Sometimes the world needs big changes...

B-Line · #1 09-03-2008, 03:19 PM

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?

AzX5 · #2 09-03-2008, 03:31 PM

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

Michelle · #3 09-03-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzX5

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

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.

JonK · #4 09-03-2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michelle

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?

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.

Wagner · #5 09-03-2008, 04:55 PM

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

B-Line · #6 09-03-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

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

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.

JCL · #7 09-03-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Line

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.

B-Line · #8 09-03-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL

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.

Yes JCL, you are correct, and I agree with you. The problem is the word MARRIAGE. So if you say that GOVERNMENT no longer recognizes the word MARRIAGE for any couple, gay or straight, and that EVERYONE is a CIVIL UNION.. Then there is no concept or word to protect, under the eyes of GOVERNMENT.

Wagner · #9 09-03-2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Line

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.

My question then is simple, do they want equal rights or equal verbiage? And if the verbiage is the important part...doesn't the devalue the rights? Can't have it both ways.

B-Line · #10 09-03-2008, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

My question then is simple, do they want equal rights or equal verbiage? And if the verbiage is the important part...doesn't the devalue the rights? Can't have it both ways.

Unfortunately I can't answer that question. I don't know.

But I would think they probably want both, rights and verbiage. Otherwise, it would be, separate but equal.

And that is why my suggestion is to change the verbiage for EVERYONE.
The gay community doesn't get to use the word under LAW and the heterosexual community doesn't get to use it either.
(If the two groups can't play nice in the sand box together, then the sand box needs to change.)

I don't think change always means giving Group A what Group B already has. Sometimes the best way to change things is to, TAKE AWAY. Clearly there will be a never ending debate about the word MARRIAGE, so why bother using it? TAKE IT AWAY from everyone, as it applies to two couples and their rights.

Why not just come up with a new word for EVERYONE as it applies to equality under GOVERNMENT.