# Are Supporter of Gay Marriage Skipping the 'Main Course'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 5, 2010, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230 "2010-08-05T04:24:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/21 "2010-08-05T13:31:22Z")
There are a number of issues that all get mixed up. I believe there are problems with the current marriage laws - different state’s child custody laws, for example. There are many issues having to do with insurance and benefits that relate to marriage as well that are still being thrashed out. Not to mention mixing religion into the equation. Modern society and the old marriage laws haven’t always mixed well and now people want to marry people of the same sex (gasp!) 10 years ago I would have said let’s fix some of the other marriage law problems first. Now, it’s obvious that same-sex marriage is coming and it will (IMO) have an impact of the questions of child custody, insurance, benefits, medical care, etc. Let’s go ahead and let anybody marry anybody and then see where the chips land on these other issues. I’ll let the gay community worry about whether they want their cake or meat loaf first. Or if they want them at the same time (wrong as that is.) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/22 "2010-08-05T13:37:02Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > I’ll let the gay community worry about whether they want their cake or meat loaf first. Or if they want them at the same time (wrong as that is.) Why, you haven’t\* lived \*until you’ve had a Black Forest Hackbraten… ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/23 "2010-08-05T13:55:47Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > > > FWIW, I’d still prefer that marriage no longer be a government institution at all, that all marriages be replaced by civil unions > > I see this a lot, but I’m unclear on what effect this would have on spousal privilege (regarding court testimony)… Lemme preface this by reiterating that I’m thrilled at the imminent legalization of SSM, and my motives for supporting universal civil unions have nothing whatsoever to do with denying marriage to gay couples. Folks often get confused about that, as near as I can tell out of a belief that any opinion short of calling the bundle of rights “marriage” is homophobia. It ain’t. Okay. My proposal is that a law is passed, and a clerk takes a purple crayon and crosses out the word “marriage” wherever it appears in other statutes/court cases and writes the word “civil union” above it. That’s it. (Okay, that’s not entirely it: where necessary, other statutes are changed to clarify that any two un-unioned adults who consent to a union may enter into one with one another). All rights transfer. This would have a miniscule benefit, and a major benefit. Miniscule benefit: I don’t like the government caring about my love life. It shouldn’t. It would make it crystal clear that the government has no business being involved in anyone’s love life, and would make it clear that things like adultery were not the government’s business. (Not that adultery is part of my love life!) Major benefit: there are people other than those in romantic relationships who would benefit from the parcel of legal rights/responsibilities available through the institution of marriage. For example, a single adult child caring for an elderly parent would strongly benefit from all those rights, as would two long-term bachelor roommates/best friends. Anti-incest laws would prevent the former from calling themselves married, and strong social taboos would prevent both the former and latter from calling themselves married. If we call them civil unions, however, we remove that irrelevant baggage. I’ll close by repeating: I know this isn’t going to come to pass. It’s my ideal situation, but I’m totally okay with not getting my ideal. I’m thrilled beyond measure with the second-best situation–that gay couples may get married. Most important is that everyone has equal access to the law. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/24 "2010-08-05T14:06:26Z")
How does a non-governmental institution convey a “parcel of legal rights/responsibilities” ? Even if gender issues are completely disregarded, I don’t understand what you’re suggesting. Do you mean that the governmental institution now called “marriage” is to be replaced with the exactly-identical governmental institution called “civil union” ? What’s the point of that, it’s just a label change. The religious ceremonies, as I understand it, are already irrelevant to being legally married - the key act is getting the license properly stamped and certified from some government clerk, who I don’t think will inquire (or is especially interested) in your love life. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/25 "2010-08-05T14:18:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Do you mean that the governmental institution now called “marriage” is to be replaced with the exactly-identical governmental institution called “civil union” ? What’s the point of that, it’s just a label change. Yes (with the parenthetical caveat) to your first question, and you didn’t read my post to the second question. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/26 "2010-08-05T14:24:01Z")
