# Arguments \*\*against\*\* gay marriage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663 "2013-04-02T20:42:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/341 "2013-04-21T13:05:33Z")
> [@steabo](#): > > Your points are noted. I’m sorry that you think everything I say is a ruse to mask my hate. However, if the only reason I have to support gay marriage is to prove to others that I’m not a hateful person, then there is little more I can say. If I tried to explain that the sun and moon were objectively different becasue the sun actually produces light and heat, and the moon only reflects it, and that therefore only the sun should be classified a star, I can only assume you would accuse me of moon bigotry. I do not say you are masking hate. You made a point that it is an “objective” fact that we need male and female to procreate. I note that raising children does not require that children be limited to the specific male and female whose gametes were used to produce them. You then made a claim that “subjective” facts (whatever they are) are used to give “validation” for self-esteem. I noted that two of your talking points have been “subjective” in that anal sex is not limited to homosexuality (and is not universal in homosexual relations) and that your opinion regarding Roman orgies was not supported by facts. So you have presented one irrelevant fact regarding gametes and two subjective opinions regarding sexual activity. When you then claimed that “objective” facts are necessary for the discussion, I pointed out that your use and misuse of “fact” condemned your own argument. You have no need to defend same sex marriage simply to prove you are not a hateful person. However, if you wander into a thread that seeks legitimate arguments against same sex marriage and offer nothing more than the claims you have made, you would probably have been better off to simply avoid the thread rather than displaying the paucity of your arguments. So we appear to be left with the three arguments I have already noted: - It’s icky; - We never did it before; - God said “No.” In previous threads, we have already established that medical advances have removed the necessary connection between male-female union and procreation. Since that is no longer a necessary connection, there does not appear to be any reason why the law should limit recognition of pair-bonding to heterosexual couples. (If you have separate issues with the law granting “subsidies” to childless couples, they are really not germane to this discussion, but currently the law does grant rights and benefits to couples who choose to marry and there has been no good argument put forth to explain why that recognition should be limited to heterosexual couples. And, of course, homosexual couples do not need to be childless, so even if the “subsidies” are limited to families with children, there is no reason to exclude homosexual couples from that situation, either.) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/342 "2013-04-21T13:13:08Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > The term bigot may not pleasent but when it fits it fits. real people may be very good and decent people in many areas and still have a blind spot, still be bigots on a specific issue. Let’s not throw this thread off track by going off on another “who’s a bigot?” chase. [/Moderating] ---
**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:** [April 21, 2013, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/343 "2013-04-21T13:20:42Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’d propose it a little different from Miller’s Also, as I pointed out earlier, your proposal from 281 is inadequate, inasmuch as it doesn’t explain to the county clerk who should get which license, which is a key part of your proposal. It’s a little silly to ask us to make your proposal for you; at this point it’d be helpful if you’d expand your proposal to include whatever instructions the county clerk should follow. (If the county clerk can follow the law while issuing a marriage license to Bob and Steve, then your proposal doesn’t need modification–but at that point we need to back the truck up). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/344 "2013-04-21T14:08:13Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’d propose it a little different from Miller’s: > > 1. The term “civil union” is defined as a a mutually-obligating contract between two consenting adults who are not married or civil-unioned and who are the same sex. > 2. The term “marriage” is defined as a a mutually-obligating contract between two consenting adults who are not married or civil-unioned and who are not the same sex. > 3. This set of statutes can only be amended in full, affecting both those joined in (1) marriages and (2) civil unions identically. > > So we’ve actually got three sets of statutes, the first two of which treat ssc and osc differently. > > I appreciate the compliment. I am not, of course, trying some leet ninja debate move that you’ll never see coming; as I said, I am breaking your argument down into tiny chunks to find the point of disagreement. You’ve agreed that definitions appear in the set of statutes, but now you appear to be saying that they are not actually a set of statutes. . Perhaps our next move is to see if you understand set theory; I’m kind of flummoxed at this point, how you can make such a bizarre claim. A) Definitions are not statutes. They define the language used in the statutes. B) My position is, and always has been that there be one set of statutes _describing the legal benefits and privileges that people can enjoy_, if they belong to one of two