Daily Kos

View Story | 51 comments

  •  I agree with the common use (0+ / 0-)

    part of your comment.  I do not foresee the day when "civil unioned" people are referred to by any term other than married.  At the same time, I think it possible to revise the terminology on state documents to something more religiously neutral than "Marriage License".

    When the oak is felled the whole forest echoes with its fall, but a hundred acorns are sown in silence by an unnoticed breeze. -Thomas Carlyle

    by rb608 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:16:20 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  At the outset I disagree that (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      rb608

      "marriage" is a necessarily religious term.  It is no more religious than the word "communion" or the word "confirmation."  Simply put it is a word that identifies two separate institutions, that of civil marriage and of a religious ceremony.

      by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:19:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Undeniably true (0+ / 0-)

        but I approached the diary initially from the perspective that we have no power over the church to revise their rites; but we do have (theoretically) the power to insist on religiously neutral language in our laws.  

        Inasmuch as the state use has grown to be sometimes synonymous with the religious use of the word, I postulated it might be time for the state to find another way to describe its recognition of the union.

        When the oak is felled the whole forest echoes with its fall, but a hundred acorns are sown in silence by an unnoticed breeze. -Thomas Carlyle

        by rb608 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 11:19:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 51 comments