I support the push for equal legal treatment, but I have a problem with the terminology. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman are not the same as a man and a woman. As Amy has pointed out so often, men and women are different. Calling each of these unions a marriage blurs the gender differences.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/04/18/legislator_on_g.html#comment-3682639">comment from goo
Calling each of these unions a marriage blurs the gender differences.
Ridiculous.
Does saying two gay people are dating "blur the line" for straight people?
Two consenting who want to commit to each other in a state-recognized way. That's what marriage is.
If you want to keep gays from marrying in your church -- or me, since I am not a god-believer -- have at it. To whimper that calling this marriage for everyone will mean anything is just silly and a weak way to justify keeping gays from having rights equal to the rest of us, which is disgusting.
Amy,I'm not debating the definition of dating and I am not expressing a church or religious angle. I am a numbers guy so my analogy is that of a square and rectangle. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't always a square. A marriage is a union of 2 people, but a union of people isn't always a marriage.
Goo
at April 18, 2013 8:32 AM
As I have said before, and Goo gets kinda close to this, I think equal treatment under the law makes a whole heckofalot of sense. But, I have a qualm with insisting that we call it "marriage." Rather, I would choose (if I were the Queen Grand PooBah of the world) to make legally recognized marriages civil (as in civic, as in pertaining to the state) unions... because that's what they are. There are people who are married for religious purposes, but do not register them with the state and are therefore, legally not married (usually this has to do with pensions, benefits, etc).
The rest I am okay with.
I should mention that my main gripe with using the term "marriage" is that it imposes upon various religious definitions of the same word... and doing it my way untangles the two instead of making them more tangled, and doesn't stick legislation in the realm of religion.
I'm sure there are other better ways, but if I were Queen Grand PooBah, well I'd have to make the decision myself and that's what I came up with :)
Shannon M. Howell
at April 18, 2013 10:22 AM
The state should not license gay marriages... nor straight marriages, nor any other type of relationship. People should define their own relationships, in legally binding contracts if they so choose, and call them "marriage" or whatever they believe is suitable; and other people should be free to approve of them or not, as they see fit.
Licensing gay marriage is a step in the wrong direction, deeper into the mire of government interference where it shouldn't be. Instead of seeking to have the government license gay relationships we should be seeking to have the government stop licensing heterosexual relationships.
Demanding that the government license gay marriage for "fairness" is like demanding that the government inflict the same injustices on women as it does on men in child support and custody disputes. It may seem fair - and getting the government to interfere more with one group may be easier than getting it to stop interfering with another - but it's still not right. We should define "fairness" as making things right, not making things equal.
Ken R
at April 18, 2013 1:25 PM
I agree that the state should only issue civil unions and let the individuals call them marriages if they so choose.
Unfortunately, marriage is now a legal term and there is simply no way that those diehard marrieds are going to accept the government calling their union anything but marriage. Since they are unlikely to part with the term, that means gays have to get the same thing.
Patrick, I agree with your first sentence, not the second. Would you call a union between a man and a woman a gay marriage? Why are there gay couples and lesbian couples? Aren't they the same thing?
I can accept a union of 2 people being referred to with any universal term except marriage. A marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Not every union of 2 people is a marriage.
There is an add/question in the margin as I type. It asks should "gay marriage" be legal. Why is it worded that way? Shouldn't it ask "Should marriage be legal for all couples?"
Changing the definition of marriage should not be the issue.
I support equal legal treatment for all couples desiring government acknowledgment. I do not support calling that legal union marriage.
Goo
at April 18, 2013 3:26 PM
Frankly, Goo, that sounds silly. You're all for gays and lesbians entering unions and having the same rights as any married couple, but you're passionately attached to a word and can't tolerate that word being applied to these unions, which (hypothetically speaking, if gay marriages are allowed) would be equal in all other respects.
If you had your way, it would be marriage in every conceivable way, but you just would prefer they call it a "stuffed artichoke" rather than "marriage."
Marriage is a common law term. Although I believe in God, the fact remains that I can't prove His existence. So, whatever religious views you or I have about any spiritual stamp placed upon marriage is all speculative.