groups. Search in this thread alone and you’ll see that I used that explicit phrase probably around twenty times. C) You say “three sets of statutes”. But you list only three items, not three _sets_ of items. D) The defining aspects of my idea is 1) that there one one set of statutes that list the benefits and privileges the two groups enjoy, and 2) that we freeze them together so it remains that way. That any change to any benefit or privilege =for one group affects the other identically. Might there be other statues doing other things? Of course. E) Ask yourself, why in your #3, you used the term “statute” singular. It’s almost as if you’re beginning to understand my position: One set of statutes that outline all the benefits and privileges that can be enjoyed by the two groups in question. I admit that you did a much better job then **Miller**. Thank you. ---
**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:** [April 21, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/345 "2013-04-21T14:23:07Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It’s not like you had to depicher the Voynich manuscript. At least when I was a baby, my mother didn’t drop me on my lottery tickets. ---
**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:** [April 21, 2013, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/346 "2013-04-21T14:26:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > A) Definitions are not statutes. They define the language used in the statutes. They are part of the statutes, but honestly, this is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > E) Ask yourself, why in your #3, you used the term “statute” singular. It’s almost as if you’re beginning to understand my position: One set of statutes that outline all the benefits and privileges that can be enjoyed by the two groups in question. First, I didn’t use “statute” singular; I used “set of statutes,” singular, which is an important difference. SEcond, I did so because I literally C&Pasted from your earlier post, because I was typing while making French toast for my daughter, which is kind of a dad fail anyway :). A set of items may be divided into smaller sets, of course. So, a single set of statutes may say (for example) that gay people get unioned and straight people get married, but you can divide that into two smaller sets. This is axiomatic to set theory, thus my earlier supposition that we needed this diversion before returning to the main argument. Now, I said that definitions are part of the statutes; as pointed out earlier, when I asked you where the definitions occurred, you pointed to a set of statutes. They are legally binding language written by and voted on by the legislature, and if someone representing the state does not follow their language, they’re violating the law. Saying they’re not statutes is frankly a bizarre assertion unsupported by an legal history. But I’ll concede that, because I don’t think it matters. Let’s say for a minute that they’re not statutes. Is it your position, then, that the separate-but-equal language appears in the definitions, not in the statutes? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/347 "2013-04-21T14:31:13Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So we appear to be left with the three arguments I have already noted: > > - It’s icky; > - We never did it before; > - God said “No.” No, those are the reasons you wish we had. Nobody’s said icky Nobody’s argued God (even if, for me, it’s the main reason) “Never before” is, at most, a part of a bigger argument. I’m sorry that the anti-SSM crowd has other ideas. Unless, of course, you claim the ability of reading minds and gleaning our true, dark secret intentions. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/348 "2013-04-21T14:34:42Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > No, those are the reasons you wish we had. > Nobody’s said icky > Nobody’s argued God (even if, for me, it’s the main reason) > “Never before” is, at most, a part of a bigger argument. > > I’m sorry that the anti-SSM crowd has other ideas. > Unless, of course, you claim the ability of reading minds and gleaning our true, dark secret intentions. No need to read minds. We can read the signs that say, GOD HATES FAGS, just fine, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/349 "2013-04-21T14:43:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Hmmm, as much as I like A, I’ll go with C. Something like this: > > Article “X” > \*\*Benefits and Privileges to be enjoyed by state-recognized committed couples. > \*\* > The following enumerates the legal privileges and benefits to be enjoyed by 1) married couples, and 2) those couples joined in civil unions. > > _This set of statutes can only be amended in full, affecting both those joined in (1) marriages and (2) civil unions identically._ > > 1. blah, blah, blah > 2. blah, blah, blah, blah > 3. blah, blah > etc. > > See? One set of statutes describing the legal privileges and benefits to be enjoyed by members of those two groups that qualify. The problem here is that the passage I have italicised sounds good but is actually completely ineffectual. If a subsequent statue were to grant rights to marriages but not to civil unions, it would be taken to have [implicitly repealed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_repeal) that passage. An ordinary statute cannot bind subsequent legislators unless it is somehow entrenched (as a constitutional amendment, for example). EDIT: also, I think the “separate statutes” issue is irrelevant. The problem is not “separate but equal” statutes, but “separate but equal” types of relationship status, whether