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

[Conza]

I'll start off by claiming my biases here, I'm pro-GM (big deal I know right? who isn't?), its surprisingly and evolved position though, I'd like to think I always supported the idea, but for some reason in late high school I didn't, I started off at 'well why can't we just let them have their own ritual and leave everyone else out of it' - quite stupid I know, so unnecessarily complex, and basically not fair, but I've found this position again in some conservative leaders of late.

And it doesn't seem like they want to discriminate against anyone either, but at the same time they can't quite go that final step to saying 'ok, fine, let them do what they want'. Which confuses me as, it doesn't effect them at all, it'll make a bunch of people happy, it'll make a few religious people unhappy for a little while (as if most marriages are under any sort of God these days anyway), and that'd be the end of it.

So what is the most important part of this? In my mind, 'the' most important part, is actually allowing people of the LGBT community the same legal rights as straight people, and putting that under the banner of gay marriage (they're gay, and they can married), would essentially cover that, within a decade or so the term would disipate and eventually we'd just accept marriage to include anyone - right?

But as a compromise, even a temporary one, I wanted to know what the community thinks - is the term "marriage" more important than the equality rights that could be granted by gay marriage? Let's say some conservatives wanted a compromise to allow two people who wheren't a man and woman, to be together, and get all of the privledges and rights of any other married people get, but by law the only distinction is that they weren't wife and wife or husband and husband?

Alternatively (the opposite), is that they could say they're married, but have none of the rights at all, which would just be the superficial parts of it imo, maybe its important to them, idk.

I'll end with this clip, which is sort of why I started this thread, and I may be interpreting what the guy said completely wrong.
He doesn't sound like he's completely against them, he just says that he doesn't want their relationships to be married ones (paraphrasing), its almost as though he's suggesting that there's an alternative? See what I mean? (Or have I completely misunderstood him here?).

 

[JoJo]

Funnily enough in the UK we did exactly that, Civil Partnerships were created in 2005 which give largely the same rights as marriage for same-sex couples, but without the name. Less than a decade later, full same-sex marriage was legalised and it'll come into effect in 2014.

Overall I'd say the rights are more important and so a civil union is a fine stepping stone until the population is ready to accept proper same-sex marriage, which does have some key advantages (such as being more easily transferable between different states and nations, foreign recognition of civil unions even between jurisdictions which have them is often patchy).

 

[Queen Michael]

I don't really understand how you'd make that choice. It's not like you can have either the term marriage or the right to a union that's recognized by the state. If you have the right to the term marriage, then you must have the right to a union. So unless it's the rights that are the most important, the question doesn't make sense.

EDIT: Also, one problem is that it's hard to know what is the motivation for people who are anti-gay marriage. It'd be so much simpler if you could just ask, but apart from the people that are religiously motivated, none of them actual seem like whatever reason they give is what urned them against the idea of gay marriage to begin with. It's always somethign they started saying afterwards, to have a reason. Sorry if I'm sounding condescending, it's just that this is how it seems to me. For instance, let's say that they say it's wrong because gay couples can't have kids. Thing is, not only do they not object to childess straight couples, but artificial insemination of lesbians doesn't make them any more okay with lesbian couples. So clearly, whether gay couples can have kids or not isn't actually the reason at all.

 

[tippy2k2]

Fairness of information: I am pro gay marriage and I am straight

I always thought growing up in a Christian household that it was weird that people were so against gay marriage. My idea as a teenager then was to just have them called "Civil Unions" and give them the exact same rights as marriage, just called something else.

Looking back on that, I'm not sure if that's right anymore. On one hand, gay couples are getting the same exact rights as straight couples, which is the most important part financially. However, calling it something else to me just gives it...a lesser quality kind of feeling.

(Warning; extreme example coming; pay attention to the point of the example and not the example itself as so many people like to do on this forum): It would be like having a segregated bus, one for "colored folk" and one for white people. Yeah, we're all getting the same thing in the end (a form of transportation) but I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who agrees that it's a good idea.

There is only one compromise that I think should happen and that's to allow priests/pastors who disagree with gay marriage not be forced to perform the ceremony (and why a gay couple would want someone who's against their union to do the ceremony doesn't make much sense but who knows). Other than that, I don't think gay couples should "settle" for civil unions versus marriage.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

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.

 

[OneCatch]

I'm reluctant to vote in the poll, because while the rights themselves are more important to individuals in a practical sense, I think allowing gay marriage is just as important in terms of social progress - being able to call it marriage is symbolically important even if it's otherwise identical to a civil partnership or union or whatever.

I do support civil partnerships as a stepping stone towards full marriage equality which, as JoJo noted, is basically what's happened here in the UK.

