Sometimes the world needs big changes...
 

In a recent conversation I was having recently with another member about Gay Marriage, something occurred to me:

Marriage is really an institution of both religion and law. And it would seem that a lot of the controversy regarding gay marriage comes from the term "marriage" and it's religious implications.

Well what about the idea of a grand change? I mean lets face it, prenuptial agreements, divorce court, alimony, child support, marital assets, health insurance, death benefits, etc, ain't exactly part of Saturday or Sunday's sermon.

But of course marriage need also be an institution of community, court, law, etc.

So what if, on a grand scale, there was a change in VERBIAGE.

Meaning. Today, In order to get legally married you must go through the state (marriage certificate, etc.), then there is the ceremonial (and often religious) rights that happen shortly after, next day, etc..

What if on a grand scale, the word MARRIAGE was taken out of legal and state jargon? What if there were no state recognized MARRIAGE only state recognized UNIONS. Be it male and female or any other variation there in.

And what if the word MARRIAGE were reserved only for RELIGIOUS ceremonies.

So according to the STATE, anyone can enter into a UNION that agrees to do so (no such thing as Marriage anymore).

This way, everyone is being treated EQUALLY under the STATE and there is no grand opposition to the term MARRIAGE, which could be reserved for religious ceremonies..

Am I making any sense?

Might as well throw away HUSBAND and WIFE too, and just use SPOUSE I guess. :dunno:

:confused: :confused:

The terms "husband" and "wife" still apply. When other people assume that a woman has a husband and a man has a wife; that's what needs to be thrown away.

Non-gender-biased usage of the terms, husband and wife! That could solve some confusions.

When I was watching tv news program lesbians getting married, the butchier one called the other "wife." So she was supposed to be husband? :confused:

However, how am I suppose to tell which one is mom or dad just by the appearance? i.e. at a PTA meeting without offending them by false assumption or asking an uncomfortable question.

Does it applies to a hetero couple?
I am bit confused.
I would appreciate your clarification.

Why can't you just have marriage and unions with unions recognized for the same rights under law :dunno:

When V & I got hooked in HI, way back, we used a local judge.
There was nothing in the ceremony or vows that was "religious".
Why does "marriage", here in the 21st century United States, have
to be thought of as "religious" based?

My vows and commitment to my CEO are based on human loyalty,
dedication, altruism, love and caring. I understand the common thread
of where ethics/morals "comes from" in most religions, but a marriage
does not need to be "religous" based per se, imo...

#1 There are many legal issues local state and federal that makes a change in VERBIAGE impossible.

#2 In reality gays and lesbians want marriage not Civil unions.
This article spells out the reason based on the verbiage argument.



http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedd...nvmarriage.htm

Good point Wagner. But I think a lot of the controversy actually comes from the word MARRIAGE.

The gay community feels it has the right to share that word with heterosexual couples, legally. Personally, I could care less about the word itself. If by eliminating the word as it is used by the STATE, both heterosexual couples and gay couples can then be treated equally, so be it..

Almost like two kids fighting over a toy and a parent taking it away. It is equal if neither gets to use it, as defined by our governing bodies of law and contracts.

Also, in this manner, neither side of the issue wins and neither losses. The gay community gets UNION rights and the church community can put whatever value they choose on the word Marriage.

And if the gay community wants to define their own, ceremonial definition around the word, that would be okay also.

As far as the gay community and the church community fighting out the definition of the word marriage, I could care less. As long as everyone is treated equally under the eyes of the state.

But that is the exact problem, they are fighting out the definition of the word, because both communities have a stake in the outcome. Unions are fine for some, but many homosexual couples want a marriage because they feel slighted by being part of a union, but not being married. Many churches don't care what the individuals involved do themselves, but they are fighting to protect the concept of marriage as they each define it.

Come on Barry, you and I both know that the legal issues on state and federal could be updated and changed. NOTHING is IMPOSSIBLE. Especially if we are talking about the change on a federal level.
If there were once laws that prohibited women and people of color from voting or having full voting rights, certainly if that could be changed, so too could the definition of CIVIL UNION.

#2, YES, but that is because of the way the word marriage is used, which could be changed so no one can use the word Marriage.

It would be Civil Unions for ALL couples, in all states, with all the same benefits... No more word Marriage as it applies to STATE (and when I say STATE, I mean GOVERNMENT, not California and New York..)