# Gay marraige a "special right"? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 16, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010 "2006-05-16T18:32:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![The\_Swan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_Swan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Swan)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/21 "2006-05-16T20:45:15Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Completely whacked. The right that gays are seeking is the right to marry the consenting adult (outside their immediate blood kin) of their choice. Obviously, straight people currently have that right and gay people don’t (except in Massachusetts). > > Allowing gay marriage would not give gays any “additional right to do something any straight person cannot do”. In fact, that quoted comment is an absolute gem of blatant self-contradiction: > > 1. _“Please tell me what right straight people have that gays do not.”_ > In other words, since everybody’s allowed to marry a consenting unrelated adult of the opposite sex, straights and gays have equal rights. > > 2. _“The additional right is the right to do something that I or any other straight person cannot do”_ > In other words, if everybody were allowed to marry a consenting unrelated adult of the same sex, straights and gays wouldn’t have equal rights. Very, very well put. I may steal it, if you do not mind. ---
**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:** [May 16, 2006, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/22 "2006-05-16T21:41:52Z")
You could always suggest to him that marriage in any form isn’t a right… ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2006, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/23 "2006-05-16T21:58:27Z")
> [@The Swan](#): > > I may steal it, if you do not mind. Not at all, thanks. Fighting ignorance is what we’re here for. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2006, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/24 "2006-05-16T23:42:50Z")
It’s kind of freaky. As recently as a couple of years ago, this subject would have been fodder for at least a few pages of disagreeing posts. This year… _\_ I wonder if this represents progress, or localized homogenization. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2006, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/25 "2006-05-16T23:45:40Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > You could always suggest to him that marriage in any form isn’t a right… [Yes](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html) [it](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/zablocki.html) [is](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/turnervsafley.html). > [@Chief Justice Earl Warren](#): > > The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. > > Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. > [@Justice Marshall](#): > > Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals. > > More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental “right of privacy” implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court observed: “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.” > > Cases subsequent to Griswold and Loving have routinely categorized the decision to marry as among the personal decisions protected by the right of privacy. > [@Justice O'Connor](#): > > Many important attributes of marriage remain, however, after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals. > > Taken together, we conclude that these remaining elements are sufficient to form a constitutionally protected marital relationship in the prison context. Maybe the OP should ask his/her friend if s/he thinks gay people should have fewer freedoms under the Constitution than interracial couples, deadbeat dads and convicted criminals. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2006, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/26 "2006-05-16T23:51:12Z")
> [@Anne Neville](#): > > And for the ones who quote the Bible- the Bible devotes rather more space to saying that interracial (Jewish/Canaanite) or interfaith marriage is bad than it does to saying that homosexuality is bad. Yet those things are legal, and nobody except a few fringe loons like Christian Identity is saying they shouldn’t be. Which exemplifies one of the things these people are _really_ afraid of, IMHO. Once interfaith marriage became common enough, long enough most people stopped caring. Interracial marriage is well along the same path as well. Let gays get married like anyone else, and in a generation or two no one but the crazies will care. ---
**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:** [May 17, 2006, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/27 "2006-05-17T06:48:21Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Once interfaith marriage became common enough, long enough most people stopped caring. Interracial marriage is well along the same path as well. Let gays get married like anyone else, and in a generation or two no one but the crazies will care. Quite. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/28 "2006-05-17T07:53:37Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Which exemplifies one of the things these people are _really_ afraid of, IMHO. Once interfaith marriage became common enough, long enough most people stopped caring. Interracial marriage is well along the same path as well. Let gays get married like anyone else, and in a generation or two no one but the crazies will care. This could work the other way: If enough states pass enough ‘I Can’t Believe It’s Not Marriage’ laws (civil unions and the like) that grant enough of the benefits of marriage without the name, the debate might lose its immediacy in the minds of the majority. The only comforting historical precedent is that the Jim Crow laws didn’t last forever. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/29 "2006-05-17T08:00:24Z")
> [@The Swan](#): > > {bolding mine} > {snip} > Here are a few gems from a recent conversation: > > > [@](#): > > > > I don’t see how you can’t see how special rights are given. An > > additional right would be given, while all could enjoy it, it is > > clearly aimed at one group. Please tell me what right straight people > > have that gays do not. The argument makes a lot of sense, lets not > > start handing out “rights” to each group, this is an issue only > > because they want the government and society to condone their > > behavior. Something that has lost every time it’s gone to the ballot > > **(CA being the only state I think it would have a chance).** The > > additional right is the right to do something that I or any other > > straight person cannot do so how is that exclusionary? The individual with whom you had that conversation isn’t all that up on California, is he or she? California’s voters passed a proposition against Gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/30 "2006-05-17T10:16:31Z")
