Daily Kos

View Story | 51 comments

  •  This is not the first time I have heard (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Nina Katarina, rb608, philimus, Snakes on a White House, RickMassimo

    that argument, and I must admit it has a lot of intellectual heft and allure.

    However, it is politically unfeasable.  This is, for better or worse, a term that has achieved a world-wide meaning and status.  And we have to live with that.

    by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 08:55:56 AM PDT

    •  This is similar to the argument I always wait for (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      airshipjones, dannyinla, RickMassimo

      during debates about "gay marriage".  Inevitably the opponent says something like "Marriage is a sacred institution".  Fine, I agree.  The problem is that our government has in effect abandoned any pretense toward being the gatekeeper of that "sacredness".  To wit:

      1. The govt. lets you get married and divorced as many times as you want.
      1. The govt. doesn't care if you and your potential spouse share a religious faith, have different faiths, or are completely irreligious - and cannot refuse to allow you to marry even if your marriage violates the tenets of your own religion.
      1. The govt. allows a "marriage ceremony" to be performed by (depending on the state) not only clerics, but mayors, judges, and other minor officials.
      1. The govt. doesn't care if you marry someone 3 generations removed from you or if you have only known one another for 24 hours.

      The current system allows the Muslim mayor of Anytown to perform a 5-minute marriage ceremony for an 18 year old evangelical Christian marrying an 85 year-old athiest on his 6th wife after a 1-day courtship, and the government currently allows them to get divorced in a year then go back and do it all again.  Once you've allowed that, the idea that the government is setting any standards for "sacredness" or "traditional marriage" is pretty absurd.

      I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. - Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC

      by Marinesquire on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:25:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  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