tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post7090616904994052147..comments2023-08-09T03:21:13.354-05:00Comments on Letters from Gehenna: The World on a Slant: MarkingDw3t-Hthrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-1106427631634448642007-09-07T13:56:00.000-05:002007-09-07T13:56:00.000-05:00Wonderful post; you are always so interesting to r...Wonderful post; you are always so interesting to read!Daisy Deadheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17993200276152025235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-53068196139451721742007-09-03T13:25:00.000-05:002007-09-03T13:25:00.000-05:00Heh. The word for "civil union" in English? MARR...Heh. The word for "civil union" in English? <I>MARRIAGE</I>. You know when in English law (as that is most relevant to the law in most of the States) religions had exclusive control of marriage? Between <I>1753</I> and <I>1837</I>. This is not what we call time immemorial.<BR/><BR/>(The interference with marriage started with the church, actually, trying to get more and more control over it. Before 1200 or so, people in culture-of-origin got married without supervision from anyone, by damn well saying so, by one of three means. (One of which was sacramental marriage.))<BR/><BR/>The word for "sacramental marriage" in English, at least referring to Christianity where is where the noise is mostly coming from? Matrimony.<BR/><BR/>Er. Okay. That's the rant. Now to actually be responsive.<BR/><BR/>I think a lot of what it means depends on how it's framed and how people respond. I've heard a lot of people respond to just-religious marriages with, effectively, "Oh, that's just Unitarians, we don't have to respect that." Which is proof of the cultural schism that bothers <I>me</I>.<BR/><BR/>At the same time, I know folks (a mixed-sex couple as it happens) who only had the social wedding ritual and refused the legal one; they are generally accepted as married by the people around them, though it apparently took a bit. (And my husband and I only had the legal thing; our 'social' was a party on our six-month anniversary. But because of the portability-universality of the legal marriage, the social stuff was taken for granted.)<BR/><BR/><I>If</I> people-in-general are willing to accept religious marriages for not-their-religion as marriages, than in some ways it's a return to 1200 -- people are married because they say so, and everyone respects and acknowledges that. I have no particular issues with that (though I do have issues with rights limitations). However, what I see is the schisming of ritual -- some people-in-general respect nonlegal marriages outside their affiliations, or at least some of them (some people who would accept a same-sex religious marriage would not, say, be so accepting of a multiple marriage situation); other people-in-general treat the lack of it being of <I>their</I> religion or the government as an excuse to treat it as not-real.<BR/><BR/>Don't know how to shift those proportions around.Dw3t-Hthrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-46119464498266296722007-09-02T23:38:00.000-05:002007-09-02T23:38:00.000-05:00I think this your marriage argument is strong. If ...I think this your marriage argument is strong. If my father weren't such a overwhelming proponent of the "governments should stay out of marriage, all such things should be as civil unions unto them" point of view, I would try it on him. At least he's pro-equality, but I think that the cultural and legal ramifications of the word "marriage" are so loaded that very few people will want their already-existant relationships turned into "civil unions". The logic of his argument bears out, though, in the number of people getting "married" in religious terms in states where it's not yet possible to do so legally.<BR/><BR/>How do you think that affect the ritual's impact culturally? (That it's still being performed but not sanctioned by the state, I mean.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com