You missed the implication of what I said

Post #307,145 by drook 4/10/09 7:48:24 PM Reply	You missed the implication of what I said (Some) people are hung up on the word "marriage". I think for the most part they're hung up on the reality of what that word represents, and if we don't call it that it's like not recognizing China. It's a way of denying reality. So basically, I think they're wrong. However ... the fact that those people exist is the reality I have to deal with. I could pretend they don't exist and say, "Just call it marriage." But that doesn't seem to be working so well. So what could we do that achieves equality and pisses off both sides just about equally? (Usually the hallmark of an effective solution.) The state doesn't get to use the word "marriage" for anyone. Fundamentalists want to say, "You (the state) can't call that a marriage, because my religion says only a man and a woman can get married." Fine. You've just claimed "marriage" as a religious term, not a legal one. Then the state can't call what you have a marriage either. So gay couples don't get to call themselves "legally married". But neither do straight couples. They all get the same civil union as everybody else. And if they can find a church willing to perform a religious ceremony for them, and they call that a marriage? Then they're married. -- Drew
Post #307,146 by Another Scott 4/10/09 9:00:25 PM Reply	But the horse left the barn and is in the next county. I've said before that I think that the benefits and responsibilities that we associate with "marriage" should more objectively be associated with "family". My grandfather and his elderly sister lived together (with my uncle) for decades after their spouses died. There was nothing sexual going on, but they were a family as much as any other. Why shouldn't they have been able to file a joint return or claim all of the other benefits of married couples? Fixing that wouldn't involve abolishing the civil term "marriage", it would involve instead more formally defining "family" and adjusting the legal code as appropriate. I think "marriage" is a perfectly good term and there's no reason to give it up. Those who have no religion should not have to give up the term, either. Finally, I think there is less chance of disruption in applying a broader interpretation of "marriage" than in eliminating the term. I don't think that giving in to those who say "no marriage for you!" is a good solution because, as you say, it's not the word that really matters. They would (and they will) find another "tradition" on which to hang their ideology of excluding those who are different. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #307,147 by drook 4/10/09 9:17:55 PM Reply	Good idea, but DOA They'd just do a global search-and-replace on "marriage" and sub in "family". Defense of Family Act, etc. By changing the debate from "What counts as marriage?" to "Why is the state defining this in the first place?" you can at least (try to) have a better discussion. -- Drew
Post #307,193 by boxley 4/12/09 10:57:53 AM Reply	marriage is a religious term not a legal term the legal history all deals with inheritance and taxes not rights or abilities. With dna testing and civil unions the state gets out of the religion business remember that separation of church and state thingy?. Any one can claim they are married regardless of the state. I remember two guys from my youth that were married, introduced themselves as such. Were respected as such by people that knew them and that was in the late 1960's. They didnt need obama to walk them down the aisle to feel right. thanx, bill
Post #307,203 by drook 4/12/09 11:51:48 AM Reply	So they were covered on each other's insurance? They could visit in the hospital? They got the inheritance if someone died suddenly without a will? Yeah, that's the legal stuff, not the religious. And it's the stuff that the state hasn't (yet) decided to say can happen any other way than marriage. -- Drew
Post #307,208 by boxley 4/12/09 12:13:40 PM Reply	actually neither had insurance :-) they did discuss having wills, and general poa on each other so yes they were covered and it does cover the same things marriage does. A marriage license is similar to a general power of attorney confering many of the same rights and responsibilities

Welcome to IWETHEY!