How about Marriage vs marriage?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Stupid or stupid?

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Huh?

"all other gods" is completely relative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stupid or stupid?

OP here. Since I'm an atheist, you should consider it stupid. If Huckabee had suggested it, you could perhaps consider it Stupid.

Thanks for your opinion (I assume the Pope is not on DCUM giving an Opinion).

[Anonymous]

Would you need to obtain a "Divorce" or would a "divorce" be sufficient?

[Anonymous]

Bigot or bigot?

Bigot is Kim Davis. Religious.

bigot is Rush Limbaugh. Secular.


Racist or racist?

Racist could be what huckabee and santorum preach. Bigotry with god's sanction.

racist could be just a racist who doesn't seek justification from god.

Both are equally squalid. Not need for mr to parse that difference.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would you need to obtain a "Divorce" or would a "divorce" be sufficient?

I'm Jewish. If I were religious, I suppose I would have gotten a Divorce (called a "get" in Hebrew) as well as a divorce. But a divorce was good enough for me.

[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.

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.

[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.

First, since some religions have decided to recognize same-sex marriages, does that mean those couples are Married because they did it in a church in front of God? Who gets to decide whether the capitalized term applies to them - the couple or the observer? Say a Catholic looks at a homosexual Jewish couple. The Jewish couple would say they are Married, but the Catholic would say they are only married.

Then you get to the next level of lunacy. Does that mean that you would also have to capitalize/non-capitalize Husband and Wife? One gay Jewish man would introduce his spouse to the Catholic and say, "We're capital M Married and this is my Husband, Bruce." To which the Catholic would reply, "Nice to meet you, but you're only little m married in the eyes of my God."

[Anonymous]

I love this thread! Was it somehow instigated by the Catholiv vs catholic thread?

[Anonymous]

^^^^^^ that should be Catholic

[Anonymous]

Priceless! Yet another delusional Christian conservative premise to go down in flames, once it left the confines of the right wing echo chamber and got out into the real world of public discourse!