years later that England (and other countries less relevant to the US legal practice) began to form civil governments. Later still, they chose to separate civil and canon law. They quickly realized that marriage --- like many other Church practices --- had implications that were beneficial: (A) societally; (B) administratively; (C) economically; and (D) socially. Since they had disassociated the Church from much enforcement, the civil governments had to take steps to enforce those behaviors they decided were beneficial to society. First, they civilly 'licensed' the Sacramental marriage relationship in order to protect those few, new legal rights women had received via marriage; remember, women --- the physically weaker sex --- could command neither stand-alone rights nor many means of economic livelihood. Chastity helped to reduce STD, as well. The civil governments formally outlawed polygamy for these same reasons. They saw that the propagation of children would benefit a growing work force and, therefore, an expanding economy. Finally they saw it was beneficial to enforce the obligations of husbands and fathers to protect these economically helpless wives and children.
The civil governments obviously found it convenient to keep using the already established and popular Sacramental terminology for the parallel civil laws they now instituted, as they were well defined and unquestionably congruent with the social needs identified.
The US colonies/states adopted many of these English laws. In the last 100 years the US government extended the social protections associated with marriage by augmenting both the tax codes and new insurance pools.
So for about 1,960 years there had never been any dispute over the roles nor the needs nor the benefits to society nor the meaning of the terms of the Catholic Sacrament of marriage and, with it, the civil law aspects.
Even purely ‘socially’, when Frank Sinatra sang about ‘Love and Marriage’ in about 1955, he was singing about this Sacramental marriage---‘an institute you can’t disparage’--- and even his lyrics highlighted that the ‘local gentry’ knew the definition of marriage was ‘elementary’, i.e. the same as it had always been.
Then in the 1960s the birth control pill was approved by the FDA, and things started to change. Thereafter, the emancipation of women accelerated socially, economically and legally. (As recently as the late 19th or early 20th Century in New York it had been illegal for a woman even to speak in public!) Almost all of these changes were laudatory.
Then, in what IMHO was an ill-advised misinterpretation of female emancipation, the US Supreme Court decided in Roe v Wade to allow doctors to chop up --- or to vacuum apart --- fully-formed-but-not-fully-developed fetuses despite the abortionists own sonogramic proof that when such ‘procedures’ were perpetrated, these tiny boys and girls always recoiled violently in horror and even screamed silently at these vicious incursions into the safety of their 'wombs'. Now millions of babies are chopped up annually. But the point cogent to this discussion is that abortion made it painfully obvious that population growth was no longer viewed as an economic advantage to society. So the civil rights protections for at least these children no longer seemed to be justified by the societal population benefits delineated above.
With female liberation came greater economic freedom for women, as well. Now there no longer seemed to be an overwhelmingly greater economic risk to a single-mother than there was to a single-father. So the civil rights protections for mothers and wives delineated above no longer seemed to be justified by society's economics benefits.
With the advent of the ‘New Morality’ of ethical relativism, anything that did not ‘harm’ another was viewed as permissible, and the disease of selfish entitlement spread virally, trying to establish its own new social norms. One by one the liberal intelligentsia, under the guise of intellectual independence---when it was really independence of discipline, the final rationalization of the atavistic pecking order --- worked tirelessly to knock down the many societal benefits of a disciplined life, especially a disciplined sexual life. More and more citizens now seemed to view sex as an end, itself, no longer as just a means to an end. The so-called sexual taboos were toppled one by one in the halls of liberal intellectualism. Divorce was no longer viewed as anathema; it now was implemented upon demand. Marital fidelity now was not only viewed as optional, some tried to characterize it as comical. The causes of the epidemics of STD and AIDS were for the most part ignored. Heterosexual intimacy was increasingly viewed as having few if any modern advantages over homosexual intimacy --- and I suspect bestial intimacy might not be long in coming. The prohibition of polygamy has even been challenged on this board as it probably will be in courts if not legislatures. In any event, almost all of the delineated societal benefits of marital chastity were increasingly denigrated or ignored.
