9 ms·

I'm gay and I agree with you. But, it's not fair to ask gay people to wait around until marriage is removed from our entire legal system (taxes, immigration, p

I'm gay and I agree with you. But, it's not fair to ask gay people to wait around until marriage is removed from our entire legal system (taxes, immigration, property rights, family law, custody...). So in the mean time marriage equality is a much easier fix. Maybe someday there will be a ruling based on the Equal Protections Clause that bans treating married people differently than unmarried people under the law. Wouldn't that be interesting?

JakeAl 11y ago
I'd say in the laws the government should simply recognize all unions as civil unions, leave marriage to your "religion" but I still agree that discrimination based on relationship status is wrong. Every individual should be able to specify who can visit them in a hospital, who is entitled to be the beneficiary of any social security benefits etc. Social Security and health care is dooming this nation and there's a clear timeline for it's demise unless the way they are handled changes, so maybe inheriting government benefits should go away and everyone should only be entitled to what was deducted from their own checks or willed to them by others. The US is looking at austerity in 10 years max, 5 years minimum and the people are too busy sticking up for their favorite party like sports fans on a bus arguing about astroturf and logos while the bus goes over a cliff.
brownegg 11y ago
I can't upvote this hard enough. OP is right in my mind, but.... I'm straight (and divorced), and we got married for many of the same reasons that LGBT folks want to--it makes sense. Visitation rights, inheritance, tax treatment, etc. It's unlikely that marriage would be removed as something of concern to lawmakers--has that kind of thing ever happened anywhere, any time, any way? I respect OP's opinion, but it's ivory tower and we're talking about real people right now. possibly unnecessary edit: just want to reiterate that I think OP is _right_, it's just not practical, and I'll sacrifice rightness for a rather-large "quick and dirty win".
- yellowapple 11y ago
  My impression is that OP wants the current rights from marriage to be part of civil unions instead, not for said rights to be eradicated outright. The former sounds like a more reasonable position and would address your (and the parent commenter's) concerns.
  - eropple 11y ago
    It is a reasonable position, but a realistic one only if you believe that the opposition to same-sex marriage is the use of the word "marriage" and not a fear-driven hatred of people with a different use for their plumbing. As it happens, I do not; I am entirely certain that "civil unions" being applied to gay people would call down the exact same rhetoric from the exact same people. (I am further certain that the whole "defense of marriage" is only a proxy for not being able to beat the shit out of gay people for funsies anymore. Progress, I suppose.)
    - yellowapple 11y ago
      Except that reality doesn't agree entirely with that model; a large number of opponents to same-sex marriage have expressed acceptance of same-sex civil unions. However, your point still stands true in the case of custody rights, since same-sex-marriage opponents tend to claim (rather dubiously) that children raised in such a family tend to experience psychological trauma. I'm really more-or-less neutral on the matter; it doesn't matter what it's called so long as the rights are equal for everyone. "Marriage" is a good-enough term for that.
      - eropple 11y ago
        > a large number of opponents to same-sex marriage have expressed acceptance of same-sex civil unions Some folks express that, yeah. I do not believe it is an honest position in the general case and have suspected since the jump that that's a move of the goalposts designed to appear more reasonable than they are, ready to be dragged back further as they are approached.
        11y ago
- giaour 11y ago
  France has done so. When you get married there, it has to be performed by a government official (usually someone representing the mayor's office). You can have a big church wedding if you want, but the state doesn't recognize it. Later, France created a very powerful form of non-marriage civil union (the PACS) and saw it become incredibly popular with straight couples.
  - carlob 11y ago
    But still there are differences for example in tax rebates between, married, pacs and none of the above couples.
  - leejoramo 11y ago
