3 ms·
OK. Thanks for the list. I think there are two issues in this "same sex marriage" debate that are being confused by people on both sides. One is the special ri
by dangero 14y ago
OK. Thanks for the list.
I think there are two issues in this "same sex marriage" debate that are being confused by people on both sides. One is the special rights and privileges given to married couples, and the other is the actual word "marriage". What I was suggesting is that the government should drop the term "marriage" from their vocabulary and change it to something else, like "domestic partnership". I highly doubt that anyone employing rational thought would suggest we can do away with the concept of mutually exclusive partnership between two people in the legal realm. Part of what the people on the right are arguing for is to not have the actual term "marriage" redefined by the government. That word has a lot of tradition and meaning. If we turn the conversation towards removing that word from the government's laws and replacing it with something that has less specific meaning to people, then the conversation is purely about equal rights and not a fight over a word and the tradition behind it. I think that's more what people are getting at when they suggest that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage.
- henrikschroder 14y agoOh, separate but equal? No.
- dangero 14y agoHow is that separate but equal? Who is making anyone separate? I'm suggesting the government should treat everyone the same. My understanding of "separate but equal" historically had to do with separating students based on race into separate schools. If the government were to say, "OK, call it a marriage, call it whatever you want, but 2 people can form what we call a 'domestic partnership' that creates certain legal rights by filling out this form." How is that separate but equal?
- cdcarter 14y agoUnfortunately most of the marriage protection amendments also ban establishing these "separate but equal" legal arrangements as well.