Thus, in the view of many, the only remaining societal benefits of marriage were reduced to the social (fun with ceremonies and trappings) and the tax, estate and insurance coverage conventions. And obviously these were not intrinsically linked to the prerequisite thesis of ‘marriage’ as established by the Church, but merely to the social and economic equality as necessitated by atypical civil ‘unions’.
So as I understand it, the proponents of same-sex unions feel civilly entitled, first, to societal benefits equal to those few remaining to heterosexual unions, i.e. tax, estate and insurance conventions. Over and above this, some proponents of homosexual unions secondarily complain that people's feelings will be hurt if others make them ‘‘feel’’ different by using a different term for their unions.
Frankly, the former I might agree with and I have discussed such in the other thread. On the latter, equality of references can be enforced more easily and justifiably by stripping the now superfluous Sacramental terms from the civil code (which may be easily legislated by stipulated definitions). Also, if it is important for society to be sympathetic to the 'feelings' of any group's members, then what about the ‘feelings’ of the far larger number of members of Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups? I can tell you how outraged and violated I feel when our sacred religious terms --- with a precedent of being sacramentalized for thousands of years --- are flouted by usurpation when applied to practices which all of us consider to be ‘sinful’ and against God’s laws---which a vocal minority seem to view as merely quaint vestiges of personal moral discipline. What would be your reaction if some pizza company were to advertise ‘Holy Eucharist Bread sticks’? Would that also be socially acceptable to you because it wasn’t hurting anyone---except millions of irrelevant Christians?
As to others' questions on the specificity of my marriage definition, please see the discussion on health insurance in the other thread. No human law is perfectly symmetrical. There are subtle anomalies in virtually every civil sanction and proscription. While the hyperbolic extension of ‘procreation as a prerequisite’ to marriage is argued by some above, such rhetorical exceptions fail when weighed as a general ‘rule’. Sacramentally, the Church teaches that sin is the result not of some physical capacity (or lack thereof---BTW how old was Sarah when she conceived? LOL), but of the choices made by our free human wills. And, tangentially, under Canon law such one-of-a-kind exceptions could, in fact, be treated by the Church as grounds for annulment.
Similarly, no one is arguing that a duly elected government in Trenton, Washington, or anywhere else cannot exercise the civil power to enact legislation with any wording its officials choose. I am arguing that there are no substantial reasons for any but a bigoted civil government even to try to apply antithetical definitions to such religious terms as ‘marriage’ when there are appropriate, unbiased and noninflamatory terms available that should accomplish all of the substantial cures sought without disparaging any or all of the Christian, Jewish and Muslim citizens of the respective jurisdictions.
I am neither a sociologist nor a legal historian but here is my understanding of how marriage might have evolved into civil law.
For at least 7,000 years, and more likely for millions of years, women, as the weaker sex, had virtually no rights at all. (And the weaker males --- the large majority --- had merely a few, themselves). The bestial pecking order still prevailed in which might made right.
Then Jesus formed His Church, and it promulgated almost every characteristic that modern society now deems to be ‘‘admirable’’ behavior. After Constantine abandoned Rome and made Catholicism the official church of the empire, there was virtually no civil government in Europe; there was only the Church. Therefore, Canon Law was not only the de facto civil law but it set the social norms, as well. The Church preached many practices which at that time were totally foreign, such as monogamy, chastity, sharing with the poor and it also became the very first school system and the first public health provider in history.
It was only many hundreds of years later that England (and other countries less relevant to the US legal practice) began to form civil governments. Later still, they chose to separate civil and canon law. They quickly realized that marriage --- like many other Church practices --- had implications that were beneficial: (A) societally; (B) administratively; (C) economically; and (D) socially. Since they had disassociated the Church from much enforcement, the civil governments had to take steps to enforce those behaviors they decided were beneficial to society. First, they civilly 'licensed' the Sacramental marriage relationship in order to protect those few, new legal rights women had received via marriage; remember, women --- the physically weaker sex --- could command neither stand-alone rights nor many means of economic livelihood. Chastity helped to reduce STD, as well. The civil governments formally outlawed polygamy for these same reasons. They saw that the propagation of children would benefit a growing work force and, therefore, an expanding economy. Finally they saw it was beneficial to enforce the obligations of husbands and fathers to protect these economically helpless wives and children.
