Discussion: Human Rights

[dollface007]

This is the bottom line, Cathleen. Just because you don't want "marriage" to be part of the issue doesn't make it so. The issue IS marriage. Do you think that all of the heterosexuals that have been married under civil ceremonies are going to give up that status for the more sterile, less value-laden distinction of "civil union?"

 

[Cathleen]

thank you ma'am

You're welcome..... although it did tell me to wait a bit between hugs. lol

What can I say, I have a thing for numbers.

 

[Cathleen]

This is the bottom line, Cathleen. Just because you don't want "marriage" to be part of the issue doesn't make it so. The issue IS marriage. Do you think that all of the heterosexuals that have been married under civil ceremonies are going to give up that status for the more sterile, less value-laden distinction of "civil union?"

No, not at all Doll. You are missing my point - the civil union is like step one. Anything after that is gravy. You get all the rights from the civil union.

The word marriage should not be in the debate - I didn't put it there - it is there. Marriage does not give the rights - civil unions give the rights. You have the rights before the marriage happens - that is a ceremony for the church/temple etc. The state gives the rights to those people via the license. In the eyes of the state you are joined - you get the rights.

(Yes, some states have combined the union with the marriage, but it doesn't change in the eyes of the state - the union gives the rights. Everyone should get the rights. There is a separation of church and state - I agree with that totally.)

 

[Alyx]

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around what you're trying to say, Cathleen. It seems like you're saying that Civil Unions, and all the rights given to such a union, should be denied to no one (gay, straight, black, white, red, etc.). Only the "religious" aspect of a marriage should be denied? Or did I miss something?

Forgive me if I did. I'm a little slow today. It's cloudy and cold here, and I'm feeling rather cattish - lazy and wanting to curl up and sleep.

 

[SweetErika]

I *think* I understand what Cate's saying, and I agree with some of it. I think everyone should have the right to what effectively is a civil union (whatever the state calls it). If the couple wants to be blessed or have an additional ceremony under their faith, that's great for them. But that's a personal choice and should not change the legal or social status of their relationship. Under those conditions, I could have our relationship blessed by our beloved bell pepper plant and call it a "marriage," right? Or does it have to be done by a religious authority (and who says what qualifies as a religious authority), or a SPECIFIC religious authority to be called a marriage?

The problem I have is, by Cate's and others definition of marriage, we're am not married. Granted, we had a minister perform a ceremony (we would have been happy with a judge, but they were all booked), but we carefully crafted a ceremony with no religious references because we do not believe in religion. I'm not heterosexual, and we've decided to have a semi-open relationship. Yet we were able to do all of this and be accepted as married people just because we're adults we have the right combination of genitalia. Should I start refering to us as "civilly unionized" or something?

 

[Bobmi357]

Cathleen I understand what you are saying. But I am curious about one thing.

How is a gay marriage that is church sanctioned in any way a threat, or insult, to your marriage? In this country alone there has to be 800 bazillion christian sects, including the more traditional ones. Several allow for gay marriages. Are church sanctioned marriages in another church also a threat/insult to your marriage?

I'm a nonpractising catholic, I gave up religion for lent when I found myself having considerable difficulty reconciling religion with my education. In any event I don't see anything wrong with a gay couple marrying in a church. My marriage is based on my love for my wife, a blessing by some priest/priestess/shaman doesn't make it any more valid than it already is in my own mind.

The problem that I see and why I rail against "christians" so much is the rampant hypocrisy. What ever happened to living by things like "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" or "Judge not, lest ye be judged!". If there is anything to the christian version of an afterlife (and I'm not sure there is) I suspect an awful lot of people are going to find themselves very unhappy because of their actions.

 

[Kissophile]

I *think* I understand what Cate's saying, and I agree with some of it. I think everyone should have the right to what effectively is a civil union (whatever the state calls it). If the couple wants to be blessed or have an additional ceremony under their faith, that's great for them. But that's a personal choice and should not change the legal or social status of their relationship. Under those conditions, I could have our relationship blessed by our beloved bell pepper plant and call it a "marriage," right? Or does it have to be done by a religious authority (and who says what qualifies as a religious authority), or a SPECIFIC religious authority to be called a marriage?

