How about Marriage vs marriage?

[Anonymous]

Even better solution would be "their business" vs "my business".

[Anonymous]

[sorry, hit send too soon]
It may be top priority that people be equally able to marry the one they love, but it will surely be happier all around if everyone feels they can accept it because they are only married and not Married (even if they consider themselves Married).

Incidentally, as you probably realize, this is takoma, back on my iPad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

There are a lot of things people like that feel are "unholy," and the nice thing about our country and our Constitution is that the government can't prosecute them for those beliefs. They have the right to express their opinions, including agitating for a Constitutional amendment overturning this particular decision.

No one can force Kim Davis to believe something she doesn't want to believe. But, her government job requires her to comply with the law of the land, and so does Jesus - "...Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." She doesn't get to trump the law with her religious faith, because that way lies chaos and/or theocracy.

The rest of us have the right to ignore them and think disparaging thoughts about them.

[Anonymous]

Takoma again.

Since my suggestion was intended for the Davis/Huckabee/Santorum/Jindal/Cruz crowd and I seem to be talking to a few (or maybe one) person on my own side of the issue, I may toss in the towel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Takoma again.

Since my suggestion was intended for the Davis/Huckabee/Santorum/Jindal/Cruz crowd and I seem to be talking to a few (or maybe one) person on my own side of the issue, I may toss in the towel.

Yeah, I think it's just you and me, and we generally agree.

Let's go find someone who disagrees with us to argue with.

[Anonymous]

Marriage is a legal contract (hence the need for a license). Religious belief is on top of the legal contract and not essential. The legal bonds of marriage existed long before monotheism much less Christianity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[sorry, hit send too soon]
It may be top priority that people be equally able to marry the one they love, but it will surely be happier all around if everyone feels they can accept it because they are only married and not Married (even if they consider themselves Married).

Incidentally, as you probably realize, this is takoma, back on my iPad.

We should have done more to make the segregationists feel better. White folks should have earned a "Diploma," as opposed to just a "diploma." It's too bad marriages between a man and woman of the same race weren't denominated as "Marriages" after the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving. Maybe you can reach out tinTrump and suggest that natural-born Americans be called "Citizens," while naturalized Americans relegated to mere "citizens." Conferring second class status leads to second class treatment, and worse.

[Anonymous]

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.

If that's what you believe then either move to another nation or accept that we have freedom in America to believe whatever we want to.

[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.

If that's what you believe then either move to another nation or accept that we have freedom in America to believe whatever we want to.

She can believe whatever she wants, but she also has to perform her job as directed by the courts.

[Anonymous]

I would be all for a system where you go down to town hall and get a civil marriage and that's what counts for all your official govt documents and then you do whatever you/your religion wants as far as a private ceremony.

If you think about it, it's really a little bizarre that if someone sets up an online church they can then make people ministers eligible to marry people.

[Anonymous]

The freedom to believe whatever you want is universal. The problem is when you open your mouth and reveal your ignorant bigotry. Yes, the Constitution confers on you the right to say stupid, bigoted and racist things without government interference. Civilized people don't need to accept, validate or enable ignorant bigots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be all for a system where you go down to town hall and get a civil marriage and that's what counts for all your official govt documents and then you do whatever you/your religion wants as far as a private ceremony.

If you think about it, it's really a little bizarre that if someone sets up an online church they can then make people ministers eligible to marry people.

OP here, and that's what I was aiming at. I was hoping to achieve it without having to change any laws, by promoting the idea of having those who believe that a marriage sanctified by God must be between a man and a woman call such a marriage a Marriage, allowing them to accept that a mere marriage, carried out under secular law or by some church with more liberal policies, can be whatever the law or that other church defines. I want to make it even easier by continuing to accept any church's Marriage as a fully legal marriage, just like now, not requiring a separate civil ceremony -- as long as you have a civil license.

[Anonymous]

Stop. Beating. Dead. Horse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We distinguish God from all other gods by the capital letter. Why not also distinguish those marriages consecrated by Him as Marriages. The First Amendment protects the right of clergy to determine whom they Marry, but marriage, as a legal contract between adults, should have no discriminatory restrictions on the basis of race, gender, nationality, or any of the standard protected classifications.

This would have the virtue of distinguishing between civil unions and religious unions without requiring that laws be rewritten or that a new classification be created that might or might not have all the legal benefits of marriage. When a couple is Married, they are thereby recognized as married, just as now, but they can get married without getting Married, just as now. The only difference is that those who believe that the Court has no right to define Marriage can be comforted by the fact that they were only dealing with marriage.

Marriage is a common noun.

no need to capitalize it

You slept through English class, I assume.

[Anonymous]

At this point it seems to me that churches can label their religious ceremony however they see fit. If they want to invent a new name for it, or stick with the one they have enjoyed, it's up to them.

The fact is that for hundreds of years we have conveniently given legal privileges to people who get married, happily conflating the civil and religious institutions. If Apple spent even a decade letting its competitors call their products "iPhone", they would forever lose the right to protect the term. Same goes for civil marriage.