How about Marriage vs marriage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage has always been an economic rather than a religious ritual. For me it has no religious relevance. So no capital m necessary for me.

But would you deny Kim Davis a capital so she could comfort herself that her licenses are only for marriage and it's up to clergy to perform Marriages?

I don't believe we should accommodate bigots in their bigotry.

But if it allowed her to keep her beliefs to herself, it would have prevented those acts we consider bigoted. Let her believe as she wishes -- the First Amendment guarantees that -- as long as she does not restrict the rights of others. I (OP) was just looking for an accommodation that recognizes that we are really speaking of two different notions of marriage.

You need to read the First Amendment. Ms. Davis is allowed to keep her beliefs and notions to herself, which has nothing to do with the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Marriage is a civil institution governed by civil laws which require a license issued by a civil authority. Why does the rest of the US need to "accommodate" her in any way. Do we need to accommodate polygamists and their notions with some absurd artifice?

[takoma]

Alright, I ran an idea up the flagpole (using my iPad, on which I don't happen to be signed in), and obviously nobody saluted. I'm no Catholic, but a liberal atheist who totally disagrees with Davis's actions. But I would like to see us moving together rather than apart, so I was hoping for a way to allow the two sides of the issue to live without rancor.

It seems absolutely obvious to me that there are two different ideas of marriage, and I naively thought that my little idea was an easy way to recognize that. But it seems to have accomplished nothing other than getting me into a fight with those on my side of the issue.

The road to hell is so easy to find!

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:Alright, I ran an idea up the flagpole (using my iPad, on which I don't happen to be signed in), and obviously nobody saluted. I'm no Catholic, but a liberal atheist who totally disagrees with Davis's actions. But I would like to see us moving together rather than apart, so I was hoping for a way to allow the two sides of the issue to live without rancor.

It seems absolutely obvious to me that there are two different ideas of marriage, and I naively thought that my little idea was an easy way to recognize that. But it seems to have accomplished nothing other than getting me into a fight with those on my side of the issue.

The road to hell is so easy to find!

So, if I marry another woman in a Quaker ceremony, are we married or Married? What if I'm Catholic, but we get married (or Married) at my fiance's Presbyterian church because I didn't get an annulment? What if I'm Hindu, and the person writing about me is Evangelical Christian?

I guess what I'm asking is would someone use the capital if they believed that the m(M)arriage was justifiable or legit, or it up to the M(m)arried people to decide if they consider their vows to be religious. If it's the latter, then we'll still have Married gay people, so I'm not sure what problem will have been solved.

Also, what do you do if it's a circumstance when you'd be capitalizing anyways? Do we write a lower case m at the beginning of sentences, or on signs (GET YOUR wEDDING INVITATIONS HERE!)?

[Anonymous]

the problem, OP, is it's hard to brainstorm on DCUM because many people don't suspend critique. It's just the wrong forum.

I get what you were trying to do.

[Anonymous]

Okay, here's another version: Gay marriage = "garriage"

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/frc-official-call-gay-marriage-garriage-and-lesbian-marriage-larriage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, here's another version: Gay marriage = "garriage"

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/frc-official-call-gay-marriage-garriage-and-lesbian-marriage-larriage

I am on board with this idea as long as we call marriages between opposite sex persons "osparriage" and cut the defense budget to issue grants to the states to hold special sessions of state legislatures to rewrite every existing law that uses the words "married" or "marriage".

[Anonymous]

My church Marries gay people.

[Anonymous]

I thought this was going to be a plug for a new reality show: Marriage vs Marriage

Every week we would watch two married couples (one gay, one straight) doing their chores, arguing about finances, raising the kids, going out on date night. Then the audience would vote on who seemed to have the happiest marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, here's another version: Gay marriage = "garriage"

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/frc-official-call-gay-marriage-garriage-and-lesbian-marriage-larriage

What initial consonant do we use for a marriage where one partner is a gay pastor, desperate to stay in the closet so they can make bank while spewing hate?

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:My church Marries gay people.