But why is marriage important? Surely marriage is a religous/traditional title? NZ has bought in civil unions. They secure the EXACT legal rights as a married couple without any of the religous overtones. A hetrosexual couple can get a civil union the same as a homosexual couple. I don’t understand why homosexual couples and many non-religous couples think that marriage is a better option then a civil union. Same lifestyle, same rights, less god crap. Shouldn’t MANY American couples be arguing for civil unions? Keep the sky pixie out of how we run our lives! ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/31 "2006-05-17T10:34:27Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > But why is marriage important? Surely marriage is a religous/traditional title? > > NZ has bought in civil unions. They secure the EXACT legal rights as a married couple without any of the religous overtones. A hetrosexual couple can get a civil union the same as a homosexual couple. > > I don’t understand why homosexual couples and many non-religous couples think that marriage is a better option then a civil union. Same lifestyle, same rights, less god crap. > > Shouldn’t MANY American couples be arguing for civil unions? Keep the sky pixie out of how we run our lives! Correct me if I am wrong, but Civil Unions do not accord the same rights as a **marriage** , especially in cases of inheritence and medical power-of-attorney. I think that is why civil unions are regarded as lesser than marriages. ---
**Author:** ![Tenar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@Tenar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tenar)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/32 "2006-05-17T10:36:45Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > But why is marriage important? Surely marriage is a religous/traditional title? > > NZ has bought in civil unions. They secure the EXACT legal rights as a married couple without any of the religous overtones. A hetrosexual couple can get a civil union the same as a homosexual couple. > > I don’t understand why homosexual couples and many non-religous couples think that marriage is a better option then a civil union. Same lifestyle, same rights, less god crap. > > Shouldn’t MANY American couples be arguing for civil unions? Keep the sky pixie out of how we run our lives! Because it has already been decided in this country that “separate but equal” (a phrase which came up in regard to racial segregation) is NOT really equal. If marriage is inherently a right of heterosexuals, while civil unions are open to both heterosexuals and gay people, you do NOT have equality. As for marriage being a strictly religious institution, there are marriages performed in courtrooms and city halls all the time. No one is trying to force individual churches to perform gay marriages, but the word “marriage” must be used equally or gays are still being singled out and excluded. Words matter. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/33 "2006-05-17T11:32:28Z")
Yes words DO matter and marriage is a a word of religion. IF I had a hetrosexual partner I would say NO to marriage. I am not buying into some biblical bullshit. Civil Union protects my rights as a partner in every way. Marriage is for the religious because it is a religious term. If I want to celebrate my relationship and cement it’s legal, moral and instrinsic rights I don’t need to call it a marriage. I would pleased to know that I don’t have to use such an archaic term. ---
**Author:** ![Tenar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@Tenar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tenar)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/34 "2006-05-17T11:35:49Z")
That is your choice. However, as I have said, non religious marriage ceremonies are performed every day in the US. As long as that is the case, equal access to marriage is only fair. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/35 "2006-05-17T11:43:45Z")
> [@Tenar](#): > > That is your choice. However, as I have said, non religious marriage ceremonies are performed every day in the US. As long as that is the case, equal access to marriage is only fair. But what is special about the word marriage if a cvil unon delivers the exact same rights in every way? Lets the religious types keep their “special” word, let the rest of us get the same benefits. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/36 "2006-05-17T12:40:34Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > Yes words DO matter and marriage is a a word of religion. > > IF I had a hetrosexual partner I would say NO to marriage. I am not buying into some biblical bullshit. Civil Union protects my rights as a partner in every way. My now-husband and I were perfectly content with leaving our relationship one of cohabitation. (Didn’t need a piece of paper to tell us that we were committed, in other words.) However, I have health issues, and Hubby’s insurance wouldn’t cover an unmarried partner. To the courthouse we went. [quote=calm kiwi But what is special about the word marriage if a cvil unon delivers the exact same rights in every way? Lets the religious types keep their “special” word, let the rest of us get the same benefits.[/quote] I’m uncomfortable with that, because to me it stinks of that old seperate-but-equal nonsense, where what blacks got was certainly seperate, but even Hellen Keller could have seen wasn’t close to being “equal.” In essence, I think it _legalizes_ discrimination. (Not Constitutionally, mind, but it sets up a precedent in law for homosexuals to be treated differently than straights.) ---
**Author:** ![Mellivora\_capensis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mellivora\_capensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mellivora_capensis)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/37 "2006-05-17T12:44:31Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > But what is special about the word marriage if a cvil unon delivers the exact same rights in every way? Lets the religious types keep their “special” word, let the rest of us get the same benefits. I see your point, but your take seems to be at odds with **kambuckta** ’s view of the respective rights. Are they the same? (Not meant to be snarky, I’m genuinely interested) ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/38 "2006-05-17T13:19:01Z")
> [@Mellivora capensis](#): > > I see your point, but your take seems to be at odds with **kambuckta** ’s view of the respective rights. Are they the same? (Not meant to be snarky, I’m genuinely interested) **Kambucta** is from Australia. I could be wrong but I don’t believe Australia has adopted civil unions. In New Zealand ALL the rights of marriage are enshrined in civil unions. They are EXACTLY the same except for the religous overtone. That means there is NO diference legally between a civil union and a marriage. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/39 "2006-05-17T13:31:44Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > **Kambucta** is from Australia. I could be wrong but I don’t believe Australia has adopted civil unions. In New Zealand ALL the rights of marriage are enshrined in civil unions. They are EXACTLY the same except for the religous overtone. > > That means there is NO diference legally between a civil union and a marriage. I go to a Unitarian church that performs gay weddings. They have no legal status, but they would if the people involved were legally allowed to marry. Some people actually want to get married in a church. I can’t think of any reason why they shouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010/40 "2006-05-17T13:47:12Z")
> [@kambuckta](#): > > Correct me if I am wrong, but Civil Unions do not accord the same rights as a **marriage** , especially in cases of inheritence and medical power-of-attorney. > > I think that is why civil unions are regarded as lesser than marriages. In Spain you have “matrimonio civil” and “matrimonio religioso”, if you’re a Christian you also get “matrimonio sacramental”. The legal benefits and duties are awarded exclusively by the civil marriage. You want to translate “matrimonio civil” as “civil union” instead of “civil marriage”, be my guest. We’ll go on using the same word. And accepting same-sex marriages. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marraige-a-special-right/357010.md?page=3)