Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 kronk wrote:
You can up here in IL! At grocery stores, even! They have hard liquor isles! Can you believe that!

So does Missouri! I thought that was "normal".

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, So. to those saying we get rid of the word "Marriage" and leave it to the churches. Who thinks we actually have a decent chance doing it? What the anti-gay crowd wants isnt for them to not use the word marriage. They dont want them together PERIOD. They want gays to be shoved down into a corner and stoned. And they will fight no matter what.

Well the cool thing about making it a religious ceremony, is that one find churches that are just fine with gay marriage.

What im saying is the the religious right will push more and more against that then they would against gay marriage

 cincydooley wrote:
@Silver & @MeanGreen

Here's my quote that stemed this whole tide:

Honestly?

Because of the word 'marriage' and its perceived significance to religion as word.

If we called all contractual unions between two consenting adults "Civil Unions" and left the word "Marriage" to churches, I don't think we'd have any issue.

You keep claiming "your" Stompa. Please, tell me where, in any of my comments, I've addressed this from the side of "religious righteousness."

You can't. Because i Havent.

Again - you are trying to claim the word marriage. I think the response in this thread, and indeed the wider world, is pretty telling that people have a pretty big issue with that proposal...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
@Silver & @MeanGreen

Here's my quote that stemed this whole tide:

Honestly?

Because of the word 'marriage' and its perceived significance to religion as word.

If we called all contractual unions between two consenting adults "Civil Unions" and left the word "Marriage" to churches, I don't think we'd have any issue.

You keep claiming "your" Stompa. Please, tell me where, in any of my comments, I've addressed this from the side of "religious righteousness."

You can't. Because i Havent.

Again - you are trying to claim the word marriage. I think the response in this thread, and indeed the wider world, is pretty telling that people have a pretty big issue with that proposal...

Yeah, marriage isn't solely religious, it isn't even a soley religous word in it's origin. Anyone* can get married, they don't have to be religious.
*ish

I'm not claiming it at all!

I think everyone deserves equal protection under the law, which is what I THOUGHT this argument was about.

I said that if they simply changed the verbiage I think we'd already have a solution. Remove the contentious word "marriage" from all legal documentation, because its a world that really has no bearing on the rights it grants. It's a contract between two consenting adults.

If we left the "ceremonial" aspect of marriage to the individual we wouldn't even fuggin have a problem!!! Leave it to the individual churches, cults, scientology buildings.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm not claiming it at all!

I think everyone deserves equal protection under the law, which is what I THOUGHT this argument was about.

I said that if they simply changed the verbiage I think we'd already have a solution. Remove the contentious word "marriage" from all legal documentation, because its a world that really has no bearing on the rights it grants. It's a contract between two consenting adults.

If we left the "ceremonial" aspect of marriage to the individual we wouldn't even fuggin have a problem!!! Leave it to the individual churches, cults, scientology buildings.

Marriage is only a contentious word because certain elements with no legitimacy are laying claim to it's ownership.

Again, it's not the word of Christians, it's is not the word of Christians who have a problem with gays marrying, what it IS is the english language recognised word for people entering into a formalized relationship.

And just like elements in Christianity will have to get used to the idea of sharing the 25th of December with other people, they will have to get used to sharing the word Marriage.

Because they own neither.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, marriage isn't solely religious, it isn't even a soley religous word in it's origin. Anyone* can get married, they don't have to be religious.
*ish

Except in the Judeo-Christian United States and other Judeo-Christian Westernized countries, it has a long history of connection as a sacrament. I'm arguing that THAT is where the contention comes from. I'm not arguing it's correct.

If the real goal of same-sex marriages is equal protection under the law, change the wording. For everyone. Make them all called "civil union" contracts, because thats what they are. Process them at the DMV for all I care.

Allow the "marriage ceremony" to be up to the indiviual and whatever ceremonial institution they chose to have perform it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, So. to those saying we get rid of the word "Marriage" and leave it to the churches. Who thinks we actually have a decent chance doing it? What the anti-gay crowd wants isnt for them to not use the word marriage. They dont want them together PERIOD. They want gays to be shoved down into a corner and stoned. And they will fight no matter what.

