9 ms·

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

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.
      - tommorris 11y ago
        Civil unions would have been a nice compromise 20 years ago.
      - pekk 11y ago
        What I think happened is that gay rights activists realized they would get better standing to fight for equal rights if they called it marriage. That was a successful tactic and I'm not quibbling with it. But I know there are people who would have been pacified as long as it wasn't the word marriage because I have talked to some of those people. If those people also are afraid of gay people in their hearts, that's terrible - but it actually doesn't equate to opposition to civil unions that are only a boring legal matter as opposed to the sexy, apocalyptic "attack on marriage."
    - woofyman 11y ago
      Many of the statewide same sex marriage bans also prohibited civil unions. Virginia went so far to prohibit contracts that between same sex partners that established defacto civil unions.
  - pekk 11y ago
    I can't agree. The word "marriage" in particular makes people irrationally excited and start thinking about their church's definition of marriage. So politically, it is a line in the sand. "Defense of civil unions act" doesn't have the same ring and wouldn't get Republicans out to the polls the same way. If, in an alternate history, this could have been made a matter of the government meddling in the issue of marriage as big brother, then we would have seen more input from at least the libertarian side of the right wing if not also the mainstream. As it is, I'm glad about the outcome but now we have another irreconcilable front in the culture war alongside abortion.
    - wcummings 11y ago
      >"Defense of civil unions act" doesn't have the same ring and wouldn't get Republicans out to the polls the same way. Because its not coded language designed to appeal to homophobes, unlike actual Republican rhetoric. If it wasn't an "attack on marriage" it would be something else.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      How would removing rights granted by marriage and putting them under a civil union, which is what I took the parent to propose, supposed to not trigger irrational excitement of people who support marriage in it's current incarnation? You can argue that people shouldn't care if they just have to get a civil union in addition to their marriage, but we've already brought irrationality with regards to how marriage is defined into the argument as a behavior that we agree exists, so we can't ignore it now.
    - DonHopkins 11y ago
      It's the word "gay" that makes them irrational.
- masklinn 11y ago
  So he wants the exact same thing with a new name for essentially no reason? That strikes me as an inane waste of resource.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    I agree, but it's far less a waste of resource than abolishing the rights conferred by marriage entirely, which was my only point.
    - masklinn 11y ago
      With the palm of least waste of resources being to keep marriage as it is, right and name.
      - pekk 11y ago
        If we are only concerned with nebulous "resources," we won't change anything. Obviously that should not be our only concern.
        masklinn 11y ago
        I'm still waiting for an actual reason to rename the operation be forced to edit a few thousand statutes and negotiate or renegotiate a bunch of international agreements.
  - roghummal 11y ago
    Refactoring? Waste of resources?
    - masklinn 11y ago
      Changing a name to something which is no clearer for no reason is not refactoring, it's pointless wankery.
      - 11y ago
- enjo 11y ago
  But if all we're doing is just changing the name.. then who really cares? Marriage isn't historically a religious institution, it's a civil one.
  - Retra 11y ago
    It doesn't really matter what it has historically been. What matters is what it should be.
  - jivardo_nucci 11y ago
    Yes, the civil and legal ramifications are important: - my inheritance: my spouse can get my SS income when I die, my wife inherits my goods by default, etc. Now gays get the same treatment. - taxes: are different for married and non-married folks. Now gays get the same treatment. IOW "follow the money". This ruling will change how much money the government pays to its citizens and how money is passed among its citizens (after marriage and death in particular). But nobody ever discussed the ramifications of this and the entire discussion was based around a bunch of bombast. So we're not simply "changing the name".
    - kmonsen 11y ago
      Also visitation rights in hospitals, for example on death bed. Co-parenting rights and many more.
    - enjo 11y ago
      I think our wires got crossed here. I'm arguing against the idea that we should change the name to civil unions and make it legal, as opposed to just legalizing equal "marriage".
    - jrs235 11y ago
      "Now gays get the same treatment." Actually now ANY TWO people can get the same treatment. Two straight males can get married. If I was single and I had a friend with good benefits, I'd make a case to get married... The savings on insurance and taxes we'd share. Now if millions did this, the cost of those benefits will go up drastically.
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).

