Skip to main content

View Diary: Pure and Simple: Equal Rights (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No to Marriage yes to Union (none)
    I agree.  In reality you are correct.  The confusion comes from using the same word for two different things.  Therefore, change the word!  No Civil Marrriage.  Only Civil Union, open to all.
    •  Grow Up (none)
      The English language is awash in words with double, triple, quadruple meanings.

      If your problem is with the use of the word then go learn another language. I hear Esperanto is quite free of such ambiguities.

      "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I find the puppet on the left more to my liking." "Hey, there's one guy holding both puppets... SMACK!"

      by Anton Sirius on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 11:34:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why should the state give up the word? (none)
      The concept of marriage predates the modern split between religion and secular law.

      Governments have just as much claim to the word as religions do. Why don't religions make up a new word?

      As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, many secular people believe just as strongly in marriage as many religious people do. Redefining marriage as a wholly religious entity deprives them of the right to be married.

      As someone who has spiritual beliefs that do not include deferring to organized clergy for guidance, I would lose the ability to be married under your proposal. My wife and I would be quite upset.

      You want to do all of this to avoid recognizing same-sex marriages. But the truth is that same-sex marriages are not a redefinition of marriage. They're an extension of an existing tradition without changing what it means, and without invalidating any other marriages. The real threat to marriage is from those who would deny it to others, whether it's gay people or secular people.

      •  because (none)
        Because there is a better one.  Civil Union.
        •  No, that's a worse term (none)
          "Civil union" does not describe my relationship with my wife. "Marriage" does. Our relationship isn't about civil society. It's about a symbolic joining that goes far beyond civil society.

          Having just been married after being long-term partners for seven years, I can tell you that "marriage" has a meaning socially that goes beyond the legal recognition it bestows or any religious connotation. The word is important, and it should be up to ME to use it or not.

          You don't own the word "marriage," and neither do I. The state should remain neutral and define what marriage means civilly, as it does, and as the courts have done by recognizing same-sex marriage. Religions are then free to use the same word to refer to their traditions or to make up something else.

          •  You don't seem to grasp my point. (none)
            Your marriage is your business, in all of its manifestations but legal.  This is not an attack on marriage.  It is an attack on state sponsored marriage.  The state has a compelling reason to become involved in the legal aspect of union.  Saying that the legal aspect is covered by Civil Unions in no way prevents you from getting married.  You should just have to do both.  It is apples and oranges.  Civil Unions, the legal aspect needs to be regulated by the government.  Marriage should be separate from that and a matter of personal belief and cultural practice.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (145)
  • Community (70)
  • Baltimore (64)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Elections (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Racism (23)
  • Labor (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Media (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Science (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Environment (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site