1 Vote
RE: Why not?
Either you’d have to force the different major branches of Christianity to squabble over who gets to call theirs “marriage”, with all of the other relegated to finding a new name, or you’d have to grandfather in the term “marriage” to apply at a broader level than a single sect, which leaves you in pretty much the current situation.
Who’s you and why does you care?
When Mormons marry in the temple they call it a sealing because they view it as persisting after death (whereas typical marriage ceremonies use the “’till death do you part” language). Do you really think that causes problems?
RE: Why not? by scottb
Wow… did you wildly miss the point.
Occams suggested that each religious organization should register and own its own, unique name for whatever their analog for marriage is — this in response to the often offered objection that “marriage” is a religious term, and it’s somehow wrong to apply it to gay couples.
Sure, if you’ve got a sect that calls their ceremony “sealing”, and nobody else wants that, there’s no issue. But what if, say, an FDLS organization, excommunicated by LDS, were to register first, claiming “sealing” for their ceremonies, and (in the proposed system) legally barring LDS from using it?
That’s the issue — “marriage” is what Catholics, virtually every Protestant sect, Orthodox churches, and many others all use. If only one of them were permitted to register the term, barring all the others, to say there’d be issues is an understatement.