The arguments for not calling it marriage all exist in the spiritual and hypothetical. There is no reason that exists in the concrete for denying gays and lesbians the same thing. If it bothers you that much, then no one can force you, or even penalize you, for insisting gays can't have a marriage, no matter what the law says, but you cannot support your position with any hard facts.
And they are called gay marriages because at present they're illegal in most states. This would distinguish it from a heterosexual marriage, which is allowed in every state. That's why it's called "gay marriage." Once it becomes legal in all states, I'm quite certain that gays and lesbians will feel no need to introduce themselves as a "gay married couple." Or refer to their marriage as a "gay marriage." They'll just say "We're married," and let it go at that.
Patrick
at April 18, 2013 4:10 PM
Calling each of these unions a marriage blurs the gender differences.
I suppose it could, for people who are easily confused.
JD
at April 18, 2013 5:03 PM
The problem with using the word marriage is that as far as the local, state, or federal government has codified the word marriage as opposed to "civil unions" in the law.
Depriving any couple of the rights of inheritance, tax burdens or benefits, and the rest depending on sex should be illegal.
Churches have a First Amendment right to marry a couple or not. But the civil union is a Tenth Amendment issue.
I see again the hint that government should not be involved in marriage. This is a ridiculous idea, one that exposes a total lack of reason on the part of the advocate.
Marriage, civil union, power of attorney, whatever method you use to bond your interests to another person MUST be recognized by the state apparatus in order to safeguard your status. Without the application of law, administered by said state, you cannot enter into contracts, inherit property, or even appear as next of kin in the most heartbreaking examples of familial exclusion.
While you must champion rights, you must also recognize that state powers matter the most in the exercise of those rights. You have no choice but to set up law so that the state actually does that equitably. The tribe has an enduring interest in the relationships of its braves.
I support the push for equal legal treatment, but I have a problem with the terminology. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman are not the same as a man and a woman. As Amy has pointed out so often, men and women are different. Calling each of these unions a marriage blurs the gender differences.
goo at April 18, 2013 6:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/04/18/legislator_on_g.html#comment-3682639">comment from gooCalling each of these unions a marriage blurs the gender differences.
Ridiculous.
Does saying two gay people are dating "blur the line" for straight people?
Two consenting who want to commit to each other in a state-recognized way. That's what marriage is.
If you want to keep gays from marrying in your church -- or me, since I am not a god-believer -- have at it. To whimper that calling this marriage for everyone will mean anything is just silly and a weak way to justify keeping gays from having rights equal to the rest of us, which is disgusting.
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2013 7:20 AM
Outstanding and truly entertaining.
Jeff at April 18, 2013 8:08 AM
Amy,I'm not debating the definition of dating and I am not expressing a church or religious angle. I am a numbers guy so my analogy is that of a square and rectangle. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't always a square. A marriage is a union of 2 people, but a union of people isn't always a marriage.
Goo at April 18, 2013 8:32 AM
As I have said before, and Goo gets kinda close to this, I think equal treatment under the law makes a whole heckofalot of sense. But, I have a qualm with insisting that we call it "marriage." Rather, I would choose (if I were the Queen Grand PooBah of the world) to make legally recognized marriages civil (as in civic, as in pertaining to the state) unions... because that's what they are. There are people who are married for religious purposes, but do not register them with the state and are therefore, legally not married (usually this has to do with pensions, benefits, etc).
The rest I am okay with.
I should mention that my main gripe with using the term "marriage" is that it imposes upon various religious definitions of the same word... and doing it my way untangles the two instead of making them more tangled, and doesn't stick legislation in the realm of religion.
I'm sure there are other better ways, but if I were Queen Grand PooBah, well I'd have to make the decision myself and that's what I came up with :)
Shannon M. Howell at April 18, 2013 10:22 AM
The state should not license gay marriages... nor straight marriages, nor any other type of relationship. People should define their own relationships, in legally binding contracts if they so choose, and call them "marriage" or whatever they believe is suitable; and other people should be free to approve of them or not, as they see fit.