The problem I have is, by Cate's and others definition of marriage, we're am not married. Granted, we had a minister perform a ceremony (we would have been happy with a judge, but they were all booked), but we carefully crafted a ceremony with no religious references because we do not believe in religion. I'm not heterosexual, and we've decided to have a semi-open relationship. Yet we were able to do all of this and be accepted as married people just because we're adults we have the right combination of genitalia. Should I start refering to us as "civilly unionized" or something?

Perhaps being joined by a beloved bell pepper plant should be one of those options whenever someone starts a new thread asking how to spice up their marriage.

Erika, I'm with you on this one. In my view, the state should dictate the civil and legal benefits of a union (call it a marriage if you wish) and if religious groups wish to insist that their members be joined in a religious ceremony, that's fine. I believe that in France all couples must go through a civil marriage ceremony and then many choose to also have a religious one. That seems to be the right model.

That said, it strikes me as ridiculously hypocritical that some religious groups whose name appears to indicate that they follow the teachings of a very inclusive man would decide to discriminate against a large part of the population. However, to stay within the proper framework here, you reap what you sow.

 

[Cathleen]

Hi folks, I do believe you understand what I'm saying....... I am keeping church (whatever that means to you) and state separate. Entirely - I don't have a problem with anyone being married in anyplace, church/temple etc what so ever......

The only thing I want is for ALL people to have the same rights by the state.

The church/temple etc has a right to accept or reject whomever they chose - that isn't up to the state to dictate. It must work both ways - church and state must be separate.

I honestly feel the word marriage is the problem here - if my church (whatever that is don't ask me) accepts gay unions then it is fine by me, totally agreeable. I am realizing that my inital post should have been clear about my aim - that is for all to have the same rights.

It is the state that can't pick and choose - so I want the union to be via the state.

Erika, your situation still doesn't change anything in my mind - you decided to enter into a commited union with your husband - you are afford all rights and responsibilities that go along with that - what your sexuality is should have no consequence on anything, it is between you and yours. I do believe a union, such as this discussion pertains, should be between two adult people. The only thing I would want to safeguard is that you, as one in a union, get all the rights deserved to you.

The church has nothing to do with this issue in my book, it is only about equal rights.

(I hope next time I don't leave off a crucial part of the debate!)

 

[Bobmi357]

Perhaps being joined by a beloved bell pepper plant should be one of those options whenever someone starts a new thread asking how to spice up their marriage.

Hey if she really wanted to be safe she should have gotten married at the first church of the Holy Bob.

I'm not so sure about my divinity or not, but there are times when Alyx alternates between calling my name and calling for God, so maybe I'm pretty close.

 

[Cathleen]

Hey if she really wanted to be safe she should have gotten married at the first church of the Holy Bob.

I'm not so sure about my divinity or not, but there are times when Alyx alternates between calling my name and calling for God, so maybe I'm pretty close.

Hmmm, can I book the hall for a Saturday in June?

 

[Bobmi357]

In my view, the state should dictate the civil and legal benefits of a union (call it a marriage if you wish) and if religious groups wish to insist that their members be joined in a religious ceremony, that's fine.

The problem with this is simple. Right now the ultra conservative groups are controlling the various state legislatures as well as holding majorities in the federal government. As a result and in spite of the constitutional mandate forbidding state and church to make policy together, that is exactly what is happening.

Christian led interference can be seen in everything. Abortion Legislation, Stem Cell Research, Education (both life sciences and sex education), the gay marriage issue, television shows for children etc.. The list seems to grow daily.

Technologically we are one of the most advanced countries on the planet. Sociologically we are one of the most stunted and retarded.

To be honest folks the trend over the past few years scares me. I think the politicians picked on gays BECAUSE they are a limited minority and they could easily demonize them to mainstream america. My concern is once they get away with that, they can get away with anything.

 

[Alyx]

Thanks for the clarification, Cathleen. At the beginning of the thread, I thought you were saying that gay civil unions were fine, but that gay religious "marriages" should be banned.

