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

[Deathmageddon]

I don't know if the terminology is all that important... What I do know is that, at least here in the US, the big issue isn't so much what "rights" gay couples have, so much as what rights everyone else has. Most GM legislation here don't include religious exemptions, which will logically lead to religious institutions being forced to perform gay marriages (in violation of their beliefs and our right to religious liberty). Thankfully churches haven't been targeted yet, but aggressive GM proponents have been going after businesses ruthlessly. For instance, there was a wedding photographer who was forced by the courts to provide his services to a gay wedding after initially refusing, and a cake shop that was forced to close after getting thousands of death threats from what some people call the "gay mafia." Because it's SOOO twisted to merely think that sex should be reproductive.

 

[Asita]

To sum up my perspective: Does the phrase "Separate but equal" ring any bells here?

To be slightly less quippy: If there is no qualitative difference between two legal terms, there is no reason for them to remain separate institutions. They'd already be effectively identical so there's no reason to invent a separate term. The separation is merely pandering to a sense of elitism, and that's something that the law should never humor, much less pander to. If there is a qualitative difference[footnote]And in the States at least, there is quite the qualitative difference between Civil Unions and Marriage, with the latter granting hundreds of legal rights and benefits that are excluded from the former[/footnote], then it's not something we should respect as anything other than a stepping stone to merging the institutions more fully.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Religion is optional in marriage equality not so much.

 

[SuperfastJellyfish]

Without having the title, there is still a belittlement that Christians will still dig into and try to exploit. We need the rights and the term. I'm just glad I live in Canada and don't have to deal with any of this bullshit. People actually make of you if you're homophobic where I'm from.

 

[Something Amyss]

Most GM legislation here don't include religious exemptions, which will logically lead to religious institutions being forced to perform gay marriages (in violation of their beliefs and our right to religious liberty).

Except civil marriage has nothing to do with religious rebliefs and needs no religious exemption. I know that a lot of people brush over this to create an atmosphere of persecution of the majority, but the only people "forced" to marry people are the ones who signed on to do a civil job. Churches are not forced to marry people.

I would say, however, if you want to sign up for a job and don't want to do the duties of said job, you should probably not sign up in the first place. Call it the "Amish Bus Driver" principle, if you will.

For instance, there was a wedding photographer who was forced by the courts to provide his services to a gay wedding after initially refusing, and a cake shop that was forced to close after getting thousands of death threats from what some people call the "gay mafia."

[citation needed]

Though the latter has absolutely nothing to do with legislation.

Because it's SOOO twisted to merely think that sex should be reproductive.

Except nothing about marriage mandates sex be reproductive, so that argument is dishonest and quite frankly ridiculous.

Unless you're planning on banning old people from getting married, or forcing ferticility checks, or banning contraception....

And in the States at least, there is quite the qualitative difference between Civil Unions and Marriage, with the latter granting hundreds of legal rights and benefits that are excluded from the former

Same's true of marriage, though.

 

[Kinitawowi]

So, really, that answer is... a little irrelevant. It's like being asked whether a club should allow gay people in, and replying that you don't want the club there at all. Well, fine, but it's there now, and it will be there for quite some time, and the question was whether you support equal access to it.

If that's the angle you want to play, then no I don't support equal access to the club - because denying those rights will be the first step to it being shut down. (Or possibly it'll just result in people screaming and banging on the doors begging to be let in - and again, that's the fault of the club, not the people.)

It's not irrelevant at all. I don't think the institution of marriage should exist in any legal sense whatsoever (if you must have a ring and a ceremony and some paperwork then get on with it, but the concept of that relationship being something deserving of legal recognition and/or encouragement is where I have the issue). I can't sit here and pretend to be pro-gay marriage when I'm anti-marriage as a concept, and anti-gay marriage is a position that needs to be described in order for it not to appear the result of bigotry or religious hatred. If you want me to answer the original poll with the options quoted, I did; I answered anti-gay marriage. And frankly it's insulting to have my opinion dismissed as "a little irrelevant".

 

[Yopaz]

Vermont was one of the first states in the US to legalise civil unions. The law codified the notion that marriage was explicitly between one man and one woman.

Well, this actually clears up why this the process is so slow. Changing laws that have already been written is a real headache. It's a shame laws are made to be homophobic...

OT: I would say the rights are more important than the name, but it's hard to separate the two. If we want to treat homosexuals as equals to heterosexuals then this isn't good enough. It's a step in the right direction to call it a civil union and leave them with the same rights as any married man or woman, but personally I don't think it's good enough.