Well the cool thing about making it a religious ceremony, is that one find churches that are just fine with gay marriage.

What im saying is the the religious right will push more and more against that then they would against gay marriage

So, too late. PLus any happy go lucky nutter can start their own rainbow colored church. Aint love grand?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, marriage isn't solely religious, it isn't even a soley religous word in it's origin. Anyone* can get married, they don't have to be religious.
*ish

Except in the Judeo-Christian United States and other Judeo-Christian Westernized countries, it has a long history of connection as a sacrament. I'm arguing that THAT is where the contention comes from. I'm not arguing it's correct.

If the real goal of same-sex marriages is equal protection under the law, change the wording. For everyone. Make them all called "civil union" contracts, because thats what they are. Process them at the DMV for all I care.

Allow the "marriage ceremony" to be up to the indiviual and whatever ceremonial institution they chose to have perform it.

Well I think churches can refuse to conduct marriage ceremonies for religious reasons...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Marriage is only a contentious word because certain elements with no legitimacy are laying claim to it's ownership.

Again, it's not the word of Christians, it's is not the word of Christians who have a problem with gays marrying, what it IS is the english language recognised word for people entering into a formalized relationship.

And just like elements in Christianity will have to get used to the idea of sharing the 25th of December with other people, they will have to get used to sharing the word Marriage.

Because they own neither.

And I don't disagree with that first part.

But hopefully, as an intelligent individual, you can see how that historical context and significance as a Christian sacrament plays into the dissension from large swathes of people in Judeo-Christian countries.

And if, as you claim, no one "owns" the word, and the word itself really doesn't have any real meaning, why not simply CHANGE the word for everyone to solve the problem.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, So. to those saying we get rid of the word "Marriage" and leave it to the churches. Who thinks we actually have a decent chance doing it? What the anti-gay crowd wants isnt for them to not use the word marriage. They dont want them together PERIOD. They want gays to be shoved down into a corner and stoned. And they will fight no matter what.

Well the cool thing about making it a religious ceremony, is that one find churches that are just fine with gay marriage.

What im saying is the the religious right will push more and more against that then they would against gay marriage

But then the bigots will have won haven't they?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, marriage isn't solely religious, it isn't even a soley religous word in it's origin. Anyone* can get married, they don't have to be religious.
*ish

Except in the Judeo-Christian United States and other Judeo-Christian Westernized countries, it has a long history of connection as a sacrament. I'm arguing that THAT is where the contention comes from. I'm not arguing it's correct.

We weren't supposed to be a Judeo-Christian country...

 cincydooley wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Marriage is only a contentious word because certain elements with no legitimacy are laying claim to it's ownership.

Again, it's not the word of Christians, it's is not the word of Christians who have a problem with gays marrying, what it IS is the english language recognised word for people entering into a formalized relationship.

And just like elements in Christianity will have to get used to the idea of sharing the 25th of December with other people, they will have to get used to sharing the word Marriage.

Because they own neither.

And I don't disagree with that first part.

But hopefully, as an intelligent individual, you can see how that historical context and significance as a Christian sacrament plays into the dissension from large swathes of people in Judeo-Christian countries.

I can certainly appreciate that if a Christian hears the word 'marriage' they would assume 'Christian marriage', therefore the fault, onus and need to become more aware of it's actual use as a word for any binding ceremony between adults wishing to recognize their relationship is on those Christians to change their preconceptions.

 cincydooley wrote:

And if, as you claim, no one "owns" the word, and the word itself really doesn't have any real meaning, why not simply CHANGE the word for everyone to solve the problem.

Or the group that seems to have the problem with sharing the word and wants their own special meaning which currently doesn't apply to said word can come up with their own new term whist the rest of the world continues to correctly use the word marriage... 'heteroChristianmarriagebond' or something should suffice, suitably identifying so that noone else claims it (they couldn't use 'Christian Marriage' for example, because that would be immediately ruined for them when a gay Christian couple wed in a gay-tolerant Christian church).

 cincydooley wrote:

And I don't disagree with that first part.

But hopefully, as an intelligent individual, you can see how that historical context and significance as a Christian sacrament plays into the dissension from large swathes of people in Judeo-Christian countries.

