this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2025
1063 points (99.4% liked)
Political Humor
1350 readers
1142 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
Marriage isn't (just) a religius act. It's a civil one.
Marriage didn't start as religious. Rather, it was appropriated by religion. That's mostly a product of the fact that for a large part of recent(ish) history states had official religions which served to keep the population docile. We seem to have returned to that ideal as of recently as well.
The difference between "marriage" and "domestic partnership" when domestic partherships as such were introduced was the fact that for marriage you had to get married (i.e. go to the wedding registrar and get yourselves on the list), as opposed to domestic partnerships which were meant as a "marriage without marriage". In ages long past, bastard children had no rights of inheritance. That changed and they were treated equal. Domestic partherships likewise allowed spouses the "benefits" of marriage such as tax breaks, divorces, domestic violence protection/suits, etc.
Today, for some odd reason, you have to file for domestic partnership. That's like requiring children file for citizenship. Sure, you do have to report the child as born, but if someone finds out they should have citizenship according to the rules, after a bit of bureaucracy they should have it. It's an automatic process. You don't enter a civil partnership by filing for one. When a spouse sues the other the courts decide whether their relationship constitutes a partnership. So it's a status aforded automatically, not unlike citizenship (until Trump trumps that, at least).
Again, religions don't own a monopoly on marriage. States have been marrying people quite literally since time immemorial. They've been conflated with religion because then there used to be a state-enforced official religion, which the US (and many other places) seem to have returned to.
What we should do is treat marriages as secular. Religions have their visions of marriage. Why shouldn't the state have its own?
Treat marriage as what it is: a registered domestic partnership with the appropriate name of "marriage".
If you want to legally get married, go to the registrar and register.
If you want to get married in your religion of choice, great! Go to their version of priests. Civil recognition of the marriage may or may not be automatic, and there are a few ways how that might be done.
TLDR: Religion has no monopoly on the word or concept of "marriage", as it predates all of them. Just look at roman marriages - done before Christianity was even a thing.
Everything you said here I replied to elsewhere. But tldr; Romans didn't get married, the term was Conubium, or Coniugium.
And if you were talking about the institution of marriage it was Matrimonium, which surrounded the aspect of women as mothers.
The term marriage did not exist yet showing that the term marriage does not matter. Choosing a word over the health/safety and happiness of the common person is pointless.
Terms change, and if it's for a good reason we should change them. The oldest current governing body is only ~250 years old. Christians have been claiming the term marriage for far longer than that.
Why would you care that they called it a civil union or anything else if the rights were the same? Why should people be persecuted to uphold such, it's all frivolous. Change the term in government documents, and let people have whatever ceremonies they want and exclude who they want from their ceremonies.
Conserving "Tradition" is an inability to grow.