Poll: "Marriage" key in "Gay Marriage"?

[mrdude2010]

The rights are more important, but if some religions want to officially marry people of the same sex, than those people should be recognized as married.

 

[b3nn3tt]

I mean, sure, it's true that the reason for using the term "civil union" would be because a bunch of stupid religious fundamentalists think gays are unworthy of the title "marriage". So what? Why is their bigotry important to you?

Sorry to dive into your back and forth here, but this seems a little contradictory. The whole point is that the bigotry of others shouldn't be important, and therefore they shouldn't have a say in whether or not gay couples can call their union a marriage.

To turn this situation around, I doubt that any religious people would be too happy about having to stop calling their unions a marriage because it offends gay people. For example, they'd still have all the same rights, but they'd have to call it a 'religious union'. Do you see how people might get upset about that?

I just can't see how having to call it something other than a marriage just to please people who completely disagree with your partnership in the first place makes any sense.

 

[Olas]

If gays are allowed to be in civil unions where they have all the same rights as strait married couples, literally the only difference would be the term "civil union".

Except they wouldn't have the same rights. They don't have the right to call it marriage. They don't have the right to call their partner husband or wife.

Whether or not you find those rights important at all is irrelevant. It's a simple fact that in a civil union gays would not have those rights, as meaningless as you may find them. As such it's not the same. Almost the same, but not quite. Almost all the rights, but not quite all. Almost equal, except for the names.

I don't think that's a precedent you want to set. I don't think there should be an except after equality.

Okay, but can we at least agree that it's a step forward from gays not having either option, like they do in most states right now?

I guess I just get sick of arguments on the internet that boil down to debating word definitions as opposed to the actual subject matter of those definitions.

 

[loa]

Seems like a really shitty stalling tactic to deny people their rights just because of semantics.
I'd say fuck people who do that and don't "compromise" with them cause those seem to be the kind of people who take an arm if you offer them a finger.

If it finally goes through, it'll be called marriage, period.
Sad day for you if you don't like that but it draws near and there's less and less you can do to keep it from happening.

 

[Talvrae]

Here it's a non-issue... Gay-Marriage was legalised back in 2005 in Canada... but talking as someone in a lesbian marriage i think the right are more important.... trought having the same terms is not bad eighter

 

[rob_simple]

I think the rights are the most important part, but the fact that the name is utterly meaningless is what makes it so stupid that gay people can't call it marriage like straight people can.

It shouldn't even be referred to as 'gay marriage' it should just be 'marriage' because all the word is is a noun for the joining of two people in an officially recognised relationship.

Some idiots would argue that 'marriage' is a word meaning the union of man and woman but, hey, words change their meaning all the time; we recognise what it means to be married, and the bond that it represents, so if that bond can be experienced between the same sex as well as different ones then there is absolutely no need to create new words and terms for the exact same thing.

 

[Olas]

I mean, sure, it's true that the reason for using the term "civil union" would be because a bunch of stupid religious fundamentalists think gays are unworthy of the title "marriage". So what? Why is their bigotry important to you?

Sorry to dive into your back and forth here, but this seems a little contradictory. The whole point is that the bigotry of others shouldn't be important, and therefore they shouldn't have a say in whether or not gay couples can call their union a marriage.

I'm not really arguing about what side has more authority in deciding the legal definition of marriage. I'm simply suggesting the option that I think would be best for both parties overall. Gay people get the legal rights of marriage, religious fanatics get to keep their doctrine the same.

Ya, it may be a bit utilitarian, but it's also simply a lot more practical.

To turn this situation around, I doubt that any religious people would be too happy about having to stop calling their unions a marriage because it offends gay people. For example, they'd still have all the same rights, but they'd have to call it a 'religious union'. Do you see how people might get upset about that?

Except there you're asking people to alter deeply rooted traditions. I can somewhat understand being upset about that. Unless the gay community has a deeply rooted tradition about what they call their unions, I don't see why it would be as offensive to them.