And if, as you claim, no one "owns" the word, and the word itself really doesn't have any real meaning, why not simply CHANGE the word for everyone to solve the problem.

Because marriage is more about love and commitment then it is about a sacrament. It's probably never been mostly about a sacrament, if I were a betting man.

part of the problem is that there wasn't a difference between secular and religious authority until, a the earliest, the enlightment. In practice, it's only been a couple hundred years.

Every married person I know speaks of their "marriage," including a lot that haven't been inside a church in decades.

DeadMutagen94 wrote:


We weren't supposed to be a Judeo-Christian country...

You're absolutely right.

But we know that isn't exactly the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Or the group that seems to have the problem with sharing the word and wants their own special meaning which currently doesn't apply to said word can come up with their own new term whist the rest of the world continues to correctly use the word marriage... 'heteroChristianmarriagebond' or something should suffice, suitably identifying so that noone else claims it (they couldn't use 'Christian Marriage' for example, because that would be immediately ruined for them when a gay Christian couple wed in a gay-tolerant Christian church).

Listen, I don't disagree with you here, at all. I'm Catholic. Had a full Catholic wedding ceremony (that clocked in at under an hour somehow). I don't care who gets married.

But people do. Vehemently. I am not one of those people.

If you could fix the problem by simply changing the verbiage, why wouldn't you?

Again, we are talking about legal protection under the law, right? That's the real issue here, right? Not the claiming of a word?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

Because marriage is more about love and commitment then it is about a sacrament. It's probably never been mostly about a sacrament, if I were a betting man.

part of the problem is that there wasn't a difference between secular and religious authority until, a the earliest, the enlightment. In practice, it's only been a couple hundred years.

Every married person I know speaks of their "marriage," including a lot that haven't been inside a church in decades.

I can tell you the sacrament is pretty important in catholicism and has a loooooooooooot of rules.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If we called all religious unions between two consenting adults "Religious Unions" and left the word "Marriage" to everyone, I don't think we'd have any issue.

Of course then it comes into play that "Marriage" has been considered a religious sacrament, unofficially, since like, the 1100s, and officially, since the 1500s.

I know plenty of people want to ignore that historical significance because of their plain faced dismissal of religion as a whole....

Of course then it comes into play that "Marriage" has not been considered a religious sacrament, unofficially, since like, before the 1100s, and officially, not since the 1800s.

I know plenty of people want to ignore that historical significance because of their plain faced homophobia of religion as a whole....

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Of course then it comes into play that "Marriage" has not been considered a religious sacrament, unofficially, since like, before the 1100s, and officially, not since the 1800s.

I know plenty of people want to ignore that historical significance because of their plain faced homophobia of religion as a whole....

The historical context is requisite to understand why some people have a problem with the application of the word marriage.

 whembly wrote:

 kronk wrote:
You can up here in IL! At grocery stores, even! They have hard liquor isles! Can you believe that!

So does Missouri! I thought that was "normal".

Nope. In Louisiana and Texas, hard liquor can only be sold at liquor stores.

You could get wine and beer at convenience stores and grocery stores, but on Sundays you have to wait until noon. Liquor stores are closed on Sundays.

Blue laws!

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Of course then it comes into play that "Marriage" has not been considered a religious sacrament, unofficially, since like, before the 1100s, and officially, not since the 1800s.

I know plenty of people want to ignore that historical significance because of their plain faced homophobia of religion as a whole....

The historical context is requisite to understand why some people have a problem with the application of the word marriage.

The homophobic context is requisite to understand why some people have a problem with the application of the word marriage.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Of course then it comes into play that "Marriage" has not been considered a religious sacrament, unofficially, since like, before the 1100s, and officially, not since the 1800s.

I know plenty of people want to ignore that historical significance because of their plain faced homophobia of religion as a whole....

The historical context is requisite to understand why some people have a problem with the application of the word marriage.

The homophobic context is requisite to understand why some people have a problem with the application of the word marriage.

Listen, you can continue to lazily change the wording of my posts, but that doesn't make them less true, nor does it make everyone opposed to gay marriage a homophobe. Additionally, I thought the lazy rephrasing of other people's posts was frowned upon? Or is that only for regular posters?