The above is something our current state legislature is trying to enact. It's something that has me pissed off. The state is trying to enact a law that will ban gays from having ANY type of marriage, civil or religious. The legislature obviously doesn't see that they're stepping all over the right to religious freedom or the pursuit of happiness for one group of people. Or maybe they do see it and either don't care, or hope the rest of us are dumb enough not too. Knowing this state, it's probably the latter.

I found it interesting that the bill was reported in our local paper on the eve of the remembrance of the Auschwitz liberation. Knowing the people of this state, they won't see the irony of remembering what happened at Auschwitz, while at the same time doing their level best to perpetuate hate for one group of people.

 

[Cathleen]

Bob, most people in this country consider themselves Christians.

I know politicians are supposed to vote for us - their constituents - (yea, in a perfect society), even if that were the case, most of the constituentency has Christian beliefs, so how do you see things changing.

Now, the crap that has happened with Spongebob and Arthur are not really something to be feared - the media (a very liberal media) played that up a lot. So I discount that totally ......it was stupid, I think that is fair to discount.

But if the majority of this country wants 'under God' in the pledge, or 'In God we trust' on the money, isn't it the will of the people?

 

[Cathleen]

Thanks for the clarification, Cathleen. At the beginning of the thread, I thought you were saying that gay civil unions were fine, but that gay religious "marriages" should be banned.

The above is something our current state legislature is trying to enact. It's something that has me pissed off. The state is trying to enact a law that will ban gays from having ANY type of marriage, civil or religious. The legislature obviously doesn't see that they're stepping all over the right to religious freedom or the pursuit of happiness for one group of people. Or maybe they do see it and either don't care, or hope the rest of us are dumb enough not too. Knowing this state, it's probably the latter.

I found it interesting that the bill was reported in our local paper on the eve of the remembrance of the Auschwitz liberation. Knowing the people of this state, they won't see the irony of remembering what happened at Auschwitz, while at the same time doing their level best to perpetuate hate for one group of people.

I know and it is wrong Alyx, just out and out wrong.

The state has no right to decide what a church will or will not tolerate....... just as a church can't do that with regard to the state.

The people of the state should be allowed to have it on a ballot at the very least.

 

[Kissophile]

The problem with this is simple. Right now the ultra conservative groups are controlling the various state legislatures as well as holding majorities in the federal government. As a result and in spite of the constitutional mandate forbidding state and church to make policy together, that is exactly what is happening.

Christian led interference can be seen in everything. Abortion Legislation, Stem Cell Research, Education (both life sciences and sex education), the gay marriage issue, television shows for children etc.. The list seems to grow daily.

Technologically we are one of the most advanced countries on the planet. Sociologically we are one of the most stunted and retarded.

To be honest folks the trend over the past few years scares me. I think the politicians picked on gays BECAUSE they are a limited minority and they could easily demonize them to mainstream america. My concern is once they get away with that, they can get away with anything.

This, of course, is the problem.

Let me state my analysis of this problem in one paraphrase: The love of power is the root of all evil.

 

[Bobmi357]

But if the majority of this country wants 'under God' in the pledge, or 'In God we trust' on the money, isn't it the will of the people?

Yeah its the will of the people. ASSUMING THEY AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to allow for it.

Maybe its time we seriously rethink our system. Voting doesn't mean anything to people these days, perhaps if they had to earn their right to vote (through say a voluntary service period) they'd treat it with more respect than they currently do.

Barring that, since I'm already the King of Idaho and Emperor of the known Universe, I'll be happy to accept the position of King of the United States.

E Plurius Bob!

 

[Raimondin]

Greetings.

Well, I can't help thinking of "separation of church and state." I'm a gay man and I would think partner unions (two people) whether same-sex or whatever should be a civil right. Wasn't this country built on the premise of having religious freedom and diversity? It now seems these same religious insititutions have suddenly started to lose focus of this ideal or philosophy of freedom. Now we're stuck in a fundamentalist conservative administration with a fundamentalist political agenda. It's like a "bad crossover" or a marriage made in Hell of religion and government. If you want to get married and have the blessings of either the Pope or the Rev. Moon is a personal choice. Having the right to share in the inalienable rights as a citizen of this free nation should not be denied...

