General Zod wrote:You're contradicting yourself. If marriage isn't religious (hint: It isn't), then who gives a shit whether the government calls it marriage instead of a secular contractual relationship?
Darth Wong wrote:
And why the fuck should government not use the word "marriage" if you don't think it's exclusive to religion, then? What is your justification for making the word "marriage" off-limits if you backpedal on the religious exclusivity, which is the entire basis of your fucking argument so far? All of your goddamned posts have revolved around religion, and you have the gall to claim that you have not been trying to claim religious ownership of the word "marriage"?
Marriage isn't
exclusively religious. Quite a few people think of it as religious, quite a few others don't.
As for who gives a shit what the government calls it, um, a lot of the people in this thread sure seem to, as well as a bunch of religious bigots who keep voting yes on various ballot measures banning gay marriage. 11 states had them on the ballot in 2004, and they all passed, even in Oregon, a fairly liberal state.
source. Opinion polls show that given the choice between government either allowing gay marriage, allowing civil unions but not marriage, or not having any legal union, opinion is split roughly evenly between the three: 32% marriage, 33% civil union, 29% nothing.
source, scroll down a bit.
That's one third of the electorate that only cares about the name government uses for it. They're almost certainly all 'moderate' religious bigots (since there aren't really any non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage), but that doesn't change the point that clearly some people give a shit about the name, and probably because of religious reasons, absent any logical reason to care about it.
If GLBT advocacy groups want to prove the bible-thumpers wrong and claim the meaning of the word doesn't have any religious connotations, fine. I have no problem with that. I just don't think the legislature, judicial system, and ballot initiatives are really the right place to have a fight over whether marriage is religious or not. Clearly, there are a lot of people who think each way. It is a
civil rights issue, so what's wrong with just referring to it with a phrase that is explicitly secular, instead of fighting over the connotations of a word? It is a separate but equal issue, so what's wrong with the government applying that secular phrase to it in all cases, and simply stepping out of the "is it religious?" argument entirely? Because that's what all the repeated court cases, propositions, and legislation are really about: a bunch of secular people saying marriage isn't religious, and a bunch of religious people saying it is. I really doubt that the secular side (who have a much better case) are going to convince the religious people they're wrong, no matter how obvious it is.
All I am suggesting is taking the argument out of governmental hands. As long as everyone gets the same treatment from government, isn't that the point?