 

[Olas]

I don't see those religious fanatics usually calling for a change in the name when people try to pass gay marriage. You can say it pleases both sides all you like, but I don't see much evidence that the religious fanatics stop there.

I think it's called being the bigger man, and not getting up in arms because you had to change a certain word to please someone else. I guess if only getting 99.9% of what you want seems like a problem worth fighting in the courts for years over, then have at it.

Did you even read my post? My point is that your proposal isn't going to result in 99.9%. You're obviously too invested in your own ideas.

Okay, so what percent is it? Since you're apparently the authority on just how important this is to everyone. I'm just going off my own personal judgement. Personally, I wouldn't care if I was forced to call my marriage a "civil union" since it doesn't change anything about it.

But that's just me. I guess you know what everyone else thinks.

Also, who the hell are you to tell people that they should be the better man instead of telling others to stop trying to insist they shouldn't be equal? Certainly you're asking people to be better than you're being.

I'm not telling anyone that they have to be the better man, I just know that no highly religious group is ever going to take the first step in resolving this conflict by reaching across the aisle, being rigid by nature.

But by all means, we can all be equally stubborn about this. It's a free country.

 

[feauxx]

I vote for the term because that includes the rights. Civil Partnerships aren't romantic, they feel like a business partnership or something. Most people get want to join not just legally but symbolically too, that's what marriage is.

 

[Lightknight]

Yes, I'd say that the vast majority of people opposing gay marriage are only doing so because the term "marriage" is attached to it. They see any changes to this term as an attack on their religious and cultural institutions which is an overstepping of the bounds of the government. Whether this legislation of religious practices is real or merely percieved is besides the point as the result is the same. People who should be able to have these rights aren't getting them.

I'm actually for the removal of marriage licenses altogether. Historically, marriage licenses were only required to allow marriages that would otherwise be illegal (say an 18 year old marrying a 15 year old or rushing a marriage that would otherwise require a waiting period).

The use of marriage licenses were instituted in the US towards the middle->end of the 1800's and were primarily designed to prevent inter-racial marriages. Well, not all inter-racial marriages so much as preventing minorities from marrying whites at the time. Prior to this, common-law marriages were the norm and perfectly valid.

Personally, I consider marriage to be a freedom. Adults get to decide who they get to be with. I also consider marriage to be a religious and cultural term that I don't believe the government should have a say in except perhaps in the arbitration of divorce.

I think everyone should be able to enter into something like a civil union that gives everyone the benefits of marriage (hospital visitation, tax benefits, etc.) without stepping into a role that I believe undermines the spirit of separation of church and state. I actually kind of think that people wouldn't have nearly as big a beef with this if it wasn't using a traditionally religiously percieved term "marriage".

So I just don't believe the government should have any say over marriage. What's more, I wouldn't be opposed to ANYONE being able to enter into whatever kind of financial/civil union would stay in its place. Whether they be lovers, homosexuals, or even just business partners or close friends living under the same roof for a decade.

If the term marriage is to remain imposed on by the government, then sure, gay people should absolutely have access to it. But shame on the government for maintaining an essentially religious and originally racist law.

The question then is on the homosexual side of things. Do they just want equal rights or are they also trying to get something more? Some people discuss maintaining the word "Marriage" as a way of legislating public acceptance by legally validifying their relationship and giving a religious aspect to it thanks to the term. If the former, then that's completely appropriate. If the latter then that's not the government's job. This should be understood regardless of the side of the fence you're on.

 

[Silvanus]

I want assurances that my girlfriend and I can be with each other in an emergency. It also scares me that her family might make decisions for her, given the history there, should something happen. It's not so much the concept that really bothers me, but the thousand little things that would be at issue.

I'm transgender, too, which further complicates things, because we're pretty much the bottom of the barrel in terms of rights. Even within marriage equality states, opponents are being slow to comply, making things rough. They'll be slower to stand up for people like me, because that's how this sort of thing works.

If you don't mind my asking, what's the situation in your home state?

You're free to interpret the meaning of what the terminology represents however you want, it doesn't change the fact that gays would be given equal rights under it.