 

[Lynxie]

When did the term "civil union" come about anyway? To the best of my knowledge, it's only been used on a widespread basis in recent years to describe the joining of homosexual partners. Even other supposedly less-than-desirable social pairings (interracial, interdenominational, etc) are awarded the word "marriage," so why should we single out gays by giving them their own special term?

Cate suggests that all unions are actually just civil unions, unless performed in the Catholic church. While this may be true under Catholic doctrine, it doesn't really work in the real world. Around the globe, people of various religions, ages, genders, and backgrounds get married all the time. The only group (and it happens to be a minority group, in the grand scheme of things) that has a problem with this is the Catholic church. Who are they to suggest that marriage is something that only their god can sanctify?

I really don't think bringing the word "marriage" into the debate is our main problem. I truly think that introducing the concept of "civil unions" as being separate from marriages is the root of our troubles. Gays are different, so they should be socially segregated in certain ways, should they not? This is precisely what society as a whole is saying by allowing there to be such a difference between marriage and civil unions. When I was growing up, I remember my social studies books describing the US as a melting pot. Back then, I used to think of it as a good thing - our country is a place where people of different cultures and beliefs come together. I've since come to realize that we truly are a melting pot, in the sense that our society's goal is to melt down all these differences into one uniform substance. Conformity is everything. If you don't fit the norm, you will be shunned.

I am not Christian (though I was born, raised and confirmed as a Roman Catholic), but I have many close friends who are. While most of them are open-minded and feel that marriage is a basic human right that should be available to any couple, regardless of sexual preference, there are a few who believe that homosexuals should be restricted to civil unions. Their main arguments include statements like, "God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman" and "The church does not define marriage that way." Where in the Bible does it say anything about excluding homosexuals from the right to be married? Nowhere! And don't try to say that homosexuals did not exist back in the days when the Bible was being written - literary analyses have shown that there have been gays all throughout human history. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is strictly a construct of the church - a man-made rule, rather than doctrine handed down from the heavens.

Ok, this post has gotten excessively long. I apologize for that, but this is an extremely important topic to me. Once our society starts withholding rights from one group, what comes next?

 

[Raimondin]

I am not Christian (though I was born, raised and confirmed as a Roman Catholic), but I have many close friends who are. While most of them are open-minded and feel that marriage is a basic human right that should be available to any couple, regardless of sexual preference, there are a few who believe that homosexuals should be restricted to civil unions. Their main arguments include statements like, "God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman" and "The church does not define marriage that way." Where in the Bible does it say anything about excluding homosexuals from the right to be married? Nowhere! And don't try to say that homosexuals did not exist back in the days when the Bible was being written - literary analyses have shown that there have been gays all throughout human history. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is strictly a construct of the church - a man-made rule, rather than doctrine handed down from the heavens.

Ok, this post has gotten excessively long. I apologize for that, but this is an extremely important topic to me. Once our society starts withholding rights from one group, what comes next?

Yes, very good point. This is what I was trying to say (in a very succint manner) in my post. I've always felt that the Bible is a "man written" book and not by the "Hand of God" himself. Unfortunately, it has come under the wrong hands and has become yet another weapon of discrimmination. I feel I can say this because I also was born and raised Catholic. I survived Catholic school and I also survived Catholicism...Yes, absolutely. "What comes next?"

 

[Cathleen]

The term civil union has been around for quite awhile, but our society uses the word marriage as meaning the same thing. I don't think they are but that isn't germain to my thoughts so much as it is about rights. No one should discriminated against with regard to rights.

If two purple people have a union and get rights, A, B, and C, then so too should the two red people who have formed a union.

It is about separation of church and state, I feel that is a very important concept and needs to be reality at all times.

It has nothing to do with any religion - those are man made organizations. It isn't about the bible either, in my opinion the bible is devinely inspiried and theoretical, not to be taken literally in anyway (but those fundamentalist seem to honestly believe it to be literal), to me the bible is a tool for learning, a collection of stories, parables and anologies, as a guide to living.