Whether you like it or not, the United States is rooted in Judeo-Christian values, despite the separation of church and state.

Whether you like it or not, marriage as a religious sacrament is a part of that, and informs a great deal of the opposition to it.

Remove the word marriage from the equation and, and of course this is hypothetical, but I'd wager you'd have much less of a problem.

But I've already said all of this, and you've already chosent to either not read it, or ignore it, so I don't know why I'm wasting my time restating, over, and over, and over.

Hopefully none of that is inflammatory enough for you to ban me again, but I never know.

 cincydooley wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Or the group that seems to have the problem with sharing the word and wants their own special meaning which currently doesn't apply to said word can come up with their own new term whist the rest of the world continues to correctly use the word marriage... 'heteroChristianmarriagebond' or something should suffice, suitably identifying so that noone else claims it (they couldn't use 'Christian Marriage' for example, because that would be immediately ruined for them when a gay Christian couple wed in a gay-tolerant Christian church).

Listen, I don't disagree with you here, at all. I'm Catholic. Had a full Catholic wedding ceremony (that clocked in at under an hour somehow). I don't care who gets married.

But people do. Vehemently. I am not one of those people.

If you could fix the problem by simply changing the verbiage, why wouldn't you?

Again, we are talking about legal protection under the law, right? That's the real issue here, right? Not the claiming of a word?

This is the bait and switch we're being offered by the opponents of same sex marriage though, 'we don't object to them having a ceremony, just they can't have a 'marriage' '. So, let's look at that, that objection to the use of the very word it's self.

I'm not talking about legal protection, I'm talking about two people declaring their love of one another, they can marry if they want to, be recognized if they want to and most certainly call it marriage if they want to. The issue that an ever decreasing number of people are having with two men or women marrying one another is that they don't believe they should have the right to marry because their relationship is an affront to the opponent's idea of God's demands of it's creations.

This is the very fundamental point you are missing, people other than Christians and other than heterosexual Christians wanting to have marriage, wanting to be united by a ceremonial ritual of some form. Not the point about being protected as equally treated in the law, although that is certainly very very important, but to have a marriage, an atheist marriage, a druid marriage, a muslim marriage, a jedi marriage, whatever... They have that right. There is no ownership of that word by one religion and yet one group in one religion is trying to claim it, they can't have it.

How would you feel as a Catholic if you were told the Baptists and Methodists and other 'real' Christians had decided that they were going to push for Catholics to only be able to have 'Catholic union ceremonies' and that the word 'marriage' only applies to 'True Christianity'...?

If a group of people wants to get together, jump up and down and shout 'we own that word, you can't marry', they can do so until they are blue in the face, want to know why? Because their ranks are shrinking, they are a dying breed and we are to this stage now, because their previous hold over how others conducted themselves is slipping away from them. We the majority will, of course, allow them to continue to establish churches and have ceremonies as they see fit in the privacy of them, they are not permitted to set the tone for the rest of the world now, nor claim ownership of a universally applied word through some bizarre conceit. They are still welcome to sit at the table and dine with the rest of us, but they don't do the ordering for the rest of us now, they just get to order their own damned meal.

I call bs.
There's nothing ilegal about declaring you're married, having a ceremony and dancing the babushka. Depending on the partner(s) it may not be recognized are far as contractual rights.

But you can still say you're married.

What is desired is all the contractual legal rights. Fine by me but don't fart and call it roses.

Opponents of gay marriage are seeking to deny equal treatment to homosexuals.

The exclusion of homosexuals from marriage is rooted in bigotry and homophobia.

There was a recent case in Ireland where a gay man called a group which opposes gay marriage homophobic. The broadcaster was threatened with legal action and paid out to the homophobes in question.
They have tried to argue that being called a homophobe for opposing gay marriage is wrong and unfair. Delicious.

Still, I think that means we're going to win this one.

 Frazzled wrote:
I call bs.
There's nothing ilegal about declaring you're married, having a ceremony and dancing the babushka. Depending on the partner(s) it may not be recognized are far as contractual rights.

But you can still say you're married.

What is desired is all the contractual legal rights. Fine by me but don't fart and call it roses.