To be fair to the OP, I do agree that there might be some practical purpose in getting civil unions before marriage, even if I dislike the distinction. We have Civil Partnerships in the UK which carry the same benefits as marriage, but without the dreaded ‘M’ word. This was a compromise as the Government wanted to get the legislation passed swiftly and not have it derailed by political and religious conservatives (bearing in mind that we still have Bishops sat on their fat arses in the House of Lords’. I am strongly of the opinion that this stepping stone will ease the path to full ‘marriage’ in word as well as rights, as most people already refer to CPs as weddings/marriage etc, and there’s no confusion that they carry the same weight. I might not like it, but it is at least a step in the right direction. I do believe, however, that gay marriage would cause a trickle down effect on the others issues of discrimination legislation in the OP. If I take a look at a timeline of british LGBT rights in the UK, it’s not like CPs were introduced and then all else was forgotten about: > [@](#): > > **2000** The Labour government scraps the policy of barring homosexuals from the armed forces. > **2001** The age of consent is reduced to 16 inline with the age of consent for heterosexuals > **2002** Same-sex couples are granted equal rights to adopt. > **2003** Section 28, which banned councils and schools from intentionally promoting homosexuality, is repealed in England and Wales. Employment Equality Regulations made it illegal to discriminate against lesbians, gays or bisexuals at work > **2004** The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is passed by the Labour Government, giving same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as married heterosexual couples > \*\*2005 \*\*The Adoption and Children Act 2002 comes into force, allowing unmarried and same-sex couples to adopt children for the first time. > **2008** Treatment of lesbian parents and their children is equalized in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The legislation allows for lesbians and their partners (both civil and de facto) equal access to legal presumptions of parentage in cases of in vitro fertilisation (“IVF”) or assisted/self insemination (other than at home) from the moment the child is born. > **2010** Pope Benedict XVI condemns British equality legislation for running contrary to “natural law” as he confirmed his first visit to the UK (Ain’t he lovely). The Equality Act 2010 makes discrimination against lesbians and gay men in the provision of goods and services illegal; the Supreme Court ruled that two gay men from Iran and Cameroon have the right to asylum in the UK. Lord Hope, who read out the judgment, said: "To compel a homosexual person to pretend that his sexuality does not exist or suppress the behaviour by which to manifest itself is to deny him the fundamental right to be who he is. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/27 "2010-08-05T14:25:10Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Yes (with the parenthetical caveat) to your first question, and you didn’t read my post to the second question. I read it; I just didn’t get the point of it. ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/28 "2010-08-05T15:37:06Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Okay. My proposal is that a law is passed, and a clerk takes a purple crayon and crosses out the word “marriage” wherever it appears in other statutes/court cases and writes the word “civil union” above it. That’s it. (Okay, that’s not entirely it: where necessary, other statutes are changed to clarify that any two un-unioned adults who consent to a union may enter into one with one another). All rights transfer. I understand and agree with your position (mostly) but there are practical barriers to such an approach. The opposition to SSM is raving and foaming at the mouth about ‘gays destroying marriage.’ If the US were to adopt the proposed approach to eliminate all ‘civil marriages’ and institute ‘civil unions’ for all, then we will have proven the raving crazies technically correct. Your proposal literally destroys marriage. It’s a position that makes sense to sensible people, but gives the opposition huge ammunition against gay equality. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/29 "2010-08-05T16:06:03Z")
If you’re going to protect gays, are you also going to protect not-gays? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/30 "2010-08-05T16:53:49Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > I understand and agree with your position (mostly) but there are practical barriers to such an approach. The opposition to SSM is raving and foaming at the mouth about ‘gays destroying marriage.’ If the US were to adopt the proposed approach to eliminate all ‘civil marriages’ and institute ‘civil unions’ for all, then we will have proven the raving crazies technically correct. Your proposal literally destroys marriage. It’s a position that makes sense to sensible people, but gives the opposition huge ammunition against gay equality. I pretty well agree with you, with one exception: it doesn’t literally destroy marriage, so much as it puts marriage entirely in private hands. That’s where I think it belongs anyway: I think everything to do with my love life is my own business, not the governments, whereas the bundle of legal rights that married people need is also useful to folks who will not consider themselves married. That said, I’m certain that the anti-SSM people would make the claim that it’s destroying marriage, and so I agree that it’s impractical. Again, I’m like 99.9% happy with just legalizing SSM: my miniscule objection to the government’s involvement in my love life is miniscule, and my more important objection to denying these rights to other folks who could benefit from them is one that is not backed up by any hard data, so I don’t know how important it is in reality. **Bryan** , I’m sorry, but I don’t know how to make myself any clearer than I did in the post you responded to already. If it’d be helpful, I can quote your question followed by the portion of that post that answered your question, but I’m guessing you can already do that mapping yourself. Let me know if you’d like me to do it. **Quartz** , not-gays are already perfectly well protected insofar as marriage is concerned. What additional protection do you think not-gays need? ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/31 "2010-08-05T18:55:15Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > If you’re going to protect gays, are you also going to protect not-gays? Please elaborate ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/32 "2010-08-05T18:59:06Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > **Bryan** , I’m sorry, but I don’t know how to make myself any clearer than I did in the post you responded to already. If it’d be helpful, I can quote your question followed by the portion of that post that answered your question, but I’m guessing you can already do that mapping yourself. Let me know if you’d like me to do it. Please, since I’m not sure what I’m missing. As far as I can tell, you’re advocating a switcheroo so that the word “marriage” need not be (officially) applied to a homosexual coupling, and indeed wouldn’t be officially applied to _any_ coupling. I’m not sure what the point of this is, as it won’t satisfy anyone who is opposed to even allowing gay civil unions (as a number of U.S. states currently do), and will antagonize people who will claim that marriage itself is under attack. Basically, it’s a handful of negatives and no net positive that I can discern. So the government won’t take an interest in your love life? I’m not aware that it’s doing that _now_. And your major benefit describes a form of civil union (i.e. non-romantic pairings for economic benefits) that I don’t believe will fly, either. I suppose existing law on legal partnerships might cover some of this territory, but I don’t see legislators anytime soon buying into the idea of a son who enters a civil union with his mother in order to benefit from her social security. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/33 "2010-08-05T19:27:25Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Please, since I’m not sure what I’m missing. As far as I can tell, you’re advocating a switcheroo so that the word “marriage” need not be (officially) applied to a homosexual coupling, and indeed wouldn’t be officially applied to _any_ coupling. I’m not sure what the point of this is, as it won’t satisfy anyone who is opposed to even allowing gay civil unions (as a number of U.S. states currently do), and will antagonize people who will claim that marriage itself is under attack. > [@me](#): > > Lemme preface this by reiterating that I’m thrilled at the imminent legalization of SSM, and my motives for supporting universal civil unions have nothing whatsoever to do with denying marriage to gay couples. Folks often get confused about that, as near as I can tell out of a belief that any opinion short of calling the bundle of rights “marriage” is homophobia. It ain’t. To elaborate: while I started thinking about this because of SSM, that’s not my reason. If it were, I wouldn’t be so happy at the legalization of SSM. My reasons are orthogonal to SSM. First in importance is everyone getting the same rights; second is the benefits I talked about in the original post. > [@](#): > > Basically, it’s a handful of negatives and no net positive that I can discern. So the government won’t take an interest in your love life? I’m not aware that it’s doing that _now_. And your major benefit describes a form of civil union (i.e. non-romantic pairings for economic benefits) that I don’t believe will fly, either. I suppose existing law on legal partnerships might cover some of this territory, but I don’t see legislators anytime soon buying into the idea of a son who enters a civil union with his mother in order to benefit from her social security. So you can see the major positive, but you don’t believe the proposal is practical? Gosh, that’s exactly what I said. As for the government’s taking interest in my love life, see Judge Walker’s finding of fact 52: > [@Walker](#): > > Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States. I believe that is true, and I believe that the government has no business being involved in my definitive expression of love. But that one is minuscule. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/34 "2010-08-05T19:57:14Z")
> [@Jim\_B](#): > > I was just thinking about the recent [court case](http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage-california-20100805,0,2696248.story) surrounding gay marriage. And I was wondering: are supporters of gay marriage skipping the main course, and going straight to desert? > > Allow me to elaborate. Most states in the USA don’t even protect workers against discrimination (cf. [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States) for example). Shouldn’t we win the battle of having gays protected against discrimination in employment, housing, etc. _before_ we start talking about gay marriage? Indeed, when most people hear about gay marriage victories, like the court case, they think gay rights have gone far in this country–which they sadly haven’t. > > BTW, I support gay marriage in _principal_, but civil unions in actual practice (i.e., I would support the political candidate who favors civil unions over actual marriage–I think it might be a little too soon for some people to accept gay marriage just yet:)). > > Well, what do the rest of you think of my position? I reject it. It’s a completely false logic. You win the battles you can, when you can - with no regard as to the order or arbitrary priority of them. Maybe we should not address any issues until some obscure and aribtrarily chosen issue no one else cares about is completely taken care of. Caring about one issue does not mean you’ve neglected any others. Lynch mobs are bad. Inflation is bad. We don’t have to ignore lynch mobs until inflation is taken care of. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/35 "2010-08-05T20:13:52Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > If you’re going to protect gays, are you also going to protect not-gays? I assume you mean in anti-discrimination laws. This is simple, and it’s always BEEN simple. From the very beginning of trying to get a-d laws passed, they’ve been worded to protect against discrimination due to sexual orientation. That means homosexual, bisexual AND heterosexual (and asexual, as well, I suppose). If an a-d law pertaining to sexual orientation were to pass, a straight man could not be fired for being straight any more than a lesbian could be fired for being queer. The fact that far, FAR fewer straight people get fired for their orientation doesn’t mean that such a law purposely disproportionately benefits GLB (and ideally, T) people. The factors in the social milieu of the United States causes that disproportionality, not the law itself. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/36 "2010-08-05T20:35:13Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I reject it. > It’s a completely false logic. You win the battles you can, when you can - with no regard as to the order or arbitrary priority of them. Maybe we should not address any issues until some obscure and aribtrarily chosen issue no one else cares about is completely taken care of. > > Caring about one issue does not mean you’ve neglected any others. Lynch mobs are bad. Inflation is bad. We don’t have to ignore lynch mobs until inflation is taken care of. Exactly. Heck, we don’t have to ignore inflation until lynch mobs are taken care of. Or even more aptly, we didn’t need to wait until lynch mobs were taken care of before we did something about where people sat on the bus. (“We” meaning American society, not me personally) Rosa Parks wasn’t standing up against the single biggest injustice blacks faced at the time. But that didn’t make what she did any less effective. It’s a bit odd that things have worked out that marriage equality across the US might be a fact of life before ENDA passes, but that’s the way things have worked out. The easiest way to find the weak spots is to attack everywhere, and see what yields. Twenty years ago, people wouldn’t have thought marriage was in the cards, but now that we’re where we are, it’s hard to imagine that it’s anything other than inevitable, the only question being a matter of how long. Stopping now to line up things in a different order will only set everything back. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/37 "2010-08-05T21:13:47Z")
The ultimate victory will come not in the courtroom, but in public opinions. Once folks start realizing that gays are people just like them, everything else will fall into place. In the ideal world, you wouldn’t need laws prohibiting discrimination by sexual orientation, just like right now, we don’t need laws prohibiting discrimination by eye color, because nobody would be doing it in the first place. And I think that people seeing gays getting married, and the world not ending as a result, is a big help towards that public acceptance. So even if one is choosing the order of one’s battles, gay marriage is the right first choice. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/38 "2010-08-05T22:47:27Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > To elaborate: You can use thousand-point type, it won’t make any difference. > [@](#): > > So you can see the major positive, but you don’t believe the proposal is practical? Gosh, that’s exactly what I said. Well, I still can’t see even the _fantasy_ benefit. It’s like suggesting a utopia where spoons and forks will swap names. At a guess, two people could already get _some_ marriage-like benefits by forming a legal partnership. > [@](#): > > As for the government’s taking interest in my love life Well, I meant in the sense that the clerk who might stamp the forms to register your civil marriage isn’t likely to ask if you love your spouse or how many times you and your spouse are gonna do it, and in what positions, on your honeymoon. There’s no requirement that a marriage involve love or be consummated with an act of intercourse (if so, quadriplegics couldn’t marry) or produce children or whatnot. The day after same sex marriage becomes legal, the same clerk will stamp the same forms and not ask the same questions. I guess I’m gonna just have to agree to not get it, but thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/39 "2010-08-05T22:54:30Z")
As an afterthought: I guess I sound more obtuse than I intended. If I understand it, you’d advocating replacing marriage with a more generic social contract that can be used by _any_ two people. Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230/40 "2010-08-06T06:18:10Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > > [@Quartz](#): > > > > If you’re going to protect gays, are you also going to protect not-gays? > > Please elaborate If you’re going to legislate to prevent discrimination against gays, making them a ‘protected class’ in American-speak, you should also make non-gays a protected class. If you can’t fire someone for being gay, you shouldn’t be able fire someone for being straight i.e. you should make sexuality as a whole a protected class. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-supporter-of-gay-marriage-skipping-the-main-course/549230.md?page=3)