 

[BabySinclair]

Marriage is a legal contract and a religious ceremony is not required to get married. Anyone with legal authority to marry people will do. That's all judges and most religious leaders. By legal definition, religion isn't required at all, how else would non-religious people get married? With cultural concepts, like marriage, language plays probably the most important role, or fairly close to as our use of language shapes how we think.I'm probably more towards the term itself because the term marriage conveys the legal rights. Married couples get a set of rights, legal protections, and societal beliefs by virtue of the term "marriage" and what has been ascribed to it. Any other term used will does not convey the same meaning no matter the legal aspect because culturally the terms are not equal.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

To quote one of my favourite artists:
"A certificate on paper isn't gonna solve it all. But it's a damn good place to start"

SI say make gay marriage legal and if religious bigots cry hateful tears of impotence, because "muh bible", then so be it.

 

[loc978]

See... I'm sorta coming from another side here... also, no option in the poll reflects my views adequately.

I firmly believe no one should have the rights that marriage confers legally until they're raising kids together. There should be no marriage licenses, there should be child-rearing licenses. Marriage should be a quaint religious thing slowly going the way of the dodo (this from a guy with no stake in the matter... personally I'm more polyamorous and can't stand kids. These are just observations from examining the purpose of the law).

Dealing with the society we have, though... gay couples should have exactly the same rights and terminology as straight couples. Neither the legal rights nor the term are truly important in this. What is important is the idea of equality. No compromise with bigots (this whole idea reminds me of the 3/5 of a vote rule before the emancipation).

 

[Hagi]

I consider them one and the same really.

The rights include the right to call it marriage and the right to call your partner husband/wife.
The term includes all the rights that everyone else under that term gets, the term is a description of the rights.

Spoiler: You can't have one without the other.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

Funnily enough in the UK we did exactly that, Civil Partnerships were created in 2005 which give largely the same rights as marriage for same-sex couples, but without the name. Less than a decade later, full same-sex marriage was legalised and it'll come into effect in 2014.

Overall I'd say the rights are more important and so a civil union is a fine stepping stone until the population is ready to accept proper same-sex marriage, which does have some key advantages (such as being more easily transferable between different states and nations, foreign recognition of civil unions even between jurisdictions which have them is often patchy).

The funny thing is, heterosexual couples (to my knowledge) can't get a civil partnership, which I'd actually prefer if I were ever to get married myself.

To me the rights are the most important thing but equally the cultural significance of having the same term shouldn't be underestimated either. Having a "separate but equal" system isn't acceptable to me.

 

[b3nn3tt]

I actually didn't vote in the poll, because I couldn't decide which way to vote. I feel that the rights are far more important than the term, but at the same time by calling gay marriage something other than marriage, it is clearly being labelled as something different, and I don't think that's right.

I live in the UK, and until recently gay couples were allowed to enter a civil union, which allowed all the same rights as marriage but with a different name. Obviously, a fantastic step in the right direction, but recently gay marriage has actually been legalised, and I think will come into effect next year. So by next year the question would actually be moot here.

In general, I can think of no reason why gay couples shouldn't be able to marry, call it a marriage, and have the same rights as heterosexual couples. So to come back to the poll, I kind of think that both the rights and the title are equally important.

 

[DementedSheep]

The rights are the more important of the too but the terminology is important as well. Just because one part is more important doesn't mean you can stop there..

I don't really understand how you'd make that choice. It's not like you can have either the term marriage or the right to a union that's recognized by the state. If you have the right to the term marriage, then you must have the right to a union. So unless it's the rights that are the most important, the question doesn't make sense.

EDIT: Also, one problem is that it's hard to know what is the motivation for people who are anti-gay marriage. It'd be so much simpler if you could just ask, but apart from the people that are religiously motivated, none of them actual seem like whatever reason they give is what urned them against the idea of gay marriage to begin with. It's always somethign they started saying afterwards, to have a reason. Sorry if I'm sounding condescending, it's just that this is how it seems to me. For instance, let's say that they say it's wrong because gay couples can't have kids. Thing is, not only do they not object to childess straight couples, but artificial insemination of lesbians doesn't make them any more okay with lesbian couples. So clearly, whether gay couples can have kids or not isn't actually the reason at all.

My grandmother is anti gay marriage and I don't really understand why. Supposedly she isn't anti gay and pulls the I know some gay guys and I think are they nice so I'm not homophobic card (I don't think she's being truthful here, she just doesn't HATE them). She refuse to talk about it and seems to have no reasoning beyond "because it's suppose to be between a man and a woman, two guys getting married isn't the same thing". She did say it is because they can't have kids and they shouldn't adopt/do artificial insemination because other people are bigots and the kids would be mocked but stopped after I asked how this would apply to straight couples who either can't or are just not planning on having kids.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I can't really vote. Marriage is important, but "separate but not equal" is going to kick in, won't it, and be a problem?
Wasn't there a Southpark episode about this? Yeah. South Park - Season 9, Episode 10: Follow That Egg

But better slow than never, I guess.

 

[Heronblade]

Between the two? The rights are of course more important, and if such a compromise becomes a necessary intermediate step I would begrudgingly agree. (I would also encourage everyone to call all civil unions marriages, bit of a middle finger to the nutters while also getting people used to seeing and thinking of them as the same thing.)