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.
    - tommorris 11y ago
      Civil unions would have been a nice compromise 20 years ago.
    - pekk 11y ago
      What I think happened is that gay rights activists realized they would get better standing to fight for equal rights if they called it marriage. That was a successful tactic and I'm not quibbling with it. But I know there are people who would have been pacified as long as it wasn't the word marriage because I have talked to some of those people. If those people also are afraid of gay people in their hearts, that's terrible - but it actually doesn't equate to opposition to civil unions that are only a boring legal matter as opposed to the sexy, apocalyptic "attack on marriage."
  - woofyman 11y ago
    Many of the statewide same sex marriage bans also prohibited civil unions. Virginia went so far to prohibit contracts that between same sex partners that established defacto civil unions.
- pekk 11y ago
  I can't agree. The word "marriage" in particular makes people irrationally excited and start thinking about their church's definition of marriage. So politically, it is a line in the sand. "Defense of civil unions act" doesn't have the same ring and wouldn't get Republicans out to the polls the same way. If, in an alternate history, this could have been made a matter of the government meddling in the issue of marriage as big brother, then we would have seen more input from at least the libertarian side of the right wing if not also the mainstream. As it is, I'm glad about the outcome but now we have another irreconcilable front in the culture war alongside abortion.
  - wcummings 11y ago
    >"Defense of civil unions act" doesn't have the same ring and wouldn't get Republicans out to the polls the same way. Because its not coded language designed to appeal to homophobes, unlike actual Republican rhetoric. If it wasn't an "attack on marriage" it would be something else.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    How would removing rights granted by marriage and putting them under a civil union, which is what I took the parent to propose, supposed to not trigger irrational excitement of people who support marriage in it's current incarnation? You can argue that people shouldn't care if they just have to get a civil union in addition to their marriage, but we've already brought irrationality with regards to how marriage is defined into the argument as a behavior that we agree exists, so we can't ignore it now.
  - DonHopkins 11y ago
    It's the word "gay" that makes them irrational.
masklinn 11y ago
So he wants the exact same thing with a new name for essentially no reason? That strikes me as an inane waste of resource.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  I agree, but it's far less a waste of resource than abolishing the rights conferred by marriage entirely, which was my only point.
  - masklinn 11y ago
    With the palm of least waste of resources being to keep marriage as it is, right and name.
    - pekk 11y ago
      If we are only concerned with nebulous "resources," we won't change anything. Obviously that should not be our only concern.
      - masklinn 11y ago
        I'm still waiting for an actual reason to rename the operation be forced to edit a few thousand statutes and negotiate or renegotiate a bunch of international agreements.
- roghummal 11y ago
  Refactoring? Waste of resources?
  - masklinn 11y ago
    Changing a name to something which is no clearer for no reason is not refactoring, it's pointless wankery.
    - 11y ago
enjo 11y ago
But if all we're doing is just changing the name.. then who really cares? Marriage isn't historically a religious institution, it's a civil one.
- Retra 11y ago
  It doesn't really matter what it has historically been. What matters is what it should be.
- jivardo_nucci 11y ago
  Yes, the civil and legal ramifications are important: - my inheritance: my spouse can get my SS income when I die, my wife inherits my goods by default, etc. Now gays get the same treatment. - taxes: are different for married and non-married folks. Now gays get the same treatment. IOW "follow the money". This ruling will change how much money the government pays to its citizens and how money is passed among its citizens (after marriage and death in particular). But nobody ever discussed the ramifications of this and the entire discussion was based around a bunch of bombast. So we're not simply "changing the name".
  - kmonsen 11y ago
    Also visitation rights in hospitals, for example on death bed. Co-parenting rights and many more.
  - enjo 11y ago
    I think our wires got crossed here. I'm arguing against the idea that we should change the name to civil unions and make it legal, as opposed to just legalizing equal "marriage".
  - jrs235 11y ago
    "Now gays get the same treatment." Actually now ANY TWO people can get the same treatment. Two straight males can get married. If I was single and I had a friend with good benefits, I'd make a case to get married... The savings on insurance and taxes we'd share. Now if millions did this, the cost of those benefits will go up drastically.

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).