As is their right, by the First Amendment. But if Kim Davis's religion does not recognize those Marriages, I'd be happy to let her recognize only the fact that those folks are married. The law speaks of marriage, with all its legal benefits and responsibilities. Those who, as a matter of religious belief, choose to call some marriages Marriages are exercising their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religions, so please don't ask an atheist like me when it's proper to capitalize.

When a couple get married, I think the law requires that everyone respect that fact. I suppose that if someone wants to call that marriage a larriage or garriage, they are legally allowed to do so under the First Amendment right to free speech. Conversely, I am allowed to tell them they sound like bigots. Unlike those two terms, I do not see "Marriage" as anything other than affirming that the speaker considers a particular couple to be united not only by law, but by the bonds of Holy Matrimony.

PS, I hope nobody but me is tempted to say "Holy Matrimony, Batman, those folks were married by a preacher!"

PPS, 19:09, I like your idea. Can I get part of the royalties?

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:Alright, I ran an idea up the flagpole (using my iPad, on which I don't happen to be signed in), and obviously nobody saluted. I'm no Catholic, but a liberal atheist who totally disagrees with Davis's actions. But I would like to see us moving together rather than apart, so I was hoping for a way to allow the two sides of the issue to live without rancor.

It seems absolutely obvious to me that there are two different ideas of marriage, and I naively thought that my little idea was an easy way to recognize that. But it seems to have accomplished nothing other than getting me into a fight with those on my side of the issue.

The road to hell is so easy to find!

Poe's Law bites hard sometimes, even when you have good intentions.

The problem is that while conservatives who oppose gay marriage can say, "I don't like it!" they can't articulate any reason other than that (or, it's against God's will!) as reasons why it shouldn't be permitted. Although the opponents of gay marriage claim that permitting gay marriage somehow denigrates heterosexual marriages, none can provide any explanation of how that could happen or what the effect would be.

For any "reason" I've heard other than that to oppose gay marriage (e.g., can't produce kids, body parts aren't aligned, etc.), I can cite examples of heterosexual couples who would fit those criteria and who would be permitted to be married, so those arguments fail. Judge Posner did a fabulous dissection of these sham arguments in oral argument for the Wisconsin and Indiana gay marriage laws, and his written opinion on the topic is fabulous reading.

The Biblical reason fails the 1st Amendment test. The gov't can't prohibit marriage between two people based on reasons articulated by a subset of the adherents to a particular religion.

If, long ago, we hadn't connected the religious ceremony with the civil ceremony, and had created a secular "civil union" for everyone, and an additional category of "marriage" for those who went to a church, that would be one thing. If we had done that, all of our laws would be written in terms of the civil union structure. But that horse left the barn a loooong time ago.

So, we're stuck with the same word, marriage, meaning the relationship entity that is the outcome of both the secular ceremony and the religious one.

[Anonymous]

If you get a garriage, does it have to be performed in a garage?

Instead of coming out of the closet, a gay couple gets garried and comes of the garage in a (FABULOUS!) horse-drawn carriage!

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:Alright, I ran an idea up the flagpole (using my iPad, on which I don't happen to be signed in), and obviously nobody saluted. I'm no Catholic, but a liberal atheist who totally disagrees with Davis's actions. But I would like to see us moving together rather than apart, so I was hoping for a way to allow the two sides of the issue to live without rancor.

It seems absolutely obvious to me that there are two different ideas of marriage, and I naively thought that my little idea was an easy way to recognize that. But it seems to have accomplished nothing other than getting me into a fight with those on my side of the issue.

The road to hell is so easy to find!

Poe's Law bites hard sometimes, even when you have good intentions.

The problem is that while conservatives who oppose gay marriage can say, "I don't like it!" they can't articulate any reason other than that (or, it's against God's will!) as reasons why it shouldn't be permitted. Although the opponents of gay marriage claim that permitting gay marriage somehow denigrates heterosexual marriages, none can provide any explanation of how that could happen or what the effect would be.