That said I think it should be up to each priest if he or she wants to perform a ceremony, that's partially me wanting to keep church and government separate, but also because I think we should accept their belief even if we disagree with it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Without having the title, there is still a belittlement that Christians will still dig into and try to exploit. We need the rights and the term. I'm just glad I live in Canada and don't have to deal with any of this bullshit. People actually make of you if you're homophobic where I'm from.

Honestly, as far as Christians go, it doesn't matter since the religious right[footnote]and not the distinction, because this isn't christianity vs gays but a more specific branch of religious believers vs gays[/footnote] will have a tantrum either way. Have you seen this year's fake war on Christmas? There's a segment of the community that will cry persecution at anything, no matter how imaginary.

If everything else was equal, I'd say 'let the Christians have that sense of superiority,' but it wouldn't end there. Have you seen the argument that anti-bullying laws violate the Christian right to free practice of religion? Yeah. There will always be a segment seeking superiority and treating Christianity as a persecuted minority. Let 'em have it if it doesn't impact our rights.

 

[Flutterguy]

Well, I'm anti marriage to begin with. I don't believe in the institution, bar some beneficial legal issues. So by that rationale I'm neither for marriage or gay marriage, though I'd defend anyone's rights to it.

Very well stated. My view exactly. Thus i feel I cannot vote on the poll.

 

[Silvanus]

It's not irrelevant at all. I don't think the institution of marriage should exist in any legal sense whatsoever (if you must have a ring and a ceremony and some paperwork then get on with it, but the concept of that relationship being something deserving of legal recognition and/or encouragement is where I have the issue). I can't sit here and pretend to be pro-gay marriage when I'm anti-marriage as a concept, and anti-gay marriage is a position that needs to be described in order for it not to appear the result of bigotry or religious hatred. If you want me to answer the original poll with the options quoted, I did; I answered anti-gay marriage. And frankly it's insulting to have my opinion dismissed as "a little irrelevant".

You're arguing that I shouldn't have access to the same institutions as you, because you don't like the institution anyway, and you're the one feeling "a little insulted"? You evidently don't place a very high value on my equal standing, Kini, so I find it quite odd that you should be the one feeling "insulted".

Denying equal access will not bring about the dissolution of the institution any earlier. All it will do is prolong the unequal standing gay people have. If you don't care about that, at least be honest about the fact that equal standing for gay people isn't of much importance to you.

 

[spartan231490]

I don't care if they get married. I always suggested they try to get something that was legally the same but with a different name just because it completely invalidates all religious arguments. They wouldn't be getting "married" as the religious union between a "man and a woman" but would be getting a "civil-union" or whatever that would be a purely secular term.

I also admit I have no idea why they're so excited about being "married" instead of having a "civil partnership" if they convey the same rights. I just don't understand why they would care if it has a different label, but I have nothing against them being able to have that label.

 

[Silvanus]

I also admit I have no idea why they're so excited about being "married" instead of having a "civil partnership" if they convey the same rights. I just don't understand why they would care if it has a different label, but I have nothing against them being able to have that label.

What do you think most straight couples would say, if you suggested they should have all the rights, but be referred to as "civil partners" rather than "husband and wife"?

A great many of them would not go for the idea. Many people dream of a wedding ceremony, and calling it a marriage is a part of that. Many couples would simply be a little bemused by the suggestion of calling themselves "civil partners", and opt for the traditional marriage.

And, further, how do you think an average straight couple would react if they were told they were not allowed to have the same institution as everybody else, even if they were allowed the same legal rights?

Many would feel bloody insulted.

 

[Something Amyss]

You're arguing that I shouldn't have access to the same institutions as you, because you don't like the institution anyway, and you're the one feeling "a little insulted"? You evidently don't place a very high value on my equal standing, Kini, so I find it quite odd that you should be the one feeling "insulted".

It's pretty common that the majority tries to equate their troubles with the minority's. It's therefore unsurprising that one would equate their argument being considered a non-issue here with actual systematic discrimination.

I don't care if they get married. I always suggested they try to get something that was legally the same but with a different name just because it completely invalidates all religious arguments.

No, it would only stop the "marriage is a sacred institution" argument. Look at civil union states (and we've had a few). Religious folk still complained that it violated their right to religious freedom by validating gays, or forcing them to join gays in civil unions. Both are absurd, but they're going to keep happening. You only really kill one of the religious arguments, and it's not even necessarily the worst.

"Freedom of religion" being used to discriminate instead of protect one's faith, I would say, is far worse.

And, I mean, honestly, I'm fine with people freely expressing themselves. I'm even fine with assholes like the WBC. As long as free expression means I can call them assholes when they say God hates me. So it's not about expression. It's about them trying to backdoor actual inequity under the guise of expression. But as I've pointed out already, calling them civil unions hasn't stopped religious arguments before and it won't now.