I mean, sure, it's true that the reason for using the term "civil union" would be because a bunch of stupid religious fundamentalists think gays are unworthy of the title "marriage". So what? Why is their bigotry important to you? I say instead of being stubborn about it, just leave them alone, let them keep their outdated rules, and then simply circumvent those rules so that it has no affect on you. If they want to believe your institution is inferior to theirs, let them. Why should you care?

That just seems like the adult approach to me.

Their bigotry is not important to me. State validation of their bigotry is important to me, and the term 'married' is important to others. Whether you or I find it important doesn't matter. There is no rational reason to deny it.

 

[b3nn3tt]

I mean, sure, it's true that the reason for using the term "civil union" would be because a bunch of stupid religious fundamentalists think gays are unworthy of the title "marriage". So what? Why is their bigotry important to you?

Sorry to dive into your back and forth here, but this seems a little contradictory. The whole point is that the bigotry of others shouldn't be important, and therefore they shouldn't have a say in whether or not gay couples can call their union a marriage.

I'm not really arguing about what side has more authority in deciding the legal definition of marriage. I'm simply suggesting the option that I think would be best for both parties overall. Gay people get the legal rights of marriage, religious fanatics get to keep their doctrine the same.

Ya, it may be a bit utilitarian, but it's also simply a lot more practical.

I'd disagree. I think that by calling it a civil union it actually just makes both camps unhappy. People still protest any sort of gay union, whatever it's called, while there are still plenty of gay people who would like to call their union a marriage. Really, I feel that this argument is like any argument of this nature, where I feel it says more about the opposing group than anyone else. It shouldn't make any difference whatsoever to opponents of gay marriage whether it's called marriage or not. Yet people still feel the need to protest this sort of thing, even though it doesn't actually affect them.

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about you here, but rather people that feel the need to hold protests about issues that don't affect them.

To turn this situation around, I doubt that any religious people would be too happy about having to stop calling their unions a marriage because it offends gay people. For example, they'd still have all the same rights, but they'd have to call it a 'religious union'. Do you see how people might get upset about that?

Except there you're asking people to alter deeply rooted traditions. I can somewhat understand being upset about that. Unless the gay community has a deeply rooted tradition about what they call their unions, I don't see why it would be as offensive to them.

Sometimes traditions need changing, when they become outdated. I would argue that the 'traditional' view of marriage is incredibly outdated if it can't accept the fact that two men or two women could love each other and want to marry. And in that case, I feel that the people wanting to change the definition should have a greater say than those that want to keep it the same.

 

[Belaam]

The rights are more important.

Being able to use the term is one of those rights.

 

[SecondPrize]

The rights may have been more important at the start but at this point anything less than what anyone else gets is just more state-sponsored discrimination.

 

[Agayek]

First of all, unlike Seperate But Equal, this would actually be equal. An important distinction I think. More importantly, it wouldn't really be separate either. We're not talking about forcing gays to get married in a different church than straits, or get married with a different priest, or anything being actually different in the process. The exact wording of the vows may need to be different, but just as a legal technicality.

I understand your argument that calling it something different could be a slippery slope towards something worse, but I think that's only an issue if you're in a culture that's pushing towards intolerance and inequality to begin with, whereas homosexuality is becoming more commonly accepted all the time. If anything it seems like a possible stepping stone towards full fledged equality, considering even civil unions with equal rights are illegal in most states right now, and this would certainly be an improvement.

I guess I just see it as a compromise that pleases everyone. Gay people get to have the same rights as everyone else, and religious fanatics get to keep their oh-so sacred definition of "true marriage" intact.

You do realize that Separate But Equal was supposed to be equal too, right? It was exactly the kind of compromise you're talking about here. One side gets to keep their bigotry, the other gets what they wanted.

