Question Regarding the Term Marriage...

[c***@gmail.com]

Should marriage be considered a religious term and afforded protetected privileges as such.. Why/why not?

Thanks for your time...

[Gordon Burditt]

Post by c***@gmail.com
Should marriage be considered a religious term and afforded protetected privileges as such.. Why/why not?

Considered *BY WHOM*?

What protected privileges are there for a *TERM*?

If marriage is a religious term, then all references to it on tax
forms and in laws should be expunged immediately. Also, get rid
of that thing called a "marriage license".

If government must refer to it (necessary if it wants to continue
to outlaw trigamy, for example), I don't care what term they use,
but I'll use "unholyay unionay" in Igpay Atinlay. An Unholyay
Unionay (in the United States) is the union of two social security
numbers on a tax form.

[c***@pastasfungoolie.org]

***@gmail.com wrote:

: Should marriage be considered a religious term and
: afforded protetected privileges as such.. Why/why not?

What privileges for the term 'marriage' do you have in mind
and protected by who or what?

Why do you imply that you believe it relevant to ask whether
that is a term that needs any protection?

And if 'marriage' is a religious term, then, in addition to
you near incoherently posting it, might it be fair to say that your
question is superfluous?

In other words, if 'marriage' as you use that 'term' is
essentially a matter of religion, then is it not already protected by
whatever is the Deity if there is such that prescribes the rules and
practices of whatever is the religion you also have in mind or at
least is the who or what that gets to decide such religious matters
and is it not also correct that if there is no such Deity then whether
that 'term' is or is not a 'religious' one is essentially moot?

And in addition to whatever you think you mean by your use
of the word 'marriage' as 'religious' or non-'religious' one -
information you neglect to provide in your posting - what difference
does it make what 'term' one uses to apply to whatever you contemplate
such a relationship to be in any event?

While the word 'marriage' as presently used especially for
purposes of law throughout the United States is intimately associated
with more than one-thousand federal and state laws that meaningfully
affect substantive and procedural entitlements and obligations of
millions of persons, so that assigning an exclusively or even
predominantly 'religious' meaning to it may require repealing or
otherwise excising such provisions and references as unconstitutional,
why not simply use any 'term' arbitrarily chosen - for example,
'Arthur' or 'Macguffin' or 'Crumpelfergle' or 'Troll'?

Or ought 'Troll' be reserved to apply only to someone who
makes newsgroup postings of the sort you did? God knows, there
probably are any number of good reasons why 'Yes' ought be the answer
to that question.

:Thanks for your time...

You are most welcome...

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by c***@pastasfungoolie.org
: Should marriage be considered a religious term and
: afforded protetected privileges as such.. Why/why not?
What privileges for the term 'marriage' do you have in mind
and protected by who or what?
Why do you imply that you believe it relevant to ask whether
that is a term that needs any protection?
And if 'marriage' is a religious term, then, in addition to
you near incoherently posting it, might it be fair to say that your
question is superfluous?
In other words, if 'marriage' as you use that 'term' is
essentially a matter of religion, then is it not already protected by
whatever is the Deity if there is such that prescribes the rules and
practices of whatever is the religion you also have in mind or at
least is the who or what that gets to decide such religious matters
and is it not also correct that if there is no such Deity then whether
that 'term' is or is not a 'religious' one is essentially moot?
And in addition to whatever you think you mean by your use
of the word 'marriage' as 'religious' or non-'religious' one -
information you neglect to provide in your posting - what difference
does it make what 'term' one uses to apply to whatever you contemplate
such a relationship to be in any event?
While the word 'marriage' as presently used especially for
purposes of law throughout the United States is intimately associated
with more than one-thousand federal and state laws that meaningfully
affect substantive and procedural entitlements and obligations of
millions of persons, so that assigning an exclusively or even
predominantly 'religious' meaning to it may require repealing or
otherwise excising such provisions and references as unconstitutional,
why not simply use any 'term' arbitrarily chosen - for example,
'Arthur' or 'Macguffin' or 'Crumpelfergle' or 'Troll'?
Or ought 'Troll' be reserved to apply only to someone who
makes newsgroup postings of the sort you did? God knows, there
probably are any number of good reasons why 'Yes' ought be the answer
to that question.
:Thanks for your time...
You are most welcome...

You are thinking of protected incorrectly;

I am taking about whether (1) the word marriage is a religious term or not and (2) whether the government shouldn't or should not have the ability to redefine a word if it is religious in nature.

[Gordon Burditt]

Post by c***@gmail.com
I am taking about whether (1) the word marriage is a religious
term or not and (2) whether the government shouldn't or should not
have the ability to redefine a word if it is religious in nature.

Religion (which religion? there are lots of them) does not get to
trademark a word that already has a common meaning. Neither does
government. Words can have multiple meanings and some may be
religious and some may not be. Probably the worst usurpation of
religious terms is putting "In God We Trust" on money and "under
God" in the pledge of allegiance. "God" is much more related to
religion than "marriage".

I invite you to explain the religious meaning, if any, of the term
"Holy S**t!".

It is not uncommon for a law to give a more specific meaning to
something just for the purpose of that law. For example, I heard
once that some town enacted a leash law, and when it caused problems,
rather than re-word the leash law, they redefined the term "dog"
to exclude service animals (e.g. guide dogs for the blind), to
include cats, and to include pet wolves. Whether that's true or
not is irrelevant, but there are plenty of cases where the tax code
gives a multi-page definition of terms like "taxable income" or
"deductible medical expense". Legal terminology also often gives
specialized meanings to words used in laws or contracts which may
confuse the non-lawyer used to the ordinary meaning of those words.

[Seth]

Post by c***@gmail.com
I am taking about whether (1) the word marriage is a religious term
or not and (2) whether the government shouldn't or should not have
the ability to redefine a word if it is religious in nature.

Is the word "murder" religious in nature? Some religions define it,
others don't. The government defines it for the purpose of laws
(probably different ways for different laws, too).

The government doesn't force any religion to recognize (or not
recognize) any marriage. It can't.

Seth