julifolo (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} julifolo) wrote, |
Unfortunately, that doesn't feel like a fair compromise to me
I appreaciate that you are trying to be fair. But when the language change has already happened it's unfair for religion to claim "marriage" as its territory, especially when there's so much power attached to the word, when the religious and legal meanings of the word have been comingled for so long. Especially if when it's only some of the religious dominations claiming exclusive use while other religious dominations (such as UCC) and secular humanists would be fine with using the same word having for both church and civil weddings.
What this feels like is the defacto USA requirement that politicians for high office have to be religious, even though the law says "no religious requirement allowed". Pragmatically, my being a public atheist makes me unqualified for elected office. There's a whole lot of other reasons why I shouldn't ... but that reason is unfair.
I know that you are trying to be fair. But as a person who got married over 30 years ago, who likes being married, who has benifited from marriage, who wants this for my gay friends -- that you sincerely, and in good will, are unable to see that your request is unfair -- that hurts me. I suppose that it will hurt you that I can't see the point that you are trying to make, why the distinction is so important for you. I'm trying to understand, but I don't get it.
I appreaciate that you are trying to be fair. But when the language change has already happened it's unfair for religion to claim "marriage" as its territory, especially when there's so much power attached to the word, when the religious and legal meanings of the word have been comingled for so long. Especially if when it's only some of the religious dominations claiming exclusive use while other religious dominations (such as UCC) and secular humanists would be fine with using the same word having for both church and civil weddings.
What this feels like is the defacto USA requirement that politicians for high office have to be religious, even though the law says "no religious requirement allowed". Pragmatically, my being a public atheist makes me unqualified for elected office. There's a whole lot of other reasons why I shouldn't ... but that reason is unfair.
I know that you are trying to be fair. But as a person who got married over 30 years ago, who likes being married, who has benifited from marriage, who wants this for my gay friends -- that you sincerely, and in good will, are unable to see that your request is unfair -- that hurts me. I suppose that it will hurt you that I can't see the point that you are trying to make, why the distinction is so important for you. I'm trying to understand, but I don't get it.