The civil governments obviously found it convenient to keep using the already established and popular Sacramental terminology for the parallel civil laws they now instituted, as they were well defined and unquestionably congruent with the social needs identified.
The US colonies/states adopted many of these English laws. In the last 100 years the US government extended the social protections associated with marriage by augmenting both the tax codes and new insurance pools.
So for about 1,960 years there had never been any dispute over the roles nor the needs nor the benefits to society nor the meaning of the terms of the Catholic Sacrament of marriage and, with it, the civil law aspects.
Even purely ‘socially’, when Frank Sinatra sang about ‘Love and Marriage’ in about 1955, he was singing about this Sacramental marriage---‘an institute you can’t disparage’--- and even his lyrics highlighted that the ‘local gentry’ knew the definition of marriage was ‘elementary’, i.e. the same as it had always been.
Then in the 1960s the birth control pill was approved by the FDA, and things started to change. Thereafter, the emancipation of women accelerated socially, economically and legally. (As recently as the late 19th or early 20th Century in New York it had been illegal for a woman even to speak in public!) Almost all of these changes were laudatory.
Then, in what IMHO was an ill-advised misinterpretation of female emancipation, the US Supreme Court decided in Roe v Wade to allow doctors to chop up --- or to vacuum apart --- fully-formed-but-not-fully-developed fetuses despite the abortionists own sonogramic proof that when such ‘procedures’ were perpetrated, these tiny boys and girls always recoiled violently in horror and even screamed silently at these vicious incursions into the safety of their 'wombs'. Now millions of babies are chopped up annually. But the point cogent to this discussion is that abortion made it painfully obvious that population growth was no longer viewed as an economic advantage to society. So the civil rights protections for at least these children no longer seemed to be justified by the societal population benefits delineated above.
With female liberation came greater economic freedom for women, as well. Now there no longer seemed to be an overwhelmingly greater economic risk to a single-mother than there was to a single-father. So the civil rights protections for mothers and wives delineated above no longer seemed to be justified by society's economics benefits.
With the advent of the ‘New Morality’ of ethical relativism, anything that did not ‘harm’ another was viewed as permissible, and the disease of selfish entitlement spread virally, trying to establish its own new social norms. One by one the liberal intelligentsia, under the guise of intellectual independence---when it was really independence of discipline, the final rationalization of the atavistic pecking order --- worked tirelessly to knock down the many societal benefits of a disciplined life, especially a disciplined sexual life. More and more citizens now seemed to view sex as an end, itself, no longer as just a means to an end. The so-called sexual taboos were toppled one by one in the halls of liberal intellectualism. Divorce was no longer viewed as anathema; it now was implemented upon demand. Marital fidelity now was not only viewed as optional, some tried to characterize it as comical. The causes of the epidemics of STD and AIDS were for the most part ignored. Heterosexual intimacy was increasingly viewed as having few if any modern advantages over homosexual intimacy --- and I suspect bestial intimacy might not be long in coming. The prohibition of polygamy has even been challenged on this board as it probably will be in courts if not legislatures. In any event, almost all of the delineated societal benefits of marital chastity were increasingly denigrated or ignored.
Thus, in the view of many, the only remaining societal benefits of marriage were reduced to the social (fun with ceremonies and trappings) and the tax, estate and insurance coverage conventions. And obviously these were not intrinsically linked to the prerequisite thesis of ‘marriage’ as established by the Church, but merely to the social and economic equality as necessitated by atypical civil ‘unions’.
So as I understand it, the proponents of same-sex unions feel civilly entitled, first, to societal benefits equal to those few remaining to heterosexual unions, i.e. tax, estate and insurance conventions. Over and above this, some proponents of homosexual unions secondarily complain that people's feelings will be hurt if others make them ‘‘feel’’ different by using a different term for their unions.
