You can't without redefining the term. If you want to remove the religious aspect from it, you must first redefine what it means, since the origin of the term is based in religion.
It may be ironic, but it's not an argument for taking their rituals, redefining them, and then forcing them back onto the church. I'm not even remotely religious, you know that, but I do know that religion is important to many people, and I respect that. I cannot simply dismiss someone, or their beliefs, merely because I don't share them.
I don't know that I'd agree with having to remove the term from all marriages and have the government refer to all unions as civil unions and not call a marriage what it is. This isn't a separation of church and state issue. This is as much an issue of gays wanting to tear down religion as it is anything. They want the same rights as everyone else, but when offered them, they reject them out of hand because it doesn't come with the "M" word. They scream tolerance, yet refuse to show any tolerance of anyone's religious beliefs, nor of the thousands of years of human tradition of what marriage is, and then have the audacity to level a charge of bigotry and hypocrisy on those who disagree with them. Unbelievable.Turtle you hit on a very plausable idea there.
The thought of gov't not using the term marriage, since it came actually from religion, which should make it separate.
Whether married in a church or joined by a Justice of peace or town mayor. The Gov't could refer to all as civil unions.
That would solve all, in the gov't eyes all would be joined. In your eyes it would be what it was to you.
**** that just makes too much sense to work.
Turtle you hit on a very plausable idea there.
The thought of gov't not using the term marriage, since it came actually from religion, which should make it separate.
Whether married in a church or joined by a Justice of peace or town mayor. The Gov't could refer to all as civil unions.
That would solve all, in the gov't eyes all would be joined. In your eyes it would be what it was to you.
**** that just makes too much sense to work.
Do you mean having a civil union that provides the medical decision making, inheritance, property rights etc etc etc that marriage provides but just calling it a civil union instead??? Wow, why didn't someone think of that a hundred posts ago.
Do you mean having a civil union that provides the medical decision making, inheritance, property rights etc etc etc that marriage provides but just calling it a civil union instead??? Wow, why didn't someone think of that a hundred posts ago.
Like I said, the right to marry as defined by the Supreme Court makes no fundamental provision for the context of gay marriage. It's not my interpretation, it's the Court's.
And you are clearly not aware of your own ignorance as Associative Conditioning and guilt by association are indeed the same thing, one is merely a subset of the other, and are both terms used in psychology. The nifty A=B=C thing is known as the Logical Fallacy and has nothing to do with guilt by association or Associative Conditioning.
Not really, as the opinion itself has been referenced in cases in other courts. That's why the text of that opinion is so well known.
You've been wrong about me on so many issues thus far, interpreted what I have said to mean what you want it to say, and have accused me of things I haven't done, so I have my doubts that you know where I stand on much of anything.
Yeah except that gov't ceases to define marriage at all, for all.Do you mean having a civil union that provides the medical decision making, inheritance, property rights etc etc etc that marriage provides but just calling it a civil union instead??? Wow, why didn't someone think of that a hundred posts ago.
At the risk of sounding redundant, well duh!
That's because the question is very rarely asked in logical fashion. Gays getting married changes the definition of marriage, and if you accept that then you must either change the way you believe or compromise your beliefs. You're asking people to make a mockery of everything they believe in, which is the ultimate in disrespect.
Religion has it's fault, some of them are whoppers, but not all religion is all bad. Approximately 94% of the world's population believe in a higher power of some kind, and 87% believe in God as part of some religion. Even though I'm not one of them, I can't so easily dismiss that. To do so would be to say that 87% of all people are all bad, and that's just silly.
Yeah, that must be it.You.. Have.. a.. Crush.. on.. Me!!!!... Holly Cow!!!...
So the question becomes, why should the government have to do that, to change how they define marriage, simply to accommodate someone who wants to redefine the term, when they can just as easily add a second term that means the same thing in all respects, other than the traditional meaning as applied throughout the majority of the course of human history?