tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post7541537224187955352..comments2024-03-28T00:46:19.476-04:00Comments on Religion & American Law: The Problem with Same-Sex "Marriage".Brantley Gasawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02894338478934982958noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-35661622701952842852010-01-28T02:20:57.167-05:002010-01-28T02:20:57.167-05:00This is a very interesting discussion in which I w...This is a very interesting discussion in which I would also argue along the lines of John that the term marriage in legal writings should be replaced with civil union. There is a need to erase the religiously associated term marriage so that the legal benefits of a union can be applied to all, and not just heterosexual unions. I agree that the state should strictly be concerned about legally recognizing a union instead of its social aspects. The state should not have authority over marriage, but should instead label it as a civil union and then allow those who are seeking the commitment and permanence associated with the religious side of a marriage to then get married in their own religious institution. In response to Josh, I believe that much of the value you are attributing to marriage is out of the realm of state regulation. Leaving the term marriage in legal documents simply because people believe it preserves these undefined values only leads to the exclusion of a large part of the population from legal recognition of a “marriage”. Marriage is a word that entangles religion with law and therefore is allowing states to let religious debate dictate their decisions on what partnerships are given legal rights.melissakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10305715890749022699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-5728702816547896242010-01-24T15:55:48.185-05:002010-01-24T15:55:48.185-05:00I just want to be clear that I am not suggesting t...I just want to be clear that I am not suggesting the abolition of marriage as a whole, only as a legally recognized entity with some form of state interest. The discussion about the possible social benefits of a committed marriage relationship apart from a legal contract, could be a separate conversation. But I am certainly suggesting that those social aspects within its present exclusionary context (especially given the religious overtones) are not of sufficient compelling state interest to warrant a clearly discriminatory legal policy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01039278929497544316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-73530644552896480202010-01-24T14:54:34.308-05:002010-01-24T14:54:34.308-05:00John, this is a very interesting and provocative p...John, this is a very interesting and provocative post. My only concern with this argument is that when we attempt to move outside the troubling relationship between marriage and civil law, do we not negate the very thing that is valuable. In other words, if "marriage" is regarded as valuable, whether in "secular" and "religious" idioms, might it be self-defeating to try to drop the language form the law completely. It seems like this leads to a lose-lose situation, where instead of arguing for a more inclusive and robust account of marriage, we instead end up minimizing marriage to civil unions, thereby negating value that is marriage itself. Thus, I am in somewhat of an agreement with Teresa M, although I don't feel the need to say so quickly say what marriage offers in excess of civil unions.<br /><br />It would seem that maybe we would need to take a step back. Before making the move you suggest, perhaps we need to first attempt to figure out exactly what it is about marriage that seems valuable in excess of civil unions, and whether this is a value we feel is important to sanctify with state recognition.josh l.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07728003113139304084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-51974263101559202522010-01-24T14:53:36.179-05:002010-01-24T14:53:36.179-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.josh l.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07728003113139304084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-5649295790363793962010-01-23T23:26:07.119-05:002010-01-23T23:26:07.119-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.John S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13839038624469846103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-10242985124342530612010-01-23T23:25:09.402-05:002010-01-23T23:25:09.402-05:00I would argue that the social benefits of marriage...I would argue that the social benefits of marriage that you cite create the very untenable situation that we currently find ourselves in. I would further argue that the state does not have a compelling legal reason for regulating such social aspects, so in that regard, yes, I would like to take "marriage" off the table for everyone and thereby instantaneously negate the arguments of others (on both sides) as irrelevant. Also, for clarification, I would suggest that the desire of same-sex couples for marriage vs. civil unions is specifically because the creation of civil unions while marriage is still a legally recognized relationship, leaves civil unions as an unequal category. By removing "marriage," then "married" is not a recognized category by the state and carries no legal benefits or status. However same-sex couples would still need to seek redress from their religious institutions if they still wanted to be "married" in the sacramental sense, but that would not necessarily be a legal matter for the state to address, unless it encroached on their pre-existing constitutional rights.John S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13839038624469846103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-81504622577289844852010-01-23T22:14:54.642-05:002010-01-23T22:14:54.642-05:00Absolutist language (such as always, never, and on...Absolutist language (such as always, never, and only) is an example of powerless language. It is powerless because they instantaneously negate the arguments of others as irrelevant. The current oft-heard argument that the State should get out of the marriage business-- on the surface-- offers resolution to this complex problem. Marriage, as both a religious and social institution, offers the State more than simple contractual relationships. When marriage is defined as sacramental, spiritual, or covenantal it offers the State a degree of stability of relationships not found in a business relationship. Although marriage is certainly an economic relationship serving both the partnership and the State, it is the additional dimension of commitment and permanence that gives marriage its inherent allure. This is a significant reason why homosexuals are asking specifically for marriage and not a civil union. In the end, the State and its people will find it difficult to separate the connotative and denotative understandings of marriage, as well as separating the legal and the religious and the secular and the sacred aspects.Teresa Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00489588869051695064noreply@blogger.com