You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

The reality is that in the eyes of the state. All Marriages are Civil Unions [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-08 09:12 AM
Original message
The reality is that in the eyes of the state. All Marriages are Civil Unions
Advertisements [?]
They bind couples together in a legal compact assigning joint rights and responsibilities. They carry not a whit of sacramental meaning. The word "marriage" is used by the state by simple and historical convention,

The problem is that within the realm of religion "marriage" has spiritual meaning and the vows spoken and the commitments made are deeply spiritual (at least in the moment...tragic though that may be), Now I don't think for a second that my marriage or anyone elses is threatened by same sex marriage. I think for people of faith however, they perceive same sex marriage as encroachment not so much on their rights, but on the relevance of their faith in an increasingly secularized world. The problem is that they want the state to enforce special protections for what is a religious issue. Ultimately I think it springs less from being anti-gay, then it does from the same frame as Intelligent Design and School Prayer. the focus in all these instances is really about state acknowledgment of tribal relevance more than it is about anything else,

They perceive that they have no other institution to rely on for the protection of their "tribe".

It is not simply that they are anti-gay (because a good portion of those who voted yes on Prop 8 are not...thousgh most assuredly a good number were). It is that they concerned about losing relevance. The problem is that the state should not afford any special protections or rights based on religion. The religious should not demand that the state protect it. Sacramental protection and orthodoxy is the responsibly of ecclesiastical authority and they can only impose those sacraments, by whatever name, on its own adherents. They should not ask the state to impose it on non-adherents.

I think some who support Gay Marriage might be missing some of the context of what the religious sense about this, What would be the reaction if the state started performing other sacramental tasks? Baptism. Communion? Last Rites? To the religious, marriage is no different. Well the religious would be up in arms about it because it demeans the value of those sacraments and it has no business encroaching on the sacred. They make no distinction for marriage because for them it is the same fundamental issue. The state should not take away the religious distinctive of marriage to satisfy a special set of people desire for "equality" .

I personally think this is a battle over semantics. Gays don't like the words "civil union" because it seems second class. Religionists want to protect the word "marriage" because it carries for the religious, deeply spiritual and sacramental value.

Proponents need to be sensitive to the perception that the adamance on the semantic front seems to the religious to be intentionally destructive and demeaning to what they hold as sacred. It is perceived as scornful of the entire religious construct. Proponent The religious need to quite asking the state to enforce spiritual belief about marriage and religious understanding about homosexuality on those who do not share that construct.

Calling religious people 'anti-gay' and bigots is overly simplistic. The religious have to find a way to separate the sacred and the secular, but those who who advocate for equality needs to find a way to let them do it. That night be accomplished by emphasizing that what is being sought is "equality in the eyes of the state"

It is my perception that "Civil Unions" are acceptable to 75% of the population, it is the term "marriage" that is where the battle line is drawn.

Perhaps the only way to resolve this is call it "Secular Marriage". (which is really what we are talking about anyway, but it conveys "marriage in the eyes of the state". "Sacramental marriage" thus would be reserved to adherents of the sect. If a sect wants to allow gays to marry under their religious laws, that should be up to the sect without interference.