It didn't play out anything like that of course, but that's what it was supposed to be, and that was my entire point. You can claim it will be equal, but history and human nature puts the lie to that. It's happened countless times throughout human history, in pretty much every society that wasn't completely homogeneous. See the Irish immigrating to the US circa the Potato Famine, the rights and treatment of actual Roman Citizens hailing from conquered provinces (and no, I'm not talking about the average person, Citizenship was a big deal and it had to be earned for the Romans), or the ongoing and continual class war that's existed since the dawn of time for just a few examples. Separate But Equal is simply the most obvious (sadly, not the most recent) of such to modern Americans.

 

[Olas]

Snip

You do realize that Separate But Equal was supposed to be equal too, right? It was exactly the kind of compromise you're talking about here.

I find that incredibly hard to believe considering the policy was created when Jim Crow laws were in affect all across the country and blacks were still being lynched. Separate but Equal didn't start out as something innocent and then evolve into something horribly racist. It was just a sticker slapped onto the enormous racism that already existed. You can't deny that intolerance towards African Americans before the civil rights movement was an order of magnitude higher than intolerance towards homosexuals is today.

Besides separate but equal was used to enforce rules vastly more extreme than a simple name change. Blacks couldn't vote, attend school in the same building as whites, go to the same churches, use the same public services, etc. It was used to enforce tangible differences that affected them in day to day life. And again that was how it worked from the beginning.

It sounds like you're implying that if we make gays change the name of their marriage today, next thing you know we'll be forcing them to use different bathrooms and drink from different drinking fountains. Do I have to explain why that line of reasoning doesn't make sense?

 

[Agayek]

I find that incredibly hard to believe considering the policy was created when Jim Crow laws were in affect all across the country and blacks were still being lynched. Separate but Equal didn't start out as something innocent and then evolve into something horribly racist. It was just a sticker slapped onto the enormous racism that already existed. You can't deny that intolerance towards African Americans before the civil rights movement was an order of magnitude higher than intolerance towards homosexuals is today.

Besides separate but equal was used to enforce rules vastly more extreme than a simple name change. Blacks couldn't vote, attend school in the same building as whites, go to the same churches, use the same public services, etc. It was used to enforce tangible differences that affected them in day to day life. And again that was how it worked from the beginning.

It sounds like you're implying that if we make gays change the name of their marriage today, next thing you know we'll be forcing them to use different bathrooms and drink from different drinking fountains. Do I have to explain why that line of reasoning doesn't make sense?

You're right, Separate But Equal was a name slapped on to an existing set of rules specifically in order to ensure the minority stayed powerless and could not disrupt the status quo.

Sounds an awful lot like slapping a label like "civil unions" onto gay marriage, don't it?

Like I said, if you could magically guarantee that there really was absolutely no difference in enforcement and ensure that there wouldn't be the abuse of power that has existed in every civilization since the dawn of human comprehension, then there's absolutely no issue with making a completely new institution specifically for gays to be married under. We don't live in a world where that's possible however, and that makes anything less than full, open equality, where the same rules apply to everyone exactly the same, inherently inequal, and that should not be tolerated.

 

[ten.to.ten]

I think it's called being the bigger man, and not getting up in arms because you had to change a certain word to please someone else. I guess if only getting 99.9% of what you want seems like a problem worth fighting in the courts for years over, then have at it.

The thing is that full legal equality can only exist when gays are allowed to enter into the same relationship recognition system that already exists. Even the best civil union systems haven't been truly legally equal. Specifically regarding the United States, same-sex marriages have to be recognised by the federal government, and same-sex civil unions don't and are not. So there is a massive legal difference between a marriage and a civil union in the United States. Up until the Windsor decision, the federal congress had resisted any and all attempts at allowing any recognition of same-sex partners in any form under federal law, with the very limited exception of visas for codependents of some gay foreign citizens who had particular work visas.

The concept of a civil union being legally equal to a marriage in the United States is purely hypothetical and not reflected in reality, and won't be anytime soon. 17 states (if you include Hawaii, Illinois and New Mexico) plus DC have or will have same-sex marriage. Only 3 states have civil unions that are similar to marriage, and these don't have any federal recognition. Civil unions are also banned in the constitutions of 20 states. While more state constitutions ban same-sex marriage, the fact that the history of marriage goes back to before the creation of the United States, while the history of civil unions goes back a couple of decades at the most, and that there have been stacks of court cases that have affirmed and reaffirmed that marriage is a fundamental legal right is going to make it much more likely in the not-too-distant future that the clauses of state constitutions that ban same-sex marriage are going to be invalidated, the same is not likely to happen with civil union bans.

