|What's In A Name?
||[May. 17th, 2008|08:19 am]
Wizard of Changes -- ©cdozo 2004 to 2015
Looks like church-blessed couple-pairings will have to be called "faith-based unions" and all couples who want to will be able to get "married."
I'm glad. It never seemed fair that some church folks got to redefine a word and then take it for themselves just to support their narrow definition of love.
This is a much more democratic way to handle it.
2008-05-27 05:17 am (UTC)
A Quaker "minute"
I don't know if this is a broader or a narrower defition of love. In 1994, after 14 years of discussion, Dover Friends Meeting passed the following "Minute on Same Gender Marriage":
"A couple marries in response to their love for each other and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. True marriage represents the spiritual union of two hearts and is not dependent on outward forms or legal recognition. The Meeting cares for and celebrates the marriage relationship but it is God who sanctifies the marriage. We believe that the Divine Light illuminates all loving and committed relationships. We therefore affirm that we will take under our care the marriage of gay and lesbian couples in the same manner that we do for heterosexual couples. We further undertake to support and nurture all families within our Meeting whatever form that may take."
My favorite part of the discussion that led up to this is when the proposal was made that since some people objected to the use of the term "marriage" for same-sex unions, and a "commitment ceremony" was said to be functionally the same as a marriage, perhaps the Meeting should cease to perform marriages and only perform commitment ceremonies. Few people liked the suggestion, and it underscored that while the difference was hard to put in words, there was a difference.
But I suppose if "faith-based unions" are a subset of "marriage" then those in fbu's can use whichever term they prefer.
Hmm. FBU/FUBAR -- just a coincidence?
(who, me? No, I didn't type that...)