A Compromise on "The Compromise"

[JoeyKnothead]

Many folks put forth a compromise whereby all legal unions of folks should be considered "civil unions".

This compromise has been rejected by a good bunch of folks, so I propose another'n...

Let's let the government keep the term 'marriage' for such legal unions, and ask / require that all other organizations who consider such to place their unions under the banner of "civil unions". This would preserve the cultural and historical significance of the word marriage, while allowing others to offer some form of 'marriage'. Of course all rights and privileges would be the same under the legal term, and those folks who object to certain marriages would of course be allowed to continue to object within legal boundaries.

Is this proposal reasonable? Why or why not?

[lastcallhall]

A church that is involved with gay marriage really should not be called a church. If they don't mind sin could I show up and do drugs or show up with my girlfriend when everyone knows my wife? A strong Bible church can't condone sin.

From where I sit this is an internal squabble between the various groups calling themselves Christians. You assume that homosexuality is a sin. Other Christians have come to different conclusions. The point is, that those religious groups, whom you condemn, will perform marriages. If they perform same-sex marriages, should those marriages be given the same recognition from society as any other church sanctioned marriage.

Metropolitan Community Church

If you take the sin aspect out of the coversation for a second I still would have the concern that with a law passage the legally recognizes a same sex marriage in addition to the passage of the hate crimes bill that would create a protected group. The church would be open to lawsuit and just that aspect alone is enough to oppose this.

[McCulloch]

If you take the sin aspect out of the coversation for a second I still would have the concern that with a law passage the legally recognizes a same sex marriage in addition to the passage of the hate crimes bill that would create a protected group. The church would be open to lawsuit and just that aspect alone is enough to oppose this.

In Canada, churches are explicitly protected. They may refuse to perform any marriage for any reason.

[Ragna]

Many folks put forth a compromise whereby all legal unions of folks should be considered "civil unions".

This compromise has been rejected by a good bunch of folks, so I propose another'n...

Let's let the government keep the term 'marriage' for such legal unions, and ask / require that all other organizations who consider such to place their unions under the banner of "civil unions". This would preserve the cultural and historical significance of the word marriage, while allowing others to offer some form of 'marriage'. Of course all rights and privileges would be the same under the legal term, and those folks who object to certain marriages would of course be allowed to continue to object within legal boundaries.

Is this proposal reasonable? Why or why not?

In my opinion it is totally reasonable, if all rights are the same, a name is just a name.

I however still wonder why legally religious people don't want to call it marriage if it's a gay marriage. It's like saying they don't want male nurses to be called nurses because the word was originally feminine. Semantic extension, even with a qualifier before the noun. I personally don't think in legal terms they should call it differently, but if this were the decision I wouldn't claim anything more, as words are tools for us to use and it would still be the same.

For religious homosexuals, it's up to their religion. I have heard of some Christian groups that openly accept homosexuality and celebrate gay marriage. If another group doesn't, then they shouldn't go into that group. It would be like trying to eat pork in a Muslim party.

[nygreenguy]

My contention is that we should "brush aside" those who seek to deny others the use of a word with such cultural and historic significance.

But you are trying to force how you apply the cultural and historical significance of the term on others who may not share the same view. And by saying the government should open this up to all, essentially means the government is taking a side on a cultural issue.

As sin is typically considered some kind of transgression against a god, I propose that until such time one can show a god has an opinion on such, that such opinion be held as just that.

A religious organization should never have to prove anything to anyone about its beliefs. A religion can say whatever it wants, and by forcing them to "prove it" it means that religious must justify their positions to the government. Clearly this is an issue.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 21:

If you take the sin aspect out of the coversation for a second I still would have the concern that with a law passage the legally recognizes a same sex marriage in addition to the passage of the hate crimes bill that would create a protected group...

No one said anything about passing a hate crimes bill. It is my contention this is an effort to muddy the waters.

I do find it telling though that so many religious folks would fear hate crimes legislation.

The church would be open to lawsuit and just that aspect alone is enough to oppose this.

It is my contention that no entity should be immune to lawsuits - where the judicial system is expected to "sort it out".