Frankly, the former I might agree with and I have discussed such in the other thread. On the latter, equality of references can be enforced more easily and justifiably by stripping the now superfluous Sacramental terms from the civil code (which may be easily legislated by stipulated definitions). Also, if it is important for society to be sympathetic to the 'feelings' of any group's members, then what about the ‘feelings’ of the far larger number of members of Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups? I can tell you how outraged and violated I feel when our sacred religious terms --- with a precedent of being sacramentalized for thousands of years --- are flouted by usurpation when applied to practices which all of us consider to be ‘sinful’ and against God’s laws---which a vocal minority seem to view as merely quaint vestiges of personal moral discipline. What would be your reaction if some pizza company were to advertise ‘Holy Eucharist Bread sticks’? Would that also be socially acceptable to you because it wasn’t hurting anyone---except millions of irrelevant Christians?
As to others' questions on the specificity of my marriage definition, please see the discussion on health insurance in the other thread. No human law is perfectly symmetrical. There are subtle anomalies in virtually every civil sanction and proscription. While the hyperbolic extension of ‘procreation as a prerequisite’ to marriage is argued by some above, such rhetorical exceptions fail when weighed as a general ‘rule’. Sacramentally, the Church teaches that sin is the result not of some physical capacity (or lack thereof---BTW how old was Sarah when she conceived? LOL), but of the choices made by our free human wills. And, tangentially, under Canon law such one-of-a-kind exceptions could, in fact, be treated by the Church as grounds for annulment.
Similarly, no one is arguing that a duly elected government in Trenton, Washington, or anywhere else cannot exercise the civil power to enact legislation with any wording its officials choose. I am arguing that there are no substantial reasons for any but a bigoted civil government even to try to apply antithetical definitions to such religious terms as ‘marriage’ when there are appropriate, unbiased and noninflamatory terms available that should accomplish all of the substantial cures sought without disparaging any or all of the Christian, Jewish and Muslim citizens of the respective jurisdictions.
I hope you have read all that was argued above, Tom.
I would NEVER make a Constitutional objection which argued that status quo the US may not deregulate the sexual relations between two consenting adults ---- or humans and beasts for that matter.
Nor would I deny that they may regulate any civil contract.
I have not argued against same sex unions. What I am concerned about is the term ''same sex marriage''. The governments in a country have no more authority to redefine the meaning of the term ''marriage'' than they can redefine the meaning of the term ''circle''. Those terms were defined thousands of years ago.
If the government wants to give same sex couples access to lower tax rates under certain circumstances then have at it!
Why would any government be disposed to sacrilegiously apply a term which for 2,000 years has been ''sacred and Sacramental'' for the majority of their voters to an act which itself is anathema to the religious beliefs of said voters? Why?
I am not talking about any civil rules arbitrarily associated with a term, but about the term, itself. The only argument I have heard is that same sex couples' feelings would be hurt. I am sorry about their feelings, but what about the feelings of Catholics, many Protestants, and Muslims?
Can you explain what justification there is for picking the ''feelings'' of a few over the 2,000 year old traditions of the majority?
This post was edited on 5/14 6:35 PM by Old_alum
First of all I have no interest in getting involved in a discussion regarding theology. It seems that you are mostly concerned with the usage of the word "marriage" To me it makes no difference if you use the word marriage or civil union or whatever as long as it applies to everyone. As far as I'm concerned it's just a word and if the definition has changed over time so be it. My concern is this: there have been very few groups worldwide that have been discriminated against over the course of time as homosexuals and it's time to stop that discrimination now at least here in our country.
TK
TK
“Just like almost all Americans favor separation of church and state, libertarians favor separation of marriage and state -- and for much the same reason.
“Adults should be free to engage in any voluntary relationships and contractual associations they wish. They should be free to have their union blessed by a religious leader of their choice who is willing to do so, and they should also be free to have a marriage ceremony without a religious leader.
