redefining marriage

[skybytch 273]

While discussing California's Prop H8 with some friends last night, one of them proposed something that even the guy who voted yes thought was a good idea. Perhaps it's time to rename the CIVIL portion of what we call marriage?

As it is now, you go to the government to get a marriage license, then you can go have a ceremony in a place and following whatever religious tradition (or not) that you choose. The core of my friends idea is to change the wording on what you get from the courthouse from "marriage license" to "certificate of domestic partnership." All couples, regardless of race or gender, would receive the same legal benefits and have the same legal obligations.

We then reserve the term "marriage" for those with religious beliefs, thus allowing each religion to define that word as they choose and follow whatever traditions they have established.

As I see it, something along these lines would do several good things. It would increase separation of church and state. It would discriminate against no one. And it doesn't attempt to apply one religion's moral code upon the entire population.

[TrophyHusband 0]

not a bad idea. if another initiative came up and passed saying that the state could only issue civil unions and that marriage was solely in the realm of religious establishments, what would that do to an amendent concerning "marriage"? would it effectively nullify it? i have no idea, but it would be interesting to watch it play out. this gay marriage thing is far from over, reguardless of the final result of prop 8.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

If you use the word marriage it won't work. As long as there is a few vocal fundies left running around, the paradigm will exist. The focus needs to be legal and civil. It will also need to be done on a Federal level.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

We then reserve the term "marriage" for those with religious beliefs,

Why? Marriage doesn't originate with the Judeo-Christian belief system, and purely secular marriage has existed for thousands of years. What special claim do the religious have on it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[RB_Hammer 0]

Well, here in AZ, marriage was not redefined, it was defined with an amendment to the state constitution. This amendment has only 20 words:
“Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

I am not passing judgement, only posting the facts.

"I'm not lost. I don't know where I'm going, but there's no sense in being late."
Mathew Quigley

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Why? Marriage doesn't originate with the Judeo-Christian belief system, and purely secular marriage has existed for thousands of years. What special claim do the religious have on it?

You are correct. My wording was not well thought out. I should have said "We then allow each couple and religion to define the term "marriage" as they see fit."

The vocally religious appear to believe that they have a special claim on the word and they routinely claim their primary religious document as their reasoning. By removing the word "marriage" from the legal (secular) side of the process, the issue could be de-escalated from the political to the personal.

[Remster 30]

Quote

Well, here in AZ, marriage was not redefined, it was defined with an amendment to the state constitution. This amendment has only 20 words:
“Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

I am not passing judgement, only posting the facts.

Its a sad day when ammendments in any constitution limits the rights of some.

Remster

[Cari 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, here in AZ, marriage was not redefined, it was defined with an amendment to the state constitution. This amendment has only 20 words:
“Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

I am not passing judgement, only posting the facts.

Its a sad day when ammendments in any constitution limits the rights of some.

+1

[Amazon 7]

+2

[Butters 0]

Quote

+2

+3

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[TomAiello 26]

I think the best solution is simply to get the government out of the marriage business. If government no longer sanctions, or recognizes, marriage of any kind, it becomes a purely personal definition. Everyone gets to decide for themselves what constitutes "marriage." If you are concerned about who speaks for you (or gets your stuff) if you are incapacitated or die, then there are already sufficient legal mechanisms to deal with those questions.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[livendive 8]

Quote

I think the best solution is simply to get the government out of the marriage business. If government no longer sanctions, or recognizes, marriage of any kind, it becomes a purely personal definition. Everyone gets to decide for themselves what constitutes "marriage." If you are concerned about who speaks for you (or gets your stuff) if you are incapacitated or die, then there are already sufficient legal mechanisms to deal with those questions.

What he said.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

This approach is not unheard of. I thought about posting it, but didn't.

There was a case in 1976 (an important one that set the standard of review for sex discrimination) called Craig v. Boren The case was about an Oklahoma law that allowed 18 year-old women to buy 3.2% beer but didn't let men buy it until they turned 21. So this 18 year-old thought it was unfair and challenged it on equal protection grounds.

Editorial note - this guy was probably as big of a loser as I was in college. What, he couldn't get a chick to buy beer for him?

So he adds a beer vendor as a plaintiff. Then he turns 21 (which mooted the case) and another loser kid becomes a plaintiff. Ultimately, after several years, the SCOTUS found that the statute violated equal protection laws and thus the statute was stricken. (Note: Ruth bader Ginsburg did an amicus brief for the ACLU in this one).

End result? Losers who couldn't get an 18 year-old chick to buy them beer were now on even footing with the cooler dudes who also couldn't get 18 year-old chicks to buy them beer. Nobody under the age of 18 could buy beer in Oklahoma anymore.

And thus, young beer drinkers, men and women, entered an era in which they were unable to legally purchase beer until age 21. Everyone lost out.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

Its a sad day when ammendments in any constitution limits the rights of some.

That's an interesting comment, because one of the main points of the pro on 8 people was that as far as California was concerned, no ones rights were taken away last night. According to them, gay couples have all the same rights as straight couples because California has laws recognizing domestic partners.