For any "reason" I've heard other than that to oppose gay marriage (e.g., can't produce kids, body parts aren't aligned, etc.), I can cite examples of heterosexual couples who would fit those criteria and who would be permitted to be married, so those arguments fail. Judge Posner did a fabulous dissection of these sham arguments in oral argument for the Wisconsin and Indiana gay marriage laws, and his written opinion on the topic is fabulous reading.

The Biblical reason fails the 1st Amendment test. The gov't can't prohibit marriage between two people based on reasons articulated by a subset of the adherents to a particular religion.

If, long ago, we hadn't connected the religious ceremony with the civil ceremony, and had created a secular "civil union" for everyone, and an additional category of "marriage" for those who went to a church, that would be one thing. If we had done that, all of our laws would be written in terms of the civil union structure. But that horse left the barn a loooong time ago.

So, we're stuck with the same word, marriage, meaning the relationship entity that is the outcome of both the secular ceremony and the religious one.

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I wanted to find a way to let us all use the same word, but have a way to differentiate if we wish, without trying to overrule the Supreme Court. I still think it's a capital idea. [Pun intended. Two puns, considering where I am.]

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:Alright, I ran an idea up the flagpole (using my iPad, on which I don't happen to be signed in), and obviously nobody saluted. I'm no Catholic, but a liberal atheist who totally disagrees with Davis's actions. But I would like to see us moving together rather than apart, so I was hoping for a way to allow the two sides of the issue to live without rancor.

It seems absolutely obvious to me that there are two different ideas of marriage, and I naively thought that my little idea was an easy way to recognize that. But it seems to have accomplished nothing other than getting me into a fight with those on my side of the issue.

The road to hell is so easy to find!

Poe's Law bites hard sometimes, even when you have good intentions.

The problem is that while conservatives who oppose gay marriage can say, "I don't like it!" they can't articulate any reason other than that (or, it's against God's will!) as reasons why it shouldn't be permitted. Although the opponents of gay marriage claim that permitting gay marriage somehow denigrates heterosexual marriages, none can provide any explanation of how that could happen or what the effect would be.

For any "reason" I've heard other than that to oppose gay marriage (e.g., can't produce kids, body parts aren't aligned, etc.), I can cite examples of heterosexual couples who would fit those criteria and who would be permitted to be married, so those arguments fail. Judge Posner did a fabulous dissection of these sham arguments in oral argument for the Wisconsin and Indiana gay marriage laws, and his written opinion on the topic is fabulous reading.

The Biblical reason fails the 1st Amendment test. The gov't can't prohibit marriage between two people based on reasons articulated by a subset of the adherents to a particular religion.

If, long ago, we hadn't connected the religious ceremony with the civil ceremony, and had created a secular "civil union" for everyone, and an additional category of "marriage" for those who went to a church, that would be one thing. If we had done that, all of our laws would be written in terms of the civil union structure. But that horse left the barn a loooong time ago.

So, we're stuck with the same word, marriage, meaning the relationship entity that is the outcome of both the secular ceremony and the religious one.

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I wanted to find a way to let us all use the same word, but have a way to differentiate if we wish, without trying to overrule the Supreme Court. I still think it's a capital idea. [Pun intended. Two puns, considering where I am.]

Your idea is already effectively in practice. Those who don't believe gay couples can be married will continue to believe that it's not a "marriage" and there's nothing anyone can do to convince them otherwise (until their secretly gay child comes out and gets married). The rest of us will go our merry ways not caring about the secret subculture of anti-gay-marriage folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your idea is already effectively in practice. Those who don't believe gay couples can be married will continue to believe that it's not a "marriage" and there's nothing anyone can do to convince them otherwise (until their secretly gay child comes out and gets married). The rest of us will go our merry ways not caring about the secret subculture of anti-gay-marriage folks.

The difference is that while we go on our merry way (provided we are not dependent on Davis for a license), those who don't believe in gay marriage feel the law is unholy. I want to give them a way to express their opinions while keeping their respect for the law. If they can accept that Jack and Jim are married, but not Married, then perhaps everyone can be happy.

It may