All rights are given to us by the state, the rights I'm talking about, the church can't give you health benefits etc, the state does. So I am not anti-gay or anti-interracial or anti anything - I am pro rights. But since the state is the giver of the rights (and not the giver of a 'marriage') then civil unions (or even civil marriage if that is a better term), make sense for all unions.

This isn't an attack on the Catholic church or any church or religious system, it actually has nothing to do with religion - in my opinion it is about securing the rights of all in the unions - that is via the state. Separation of church and state.


Lynxie, I hope you are mending well - how is the shoulder coming?

Having the right to share in the inalienable rights as a citizen of this free nation should not be denied...

Raimondin, all that I can say to that is AMEN!!

 

[Raimondin]

This isn't an attack on the Catholic church or any church or religious system, it actually has nothing to do with religion - in my opinion it is about securing the rights of all in the unions - that is via the state. Separation of church and state.

Having the right to share in the inalienable rights as a citizen of this free nation should not be denied...

Raimondin, all that I can say to that is AMEN!![/i]

Oh, thanks. Somehow I think took it in that direction! I've really enjoyed reading your thread and all the posts. Thanks for allowing me to join in your discussion.

Rai

 

[Cathleen]

Oh, thanks. Somehow I think took it in that direction! I've really enjoyed reading your thread and all the posts. Thanks for allowing me to join in your discussion.

Rai

Please, it is great to have everyone contribute, I am glad you shared with us. Thank you Rai.

If there are other issues you'd like to discuss, please feel free - I enjoy thinking. Actually I am a chronic ponderer so ......

 

[Lynxie]

I couldn't agree more, Cate. Separation of church and state is one of the fundamental principles on which our country is founded. Lately there has been far too much blurring of the dividing line for my comfort.

I understand where you're coming from when you suggest that marriage should refer to religious ceremonies and civil unions should refer to joinings that are held outside of the Catholic church. However, going back to one of Bob's posts, one must remember that in the US marriage is a function of the state first and foremost. All religious pomp and circumstance is extra - priests and ministers must obtain permission from the state before they are able to marry.

It's a little-known fact that my husband and I were actually married last March in our town hall. Most of our family and all of our friends believe that our ceremony at the Unitarian church in October was the real thing. We got married legally (yes, we have a marriage license, not a civil union license) so I could be covered by his health insurance, as we could not afford my medical bills otherwise.

We had our church ceremony because we felt that it was important to vow our love for one another in a sacred space. Doing things this way has shed a little light on how separate church and state really are. People associate marriage with church, and this line of thinking is wrong. Personally, I think it'd be great if everyone had to get married by a justice of the peace and then opt whether or not to have a "holy union" performed within their own religion. Every couple should be afforded the same rights from the state's point of view. Marriage should have nothing to do with the church - a religious ceremony should be just an add-on type of feature, like having a fancy reception or big honeymoon.

 

[Cathleen]

Lynxi, I totaly agree with you - it has nothing to do with any additional ceremony (whether that is in a church/temple etc.), it has to do with the state recognizing the union and the rights that come with that union.

When I was trying to help my cousin and his partner some years back it was such a struggle, it wasn't legal what we were trying to accomplish but it was right. His employer was amazing, he worked with us to try to 'finagle' the system so his partner would get health benefits - actually the need for the health benefit was more important for my cousin, he had AIDS, and we knew there would be a time he wouldn't be able to work. He was full time, then three-quarter time, then half time etc.

His employer kept him on the books for the entire time, and when he couldn't work half time they did some creative fudging. Yea it was illegal but it didn't matter to anyone - we wouldn't stop. When his partner finished Divinity school he was employeed through the Episcopal church and while the church he was assigned to didn't care about the sexuality they couldn't put my cousin on their health plan - it was all falling apart. My cousin could no longer work at all - and I have to say, his boss was nothing short of an angel, he tried to keep him on the books even though he wasn't working. He placed him on short term disability, then long term etc.

All the frustration of the sexuality issues drove us all crazy but when we hit the final wall the state was staring right back at us - they were not a couple and couldn't become one. Talk about banging your head against the wall........ all the while we watched this man suffer towards death.