And what about the State saying you're married and regardless of the consenting adult partners, it be recognized as far as contractual rights?

I married my wife in a Register's Office, in front of our friends and family we exchanged vows to each other, no gods were mentioned in this, we possess a marriage certificate, we are listed under British and American law as husband and wife. Are we married?

1. Not certain what that has to do with your earlier post, in fact it supports what I was saying. Gays don't want just the word, they want the legal rights associated with it. As long as government is going to stick its nose in an regulate what marriage is, then I'm all for that, but don't say thats not the reason. It has to be elsewise the whole argument is not sane.

EDIT: To be clear: I object on policy grounds to government being involved in "marriage" in any manner, but if government is in the business of defining marriage, then I'm ok with most things as long as everyone is above the age of consent, knowledgeable, and with free and unimpaired intent (which rules most Vegas weddings out, and mine since she tricked me by wearing a belly dancer outfit while proposing evil womanz!)
2. Nope, you're not married, we can no longer allow evilz ferrenners coming here and plundering our superior natural resources....

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I'm not talking about legal protection,

But isn't that the real, valuable outcome of all of this? The legal protection of people under law? That groups of people aren't marginalized, under the law, because of their sexual orientation?

I'm talking about two people declaring their love of one another, they can marry if they want to, be recognized if they want to and most certainly call it marriage if they want to. The issue that an ever decreasing number of people are having with two men or women marrying one another is that they don't believe they should have the right to marry because their relationship is an affront to the opponent's idea of God's demands of it's creations.

This is the very fundamental point you are missing, people other than Christians and other than heterosexual Christians wanting to have marriage, wanting to be united by a ceremonial ritual of some form. Not the point about being protected as equally treated in the law, although that is certainly very very important, but to have a marriage, an atheist marriage, a druid marriage, a muslim marriage, a jedi marriage, whatever... They have that right. There is no ownership of that word by one religion and yet one group in one religion is trying to claim it, they can't have it.

So declare that youre married. If you're not concerned with the legal protection it provides (really, the ONLY benefit to being "married"), go ahead and call yourself married. It dosn't stop transgendered people from referring to themselves as their oriented gender, does it, because they're legally the opposite gender.

How would you feel as a Catholic if you were told the Baptists and Methodists and other 'real' Christians had decided that they were going to push for Catholics to only be able to have 'Catholic union ceremonies' and that the word 'marriage' only applies to 'True Christianity'...?

Argumentative response: I'd note how ridiculous their claim is simply on the basis of longevity. Catholicism has been around far, far longer, and as such their arguement is just ridiculous.

Actual response: I wouldn't care. I don't parade my Catholicism, nor do I care what other people think about my marriage ceremony. I mean, I had to endure plenty of groans about our full Catholic mass for the ceremony. Its not about other people. Its about me and my wife.

If a group of people wants to get together, jump up and down and shout 'we own that word, you can't marry', they can do so until they are blue in the face, want to know why? Because their ranks are shrinking, they are a dying breed and we are to this stage now, because their previous hold over how others conducted themselves is slipping away from them. We the majority will, of course, allow them to continue to establish churches and have ceremonies as they see fit in the privacy of them, they are not permitted to set the tone for the rest of the world now, nor claim ownership of a universally applied word through some bizarre conceit. They are still welcome to sit at the table and dine with the rest of us, but they don't do the ordering for the rest of us now, they just get to order their own damned meal.

How permissive of you.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

And what about the State saying you're married and regardless of the consenting adult partners, it be recognized as far as contractual rights?

I married my wife in a Register's Office, in front of our friends and family we exchanged vows to each other, no gods were mentioned in this, we possess a marriage certificate, we are listed under British and American law as husband and wife. Are we married?

You're legally bound by a contract. Yes.

That's. My. Point.

Change the wording. Call ALL of them civil union under the law.

Allow "marriage" to be the individualized phrasing for whatever church, institution, cult, druid council, coven, etc. you want to hold your ceremony under.

These wouldn't have any bearing on law, or rights, at all.

Problem solved.

 Frazzled wrote:
I call bs.
There's nothing ilegal about declaring you're married, having a ceremony and dancing the babushka. Depending on the partner(s) it may not be recognized are far as contractual rights.

