The "moralists" think marriage is...

[SHRED]

...a religious institution.
There in lies the ignorance.

It is a legal contract sanctioned by the State first.
Then people add religious meaning, if they want.

This is where the gay marriage debate gets all messed up.
Ignorant people do not understand from where marriage, in our society, originates from.
That is why they say "And now, by the power vested in me from the state of..., I pronounce you...". Or words to that affect.

Who else is getting weary of the rampant ignorance inflaming our country?

[Warpy]

1. That's why "civil union" is such a great compromise

and in Canada, straight couples are opting for it so they won't have to add all that religious baggage.

The civil contract is one that promotes an unrelated person into the position of first degree relative. One of the reasons the religious reich hates it so much for gays is that it takes "ownership" away from Mom & Dad and gives it to the life partner. That means if the worst happens, the life partner gets to do things like decide medical care and funeral arrangements, and control freaks hate that.

They act like the Schindlers when it comes to married folks, too, but they've had longer to get used to THAT idea.

I say let the religious nuts have the word "marriage" and let the rest of us have civil unions. We'll let them have covenant marriage with no divorce within their churches and getting trapped for life with unsuitable or dangerous partners. We'll keep the civil law, thanks.

After all, we can call it whatever we choose once it's taken place.

[SHRED]

2. Yes it is wordplay

Another communication gap.

Good point(s).

[MrPrax]

6. Good idea...

Simply take out the word 'marriage' and simply have the gubbermint issue a 'license', which it does anyway...after you get the paper...you do whatever it is you want.

The only real interest society has in any 'marriage' is simply to record it and make the fact public...that's all it's ever been since Roman jurisprudence (which is really where 'marriage' dates from as it was a property arrangement) and the notion that somehow the Xtians 'own' it, is pure revisionism.

Hell, the Church didn't even allow people to 'marry' in their churches until the late 16th century because the 'marriage' rite was considered 'profane'. Note the implication that this profane 'ritual' predates it's modern religious oreintation of marriage. Then the only reason all churches began to have the ceremony inside their churches was for 'tithe' purposes. They got into the 'rental' business more or less. That's what the whole thing has become...weddings, marriage, etc are a big part of the finances of the modern church. They make good coin of the racket.

In the old days, any contracts had to be authorized and in a pinch it was a cleric or priest that 'notarized' the stamps and signatures.

Much ado about nothing...

[Mythsaje]

3. From my high-rated rant...

"Gay marriage is only a threat to people who don't understand that marriage is a partnership, not a ownership contract."

[area51]

7. gay marriage

"Gay marriage is only a threat to people who don't understand that marriage is a partnership, not a ownership contract."

Well said. :thumbsup:

[undeterred]

4. human coupling is prior to religion or the state

Before there were established religions there were beliefs about reality, and there was sex- all kinds of sex between all kinds of people.

A group of people, like the ancient hebrews, invented a belief system about god, and marriage between a woman was a key part of that. Relationships between people become highly regulated according to a religious/moral code which does not belong to any state. Homosexual relationships exist but are frowned upon.

When States form that are not established upon religion, they provide for marriage as a legal contract. It defines marriage legally in a way that is consistent with that which is currently the most socially acceptable arrangement: heterosexual marriage. What is socially acceptable is determined to a large extent by what is accepted by religions. The States also think that women are property and a black is only 3/5 of a man. Only white males vote. Only men and women marry.

When society evolves it opens up the restrictions that have been falsely placed upon people. Religion is sometimes the liberator, but all too often it is the source of the oppression. Sometimes it is both.

The legal status of marriage needs to evolve to the social acceptance of gays... but I think the social acceptance is not there yet. Religions need to evolve in a positive way and society needs to evolve toward greater acceptance of diverse human relationships. Sometimes these things take a long time, but eventually they happen. I belong to a religious group which celebrates the partnership commitments of heterosexual and homosexual couples (Quakers).

The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

5. Of course, you are correct

Marriage means, a meeting or melding, a union... It is not religious except that there are lots of people who feel compelled to wed in a church (Not me -- I wouldn't do it... We went to Vegas...) It is a state sanctioned, legally binding contract entered into by two people... I have never cared if a gay couple has the same rights... It is not a threat in any way to me (or anyone else who isn't a retrograde moron.)

I care if children get married to an adult or to each other -- that is where I draw the line...

What a bunch of religious crap.

[Ravy]

8. People were getting married before there were states to

vest the power.

That is the problem with one institution hijacking the same term as another's for its ceremonies.

There is no way that the church will give up the term for their ceremony, nor any legal way to force them to do it.

However, as a government, we could change the term for the civil union, to well... civil union.