I have a question regarding gay marriage/civil unions

[Connonym]

A friend of mine was arguing that "marriage" was a church term and should be respected as such. I don't agree with that but it did make me think -- if this is a bibilical concept and by its very nature religious, why don't we have civil unions for straight people who eschew religion? If marriage is solely religious I don't want any part of it.

If that fucking word "marriage" is so important to the lunatics I'd like to opt out and have civil union be the default and make people jump through the church hoops if that's what they want to do. But even then why are we letting religion dictate law?

I don't know if this makes any sense because I'm a bit stoned on vicodin (fell on the ice this morning :( ) but I'm still boggled at the whole notion of being against gay marriage. I just don't understand their opposition.

[unpossibles]

1. I don't know. I had always thought that "marriage" is a more generic term

like how two things can be 'married' together in a more figurative sense. Did it originate with religion? It's kind of hard to separate from humanity's past, I would think.

I also do not understand the opposition.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. No, you're absolutely right

people can, and often do, have non-religious "marriages". Go down to City Hall and get hitched.

The same option should be available to same-sex couples. Churches should be able to confer "marriage" on a couple, but the State should only recognize a partnership.

[Solon]

3. The Etymology of it gives a partial answer...

Middle English mariage, from Old French mariage, from marier “to marry”, from Latin maritare “to marry”, literally “give a husband to”, from maritus “married man, husband”, derived probably from Proto-Indo-European *mari-, perhaps a feminine stem of *mer-yo- “young man or young woman” (hence *mari-to- “given a wife”), if not somehow connected with mas “male” (stem mar-).

Marriage, in the historical context, was a property transfer, the property of the Father, the bride, was given to the Husband, sometimes with a dowry, sometimes not. I don't see anything religious about this.

[guitar man]

4. If it's true that

"marriage" is a church/religious term, then government has no business issuing "marriage" licenses. That being the case, government would have no business granting or denying such unions based on religious dogma either.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

5. In the United States, marriage is a legal union, which can also be religious.

The majority of straight people are not going to want their marriages downgraded to a civil union.

And if straight people can be married, but gay people can only get civil unions, then they are still 2nd class citizens. Separate but equal is never equal.

[Left Is Write]

13. Bingo.

And if straight people can be married, but gay people can only get civil unions, then they are still 2nd class citizens. Separate but equal is never equal.

This is exactly it. If I can be married, you should get to be too. Period. I am not better or more deserving than you.

[hfojvt]

6. I don't think they would eschew that

since they do not approve of mastication.

[deadparrot]

7. Call it what you will.

I say allow any two people to enter into a "civil union." I only say "civil union" because marriage has a romantic context to it. Straight couples, gay couples, or even just two friends or relatives who want to trust the other person with their resources, personal affairs, etc. :shrug:

[taterguy]

8. No straight man's ass will be safe if gays can marry

That's not a sentiment that I agree with but that's why people are opposed to gay marriage. All the so-called arguments are just attempts to preserve the sanctity of a straight man's anus being a one-way street.

Sorry if that's too crude and too honest.

[skygazer]

9. Historically, marriage has had less to do with religion than with civil issues

Marriage came about as an institution in order to clarify issues of property ownership and paternity, which was important because of hereditary lands and titles. It has never been strictly a religious term - virtually all societies have come up with some sort of marital customs some of which have been tied to their religious beliefs and some of which have not. But the underlying reasons for marriage have always been about property.

That said, I agree with you that it's absurd to have religion dictate law. Whenever someone tells me that some law or another is at odds with biblical teaching, I always point out that our laws are based on the Constitution not on the bible.

[noamnety]

10. It's a contract term

churches got involved historically because priests were typically the only person educated enough in villages to read and write - so they were the ones recording contracts, once contract law advanced to the point where written contracts were the norm.

Then they added their own religious ceremonial twists to the ceremony.

And now they are trying to claim ownership of it.

But it's not a primarily religious ceremony - neither historically nor legally. If you take away the written contract and the registering of it with the state, doesn't matter what ceremony the church performs, it ain't a marriage. It's the civil part that makes it a marriage.

[Connonym]

11. That makes it all the more exasperating

I don't see how anyone can look at this issue and not see that it's discrimination. Let the churches do whatever churches do but the law is the law. The bible is not the law.

[trof]

12. I was married in an episcopal church. After the service

we had to go back in the church office and sign/have witnessed the STATE authorization.

Personally, I would have been fine with a justice of the peace, 'civil marriage', but Miz t. was otherwise inclined.
;-)

[NMMNG]

14. "Marriage" is not a religious term

My mother and father have both been married three times yet none of their ceremonies were performed by clergy or in a church. Nonetheless they are legally married. There's actually a reason the term "legally married" exists (and has anyone ever heard of the term "religiously married"?)

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. Yes, there is "religiously married" - I have friends who are not legally married,

but who are religiously married. Some straight, some gay.

Marriage is indeed a religious term, at least in origin, though it has lost that sense - except in America in which secular and Christian are so often intertwined in such bizarre ways.

[Liberal Veteran]

16. I'd be willing to bet good money that your friend.....

...would vote against civil unions for gay people in the privacy of the voting booth.

I've rarely met anyone that made that kind of argument that would willingly extend civil recognition to gay couples.

That being said, there isn't a such creature as a "civil union" for most straight couples in America because civil unions are simply not the equivalent to marriage in America. You can have a non-religious ceremony, but to get the equivalent benefits/responsibilities/rights as marriage, you are going to have to get civil marriage. Even if you got a civil union in America, without the "marriage license", you are limited to whatever legal rights and responsibilities are under the jurisdiction of that state or municipality that the union was made in. They cannot provide federal recognition and other communities are under no obligation to recognize your union.

By the same token, ANY church can perform the religious ceremony of marriage (or for that matter, just about anyone could perform the ceremony), but it doesn't make it a legally recognized marriage.

What that all boils down to is that marriage has two different meanings: one is religious, the other legal.

The notion that the word "marriage" is somehow the property and province of religion is an absurdity both in definition and practice, since our system already allows municipal entities to marry people.

In effect, the civil union/marriage topic argued that way makes no sense given that marriage has not been the sole province of the church for many many decades.

From my viewpoint as a gay man, I agree with you that it would be nice if we just called that license a civil union and called a ceremony a marriage with the latter not being recognized by law without the former, but not a requirement of civil unions. As far as I am concerned, my boyfriend and I are married.....we just lack civil contract afforded to straight couples. And if I felt like it, I could get married in a church tomorrow...wouldn't be legal in the US, but if it is solely a church term, then any church should be allowed to marry us and we would be married, legal or not.