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 24:

My contention is that we should "brush aside" those who seek to deny others the use of a word with such cultural and historic significance.

But you are trying to force how you apply the cultural and historical significance of the term on others who may not share the same view. And by saying the government should open this up to all, essentially means the government is taking a side on a cultural issue.

I can dig it.

My argument is that in order to solve this "problem", I propose we offer the very "solution" put forth by so many who object to gay marriages right back to those who've proposed this rejected solution.

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>

part of that deeper cultural and religious meaning is the implied approval of all members of the culture; 'married' is a respectable, religiously approved, culturally approved, state of being. To be recognized as 'married' means that everybody has to approve of, and acknowledge, that you are not only legally entitled to the civil rights, but morally entitled to the respect of everyone in the society in which you dwell.

The bolded part simply does not follow. Granting marriage rights to gays might, and I would agree it does, indicate some kind of approval on those relationships by the government, and could lead to wider respect for and acceptance of those relationships on the part of members of society.


You have not shown that it follows that everyone as individuals or subgroups of society will be forced to give this respect.

I have given two examples of precisely that: the government being forced to 'respect' and abide by the definition of marriage as given by the government (as it would be, if government sanctioned marriage was extended to gay couples). One was a century ago, true---but another was only a couple of years ago. My contention here is that it has happened, it still happens, and gay rights activist (not all, but enough) agendas include that level of coercion be placed upon those who don't believe that gays can be married in the sight of God.

Please excuse me if, given the history of my own people and experiences of my own family, I think of all these assurances that the government won't force my faith--and other faiths--to comply with this as being less than comforting. what I SEE here is a group of people who are either too naive to play with grownups, or hiding something. "I'm from the government. I'm here to help you" is a statement that most people see as ironically scary...and for a good reason.

<If I could rephrase, it seems to me that you want to have some kind of control on what "society approves of." None of us have this control. The best we can do is to persuade others to offer or forego their approval.

The government acknowledging marriage rights for gays might have the effect of persuading some people to approve of those relationships but it in no way forces that approval.

I see that there is a fundamental disconnect here; I'm not trying to control what anybody else thinks or does; hence the way I phrased my proposal. It puts the opinion of marriage smack dab where it belongs; in the hearts and minds of the people entering into it.

I am saying that I don't want the government forcing ME to change the way I express my beliefs. I want the government to stay way far away from me.

Because when it does start dealing in things of faith and religious belief, people get hurt; they get hurt bad. Families get destroyed. Communities are destroyed..and the results last through generations.

My idea gives everybody what they say they want, and keeps the government out of my business--and that is the only thing I'm after.

<snip to here>

<Now, we should get back to dianaiad's expressed concern that using the word marriage to apply to gay relationships will inevitably lead to her church being forced to acknowledge or perhaps perform gay marriages.

For now, I will simply repeat that, despite the history of the 19th and early 20th century that she points, this fear is pretty much unfounded. I will never say never, but I will say it is very, very, very, very unlikely that any church will be forced to perform gay marriages.

"perform?" Probably not. Recognize? Oh, yeah. I can absolutely see some LDS gay couple suing the LDS church because they aren't allowed to live in married housing at BYU, or that even dating one another would get them kicked out of BYU. there's also the 'unforseen consequences...' It has happened...and don't forget that we aren't talking about early 20th century events alone. We are also talking about early 21st century events.

<I willd point out, as I did on the other thread, that government's are much, much less likely in general to force an individual or group to actively engage in a particular practice than they are to prevent a particular practice from being engaged in.

I was too busy to address this in your other post, but...your differentiation is not really helpful when the law you claim 'prevents' something is put in place soley to break up families already formed. that's not a prevention--that's an 'actively engage..' that is, it forced current polygamists to 'actively engage' in monogamy--even when the group was actually obeying the law (as in the FLDS compound, where a legal marriage was contracted only with wife #1,and the rest of the wives were not married in a state recognized marriage.)

As you can see, it's closer than you would think.

[lastcallhall]

From Post 21:

If you take the sin aspect out of the coversation for a second I still would have the concern that with a law passage the legally recognizes a same sex marriage in addition to the passage of the hate crimes bill that would create a protected group...

