So? Don't insist on calling it a "marriage"

[bao-bao]

Where the problem lies is in the insistence to use the word marriage. DonтАЩt push the up-turned noses of the indignant into it and itтАЩll have a better chance of being accepted by those who are willing to live and let live. ItтАЩs still not the majority, but itтАЩs a growing number each generation. Ignorance and a lack of education is still (again) the culprit, in all truth.

If it were presented and promoted as the obvious case of civil rights that is actually is it would have a better chance of passing. Let the churches keep their ceremonies and let them limit their blessings for тАЬmarriageтАЭ to ceremonies they perform in their places of worshipтАж who gives a sh*t??

The key element that is being bandied about should be the equal rights тАУ and responsibilities тАУ of marriage as recognized in the US today; nothing more, nothing less. Call it a Civil Union, call it Partnership, call it DPsтАж just donтАЩt call it marriage.

Few churches (and to my knowledge no major religions) in the US тАЬofficiallyтАЭ perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, but segments of some religions perform ceremonies that recognize the joining of two people as one, sometimes to the chagrin of the main religious bodies.

When logic wins out тАУ and I believe it will, although possibly not in my lifetime тАУ there will be plenty of places (and probably any number of churches) thatтАЩll want in on it. Have the ceremony there.

ItтАЩs really just semantics, isn't it? When major department store chains are already cashing in on тАЬDomestic PartnerтАЭ wedding registries and Hallmark has a line of same-sex тАЬcommitmentтАЭ cards, you know itтАЩs just a word game. DonтАЩt use the wrong word and (hopefully soon) enjoy the rights, as well everyone should.

(Edited to correct a wording error in the last paragraph)

Precisely my point in the neighbouring topic:


I have met several gay men that have expressed their view that gays should not be allowed to marry. Their argument seems based on emotion (religion) rather than logic.

Equally, the argument that "marriage" is the only acceptable term, and that Civil Union / Civil Partnership is unacceptable seems not only to be based purely on emotion but to be extremely short-sighted (even, dare I say it, bigoted); had such alternative terms been used it is at least possible that they may have been acceptable to homo and heterosexuals alike.


The same arguments that once made biracial marriage a crime are used in gay marriage.

I hardly think so; those arguments were obviously based on racial, not physical/biological differences, and were resolved when it was decided (at least in theory) that all races/colours were essentially the same. The arguments differentiating between the sexes are based on clearly visible (in most cases) and undeniable differences. Unless you are saying that there are no such differences, or that such differences are so minor that there is no need for separate toilets, separate athletic events (currently horse riding is the only "mixed" event in the Olympics), etc, etc, your argument is fatally flawed.

Great post bao-bao and one that I am in total agreement with. For the record, I also have no disagreement whatsoever with anything stated in GF's post above either.


Cheers,



George.

As this thread and the one on "Obama wins and so do the bigots" seem to be converging in their discussion on the topic of gay marriage, perhaps it's time for some thread consolidation?

[Marsilius]

Where the problem lies is in the insistence to use the word marriage.

My partner and I - after more than 18 years together (now 21) - had a UK civil partnership in April 2006. Being a legalistic sort of guy, I consistently thereafter used such words as "civil partnership" and "had a civil partnership ceremony". But I was the only one! Everyone we know always refers to our "marriage" and I have now given up and conform to their usage.

Why do people do that? Possible ideas: (1) all the guests (more than 90% were heterosexual) were, by the fact that they were invited and accepted the invitation, predisposed to the idea of such a ceremony and hence, I guess, more liberal than average and unlikely to quibble about the distinction, (2) "civil partnership" and "when you had your civil partnership ceremony" are real mouthfuls - it's just far easier for us and others to say "marriage" or "when you got married".

By the way, the reason we "got married" was purely practical. Unlike the USA (as detailed by another poster on the "Obama wins and so do the bigots" thread), the UK now makes no distinction in terms of the practical benefits (tax, inheritance, etc.) that are offered to married/civil partnership couples. The only concession to the bigots was not to offend them by using their "special" term.

And, by the way, given how the UK's Conservative Party regularly bangs on these days about planning to offer extra support to "families" if they get into power, I wrote to David Cameron to explain my status and ask how he defines a "family"? I assumed that it would be couples with children (and quite possibly only married couples with children, too) - but was amazed to get a reply stating that, having entered a civil partnership, the Conservatives considered me and my partner a legitimate "family" too! I still won't be voting for them, mind you, but it has to be some sort of progress!

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

good post bao-bao. In fact this concept of "marriage " is only fairly recent. Even in Biblical times there was no such thing or wording as "marriage". There was a ceremony..a commitment to each other which is a lovely concept.

Many years ago before there was any talk of gays and lesbians being able to have a "commitment" ceremony..for legal reasons..I can think of at least 3 friends whose lives were shattered when their partner died and the estate went to relatives..and always those sort of relatives who hated the person because he was gay, but had no qualms grabbing the cash.

I was actually quite shocked with the result in California .

I think you are right..forget the frigging "marriage" word..it's the legal apect that's important (along with the sentimentality of those who love a ceremony)

PS: I'm available