I don't know if that's true, and I would have liked to seen a debate centered around that claim.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[skybytch 273]

Quote

I think the best solution is simply to get the government out of the marriage business. If government no longer sanctions, or recognizes, marriage of any kind, it becomes a purely personal definition.

I agree, but that would require huge changes in numerous areas of both state and federal law. And I can't see our government giving up the benefits it gets from being in the business.

Changing the wording from marriage license to something else would require only changing the wording in laws that refer to it. Seems to me that would be much more likely to be approved and much faster and less expensive to accomplish.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Quote

Its a sad day when ammendments in any constitution limits the rights of some.

That's an interesting comment, because one of the main points of the pro on 8 people was that as far as California was concerned, no ones rights were taken away last night. According to them, gay couples have all the same rights as straight couples because California has laws recognizing domestic partners.

I don't know if that's true, and I would have liked to seen a debate centered around that claim.

You are correct. In California Domestic Partners already have the same rights as those who are Married. Just not the "M-Word".

See CA laws: FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5 and AB 205.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[CMiller 1]

Quote

I think the best solution is simply to get the government out of the marriage business. If government no longer sanctions, or recognizes, marriage of any kind, it becomes a purely personal definition. Everyone gets to decide for themselves what constitutes "marriage." If you are concerned about who speaks for you (or gets your stuff) if you are incapacitated or die, then there are already sufficient legal mechanisms to deal with those questions.

Yes, but marriage has important implications that extend into the government, namely regarding taxation. Thus, the government needs to have a say in what is a legal marriage and what isn't.

What about 5th amendment protection for spouses? Again, the government needs to be able to determine what is and is not a legal marriage should you want to take the 5th to avoid incriminating them.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I think the best solution is simply to get the government out of the marriage business. If government no longer sanctions, or recognizes, marriage of any kind, it becomes a purely personal definition. Everyone gets to decide for themselves what constitutes "marriage." If you are concerned about who speaks for you (or gets your stuff) if you are incapacitated or die, then there are already sufficient legal mechanisms to deal with those questions.

I agree with you in a sense. But, having dealt with matters in which people are ending their domestic partnership, I wholeheartedly believe in the necessity of a set of rules that regulates that relationship. General contract law or partnership law just doesn't adequately govern it - which is why there are laws governing domestic relationships.

It's why insurance policies opeate under different assumptions than standard contracts. In insurance, a person contracts for peace of mind. Standard economic issues with contracts really don't work with insurance because of the nature of the agreement.

I have no problem if the government changes "married" to "domestic partnership." But seeing as how nuptial agreements frequently have problems, I think that there should be a streamlined system of actually dealing with them that recognizes that this is something more than two entities merging to form a partnership.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Yes, but marriage has important implications that extend into the government, namely regarding taxation.

I'd be in favor of eliminating those considerations, and taxing people the same regardless of marital status. Using some kind of non-income based taxation system (like a VAT) would solve this nicely.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[CMiller 1]

Quote

Quote

Yes, but marriage has important implications that extend into the government, namely regarding taxation.

I'd be in favor of eliminating those considerations, and taxing people the same regardless of marital status. Using some kind of non-income based taxation system (like a VAT) would solve this nicely.

People in marriages tend to have children (dependents), which is what the tax breaks are for. That would make raising a child harder. Consequently, this is one of the arguments against gay 'marriage': they can't have children, so why give them the benefit?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

People in marriages tend to have children (dependents), which is what the tax breaks are for. That would make raising a child harder. Consequently, this is one of the arguments against gay 'marriage': they can't have children, so why give them the benefit?

It's not that hard, esp in this day. Adoption, insemination, surrogate mothers, etc.

And few of the breaks are for the children, esp when you compare the deduction to the cost of raising that kid.

[Conundrum 1]

The way Prop 8 was presented confused a lot of people. Many thought voting yes gave gays the right to marry, not the other way around. I believe that was a large contributing factor as to why it passed.

Shame.

[BikerBabe 0]

the more i think about it, the more i am astounded at the idiocy of the california (and FL, AZ, etc) electorate. Seriously, what a completely USELESS thing to put in our constitution!

Constitutional amendments should be about important things...like the US Bill of Rights, for example.

Think of all the could have been accomplished with the sheer amount of money spent on the Prop 8 BS.

I'm ashamed that people seriously think it's ok to amend a constitution to ELIMINATE rights in this day and age. ashamed.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Its a sad day when ammendments in any constitution limits the rights of some.

That's an interesting comment, because one of the main points of the pro on 8 people was that as far as California was concerned, no ones rights were taken away last night. According to them, gay couples have all the same rights as straight couples because California has laws recognizing domestic partners.

I don't know if that's true, and I would have liked to seen a debate centered around that claim.

You are correct. In California Domestic Partners already have the same rights as those who are Married. Just not the "M-Word".

See CA laws: FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5 and AB 205.

ltdiver

That's just fine with me. A word that has a certain meaning dating back centuries should not be redefined just to suit a minority. As long as the civil rights of same sex couples are not infringed, why should they corrupt the meaning of a perfectly good word that has a precise definition already?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dropdeded 0]

So a local (bakersfield) news channel just interviewed S.F.'s mayor whatshisname and he states that those recently married gay folks marriages will remain legal?

------------------------------------------
The Dude Abides.
-