This matter was considered and rejected in the CA Supreme Court ruling last June.
Here is the entire opinion. Happy reading (pdf)_: Site Has Moved
I live in the UK. We’ve had CPs since 2004. Over time, the rights of a civil partnership have been increased so that there’s now no difference between them and marriage, legally. (There were a couple of fairly small ones at first). How long has California had them?
I heard this kind of argument a LOT during the Prop 8 campaign from locals in favor.
I attributed it to an inability to wrap one’s head around the idea that a single word can have two meanings, even two related meanings, in the English language.
Really, any discussion about “civil marriages” vs. “religious marriages” was anon starter because of the inability to acknowledge the difference. they claim they ar fighting for a word, and that another word should be used for “civil unions” for gays, but then they don’t understand that they (the Pro-prop 8-er’s) already have 2 kinds of marriages to their spouses, and people are not confused.
It is simple really, people can have a religious marriage without a civil one, a civil one without a religious one, both together, or neither. English is not a precise language, we all understand that marriage has two meanings, do don’t campaign on the basis that it doesn’t and you don’t is what I tried to teach them. Didn’t take though, and I will leave it at that because this is not the Pit.
I suggest reading the court opinion I lined to in post 42, esp. where they discuss why even with substantially the same rights, it is still not the same thing.
Of course that is US and California specific, but it might ring some useful bells for you.
That’s not too original of an argument, now the database engineering argument, that’s original.
Unsurprisingly the Church of Satan is all for gay marriage. 
ETA: Well, the head of the Church is, the organisation itself doesn’t take much of a stance on politics generally.
Actually I don’t care if the word “marriage” is used but I know that the word is loaded with meaning, especially for conservatives that oppose gay marriage, so my thought is that if we change the word then maybe it’ll smell different to them.
Once “unionized”, call it what you want whenever you want. I look at it as a pragmatic approach - it shouldn’t make a difference what word is used but in practice it does make a huge difference to some. If changing a word makes it happen, then just change the words and wait for the opinions to catch up with the law. Yes, it’s just semanatics, but the word is loaded with religious and cultural subtext that might be left behind a little if a different set of words is used.
No, it isn’t. That would be the equivalent to reserving the word “marriage” to gays and relegating straights to civil unions, which is not what anyone is arguing for.
I guess the question I have to ask about the position of giving gays civil unions is this: if you get so upset at the idea of having your marriage called a civil union, why do you think that gays should be happy with it?
Yes.
I like the civil union with marriage option idea; and I think Mangetout’s pie analogy is dead on.
I was proud to marry in Vermont where everyone had the option to form a legal union, and I’m proud to live in Massachusetts.
But I think the only way to normalize the situation to remove marriage from the federal tax code, introduce legal unions in every state, and reserve marriage as a religious sacrament.
I don’t think we have to address plural marriages; our current laws recognizing serial monogamy can cover multi-family relationships.
California has had civil unions since 2000. The law was revamped in 2005 to make them more equivalent, legally speaking, to straight marriages, AFAIU.
No offense is meant to anyone here, but I’ve been amused a few times in the past when, on LJ and on the SDMB, British people have condescended to Americans about how civil unions are legal THERE, unlike we poor backwards Americans. Uh, California, where I am from, has had civil unions longer than the UK.
FWIW, I am nevertheless a proponent of gay marriage rights completely equivalent to straight couples everywhere in the US (and the UK, too, but I’m not British so it’s really not my business).
Sure, you’d think that.
Then they were thinking you are messing with their sanctified marriage, and that is worse yet.
Again, this is addressed very well in the Court opinion I linked upthread. Very rational, very enlightening.
In fact, I’d be curious to see where people find the thinking lacking, at least enough to change the conclusion and why.
Precisely.
1 - Because it is a change to something they think is more religious then secular
until
2 - they realize they will have to give up a lot of secular and social benefits, and maybe them thar gays have a point that it is more then just a word.
It’s not that we don’t know you’ve got your own civil unions, but the CP system is national which gives it a bit more credence than state-managed civil unions, which may or may not even be recognised if you move to the state next door. Also (and I’ve made this point in a previous thread to no avail) in the consciousness of the population CPs ARE gay marriage, even if they don’t have the name and can’t be held in religious settings. People call gay couples married and refer to the act as getting married, the fact that it’s not legally called that isn’t really a big deal.