“If they want to make contractual obligations, the private sector is quite capable of drawing those up. How others choose to regard any particular union is similarly their own business, just as we are free to have opinions on religious and political matters.
"Just like separation of church and state, separation of marriage and state will create social harmony. There is no need to have government involved in this extremely private and personal matter.”
“Adults should be free to engage in any voluntary relationships and contractual associations they wish. They should be free to have their union blessed by a religious leader of their choice who is willing to do so, and they should also be free to have a marriage ceremony without a religious leader.
“If they want to make contractual obligations, the private sector is quite capable of drawing those up. How others choose to regard any particular union is similarly their own business, just as we are free to have opinions on religious and political matters.
"Just like separation of church and state, separation of marriage and state will create social harmony. There is no need to have government involved in this extremely private and personal matter.”
I understand that you have little interest in 'theology', perhaps in the more relevant 'religion' as well, and I would not be surprised from your earlier posts also in 'things that are not economic'.
To me and to many, the former are the more important topics. That's what makes horse races.
In its simplest form this is accurate although IMHO not comprehensive. By that I mean it is not merely semantics, like lawyers arguing over 'his' versus 'their'. IMHO it is more akin to a blending of copyright and, say, lewd conduct laws. In copyright, words are of ultimate importance. In lewd conduct, there is a large portion of the population that takes offense at the public display of some things or others. Some might try to argue against lewd conduct regulation, as well, I guess. That is what happens when one abandons one's objective criteria. In any event, the ''harm'' might be distilled down to one group or another taking ''offense'' at the misappropriation of the ''words'' discussed. The criteria in such cases are often ''precedent'' and ''numbers affected.''
Great! Then the point is moot to you!
The definition has not changed and many do not want to see it changed, because, as Frank crooned: it's an institute you can't disparage.
I share your concerns about discrimination against anyone. IMHO the majority if not all of the historic discrimination against homosexuals seems to have been ''personal'' and not ''legal'', and thus irrelevant to fair ''legal'' text although not to its enforcement. As I shall discuss in response to SPK's comment, there are non-religious economic underpinnings to the insurance and tax rates historically associated with the civil regulation of marriage. One might argue these could be considered ''discriminatory'' if one were to ignore their legal etymology, so to speak. One might better argue that these have been ''affirmative action'' for the relief of the traditionally patronistic ''legal'' treatment of women and children.
Two ''wrongs'' do not make a ''right''.
This post was edited on 5/17 10:53 AM by Old_alum
This seems to support the tradition of ''marriage'' as a ''religious'' term with which the state should not be concerned.
With ''marriage'' ascribed to a religious tradition, homosexuals may form their own church if they seek to misconstrue their ''ceremony'' as a faux religious one and thus a ''marriage''. The actions of individuals are subject to their own consciences.
The economic risk here is for tax evasion and insurance-rules avoidance in which individuals might contract bilaterally solely to achieve lower premiums or taxes. To change this might risk losing such benefits for all currently eligible.
Agreed.
This post was edited on 5/17 10:30 AM by Old_alum
It's interesting to read through these responses. I'm all for the legalization of marriage for homosexuals. If the Catholic Church (or any other religion) doesn't want to recognize the marriage, then that is its right. Marriage is the term states use for legal purposes, so that should extend to homosexual relationships as well. My belief is that if states change the term "marriage license" to "civil union license" for everybody (homosexual or heterosexual), religious groups will go crazy.
Exactly!
I don't really get the objection to using the word marriage, just because of the origin of the word.
"Husband" used to mean house owner. It is not like all words have a finite definition, meanings can change over time.
If you have ever been to a NJ diner, you have probably seen the "marrying" ketchup bottles.
By using the words "married" in civil law, we removed any religious notions away from the word. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"
So let me get this straight.
Both of you believe that no word is special and the government can set any word to mean anything?
If this is true, then how would you deal with emotionally charged words like the N word? No matter how offensive such a word is the government may use it anyway it chooses?
If not, then exactly what criteria would you use?
I am saying that the meaning of a word can evolve.
