5 ms·

I think there ought to be a clear separation made between religious/cultural marriage (marriage1) and state-recognised unions (marriage2). Then: The Catholic

I think there ought to be a clear separation made between religious/cultural marriage (marriage1) and state-recognised unions (marriage2). Then: The Catholic Church can allow itself only to marry1 heterosexual, undivorced1(and maybe 2 too?) couples. Some weird cult (so long as no laws are broken) can marry1 several people together into one union. Gay couples can marry2 regardless of what any religion or cultural group thinks, and can also marry1 in a liberal church, if they so wish. etc. etc. And the state can allow any two consenting (unmarried2) adults to marry2. And this doesn't mean much more than that they become each others' next-of-kin, they automatically inherit upon the death of the other, have certain housing / visiting in hospital rights etc.. So even, e.g. two pensioner friends with no family could marry2 for companionship and security (even if they are e.g. both female and heterosexual).

dhbradshaw 18y ago
That makes a lot of sense. It's like a natural continuation of the separation between church and state.
astine 18y ago
Yes, a clear distinction between the two is necessary before talking can even begin between the two sides. Once that happens, then we can do this right. However, there is still the linguistic problem: do we still call both forms 'marriage,' or do we restrict the term only to the former? Either way, we're going to upset somebody. I don't think anyone would be willing to use the monikers 'marriage1' and 'marriage2.'
- enomar 18y ago
  Sometimes you have to upset someone to do the right thing. I'm sure slave owners were upset when we abolished slavery, but we did it anyway because it was the right thing to do.
- dhbradshaw 18y ago
  Once the legal separation between civil and religious marriage is properly made, the semantic issue automatically becomes less contentious because of the differences between religious groups. That is, marriage1 will no longer mean just marriage between one man and one woman because there will be plenty of churches that will allow other combinations. Marriage2 will become the basis of the laws in society, and Marriage1 will become specific to each church. Instead of saying Marriage1, one might say Catholic marriage or Shiite marriage.
- tlrobinson 18y ago
  I think the government one should call it "civil unions" (or whatever) for everyone, and the churches can call it whatever they want. Gay people can still get "married" if they belong to a religious institution that "marries" gay couples; same with heterosexual couples. Some gay people I know say they don't really care what it's called as long as they get the exact same rights. Of course others may disagree. But then there's non-religious people who want to be married without the religious aspect. "civil union" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. That could be a problem. How about "marriage" and "marriage~" ("marriage prime")?
yters 18y ago
I don't get the deal with gay marriage. Marriage is only meaningful because of the function it fulfills: provide a hospitable environment for reproduction. Take this away, a la gay marriage, then no one cares about it. For evidence, just look at how many people get married when they think it's just about sticking around with another person. Pretty much zilch, i.e. the number of people co-habitating vs marrying in England. So, if gay people want an official marriage because marriage is special, they are undermining themselves by helping to destroy the institution they value. It's like: because I think the Olympics are special I think they should allow me to compete for the US. If they did this, no one would like the Olympics and they would cease to be special. I don't get it.
- rms 18y ago
  >Marriage is only meaningful because of the function it fulfills: provide a hospitable environment for reproduction. That's where you are wrong. It's an issue of rights, not of function. Why would it make the slightest bit of difference if anyone cares about anything? It's just a word that you want to take away from people: separate but equal. Lots of straight marriages don't exist for the purposes of reproduction. And no one reputable disputes that gay households raise children just as well (if not better, on average, because of higher incomes and older partners) than straight households. Why would you want the children of gay parents to be raised in unwed homes? At this point, it's completely and entirely an arbitrary decision, made because people like you feel like there is something special about this word marriage that gay people don't deserve. The best solution is to completely eliminate marriage at the federal level: civil unions for all. But that obviously isn't practical. That leaves us with an obvious violation of the Equal Protection Clause in wake of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia. You know you are going to lose this issue in the long run. You can't win. Conservatives never win, because change always wins in the long run. We're about 12 years of voter demographic shift or 2 US supreme court seats from winning this issue that doesn't even deserve to be an issue. Give it up; why make people that love each other wait?
  - yters 18y ago
    First, I don't care about some word. I care about the institution, which is both supported by the government and our culture. Second, what does it matter whether I think marriage is special or anything, or who wins or loses on the issue? I expect you are right, and gay marriage will become accepted at the federal level, precisely because so many rich and influential people are behind it. Is that a good reason to throw away my argument? No. So why bring it up? My argument is that insofar as the gay marriage movement thinks marriage is special, they should reconsider what they are doing. Otherwise, why push for this particular right? What makes it a right anyways? As for the function of marriage, gay relationships are naturally non reproductive. You have to use artificial means to do this, which is restricted to the more affluent class. So, unless gay marriages are going to automatically qualify for artificial reproduction, they are inherently not going to have the same capabilities of heterosexual couples. Besides, is artificial reproduction anywhere near as successful? Plus, affluence doesn't create good kids. Look at all the rich kids committing suicide and living horrible lives. Do you have any kind of evidence to support your claim that children from gay households are equally or better mentally, emotionally, and physically formed? If you can provide counter evidence/arguments to these two points, then I'll accept the position that gay marriage should be allowed at the federal level. If not, then it is immoral to force such an unproven and unsupported position on all of America. Keep it at the state level so people can still make choices about what kind of environment they live in in America. Otherwise, I just see this as deeply un American, something of a totalitarianism of the upper middle class. Precisely why we broke off from England in the first place. Finally, yes, it may look like conservativism always loses. But, that's only at the social, cultural level. In the end, these different institutions are only so good as they are at perpetuating themselves. So, if conservativism is always losing, have you wondered why it hasn't gone away by now? It's because it is so much more sustainable than liberalism, so it is always around to "lose" to liberalism; whereas as soon as liberalism wins, it kills itself. Look at Rome. Look at Europe. Look at the USSR. China may be a counter point, but they've been tearing themselves up to get where they are, so I think it is too soon to tell.
mattmaroon 18y ago
That's largely what existed in Cali previously (minus the group thing unfortunately). That wasn't good enough for 52% of the population. They seem to care about the semantics more than anything else.