    This is largely true in the US. I can't speak for how it works in all states, but in most you need an official to marry the couple. The official can be either a religious minister or a government official (such as a Judge or Clerk). From the States point of view, it is not really a religious issue. There are actually "religious" organizations who for a small fee will give you a certificate to act as a minister to perform a weddings, no dogma required. I believe these are accepted in all states. In my state of Colorado, a couple can marry themselves without the need for any official from the state or religion. Couples marrying themselves are free to ask a friend to stand in as an informal "official" during a ceremony, but legally, they sign the marriage certificate as having married themselves. In the US the question of gay marriage is really about the government recognizing the it and giving gays and lesbians the legal rights and responsibilities found in marriage. Most church's will continue to be against it and not perform such ceremonies. Although a few, such as my own Unitarian Universalist have been advocating for gay marriage for decades.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - gpvos 11y ago
      That's the difference between France (and many other European countries such as the Netherlands) and the US: here, the official cannot be a religious minister. You first have to get married by an official from your municipality, and only after that is it legal to get a religious marriage (or anything else that carries the name "marriage" but is not the official government-recognized marriage). Because of the separation of church and state, the official marriage cannot be done as part of a religious service, only in a civil ceremony (which can be very minimal).
nmrm2 11y ago
Very interesting, because it would undermine basically everything SCOTUS has ever said about marriage. (undermine in the sense of reverse a principle upon which the arguments used by SCOTUS to defend various decisions depend.)
primroot 11y ago
Wouldn't you agree something similar applies to workplace discrimination? For example, I would never be willing to work with someone who discriminates against gays. However it is only due to my own economic circumstances that I'm able to act based on that preference. One could as well conclude that the root of the problem is people having to tolerate unfavorable conditions just to get by, and that addressing the issue of discrimination is just a temporary solution. I live in Panama not in the U.S.
- rustynails 11y ago
  I struggle to understand people's language quite often. For example, you say that you won't work with people who discriminate against gay people. Why caveat that? Is it that you're happy to work with people who discriminate against other criteria other than sexual orientation? I usually find this language reflects how a person thinks, eg. I am gay; therefore, I only care about discrimination against gays. There is no benefit in your caveat (as far as I can see). It does, however, open up a myriad of other issues. Eg. To discriminate is to choose. Also, one of my favourite chestnuts: positive discrimination is negative discrimination against others. Eg. "I must hire someone who is ____" is the same as "I won't hire someone who isn't _____ regardless of experience, certification". This logic has always baffled me.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
Indeed. An excellent example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. More so, by expanding the institution of marriage to gays (as it was not long ago expanded to interracial couples) it will ultimately help build public support for redefining marriage.
vehementi 11y ago
This is the critical thing for me and what makes that particular dissent so baffling ("This issue has been stolen from the democratic process!"). It is a crime and tragedy every day we go on where gay people can't marry. People are (were) suffering emotionally, materially and in principle - millions of people - because of that law. It's already been excruciatingly, unbearably, unjustly slow to get this far - and people should wait around for a better fix? No.
- vacri 11y ago
  >This issue has been stolen from the democratic process! This reminds me of the Tea Party slogan "No Taxation Without Representation!", the chanters seeming to have forgotten that they have representation. An elected official who represents them. Just because the chanter wasn't in the voting bloc that won doesn't mean that democratic process wasn't followed...
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    But this was voted on many times. The Supreme Court ruled that the democratic process was unconstitutional in this case.
cordite 11y ago
Not just from the legal system, but what about software systems out there? How many Human-to-human systems out there have invariants coded in for gender/sex settings? It might make for some interesting scenes of discriminatory software in court for businesses that utilize them.
DonHopkins 11y ago
Precisely! And that "concern troll" argument is also commonly used by bigoted opponents of gay marriage who don't want to admit their real motivation. As soon as the concern trolls can come up with a plan to convince all the right wing religious bigots to abandon the institution of marriage, we can start taking them seriously.