Husband no longer means home owner
fag no longer means cigarette.
Nice used to mean foolish or stupid.
Marriage at one point in time may have been a religious term exclusively. The word evolved when states started issuing marriage licenses. If you were married in a church and issued a civil union license from the state, you would have no argument from me.
So tell me about how the term 'marriage' --- which has meant ONLY one man and one woman for 3,900 years since at least Hamarabi --- evolved in a mere six years into this new meaning? Or is it the special interests of one politically active segment of one political party which is due its' payoff?
And what 'rights' do Christian sensitivities play? When is it wrong to offend them?
And what 'rights' do Christian sensitivities play? When is it wrong to offend them?
Marriage is a term used by the government. Yes, it has its roots in religion, but state governments issue marriage licenses and marriage certificates. Guess what? State governments are not religions, therefore the meaning of the word "marriage" in the eyes of the government is not religious.
Are you saying that an atheist heterosexual couple cannot get married?
Who cares when it happened, and how long it had a different meaning. That is irrelevant.
Once the states started issuing marriage licenses, it became a civil definition and can be changed. Look at the history of voting rights in America. At one point a voter only mean a white male property owner.
Marriage used to be for men and woman only (and only of the same race)... That is changing to "A union among consenting adults".
Originally posted by Merge:
Originally posted by Old_alum:
So tell me about how the term 'marriage' --- which has meant ONLY one man and one woman for 3,900 years since at least Hamarabi --- evolved in a mere six years into this new meaning? Or is it the special interests of one politically active segment of one political party which is due its' payoff?
And what 'rights' do Christian sensitivities play? When is it wrong to offend them?
Who cares when it happened, and how long it had a different meaning. That is irrelevant.
Once the states started issuing marriage licenses, it became a civil definition and can be changed. Look at the history of voting rights in America. At one point a voter only mean a white male property owner.
Marriage used to be for men and woman only (and only of the same race)... That is changing to "A union among consenting adults".
Originally posted by Merge:
Who cares when it happened, and how long it had a different meaning. That is irrelevant.
Well, I care! 3890 years marriage = 1 man & 1 woman
10 years ago today Massachusetts changed it
Once the states started issuing marriage licenses, it became a civil definition and can be changed.
Legally it MAY be changed but WHY should it be?
Marriage used to be for men and woman only (and only of the same race)... That is changing to "A union among consenting adults".
WOW!! Marriage should be any "union among consenting adults"???
not "between" (2 adults)? Any number can play?
any union? So every sex act is now a marriage???
Why stop at humans?
You're kidding, right?
Please define the criteria!
Is it by the life, by the year, by the month, by the hour, or until further notice?
Originally posted by Old_alum:
So tell me about how the term 'marriage' --- which has meant ONLY one man and one woman for 3,900 years since at least Hamarabi --- evolved in a mere six years into this new meaning? Or is it the special interests of one politically active segment of one political party which is due its' payoff?
And what 'rights' do Christian sensitivities play? When is it wrong to offend them?
Who cares when it happened, and how long it had a different meaning. That is irrelevant.
Once the states started issuing marriage licenses, it became a civil definition and can be changed. Look at the history of voting rights in America. At one point a voter only mean a white male property owner.
Marriage used to be for men and woman only (and only of the same race)... That is changing to "A union among consenting adults".
Originally posted by Merge:
Who cares when it happened, and how long it had a different meaning. That is irrelevant.
Well, I care! 3890 years marriage = 1 man & 1 woman
10 years ago today Massachusetts changed it
Once the states started issuing marriage licenses, it became a civil definition and can be changed.
Legally it MAY be changed but WHY should it be?
Marriage used to be for men and woman only (and only of the same race)... That is changing to "A union among consenting adults".
WOW!! Marriage should be any "union among consenting adults"???
not "between" (2 adults)? Any number can play?
any union? So every sex act is now a marriage???
Why stop at humans?
You're kidding, right?
Please define the criteria!
Is it by the life, by the year, by the month, by the hour, or until further notice?
Similar threads