it is in one law or two separate laws. > [@stpauler](#): > > Please show us how the Hague Marriage Convention recognizes civil unions as well as marriages or do you propose that international law needs to be amended as well to fulfill this foolhardy idea of yours. The Hague Marriage Convention is something of a red herring, since the only parties to the convention are Australia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The international recognition of marriage is mostly based on the principle of [comity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comity). That being said, the international (or inter-state) recognition of civil unions is an unsettled area of law, which is all the more reason that same-sex marriages are better than civil unions. (There are some cases where countries have recognized foreign civil unions despite the absence of any statutory law on the issue - for example [Steyn v Steyn](http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2010/224.html) in South Africa and [Hincks v. Gallardo](http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc129/2013onsc129.html) in Canada. But people should not be required to get special rulings from superior courts just to have their relationships recognized.) ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/350 "2013-04-21T14:44:18Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > No need to read minds. We can read the signs that say, GOD HATES FAGS, just fine, thanks. Wow! So a tiny, tiny, tiny group is a good sample of the arguments at the SDMB? Deliciously desperate almost as fun as the episode of Total Wipeout I’m watching. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/351 "2013-04-21T14:45:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You have been in these discussion before. It has been explained before in those very threads. It has been “Lalala, can’t hear you’d” many times before in these threads. _Explained_, no, certainly not by you. How does it feel to know that civilization is leaving you behind? ---
**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:** [April 21, 2013, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/352 "2013-04-21T14:49:21Z")
Heck, Lefty, I tried a similar breakdown of magellan’s proposal nearly two years ago: > [@Explain to me why marriage is OK for murders and child molesters but not for gay people](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/187): > > On further reflection, I think I get what magellan is describing: > > Hypothetical civil code: > > Section 1. “Marriage” is defined as… > > Section 2. “Civil Union” is defined as… > > Section 3. The set of privileges and responsibilities associated with “Marriage” (see Section 1) and “Civil Union” (see Section 2) is listed below. Any modifications to this list affect both “Marriage” and “Civil Union”. It is not lawful to create exceptions. > > Section 3.1. If one spouse is injured the other can make medical decisions… > Section 3.2. Property inheritance… > Section 3.3. Marital confidence in court proceedings… > Section 3.4. Divorce procedures… > … _1000 or so additional sections reflecting the current state of marital law…_ > > Thus, “one set” of laws, I guess, though I’d think of it as two sets with a 99.9% overlap, as long as “marriage” and “civil union” are defined separately. > > Does any state actually keep an omnibus list of marital rights and responsibilities? I was under the impression that references to marriage pop up in various statutes across the entire legal code. Tracking them all down and modifying them to specifically expand them to cover civil unions would be quite the undertaking. And you replied with: > [@Explain to me why marriage is OK for murders and child molesters but not for gay people](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-why-marriage-is-ok-for-murders-and-child-molesters-but-not-for-gay-people/579931/188): > > Yeah, that’s exactly what he’s describing, as near as I can tell. He seems to think that because section 1 and section 2 both point to section 3, it can be described as one set of laws. I, and most other folks, see that section 1 and section 2 are also part of the relevant sets of laws, and so he’s talking about two different sets of laws (one set including section 1 and one set including section 2). And that thread ended without further comment from magellan. I’m starting to think progress on this issue is unlikely. At the very least, he doesn’t seem to get (or at least is studiously avoiding the concept of) legal definitions, where something affected by law must also be defined by law. I suppose we could leave the issue undefined, on the assumption that every county clerk in America will understand which couples get the marriage certificates and which get the civil union certificates, rather like voter registration clerks in the South in the 1960s were assumed to know which voters needed to take literacy tests and which ones didn’t. ---