Some of the conversations we had as he was dying were so interesting. I recall one where he said he felt as if he had died a thousand times in his life, being gay isn't easy, his family wasn't handling it at all, his brother was and is a bomb waiting to explode, his mother and sister were totally accepting, his father - well that would come later.

But there was so much that had happened to him in his life, so many places he was termed 'invisible, wrong, sick, sinner', all just another wall. When he was close to death I think he felt peaceful, he knew some acceptance in his last years - felt safe, emotionally and physically. He was 37 when he died.... he left a mark on this world, he will continue to have a presence here - and he will always teach me things. Gosh, I miss him so much...... sad sigh.

 

[Ezzy]

Why are you privileged to marry just because you fuck men? If a God-fearing homosexual couple wants to get married (believe me, there are plenty) and their church/state/dog supports it, what the hell does that have to do with you?

Besides which a lot of God fearing homosexuals fuck men too, so by the fuck men definition they should be allowed to say they are married as well!

Here are the first 4 definitions for "marriage" on dictionary.com: -

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

There we go with a set of definitions that most can accept for the most part, as being the common usage for the term.

The 5th definition from a late 19th centaury bible dictionary: -

marriage

was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence (Gen. 2:18-24). Here we
have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord, as the basis on
which all regulations are to be framed (Matt. 19:4, 5). It is evident that
monogamy was the original law of marriage (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16). This law
was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced (Gen.
4:19; 6:2). We meet with the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage in the
patriarchal age (Gen. 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8, 9; 29:23-30, etc.). Polygamy was
acknowledged in the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, and continued
to be practised all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity,
after which there is no instance of it on record. It seems to have been the
practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons (Gen.
24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the
maiden (Ex. 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted
(Gen. 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was
bound to give a price to the father of the maiden (31:15; 34:12; Ex. 22:16, 17;
1 Sam. 18:23, 25; Ruth 4:10; Hos. 3:2) On these patriarchal customs the Mosaic
law made no change. In the pre-Mosaic times, when the proposals were accepted
and the marriage price given, the bridegroom could come at once and take away
his bride to his own house (Gen. 24:63-67). But in general the marriage was
celebrated by a feast in the house of the bride's parents, to which all friends
were invited (29:22, 27); and on the day of the marriage the bride, concealed
under a thick veil, was conducted to her future husband's home. Our Lord
corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage (Matt.
22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The
apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife (Eph.
5:22-33; Col. 3:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be "honourable" (Heb.
13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate
times (1 Tim. 4:3). The marriage relation is used to represent the union
between God and his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:1-14; Hos. 2:9, 20). In the New
Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his
saints (Eph. 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's
wife" (Rev. 19:7-9).

Now lets look at a couple of these further...

The marriage relation is used to represent the union
between God and his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:1-14; Hos. 2:9, 20).

Lets say that you believe the bible is the literal word of God (just for a moment, ok?)

Then this passage does not even refer to Christians, it actually refers to the Jews as the people of the Lord!

In the New Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his
saints (Eph. 5:25-27).

Since the early saints were mostly men, this passage would in todays conflict, have to be referred to as civil union, as for a man to be married to a man (or a woman to a woman) is what is offensive to the use of the word marriage for same sex couples.

I think that the word "marriage" is the stumbling block in the whole conflagration, I agree that those who would like to go with the French system should be allowed to do so.

For those who don't know, you must have a civil ceremony to be "married" in the eyes of the law in France, but in a Catholic country like France, only about a third also have a church ceremony.

The civil ceremony has stood alone for over 200 years as being the one recognized in the eyes of the law, you can have a church wedding if you want, but if you want it to be a "legal" marriage, then you must also have the civil ceremony.

I think that the words, "married" and "marriage" should be banned, and the acronyms "miteog" and "miteotl" (Married in the eyes of God) and (Married in the eyes of the law) should replace them. Then for people who have been married and are now divorced could call themselves "pmiteog" and "pmiteotl" previously married in the eyes of god/ the law.

I too think that this is being used as an issue to cause dissention and strife, rather than harmony and acceptance. It may well be the cause of the next civil war in this country.