dhbradshaw 18y ago

That makes a lot of sense. It's like a natural continuation of the separation between church and state.

astine 18y ago

Yes, a clear distinction between the two is necessary before talking can even begin between the two sides. Once that happens, then we can do this right. However, there is still the linguistic problem: do we still call both forms 'marriage,' or do we restrict the term only to the former? Either way, we're going to upset somebody. I don't think anyone would be willing to use the monikers 'marriage1' and 'marriage2.'

enomar 18y ago
Sometimes you have to upset someone to do the right thing. I'm sure slave owners were upset when we abolished slavery, but we did it anyway because it was the right thing to do.
dhbradshaw 18y ago
Once the legal separation between civil and religious marriage is properly made, the semantic issue automatically becomes less contentious because of the differences between religious groups. That is, marriage1 will no longer mean just marriage between one man and one woman because there will be plenty of churches that will allow other combinations. Marriage2 will become the basis of the laws in society, and Marriage1 will become specific to each church. Instead of saying Marriage1, one might say Catholic marriage or Shiite marriage.
tlrobinson 18y ago
I think the government one should call it "civil unions" (or whatever) for everyone, and the churches can call it whatever they want. Gay people can still get "married" if they belong to a religious institution that "marries" gay couples; same with heterosexual couples. Some gay people I know say they don't really care what it's called as long as they get the exact same rights. Of course others may disagree. But then there's non-religious people who want to be married without the religious aspect. "civil union" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. That could be a problem. How about "marriage" and "marriage~" ("marriage prime")?

yters 18y ago

I don't get the deal with gay marriage. Marriage is only meaningful because of the function it fulfills: provide a hospitable environment for reproduction. Take this away, a la gay marriage, then no one cares about it. For evidence, just look at how many people get married when they think it's just about sticking around with another person. Pretty much zilch, i.e. the number of people co-habitating vs marrying in England. So, if gay people want an official marriage because marriage is special, they are undermining themselves by helping to destroy the institution they value. It's like: because I think the Olympics are special I think they should allow me to compete for the US. If they did this, no one would like the Olympics and they would cease to be special. I don't get it.

rms 18y ago
>Marriage is only meaningful because of the function it fulfills: provide a hospitable environment for reproduction. That's where you are wrong. It's an issue of rights, not of function. Why would it make the slightest bit of difference if anyone cares about anything? It's just a word that you want to take away from people: separate but equal. Lots of straight marriages don't exist for the purposes of reproduction. And no one reputable disputes that gay households raise children just as well (if not better, on average, because of higher incomes and older partners) than straight households. Why would you want the children of gay parents to be raised in unwed homes? At this point, it's completely and entirely an arbitrary decision, made because people like you feel like there is something special about this word marriage that gay people don't deserve. The best solution is to completely eliminate marriage at the federal level: civil unions for all. But that obviously isn't practical. That leaves us with an obvious violation of the Equal Protection Clause in wake of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia. You know you are going to lose this issue in the long run. You can't win. Conservatives never win, because change always wins in the long run. We're about 12 years of voter demographic shift or 2 US supreme court seats from winning this issue that doesn't even deserve to be an issue. Give it up; why make people that love each other wait?
- yters 18y ago
  First, I don't care about some word. I care about the institution, which is both supported by the government and our culture. Second, what does it matter whether I think marriage is special or anything, or who wins or loses on the issue? I expect you are right, and gay marriage will become accepted at the federal level, precisely because so many rich and influential people are behind it. Is that a good reason to throw away my argument? No. So why bring it up? My argument is that insofar as the gay marriage movement thinks marriage is special, they should reconsider what they are doing. Otherwise, why push for this particular right? What makes it a right anyways? As for the function of marriage, gay relationships are naturally non reproductive. You have to use artificial means to do this, which is restricted to the more affluent class. So, unless gay marriages are going to automatically qualify for artificial reproduction, they are inherently not going to have the same capabilities of heterosexual couples. Besides, is artificial reproduction anywhere near as successful? Plus, affluence doesn't create good kids. Look at all the rich kids committing suicide and living horrible lives. Do you have any kind of evidence to support your claim that children from gay households are equally or better mentally, emotionally, and physically formed? If you can provide counter evidence/arguments to these two points, then I'll accept the position that gay marriage should be allowed at the federal level. If not, then it is immoral to force such an unproven and unsupported position on all of America. Keep it at the state level so people can still make choices about what kind of environment they live in in America. Otherwise, I just see this as deeply un American, something of a totalitarianism of the upper middle class. Precisely why we broke off from England in the first place. Finally, yes, it may look like conservativism always loses. But, that's only at the social, cultural level. In the end, these different institutions are only so good as they are at perpetuating themselves. So, if conservativism is always losing, have you wondered why it hasn't gone away by now? It's because it is so much more sustainable than liberalism, so it is always around to "lose" to liberalism; whereas as soon as liberalism wins, it kills itself. Look at Rome. Look at Europe. Look at the USSR. China may be a counter point, but they've been tearing themselves up to get where they are, so I think it is too soon to tell.

mattmaroon 18y ago

That's largely what existed in Cali previously (minus the group thing unfortunately). That wasn't good enough for 52% of the population. They seem to care about the semantics more than anything else.