Any construction that does not contain the word "secular" as distinct from sacramental is a non-starter for many people of faith...just as "union" as distinct from "marriage" is a non-starter for proponents.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -The reality is that in the eyes of the state. All Marriages are Civil Unions Perky  Nov-08-08 09:12 AM   #0 
  - So religious people are against anyone getting married at City Hall?  crappyjazz   Nov-08-08 09:17 AM   #1 
  - Yes, in fact. When I first came up with the idea of Civil Unions for everybody, I found that Fundies  cryingshame   Nov-08-08 09:36 AM   #8 
  - I think Opposotion to Civil Unions is limited to about 25% of the religious  Perky   Nov-08-08 09:51 AM   #12 
  - Many of my DH's family didn't consider our civil ceremony  OurVotesCount-Ohio   Nov-08-08 11:08 AM   #27 
  - i disagree that people who voted for prop 8 aren't anti-gay  kagehime   Nov-08-08 09:20 AM   #2 
  - Well-reasoned  kennetha   Nov-08-08 09:25 AM   #3 
  - The Religious Reich would fight that tooth and nail  skepticscott   Nov-08-08 09:31 AM   #5 
  - You are wrong. Fundies believe TRUE marriage is performed by the Church and don't  cryingshame   Nov-08-08 09:34 AM   #7 
     - The flaw in your argument is  skepticscott   Nov-08-08 11:13 AM   #28 
  - It should require two actions, the religious imprimatur  RichardRay   Nov-08-08 09:49 AM   #10 
  - Amen.  thecatburgler   Nov-08-08 10:10 AM   #17 
  - The company here I work just published a 'Total Compensation'  RichardRay   Nov-08-08 10:16 AM   #20 
  - Totally. People who "shack up" or stay single get nothing.  marimour   Nov-08-08 10:15 AM   #19 
  - Yep - absolutely NONE. n/t  RichardRay   Nov-08-08 10:16 AM   #21 
  - THANK YOU! Rarel y does anyone point out the  amyrose2712   Nov-08-08 03:11 PM   #42 
  - Well I don't like it. I say screw that.  Pithlet   Nov-08-08 01:18 PM   #30 
     - Ease up.... I used the term "civil marriage" with good reason  Perky   Nov-08-08 02:26 PM   #34 
     - Well, ease up. I wasn't responding to you. n/t  Pithlet   Nov-08-08 02:59 PM   #39 
     - Yeah. *No one* should have to give up the terminology.  Orsino   Nov-08-08 06:22 PM   #49 
  - i agree with a lot of this.  marimour   Nov-08-08 09:28 AM   #4 
  - What if some gay people would like to take their vows before god?  crappyjazz   Nov-08-08 09:39 AM   #9 
     - Are you talking about metaphysically or by clergy?  Perky   Nov-08-08 09:57 AM   #15 
     - If they want an officiant just find one that will do it and have at it.  RichardRay   Nov-08-08 10:19 AM   #22 
        - Well there is a legal requirement that people who want to bevome a union  Perky   Nov-08-08 10:28 AM   #25 
           - As long as the union has no standing in the eyes of the state  RichardRay   Nov-08-08 10:30 AM   #26 
     - I agree, but there are clergy who will marry gays "before god." I am not Catholic and no Catholic  No Elephants   Nov-08-08 10:20 AM   #23 
     - You dont need a church to take your vows before god and there are churches that will do it.  marimour   Nov-08-08 10:21 AM   #24 
     - No problem. There are quite a number of churches that would accommodate them  eridani   Nov-08-08 08:24 PM   #51 
  - Totally agree. Although I prefer Civil Unions for everybody and ditching the word Marriage  cryingshame   Nov-08-08 09:32 AM   #6 
  - Religious officials performing marriages are generally licensed by the state.  suston96   Nov-08-08 09:49 AM   #11 
  - But the state provides the marriage license,  Perky   Nov-08-08 09:56 AM   #13 
  - But the state provides the marriage license,  Perky   Nov-08-08 09:56 AM   #14 
  - I don't care what you call it, as long as it is called the same for EVERYone. No one used the term  No Elephants   Nov-08-08 09:59 AM   #16 
  - I agree with you 100%  damkira   Nov-08-08 10:13 AM   #18 
  - kicking for more dialog  Perky   Nov-08-08 12:38 PM   #29 
  - The reality is some citizens can marry and some cannot.  TexasObserver   Nov-08-08 01:21 PM   #31 
  - Yes. What I was trying to say only so much better.  Pithlet   Nov-08-08 01:29 PM   #33 
  - It is not a battle over semantics.  Pithlet   Nov-08-08 01:27 PM   #32 
  - "Marriage is not a religious union. It is a legal contract. That is a fact"  Perky   Nov-08-08 02:38 PM   #36 
     - Based on the fact that it's a legal contract.  Pithlet   Nov-08-08 02:56 PM   #38 
     - Look. The thing is  Pithlet   Nov-08-08 03:26 PM   #43 
        - Wow, Pithlet, great job hanging in there to make the point. I was  lib_wit_it   Nov-09-08 03:44 AM   #52 
           - Thanks.  Pithlet   Nov-09-08 01:20 PM   #53 
  - "What's in a name?  yowzayowzayowza   Nov-08-08 02:33 PM   #35 
  - I am not going to pander to believers by pretending there is any reason to oppose gay marriage...  Deep13   Nov-08-08 02:39 PM   #37 
  - "Marriage is a civil contract" --Brigham Young  nichomachus   Nov-08-08 03:01 PM   #40 
  - Gay people don't like "Civil Unions" not because it "seems second class" but  tandot   Nov-08-08 03:08 PM   #41 
  - and if those issues were overcome in the context of "civil Unions"?  Perky   Nov-08-08 03:33 PM   #44 
     - I am actually straight and married here in CA and I would be totally fine  tandot   Nov-08-08 03:57 PM   #45 
  - Simply put, "marriage" is not a word that belongs to religions.  Left Is Write   Nov-08-08 04:20 PM   #46 
  - I understand the argument and I think it is sound. The problem is that religious people  Perky   Nov-08-08 07:14 PM   #50 
  - but, but, but.... a civil union, as some states have for gays, is not the same as a marriage of an  electron_blue   Nov-08-08 05:13 PM   #47 
  - Well, it's *part* of The Reality, anyway.  Orsino   Nov-08-08 06:21 PM   #48 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC