Poll: Who truly owns the right to the word "marriage"?

[psychowatcher]

Marriage, being just a word, belongs to anyone who knows what it is. While the religious people can scream about the sanctity of it until God smites them for waking him from his nap, I say that marriage should be able to be used by anyone (both the right and the word). As for many saying civil unions are the same as marriage, then just call it marriage.

I'm not saying that churches have to be forced to marry couples that they disapprove of, but in the case of civil marriages, everyone should have a right to it (as long as they are of legal age). Like another has said, the cultural value attached to the word marriage is immense. In my mind, Denying someone marriage is almost saying, "We won't allow you to get married because you aren't worth it because of who you are." Several people may disagree, but so far, that's all I've seen. Everyone should have access to the same rights as everyone else, including the right to marriage.

 

[darkless]

Neither really, marriage is owned by the people it's not a piece of paper it's not a set of rules it's a feeling you have for someone you really care for. I personally will never need a priest to tell me to kiss my bride not will i need the state to certify it so long as the feelings are mutual that's all the marriage i need.

Now I'm going to go spit, lift some weights and chug a couple of beers so i can feel like a man again.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

Nobody.

It's just a word.

DAMN! NINJA'D!

Anyway, it is just a word. It's the event of marriage which people debate on owning. I'd go with state though, as more than just religious people have the right to marriage.

 

[tallertoler]

Marriage is a covenant between the betrothed and God. It is not merely about love or civil union. God honors a marriage between a devoted Christian man and woman, but he does not advocate divorce if one is not a Christian. The Bible is clear that unions between homosexual partners are not honored.

The state has the responsibility of recognizing which unions are considered marriages in the state's eyes. The state is dependent upon the general opinions and choices of the majority of its citizens.

Marriage is not even close to a meaningless title. The Church, which is composed of all true believers of Christ's death and resurrection, will one day be married to Christ for eternity. Like that ever lasting bond, we can choose to love and honor our partners for the rest of our Earthly lives.

 

[darkless]

Marriage is a covenant between the betrothed and God. It is not merely about love or civil union. God honors a marriage between a devoted Christian man and woman, but he does not advocate divorce if one is not a Christian. The Bible is clear that unions between homosexual partners are not honored.

The state has the responsibility of recognizing which unions are considered marriages in the state's eyes. The state is dependent upon the general opinions and choices of the majority of its citizens.

Marriage is not even close to a meaningless title. The Church, which is composed of all true believers of Christ's death and resurrection, will one day be married to Christ for eternity. Like that ever lasting bond, we can choose to love and honor our partners for the rest of our Earthly lives.

And how exactly does god honor marriage? does he give them gifts? does he bless them personally? no, there is no difference between a priest reading the rights and me reading them.

 

[Agayek]

The State has no business dictating who we can have relationships with. Give them the power to lay claim to rights that we already have as if it is the State which is generous to grant them to us, the power can be used to take it away. Marriage has no business in the State. We need not ask its permission, give it tribute nor should we get special privileges over others of society because we enter into the arrangement with another. The State has no rightful power to either support or deny marriage around sexuality, that isn't the purpose of a State actor.

While all of that is true and I agree entirely, the State gives legal privileges and rights to married partners. Things like "next of kin" and being contacted if your spouse is in the hospital are privileges legally granted by the status of marriage. The state controls who is allowed to get those privileges, simply because they decide the laws. Thus, the state needs to allow marriage for everyone that wants it. In the US currently, it's denied in the vast majority of states to gays.

The State merely exists to punish those who infringe on the life, liberty and property of another and to pool resources for common defense from external forces. Anything else, like creating laws and rules to marriage, are extraneous.

Marriage is a contract between two willing parties, the only role the State has is to enforce that contract should one party violate the terms.

The Church doesn't own it either. People are free to label their relationships however they please. If I want to call marriage "ubliguk", then that's up to me. It doesn't change what that relationship is.

A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

You can call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that legal privileges are granted to married couples, and it's the state that decides who can and cannot be married.

Edit: To make things clear, I mean "civil marriage" when I refer to marriage here. The ceremony and rituals involved in "holy matrimony" for Christians, or whatever the hell it's called in your religion, are inherent to whatever church it happens to belong to.

Also, marriage, in any form, is not a term applicable to all couples. If the church and/or state denies them that, then they are not married. They can be a couple, and love each other as much as they like, but that doesn't make them married.

 

[MusicalFreedom]

A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

thing is, society does not have that view at all. a marriage by any other name does not have the cultural significance of marriage, making the word smell kinda like shit with roses piled on it by those who can get married

you could make an argument that says "just call it a marriage if they want to", but there's still the words "civil union" on the top of the bloody certificate, as well as issues surrounding legalities stretching to other states and other countries (which would take longer to sort out than it would take to let gay people marry)

 

[LaughingTarget]

The basis of my argument was the State has no business engaging in ANY powers of those types. Trying to rebut my argument by saying the State has the power is missing the entire point of it. The State shouldn't have the power because it has the power? Silly reasoning.

 

[LaughingTarget]

A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

thing is, society does not have that view at all. a marriage by any other name does not have the cultural significance of marriage, making the word smell kinda like shit with roses piled on it by those who can get married

you could make an argument that says "just call it a marriage if they want to", but there's still the words "civil union" on the top of the bloody certificate, as well as issues surrounding legalities stretching to other states and other countries (which would take longer to sort out than it would take to let gay people marry)

The certificate is pointless. That's a State actor dictating what can and can't be done. The purpose of the state is not to decide what two willing participants do.

 

[Ossum]

the reason gay people want the word is because it has immense cultural value, and using any other word means that their union does not have the same cultural value of marriage.

That's exactly what I was going to say. Gay couples don't get treated as if they're "married" without a rather protracted explanation and discussion with pretty much everyone they know. As a friend to two sets of gay couples, I've been made aware the effort they go through to be accepted as married is immense. Every new friend or acquaintance is often yet another battle. Being able to call themselves married by law removes that burden nicely.

It even helps their legal status transfer across state borders without rewriting the laws in every state to include "civil union" and every other farcical euphemism du jour.

 

[MusicalFreedom]

The certificate is pointless. That's a State actor dictating what can and can't be done. The purpose of the state is not to decide what two willing participants do.

yes it is pointless, but it still exists, and will exist for a long time unless the laws change making it not exist. regardless of whether it's pointless or, uh, pointfull, it's still there, slapping the faces of whoever merely has a civil union, reminding them of their second-class union (because everyone dreams of marriage, not a lawfully-binding civil union)

and I do think that the state should be allowed to decide what two willing participants can do - although i just reserve it for things like voluntary cannibalism and other freaky stuff that results in serious harm. but that's probably a different issue.

 

[mike1921]

I don't care, as long as the one who has it is the only one making claims to it. Meaning, either marriage is owned by the state and the church starts calling it something else, or everyone's marriage is legally a civil union.

 

[LaughingTarget]

The certificate is pointless. That's a State actor dictating what can and can't be done. The purpose of the state is not to decide what two willing participants do.

yes it is pointless, but it still exists, and will exist for a long time unless the laws change making it not exist. regardless of whether it's pointless or, uh, pointfull, it's still there, slapping the faces of whoever merely has a civil union, reminding them of their second-class union (because everyone dreams of marriage, not a lawfully-binding civil union)

and I do think that the state should be allowed to decide what two willing participants can do - although i just reserve it for things like voluntary cannibalism and other freaky stuff that results in serious harm. but that's probably a different issue.

Only if it is narrowly tailored to life, liberty and property, which is the only legitimate function a government has. Any action that violates one of those of an individual, even if under the pretense of giving it to another, makes the law or rule illegitimate.

Modern society has unfortunately done little more than change the identity and number of our dictators. These rules are put in play by simple quantitative pluralities and being a member of that plurality is just as much random chance as is being born into the English monarchy.

No democracy that allows the majority of the voters to create rules at the expense of a minority group (racial, ethnic, intellectual, sexual orientation, economic status, etc) is one worth defending.

 

[LaughingTarget]

The State merely exists to punish those who infringe on the life, liberty and property of another and to pool resources for common defense from external forces. Anything else, like creating laws and rules to marriage, are extraneous.

Marriage is a contract between two willing parties, the only role the State has is to enforce that contract should one party violate the terms.

The problem with that is what if someone signs a contract that doesn't allow them to get divorced? Should the state enforce that contract? Because if it doesn't, it's going beyond what you said, that it "merely exists to punish those who infringe on the life, liberty and property of another and to pool resources for common defense from external forces."

If you enter into a contract, it is up to you to abide by the terms of that contract, no matter if you decide later it isn't something you consider beneficial. If one party breaks the contract, then it is up to that party to pay an appropriate penalty, which is where the state comes into play as the arbiter of the hearings. The wronged party (ie, the one that didn't break the contract) receives all payments with administrative fees payed by the party that breaks the contract for the cost of the court proceeding.

 

[MusicalFreedom]

now I know I will get bitched at for comparing the fight for gay marriage to the fight for civil rights of black people, but I found an image that I like so I thought I would post it regardless

Spoiler: click here to have your MINDS BLOWN

while the comparison might not be direct, that situation is certainly what it feels like. there was a better image somewhere but i can't find it now

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

Ummm, how about the people getting married? Can one institution truly own a concept as varied as marriage?