Or, in short:

people would find something to complain about.

Even religious grounds.

It actually sort of baffles me that people are talking about this in hypothetical. this has played out for over a decade now. even if you don't count Vermont's enaction of Civil Unions in 2000, you have battles that date back almost as far in other states, some of which culminated in civil unions, but only after half a decade of opposition. We started getting same-sex marriages about the time you started seeing new civil union laws pop up. that should tell you how little a difference it makes to the opposition.

 

[Asita]

And in the States at least, there is quite the qualitative difference between Civil Unions and Marriage, with the latter granting hundreds of legal rights and benefits that are excluded from the former

Same's true of marriage, though.

I'm not sure I follow your thrust there, but just in case we got our wires crossed, let me rephrase my own statement: In the States, civil unions and marriage are certainly separate, but are far from equal, as marriage quite literally has hundreds of benefits and rights that civil unions lack. As such, a civil union is a lesser institution than marriage in both the social and the legal sense, making its status as a [hypothetical] compromise a hollow victory at best, even if the government does recognize civil unions as valid/legal.

If this did come across in what you were responding to, could you please clarify what you mean by "same's true of marriage"?

 

[Something Amyss]

A great many of them would not go for the idea. Many people dream of a wedding ceremony, and calling it a marriage is a part of that. Many couples would simply be a little bemused by the suggestion of calling themselves "civil partners", and opt for the traditional marriage.

While I agree with you on most points, a wedding ceremony can be called whatever you want it to be called. There's neither a legal nor a religious obligation. It's what's on the paper and how the union itself is legislated. Many people already have religious ceremonies and legal ones, and they're the straight ones who can legally marry/marry in the eyes of most ideas of "God."

There are social ramifications, of course, but wedding ceremonies aren't inherently legally binding. I would think a bigger issue would be finding a suitable venue, as many dream of Church weddings even if they're not considered cool with the Lord. And that would remain an issue, because a church still has the right to not hold gay wedding ceremonies.

 

[sth1729]

Even a civil union that functions the same as a marriage isn't equal since it implies that the relationship between the two is different from that of a traditional marriage, all of which is reminiscent of the 'separate but equal' argument.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I'm for gay-marriage personally, for a number of reasons, even though I am straight myself.

However, I have one friend who is deeply Catholic and he brought to my attention a major problem with the idea of religious marriage and gay people in his view: marriage is a sacrament in his and some other religions. Simplified that means it's a holy thing that a holy person engages people in with the blessing and authority of their mutual god in under a specific, religiously determined, set of parameters - some of those being prohibitive of people of the same sex receiving it.

That's a problem because no authority outside of the religion can confer that and no authority from outside of the religion can alter those parameters.

Now, there are non-religious marriage equivalents that already exist. Atheists can get married, two people from different religions can get married, people who are not particularly looking to do anything more than tie their legal lives together can get married, using these means. So, it's marriage still, but has a diminished or no religious component. They can have whatever ceremonies they like, but there is no official religious blessing involved in such cases. Fine and well. I think gay people can and should have the same options. And all of those are still called marriage - because that is what they are, the semantics issue is a non-issue for those groups, so it should be a non-issue for gay marriages I think.

If gay people want weddings within whatever religion they belong to, then they are going to have to, from within the religion, change the parameters of receiving that sacrament, and unfortunately outside help is not going to do much for that situation, as it is entirely an inside thing.

What can be done and should be done, in my opinion, is the governmental option of civil unions (which will be called marriages, because that is what they are and claiming a word... well that's a whole different discussion about language - words are symbols they mean what we all think and agree that they mean and that is constantly changing and evolving and it isn't a determined thing it's a dynamic shared thing - language is descriptive, not prescriptive - things don't mean what the dictionary tells us they mean, dictionaries catalog what we've decided words mean) in non-religious terms so that the rights and legal protections are the same for two men getting married as a man and a woman atheist getting married as a man and a woman of different religious backgrounds getting married, as a two women getting married, as a man and a woman of the same religion getting married, and so on and so on. Legally and socially these things should all be the same. Because they are the same. And people will talk about them like they are the same, using the same word, because it is convenient, which is what words are for - making description of concepts and things and places convenient for more rapid verbal and written communication.

 

[DEAD34345]

The whole point in advocating gay marriage is that gay and straight couples should be equal in every respect under the law. That includes the name, the rights and everything else, no matter how pointless. Anything different to that misses the point entirely, as far as I'm concerned. Things like civil partnerships solve a couple of the symptoms, sure, but the legal inequality is still there. If anything those sort of schemes seem like a delaying tactic to me, where a group can appear to be getting more progressive while slowing down actual advances in equality for as long as they possibly can.