**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:** [April 21, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/353 "2013-04-21T14:52:02Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And that thread ended without further comment from magellan. Woah, dude, deja vu all over again! I hope this time he’ll stick with the conversation: we’re very close, I think, to finding the precise point of disagreement. ---
**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:** [April 21, 2013, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/354 "2013-04-21T14:54:42Z")
Well, in the sense of .999999… being “very close” to 1, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/355 "2013-04-21T14:55:03Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Wow! So a tiny, tiny, tiny group is a good sample of the arguments at the SDMB? > Deliciously desperate almost as fun as the episode of Total Wipeout I’m watching. I was being cutesy. \*Your \*arguments are obviously \*much \*classier. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/356 "2013-04-21T15:02:55Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > No, those are the reasons you wish we had. > Nobody’s said icky > Nobody’s argued God (even if, for me, it’s the main reason) > “Never before” is, at most, a part of a bigger argument. > > I’m sorry that the anti-SSM crowd has other ideas. > Unless, of course, you claim the ability of reading minds and gleaning our true, dark secret intentions. Every argument presented in this thread and in every other boils down to one of those claims. No actual argument explaining why same sex marriage is a bad idea has been presented. Certainly, nothing you have posted has stepped outside those lines. (Actually, while disputing statements made by other posters, you have presented _no reason_ to oppose SSM.) steabo thinks its icky and presents self-contradicting or factually inaccurate “reasons” for his opposition. magellan01 opposes it because we have not done it before. You made a claim for God, but ducked away from an actual discussion at the same time. I make no claim to read minds and really don’t care what your intentions are. I am addressing only the arguments presented. If you have an argument that differs from the three I have noted, we would love to see something new in these discussions. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/357 "2013-04-21T15:17:39Z")
> [@ctnguy](#): > > The problem here is that the passage I have italicised sounds good but is actually completely ineffectual. If a subsequent statue were to grant rights to marriages but not to civil unions, it would be taken to have [implicitly repealed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_repeal) that passage. An ordinary statute cannot bind subsequent legislators unless it is somehow entrenched (as a constitutional amendment, for example). > > EDIT: also, I think the “separate statutes” issue is irrelevant. The problem is not “separate but equal” statutes, but “separate but equal” types of relationship status, whether it is in one law or two separate laws. The above, finally and Thank God, is a valid objection. It actually looks at what MY idea is and argues against it. Yes, laws can be changed or repealed, directly or indirectly. But that is true of any law. Even one that grants marriage rights to SS couples. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/358 "2013-04-21T15:20:38Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It has been “Lalala, can’t hear you’d” many times before in these threads. _Explained_, no, certainly not by you. > > How does it feel to know that civilization is leaving you behind? I know you need and find comfort in being a member of the majority. I’m happy to report that I don’t suffer from that affliction. My presence here should have tipped you off to that. But, you do miss a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/359 "2013-04-21T15:24:20Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > I was being cutesy. > > \*Your \*arguments are obviously \*much \*classier. I’m sure you can point to comments made by me that are even remotely close to “God hates fags”. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Every argument presented in this thread and in every other boils down to one of those claims. > > No actual argument explaining why same sex marriage is a bad idea has been presented. Certainly, nothing you have posted has stepped outside those lines. (Actually, while disputing statements made by other posters, you have presented _no reason_ to oppose SSM.) steabo thinks its icky and presents self-contradicting or factually inaccurate “reasons” for his opposition. magellan01 opposes it because we have not done it before. You made a claim for God, but ducked away from an actual discussion at the same time. > > I make no claim to read minds and really don’t care what your intentions are. I am addressing only the arguments presented. > > If you have an argument that differs from the three I have noted, we would love to see something new in these discussions. You seem to be confusing “no arguments that convince me” with “no arguments.” Also, you seem to be confusing “no arguments that convince me” with “it, therefore makes it false”. The claim for God, when I mentioned, was to indicated that it convinces me. it would be silly for me to go there on a board like. I’m not ducking away. ---
**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:** [April 21, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663/360 "2013-04-21T15:25:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The above, finally and Thank God, is a valid objection. It actually looks at what MY idea is and argues against it. Yes, laws can be changed or repealed, directly or indirectly. But that is true of any law. Even one that grants marriage rights to SS couples. Post 346 ends with a question; I’d appreciate an answer to it. Again, not at all trying to trick you, and I hope my prose remains as transparent as Saran Wrap; just trying to figure out where our disagreement is. Edit: to save time, here’s the question: Let’s say for a minute that they’re [i.e., definitions’re] not statutes. Is it your position, then, that the separate-but-equal language appears in the definitions, not in the statutes? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-gay-marriage/654663.md?page=19)