I can very easily foresee probably less than 10 years down the road the government saying “Oh, by the way, civil partnerships are marriages now and all new marriages are open to any gender” and people barely noticing because that’s how they thought it was already. I don’t see that happening in the US because the focal point on changing what marriage is continues to be a big hurdle, and as long as there are people around saying lunatic things like “If two men can get married then my own marriage means nothing any more, so I’m against it” you’re going to have that problem.
Why can’t they be held in religious settings if the church agrees? There are some Churches here that will do it.
More importantly, what if 2 gay men or women show up at the place that authorizes civil weddings and insists on a marriage, not a CP, because if they were the same thing, there would not be the need to have two systems? Furthermore, what if this couple already had a CP?
Alternatively, what if you have a heterosexual couple, possibly married already, that insisted on a CP?
When one set of rules are for one group, and another for another, they are not the same thing.
Maybe it is this way in the UK, but are you suggesting that there is no other legal discrimination against gay couples, with or without a CP compared to their equivalent straight couples? Nothing about adoption, inheritance, right of visitation in hospitals, custody of children, tax benefits, job benefits, and a host of other issues, and that the law is iron clad tight on all of them that such discrimination can never be introduced?
If so, that might be a model worth reviewing to see how it was done.
(sorry I’ll likely pose more questions than answer them)
I don’t think that any law for or against gay marriage has the ability to stop people from calling themselves whatever they wish to call themselves (that is, husband and husband, wife and wife, spouses etc), or to SAY during a moment like that, whatever they wish to say.
During a proposal, a gay person can ask “will you marry me” just as easily as a straight person. No “word cops” are going to burst out of the bushes and arrest them. Same with the words they use during their entire relationship. If they wish to introduce their partners as their wives or husbands, AFAIK there is no law against that.
So far, at least in the arguments pro gay marriage that I’ve seen here on the dope, the folks who are for gay marriage complain that the word “marriage” is just a word, with no meaning, that it only has the meaning that the gay marriage opponents give it.
But yet it is the word itself that pro-gay marriage people seem to be fighting for. There was an old thread, which I haven’t been able to find, which explains why US gay couples (or at least the ones who wrote the thread), didn’t want Civil Unions. I seem to remember it as being more of an issue regarding not getting all of the rights afforded married couples, and if that’s so, it needs to be changed immediately!!! But my memory isn’t always on task! 
I’ve long thought that it’s a battle over a word, and the meaning OF that particular word that is occurring here regarding the gay marriage issue. Otherwise, imho, Civil Unions would be occurring right and left.
From what I can see both sides appear to believe that merely bestowing the word “married” upon gay couples will give the issue legitimacy and end all problems associated with those who don’t condone homosexuality.
But I’ve never heard either side actually VOICE that opinion. At least out in the media world. Those pro-gay marriage state that it is so that they “have the same rights as married couples” but don’t Civil Unions allow all of those rights? (and I don’t know the rights associated with Civil Unions, so that could be a factor). Those against gay marriage state all sorts of other things from religion to the “ick factor”, depending upon which faction of society they belong to.
Personally, I think it all boils down to what the word itself means. To some, it’s a matter of morality. Which means that winning the right to the word marriage, isn’t going to help gay couples when it comes to their hoped for legitimacy.
Back to what I said in the beginning regarding people saying whatever they wish to say and words themselves not being illegal to say (though use in legal documents etc, yes, I understand that’s a different story).
Gay marriage will probably happen someday. Introducing your partner as your wife Sally isn’t going to guarantee that every person will condone that and use your words of “wife,” “married” etc to describe your situation. I don’t believe that gaining access to the “magic word” is going to bring about the automatic country-wide acceptance that some think it will. It is, after all, only a word, with no special powers.
imho, I’ve long thought that this is the perfect solution. Keep the government out of people’s religious beliefs and vice versa.
Would that be atheists who are for gay marriage (or civil unions) or against?
It’s not about making “everyone” accept gay unions. It’s about making the **government **treat all unions equally. And that means one word, one definition, one standard that applies to everyone.
Yes, I realize that. As I stated in what you quoted here .“as some think it will…”. And as described in other parts of my post, I made it quite clear that this was based upon what some have said and stated what they believe regarding the subject of gay marriage. Also as stated in a further post of mine, that I agree that there should be one word, whatever it is. That would leave folks who object on religious principles a choice as well.
CanvasShoes, that wasn’t so much a rebuttal of your position, as just me thinking out loud about the heart of the issue. What baffles me about the gay marriage thing isn’t so much that there are people who disapprove, as that there are people who think that the government should officially endorse treating some people as “lesser”. One would think that we’ve already settled that issue, but I guess hope springs eternal in tiny shrivelled hearts too.