However, Christianity does not own either the concept or the definition of Marriage. They have no legal, ethical, or social basis to stand on when it comes to demanding that the term be only reserved for the kind of marriages they happen to be comfortable with.

They have the right to refuse to perform marriages for gay couples, they can also choose to refuse to recognize such a union. But these refusals can have zero effect on a legal basis.

 

[Something Amyss]

But as a compromise, even a temporary one, I wanted to know what the community thinks

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.[footnote]This has, of course, since been overturned. Vermont and most of the Northeast are gay marriage states. I'm speaking historically only[/footnote]

And the anti-gay marriage activists lost their shit anyway.

That's the dirty little secret here. It's false contrition to pretend that if we only changed the name, the anti-gay marriage crowd wouldn't care. This has been demonstrated every tingle time a civil union or domestic partnership proposition has been raised. This is about gay rights, by any name.

That being said, if everything else were equal, I still think it'd be wrong. Equality is equality. If we can't have the same thing, then it's not equal. However, it's one I could live with. But realistically, that's not how it works. Much more likely is a "separate but equal" status, and "separate but equal" never is equal. The minority class always gets the short end of the stick. The only way to guarantee true protection is to have equity in the terms used to govern.

You cannot separate the word 'marriage' from gay rights because the use of the word marriage really boils down to gay rights.

But again, I reject the premise that it's either-or. Why? Because I've seen the outcome. And really, as an American, so should you.

As to the poll question, the rights are more important, but since we can't truly separate the two, I can't vote that in good conscience. Or anything.

Looking back on that, I'm not sure if that's right anymore. On one hand, gay couples are getting the same exact rights as straight couples, which is the most important part financially.

Maybe in your hypothetical scenario, but they're not in reality. Gays are still being discriminated against on a Federal and on an interstate level (even after recent rulings). Gays in states with same-sex civil unions are often denied things like visitation that straight, married couples have. They're frankly not the same and unlikely to be treated as such. Even marriages may not be treated the same.

But better slow than never, I guess.

Well, yes, but are those the choices? I mean, we're seeing the same opposition to both marriage AND civil unions, so why not just push for same sex marriage?

The states that have legalised one or the other are almost all exactly the ones you'd expect. The coastal liberal elite ivory tower states. Us damn Yankee New England hippies and those West Coast tree-huggers. There have been a couple exceptions, but even then there's no pattern difference between marriage equality and "marriage" equality.

Civil Unions were resisted as hard. People threw a bigger fit over Vermont and the other early civil union states than they did over Hawaii[footnote]which did not survive, unfortunately, though same-sex marriages have since become legal again[/footnote] and their same-sex marriage push. and that was despite the "Defense of Marriage Act" was in full effect.

I say fuck it. If they're going to oppose us either way, why not swing for the fences?

 

[Agayek]

So what is the most important part of this? In my mind, 'the' most important part, is actually allowing people of the LGBT community the same legal rights as straight people, and putting that under the banner of gay marriage (they're gay, and they can married), would essentially cover that, within a decade or so the term would disipate and eventually we'd just accept marriage to include anyone - right?

But as a compromise, even a temporary one, I wanted to know what the community thinks - is the term "marriage" more important than the equality rights that could be granted by gay marriage? Let's say some conservatives wanted a compromise to allow two people who wheren't a man and woman, to be together, and get all of the privledges and rights of any other married people get, but by law the only distinction is that they weren't wife and wife or husband and husband?

Alternatively (the opposite), is that they could say they're married, but have none of the rights at all, which would just be the superficial parts of it imo, maybe its important to them, idk.

The core idea, where the rights are more important than the term, is not a bad one, because it's true. The rights and privileges are what's important, not what people call it.

That said, we've tried "separate but equal" before. It didn't work.

 

[Kinitawowi]

I'm anti-marriage; straight, gay, animal, incest, whatever floats your boat.

And the reason is the rights. It's a legal fiction which once existed to protect children from the effects of marital breakup, but now just causes arguments. Its initial function has now been lost behind a haze of politicking. It's not about gay people wanting the law to recognise their love for each other, it's about the legal implications involved in what happens when things go wrong (in terms of healthcare as much as divorce).

My best friend has been in a committed relationship with his girlfriend for over ten years. He has no intention of getting married, and she's okay with that; she understands the reasons behind it (watching your parents' marriages disintegrate and your mother commit suicide tends to give one a rather dim view of the whole affair). They don't need a bit of paper to prove that they love each other; and yet getting married would confer certain additional rights. The fact that those rights exist for married couples is the problem; gays want a piece and those who have no wish to get married are denied them outright.

Getting married shouldn't confer any superspecial rights above any other relationship considerations. It's an outdated, outmoded legal fudge that has no relevance to modern society and we'd all be better off if everyone ditched the whole thing as a concept.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm anti-marriage

This comes up every time gay marriage is discussed.

The fact is, ditching the entire institution is a lot farther off than equalising it, assuming it will ever be ditched.

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.


OT: The rights are more important. The name is also important.