No one said anything about passing a hate crimes bill. It is my contention this is an effort to muddy the waters.

I do find it telling though that so many religious folks would fear hate crimes legislation.

The church would be open to lawsuit and just that aspect alone is enough to oppose this.

It is my contention that no entity should be immune to lawsuits - where the judicial system is expected to "sort it out".

I am not trying to muddy the waters but in my mind with the push by some of my liberal politician friends I think the hate crimes and gay marriage laws go hand in hand. My opposition (not to get to far off subject) to hate crimes bill is that it will get churches sued because then you are discriminating against a protected group but I don't think there is any difference in crimes. What I mean is if you bash anyones head with a metal pipe no matter why you did it the punishment should be the same. You obviously at that point have anger issues and are not right in the head. The hate crimes bill will be a sword to attack the church through the liberal courts and bankrupt the large churches. I know this may get applause from some people but it scares me to death

[dianaiad]

There seems to be a great bunch of folks who seek to be married, however, there's also a great bunch of folks who object to such. These folks have typically presented a "great compromise" that entails the use of the term "civil unions". Unfortunately, such a proposal has been rejected by an opposing great number of folks. So then, since the compromise is so "great", then let's ask those offering the compromise to do the compromising.

It's kinda like how ya split up a bag of refer that two folks went in on. The one guy splits it up, the other'n picks between the two.

Now that the original compromise has been presented, the one to which the original compromise is offered now says, "So then, ya'll take the new term".

The problem, Joey, is this: by suggesting your version, you are claiming, first, that there IS a moral/ethical/religious aspect to 'marriage' that 'civil unions' don't have, second..that it is that extra aspect of marriage that you want for gays, and third, you want to reserve the word so that those who have a problem with gays being married have to acknowledge that they are--with the extras over and above the legal rights.

[dianaiad]

Many folks put forth a compromise whereby all legal unions of folks should be considered "civil unions".

This compromise has been rejected by a good bunch of folks, so I propose another'n...

Let's let the government keep the term 'marriage' for such legal unions, and ask / require that all other organizations who consider such to place their unions under the banner of "civil unions". This would preserve the cultural and historical significance of the word marriage, while allowing others to offer some form of 'marriage'. Of course all rights and privileges would be the same under the legal term, and those folks who object to certain marriages would of course be allowed to continue to object within legal boundaries.

Is this proposal reasonable? Why or why not?

In my opinion it is totally reasonable, if all rights are the same, a name is just a name.

I however still wonder why legally religious people don't want to call it marriage if it's a gay marriage. It's like saying they don't want male nurses to be called nurses because the word was originally feminine. Semantic extension, even with a qualifier before the noun. I personally don't think in legal terms they should call it differently, but if this were the decision I wouldn't claim anything more, as words are tools for us to use and it would still be the same.

For religious homosexuals, it's up to their religion. I have heard of some Christian groups that openly accept homosexuality and celebrate gay marriage. If another group doesn't, then they shouldn't go into that group. It would be like trying to eat pork in a Muslim party.

many religious people think that the term 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron. Gays cannot marry, if the definition of marriage, within a specific belief system, is restricted to male/female relationships. When that is so, then gays can join together in all sorts of ways to get the legal/civil rights married couples get--and that's fine--but they can no more be 'married' than a fully functional male can give birth. It's not a matter of 'we hate you and think you are sinning so we won't let you get married.' It's....deciding to call a daffodil a nutcracker; you can use the word, but no matter how much you try, that daffodil isn't going to crack a nut or fight mice in a ballet. To these folks, it's just...not marriage. Sorry.

I'm one of those folks. To me, marriage, before God, can be eternal--forever. Male/female combinations that go on eternally. However, those who do not share my beliefs should not be held to them, and if their definition of marriage includes gay couples, fine.

My problem---and my ONLY problem, is that history has proven that once the government gets into defining marriage, it enforces that definition upon everybody; even--or perhaps especially--those who disagree with it. It does so harshly and violently.

I am simply attempting to protect myself and my beliefs, not to deny gays rights--even the right to be married.