Licensing gay marriage is a step in the wrong direction, deeper into the mire of government interference where it shouldn't be. Instead of seeking to have the government license gay relationships we should be seeking to have the government stop licensing heterosexual relationships.
Demanding that the government license gay marriage for "fairness" is like demanding that the government inflict the same injustices on women as it does on men in child support and custody disputes. It may seem fair - and getting the government to interfere more with one group may be easier than getting it to stop interfering with another - but it's still not right. We should define "fairness" as making things right, not making things equal.
Ken R at April 18, 2013 1:25 PM
I agree that the state should only issue civil unions and let the individuals call them marriages if they so choose.
Unfortunately, marriage is now a legal term and there is simply no way that those diehard marrieds are going to accept the government calling their union anything but marriage. Since they are unlikely to part with the term, that means gays have to get the same thing.
Patrick at April 18, 2013 2:04 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/04/18/legislator_on_g.html#comment-3682941">comment from PatrickExactly, Patrick.
Agree with you on all of that.
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2013 3:16 PM
Patrick, I agree with your first sentence, not the second. Would you call a union between a man and a woman a gay marriage? Why are there gay couples and lesbian couples? Aren't they the same thing?
I can accept a union of 2 people being referred to with any universal term except marriage. A marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Not every union of 2 people is a marriage.
There is an add/question in the margin as I type. It asks should "gay marriage" be legal. Why is it worded that way? Shouldn't it ask "Should marriage be legal for all couples?"
Changing the definition of marriage should not be the issue.
I support equal legal treatment for all couples desiring government acknowledgment. I do not support calling that legal union marriage.
Goo at April 18, 2013 3:26 PM
Frankly, Goo, that sounds silly. You're all for gays and lesbians entering unions and having the same rights as any married couple, but you're passionately attached to a word and can't tolerate that word being applied to these unions, which (hypothetically speaking, if gay marriages are allowed) would be equal in all other respects.
If you had your way, it would be marriage in every conceivable way, but you just would prefer they call it a "stuffed artichoke" rather than "marriage."
Marriage is a common law term. Although I believe in God, the fact remains that I can't prove His existence. So, whatever religious views you or I have about any spiritual stamp placed upon marriage is all speculative.
The arguments for not calling it marriage all exist in the spiritual and hypothetical. There is no reason that exists in the concrete for denying gays and lesbians the same thing. If it bothers you that much, then no one can force you, or even penalize you, for insisting gays can't have a marriage, no matter what the law says, but you cannot support your position with any hard facts.
And they are called gay marriages because at present they're illegal in most states. This would distinguish it from a heterosexual marriage, which is allowed in every state. That's why it's called "gay marriage." Once it becomes legal in all states, I'm quite certain that gays and lesbians will feel no need to introduce themselves as a "gay married couple." Or refer to their marriage as a "gay marriage." They'll just say "We're married," and let it go at that.
Patrick at April 18, 2013 4:10 PM
Calling each of these unions a marriage blurs the gender differences.
I suppose it could, for people who are easily confused.
JD at April 18, 2013 5:03 PM
The problem with using the word marriage is that as far as the local, state, or federal government has codified the word marriage as opposed to "civil unions" in the law.
Depriving any couple of the rights of inheritance, tax burdens or benefits, and the rest depending on sex should be illegal.
Churches have a First Amendment right to marry a couple or not. But the civil union is a Tenth Amendment issue.
Jim P. at April 18, 2013 6:57 PM
Jim's got it.
Patrick at April 19, 2013 1:31 AM
I see again the hint that government should not be involved in marriage. This is a ridiculous idea, one that exposes a total lack of reason on the part of the advocate.
Marriage, civil union, power of attorney, whatever method you use to bond your interests to another person MUST be recognized by the state apparatus in order to safeguard your status. Without the application of law, administered by said state, you cannot enter into contracts, inherit property, or even appear as next of kin in the most heartbreaking examples of familial exclusion.
While you must champion rights, you must also recognize that state powers matter the most in the exercise of those rights. You have no choice but to set up law so that the state actually does that equitably. The tribe has an enduring interest in the relationships of its braves.
Radwaste at April 19, 2013 6:28 AM
Leave a comment