JakeAl 11y ago

I'd say in the laws the government should simply recognize all unions as civil unions, leave marriage to your "religion" but I still agree that discrimination based on relationship status is wrong. Every individual should be able to specify who can visit them in a hospital, who is entitled to be the beneficiary of any social security benefits etc. Social Security and health care is dooming this nation and there's a clear timeline for it's demise unless the way they are handled changes, so maybe inheriting government benefits should go away and everyone should only be entitled to what was deducted from their own checks or willed to them by others. The US is looking at austerity in 10 years max, 5 years minimum and the people are too busy sticking up for their favorite party like sports fans on a bus arguing about astroturf and logos while the bus goes over a cliff.

brownegg 11y ago

I can't upvote this hard enough. OP is right in my mind, but.... I'm straight (and divorced), and we got married for many of the same reasons that LGBT folks want to--it makes sense. Visitation rights, inheritance, tax treatment, etc. It's unlikely that marriage would be removed as something of concern to lawmakers--has that kind of thing ever happened anywhere, any time, any way? I respect OP's opinion, but it's ivory tower and we're talking about real people right now. possibly unnecessary edit: just want to reiterate that I think OP is _right_, it's just not practical, and I'll sacrifice rightness for a rather-large "quick and dirty win".

yellowapple 11y ago
My impression is that OP wants the current rights from marriage to be part of civil unions instead, not for said rights to be eradicated outright. The former sounds like a more reasonable position and would address your (and the parent commenter's) concerns.
- eropple 11y ago
  It is a reasonable position, but a realistic one only if you believe that the opposition to same-sex marriage is the use of the word "marriage" and not a fear-driven hatred of people with a different use for their plumbing. As it happens, I do not; I am entirely certain that "civil unions" being applied to gay people would call down the exact same rhetoric from the exact same people. (I am further certain that the whole "defense of marriage" is only a proxy for not being able to beat the shit out of gay people for funsies anymore. Progress, I suppose.)
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    Except that reality doesn't agree entirely with that model; a large number of opponents to same-sex marriage have expressed acceptance of same-sex civil unions. However, your point still stands true in the case of custody rights, since same-sex-marriage opponents tend to claim (rather dubiously) that children raised in such a family tend to experience psychological trauma. I'm really more-or-less neutral on the matter; it doesn't matter what it's called so long as the rights are equal for everyone. "Marriage" is a good-enough term for that.
    - eropple 11y ago
      > a large number of opponents to same-sex marriage have expressed acceptance of same-sex civil unions Some folks express that, yeah. I do not believe it is an honest position in the general case and have suspected since the jump that that's a move of the goalposts designed to appear more reasonable than they are, ready to be dragged back further as they are approached.
      - 11y ago
giaour 11y ago
France has done so. When you get married there, it has to be performed by a government official (usually someone representing the mayor's office). You can have a big church wedding if you want, but the state doesn't recognize it. Later, France created a very powerful form of non-marriage civil union (the PACS) and saw it become incredibly popular with straight couples.
- carlob 11y ago
  But still there are differences for example in tax rebates between, married, pacs and none of the above couples.
- leejoramo 11y ago
  This is largely true in the US. I can't speak for how it works in all states, but in most you need an official to marry the couple. The official can be either a religious minister or a government official (such as a Judge or Clerk). From the States point of view, it is not really a religious issue. There are actually "religious" organizations who for a small fee will give you a certificate to act as a minister to perform a weddings, no dogma required. I believe these are accepted in all states. In my state of Colorado, a couple can marry themselves without the need for any official from the state or religion. Couples marrying themselves are free to ask a friend to stand in as an informal "official" during a ceremony, but legally, they sign the marriage certificate as having married themselves. In the US the question of gay marriage is really about the government recognizing the it and giving gays and lesbians the legal rights and responsibilities found in marriage. Most church's will continue to be against it and not perform such ceremonies. Although a few, such as my own Unitarian Universalist have been advocating for gay marriage for decades.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - gpvos 11y ago
    That's the difference between France (and many other European countries such as the Netherlands) and the US: here, the official cannot be a religious minister. You first have to get married by an official from your municipality, and only after that is it legal to get a religious marriage (or anything else that carries the name "marriage" but is not the official government-recognized marriage). Because of the separation of church and state, the official marriage cannot be done as part of a religious service, only in a civil ceremony (which can be very minimal).

nmrm2 11y ago

Very interesting, because it would undermine basically everything SCOTUS has ever said about marriage. (undermine in the sense of reverse a principle upon which the arguments used by SCOTUS to defend various decisions depend.)

primroot 11y ago

Wouldn't you agree something similar applies to workplace discrimination? For example, I would never be willing to work with someone who discriminates against gays. However it is only due to my own economic circumstances that I'm able to act based on that preference. One could as well conclude that the root of the problem is people having to tolerate unfavorable conditions just to get by, and that addressing the issue of discrimination is just a temporary solution. I live in Panama not in the U.S.

rustynails 11y ago
I struggle to understand people's language quite often. For example, you say that you won't work with people who discriminate against gay people. Why caveat that? Is it that you're happy to work with people who discriminate against other criteria other than sexual orientation? I usually find this language reflects how a person thinks, eg. I am gay; therefore, I only care about discrimination against gays. There is no benefit in your caveat (as far as I can see). It does, however, open up a myriad of other issues. Eg. To discriminate is to choose. Also, one of my favourite chestnuts: positive discrimination is negative discrimination against others. Eg. "I must hire someone who is ____" is the same as "I won't hire someone who isn't _____ regardless of experience, certification". This logic has always baffled me.

InclinedPlane 11y ago

Indeed. An excellent example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. More so, by expanding the institution of marriage to gays (as it was not long ago expanded to interracial couples) it will ultimately help build public support for redefining marriage.

vehementi 11y ago

This is the critical thing for me and what makes that particular dissent so baffling ("This issue has been stolen from the democratic process!"). It is a crime and tragedy every day we go on where gay people can't marry. People are (were) suffering emotionally, materially and in principle - millions of people - because of that law. It's already been excruciatingly, unbearably, unjustly slow to get this far - and people should wait around for a better fix? No.

vacri 11y ago
>This issue has been stolen from the democratic process! This reminds me of the Tea Party slogan "No Taxation Without Representation!", the chanters seeming to have forgotten that they have representation. An elected official who represents them. Just because the chanter wasn't in the voting bloc that won doesn't mean that democratic process wasn't followed...
- humanrebar 11y ago
  But this was voted on many times. The Supreme Court ruled that the democratic process was unconstitutional in this case.

cordite 11y ago

Not just from the legal system, but what about software systems out there? How many Human-to-human systems out there have invariants coded in for gender/sex settings? It might make for some interesting scenes of discriminatory software in court for businesses that utilize them.

DonHopkins 11y ago

Precisely! And that "concern troll" argument is also commonly used by bigoted opponents of gay marriage who don't want to admit their real motivation. As soon as the concern trolls can come up with a plan to convince all the right wing religious bigots to abandon the institution of marriage, we can start taking them seriously.