Maybe if the state and federal governments of the US hadn't spent the 90s and 00s going into overdrive banning any and all recognition of gay couples wherever they could and had created a civil union system that would have given most of the rights of marriage to gay couples while still reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples only, what you're saying might be more sensible.

Snip

Wanna hear some shit?

In Australia, most states have civil unions, but most states only allow you to enter into a civil union by signing a form in a courthouse or a state registrar's office, you're not allowed to have an official ceremony similar to that of a wedding. The Australian Capital Territory tried this in 2006, but the federal Liberal National Coalition government (of which Tony Abbott, the man in the video, was a cabinet minister at the time) vetoed it. The state of Queensland also tried it in 2011, but in 2012 the Liberal National Party of Queensland, again, amended the law to stop people from having a ceremony with their civil union.

However, in Australia, civil celebrants are allowed by law to conduct "commitment ceremonies" for gay couples, as long as the celebrant makes it known to the couple that it is not a legally binding ceremony and is not a marriage.

So the government is okay with gay relationships being legally recognised... and they're okay with gay couples having a ceremony... but gay couples having a ceremony to become legally recognised as a couple? Get the fuck out of here!

If Tony Abbott and the Liberal and National parties really, actually cared, they would get together with the state governments and hash out a national civil union system, like the Labor government did with the states with de facto domestic partnerships in 2008. There are four names for civil unions in the five jurisdictions that have them (two of them changed names halfway through but didn't make it any more uniform), Victoria still doesn't recognise civil unions entered into outside of Victoria, there are so many discrepancies when it comes to how to enter into one, how to dissolve one, what it costs, etc. and WA, SA and NT don't have them at all even though there's supposed to be bipartisan support for the concept across the country. It's a mess, and he really couldn't care less. His words are cheap.

 

[ATRAYA]

While I'm all for civil unions that grant the same legal benefits as marriage, the original definition of marriage is a "union between a man and a woman under God".

Please cite the research that says this is the original definition.

If you're talking about Christianity, since that's usually the one that comes up, polygamy came first.

That is the literal definition and, by default, two men could simply NOT be married in a church.

Literal definition? I'm not seeing it cited.

Besides, why is the word so special it cannot change unlike other words in the dictionary? Well I mean for one you are citing what I'm pretty sure isn't a very original definition.

I wouldn't say it's fair for a man of the clergy to have to go against his beliefs just because two same-sex mammals wanted to profess their love with all of their friends in a big building, just like it isn't fair that a married homosexual couple can't get the same legal rights as a married heterosexual couple in many places.

I feel it's as unfair to him as it is to a racist shop owner to have to serve black people. But sadly in the US religion gets some protections.

So, technically, it's impossible for a homosexual couple to be married "under God" in a church. They can be "married" in a court of law, however.

You say technically but that's meaningless, you've shown no technical issues.

"Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Gen. 2:22.

"Marriage" is the sacred covenant between a man, woman and God to be joined together under Him and made whole (that whole woman being made from part of a man thing).
Really, all I'm saying is the word is incorrect. I have no qualms with homosexuals getting "married", but technically they wouldn't be by a member of the clergy. Thus, a civil union works just fine.

I wouldn't say it's "sad" for religions to be protected in the US. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and, while you may not agree with them, they should be respected. "Land of the free" and all that, yes? The First Amendment? I despise racism, yet I still respect the beliefs of a racist, despite my disagreement with them. If I knew a racist shop-owner, I would simply not purchase from them. There are equally good shops to purchase from elsewhere. Forcing them to serve would not be pleasant for any parties involved.

This is devolving into dangerous territory, however, and I fear I may not continue this conversation if it is fated to curdle into a pathetic battle of religions.