But you can still say you're married.

What is desired is all the contractual legal rights. Fine by me but don't fart and call it roses.

I do declare that Frazz and Ouze are married!

You're just jealous because I had my reception in a barbeque joint.

 cincydooley wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

And what about the State saying you're married and regardless of the consenting adult partners, it be recognized as far as contractual rights?

I married my wife in a Register's Office, in front of our friends and family we exchanged vows to each other, no gods were mentioned in this, we possess a marriage certificate, we are listed under British and American law as husband and wife. Are we married?

You're legally bound by a contract. Yes.

That is a side effect, we are also married to one another, have made vows to one another, declared our love for one another before the people that matter in our lives, do you understand why that was important to us, why it would be equally so for a same sex couple who love as we do? Why should they be denied that, excluded that ability to marry?

 cincydooley wrote:


That's. My. Point.

Change the wording. Call ALL of them civil union under the law.

Allow "marriage" to be the individualized phrasing for whatever church, institution, cult, druid council, coven, etc. you want to hold your ceremony under.

These wouldn't have any bearing on law, or rights, at all.

Problem solved.

Why change the word? AGAIN, it does not belong to those claiming ownership of it, why should the rest of the world surrender the rights to use a word, to hold a concept because a vocal minority claim sole dominion? You want a special word to differentiate yourselves from everyone else, go get one.

Give everyone, regardless of gender, the right to marry, using the damned word just as it is now and stop kowtowing to a vocal minority's daft seeking to claim ownership of a common usage word. Stop needlessly hanking to a group that is still, regardless of their complaining, entitled to have their own version of marriage in their own churches, just not entitled to claim the entire word and it's concept by default.

It's not theirs, why the hell should anyone else change the name? The name is fine as it is and they can just put up with it and swallow their demands and intolerance. Ban who the hell you want from your church, tell everyone who's ginger they aren't welcome, but you don't get to say 'noone who is ginger can enter a church', because you don't own the word or the other versions of church, nor is your cry to make all the other churches call themselves 'places of worship' instead of church going to carry any weight.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I call bs.
There's nothing ilegal about declaring you're married, having a ceremony and dancing the babushka. Depending on the partner(s) it may not be recognized are far as contractual rights.

But you can still say you're married.

What is desired is all the contractual legal rights. Fine by me but don't fart and call it roses.

I do declare that Frazz and Ouze are married!

Poor Kronk, ever the bridesmaid...

Whenever i hear the term struck down I always imagine some old testament shizz going on...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

That is a side effect, we are also married to one another, have made vows to one another, declared our love for one another before the people that matter in our lives, do you understand why that was important to us, why it would be equally so for a same sex couple who love as we do? Why should they be denied that, excluded that ability to marry?

Presently, homosexuals aren't prohibited from doing any of that. At all. They're denied the legal standing of it.

Why change the word? AGAIN, it does not belong to those claiming ownership of it, why should the rest of the world surrender the rights to use a word, to hold a concept because a vocal minority claim sole dominion? You want a special word to differentiate yourselves from everyone else, go get one.

No one would be surrendering any of those rights. It would actually be removing the word from having any legal bearing. That's it.

Give everyone, regardless of gender, the right to marry, using the damned word just as it is now and stop kowtowing to a vocal minority's daft seeking to claim ownership of a common usage word. Stop needlessly hanking to a group that is still, regardless of their complaining, entitled to have their own version of marriage in their own churches, just not entitled to claim the entire word and it's concept by default.

Everyone is equally permitted to use the word right now, if, by your definition, the "important" parts of being married are, "hav[ing] made vows to one another, declared our love for one another before the people that matter in our lives."

I'm arguing that the "important" part of the word is the legal protection and rights the contract of marriage provides.

You say you're a libertarian, right? So that means you'd be about privitization, right?

Privitize the word "marriage" since thats where all the arguments seem to stem from. Remove any legal basis from it. Call them all civil union contracts and allow people to use marriage however they see fit, since, from your arguments, it's the " vows made to one another, [and] declar[ing] our love for one another before the people that matter in our lives" thats really the important part.

Right