# Gay marriage opponents grasping at straws. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 16, 2009, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660 "2009-05-16T17:32:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/161 "2009-05-20T21:18:40Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Which would never, ever happen. “Seperate but equal” is never equal; that’s the whole point. You can’t legislate tolerance. If legally equal civil unions were what was politically feasible and marriage was not, I see no reason not to accept them. If I were gay and wanted to get married it would be much better for me than holding out hope that sometime in my lifetime I would have access to the tax and other benefits of marriage. I’d just get a civil union and tell everyone we were married. The people that would condescendingly correct me would not recognize my marriage even if it were the technically correct legal term anyway. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/162 "2009-05-20T21:27:02Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > You can’t legislate tolerance. If legally equal civil unions were what was politically feasible and marriage was not, I see no reason not to accept them. If I were gay and wanted to get married it would be much better for me than holding out hope that sometime in my lifetime I would have access to the tax and other benefits of marriage. > > I’d just get a civil union and tell everyone we were married. The people that would condescendingly correct me would not recognize my marriage even if it were the technically correct legal term anyway. If holding out for the Full Monty-Loves-Monty might happen, and I’ve been treated as a second class citizen all along anyway, I’d prefer to wait in the status quo and not agree to the a stopgap measure that (i) has all the chances of slowing down the full equality train (or bus, if you will) and (ii) is a sop to those who need it to continue their discriminatory practices. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/163 "2009-05-20T22:04:18Z")
> [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > …the Full Monty-Loves-Monty… You bastard. Now I’m picturing the guys from [The Full Monty](http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3555498240/tt0119164), doing, well, you know. And that may be the only thing more off-putting (in a “for consumption by the general public” sort of way) than me and cwPartner doing the Full Monty thing. When are the mods going to get that pukey smiley going? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/164 "2009-05-20T22:44:59Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > You can’t legislate tolerance. Not personal tolerance, but you can certainly legislate official tolerance. Allowing SSM wouldn’t force someone’s Aunt Bertha to send wedding presents, but that’s not the point. Forcing desegregation didn’t force people to be tolerant either, but in the long run I think it helped, aside from at least reducing inequality. ---
**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 20, 2009, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/165 "2009-05-20T23:17:09Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > You can’t legislate tolerance. If legally equal civil unions were what was politically feasible and marriage was not, I see no reason not to accept them. If I were gay and wanted to get married it would be much better for me than holding out hope that sometime in my lifetime I would have access to the tax and other benefits of marriage. > > I’d just get a civil union and tell everyone we were married. The people that would condescendingly correct me would not recognize my marriage even if it were the technically correct legal term anyway. First, to a degree yes you CAN legislate tolerance as **Voyager** points out. And second, separate but equal is the opposite; it’s about legislating intolerance. It’s not a stepping stone to full equality, but an attempt to lock bigotry into law. Going along with segregation didn’t get blacks equal rights; defying it and demanding their rights did. The point of civil unions is to create a ghetto version of marriage and relegate same sex couples to it _ **permanently** _. Not to work up to real marriage. It’s a defeat for civil rights; not a victory, not even a partial one. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/166 "2009-05-20T23:18:21Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The point of civil unions is to create a ghetto version of marriage and relegate same sex couples to it _ **permanently** _. Not to work up to real marriage. It’s a defeat for civil rights; not a victory, not even a partial one. That must explain why so many social conservatives are pushing for civil unions…wait. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Weird\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@The\_Weird\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Weird_One)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/167 "2009-05-20T23:52:19Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Not personal tolerance, but you can certainly legislate official tolerance. Allowing SSM wouldn’t force someone’s Aunt Bertha to send wedding presents, but that’s not the point. Forcing desegregation didn’t force people to be tolerant either, but in the long run I think it helped, aside from at least reducing inequality. I agree. It’s not likely to change the minds of anyone who’s over the age of, say, 10, but I think it would influence young children and the next generation. ---
**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 21, 2009, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/168 "2009-05-21T00:31:28Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > That must explain why so many social conservatives are pushing for civil unions…wait. Of course they aren’t; they don’t want even the appearance of compromise. They’d generally prefer that homosexuals be rounded up and killed. But if they can’t do that, they’ll go for fake progress like civil unions. Just like the racists went for segregation when they couldn’t hold blacks as slaves anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/169 "2009-05-21T01:21:17Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Of course they aren’t; they don’t want even the appearance of compromise. They’d generally prefer that homosexuals be rounded up and killed. Do you really believe that? I mean, really? Do you really believe that a significant segment of the United States population wants to see gays rounded up and killed, or are you just exxagerating for rhetorical effect? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/170 "2009-05-21T01:31:31Z")
That’s the eternal question, innit? ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/171 "2009-05-21T01:40:05Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Do you really believe that? I mean, really? Do you really believe that a significant segment of the United States population wants to see gays rounded up and killed, or are you just exxagerating for rhetorical effect? I don’t know about the percentage, but I believe there is a not insignificant number of Americans who’d love for Gays to be “rounded up and killed.” I place it in quotes because I’ve heard people say those exact words. So yes, I really believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/172 "2009-05-21T01:44:01Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > I don’t know about the percentage, but I believe there is a not insignificant number of Americans who’d love for Gays to be “rounded up and killed.” I place it in quotes because I’ve heard people say those exact words. So yes, I really believe it. Someone should do that as a performance art piece. I’ve heard people say similar things too but I bet if they felt the emotions of watching it about to happen (even if they knew it was fake), a lot of them would rethink their positions. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/173 "2009-05-21T02:01:27Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Do you really believe that? I mean, really? Do you really believe that a significant segment of the United States population wants to see gays rounded up and killed, or are you just exxagerating for rhetorical effect? It’s not clear how significant a percentage it is, but there’s an example from Borat: ‘When Borat tries to kiss him on the cheek, [rodeo producer Bobby] Rowe tells him never to do that, that people might get the wrong impression that he’s gay. After Borat declares, “We hang homosexuals in my country!” Rowe smirkingly responds: “That’s what we’re trying to do here.”’ (From Salon’s “What’s Real In Borat?” [What's real in "Borat"? - Salon.com](http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/11/10/guide_to_borat/)) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/174 "2009-05-21T02:01:29Z")
Thanks for the thoughtful response, and sorry about the delay in getting back. I got very busy and will be for the next few days, so I’ll try to reply as much as I can. That said, I think your response is helpful, as it allows us to explore an important distinction: > [@Miller](#): > > How can you not see that your first three examples are entirely unlike your fourth? When men and women go to buy land, we call it the same things. When blacks and whites go to get driver’s licenses, we call it the same thing. When tall and short people want to open a restaurant, we call it the same thing. When gays and straights want to have the government recognize their marriage… we call it two different things. > > We don’t have property deeds for men and land ownership certificates for women. We don’t have driver’s licenses for whites, and vehicle operator licenses for blacks. We don’t have restaurants for tall people and food-getting-places for short people. And we should not have marriages for straights, and civil unions for gays. When a black person and a white person join together, we call it marriage. When a short person and a tall person join together, we call it marriage. When a Catholic and Jew get married, we call it marriage. As long as one is a man and one is a woman. Why? Because a pairing of opposite sex couples is what marriage is. The other criteria are immaterial. You’re asking that the primary criterion of the definition of a word be ignored. Now, we _can_ redefine the word, but I think it’s ridiculous and wrong-headed. We’re not just talking about an ordinary word. You’re talking about a word that describe a founding institution of our society. You may as well try to redefine woman to mean man and man to mean woman, so we no longer have words to point enabling us to talk about either group clearly. You want to strip the culture and the language of a word that describes the the institution that has given families, children specifically, and our society generally structure. To its great benefit. > [@Miller](#): > > “…except for the right to X, which shall accrue solely to married couples.” No. Reread what I wrote. > [@Miller](#): > > As long as the government recognizes a difference between gay and straight marriage, even if only in nomenclature, it will be possible to legislate selectively against one or the other. Only by making the nature of the relationship invisible to the government can this be prevented. I don’t see how that would be the case if you used my language. Now, if you want to insist that there is a very slim “possibility”, as it is not an _im_possibility, I’ll have to grant that. But there is also a possibility of lines being redrawn after the fact through your solution. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/175 "2009-05-21T02:19:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > When a black person and a white person join together, we call it marriage. When a short person and a tall person join together, we call it marriage. When a Catholic and Jew get married, we call it marriage. Couple of those crossed over to thinkable fairly recently, as I understand. Tradition accepts the odd latecomer, it would seem. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/176 "2009-05-21T02:22:32Z")
We’ve _already_ redefined marriage several times, **magellan**. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/177 "2009-05-21T02:22:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > When a black person and a white person join together, we call it marriage. When a short person and a tall person join together, we call it marriage. When a Catholic and Jew get married, we call it marriage. As long as one is a man and one is a woman. Why? Because a pairing of opposite sex couples is what marriage is. The other criteria are immaterial. You’re asking that the primary criterion of the definition of a word be ignored. Now, we _can_ redefine the word, but I think it’s ridiculous and wrong-headed. We’re not just talking about an ordinary word. You’re talking about a word that describe a founding institution of our society. You may as well try to redefine woman to mean man and man to mean woman, so we no longer have words to point enabling us to talk about either group clearly. You want to strip the culture and the language of a word that describes the the institution that has given families, children specifically, and our society generally structure. To its great benefit. That is just so ridiculous it’s almost hard for me to accept you’re not sitting behind your monitor laughing your ass off that the suckers at the SDMB keep responding to you. As I know I’ve said to you before in other threads: I worked for a company who got a new proprietary software system, and during the transition period we had to “marry” the old files to the new ones. Do you object to this use of the word? Why or why not? What is more important to you: etymology or the rights, dignity, and self-esteem of your fellow human beings? I can tell you my answer: even as a word lover, it’s no contest. Compassion and brotherly love is going to win by a landslide. Now tell me your answer. You haven’t answered 90% of the questions asked of you in this thread, and I know you won’t, but answer me that one, please. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/178 "2009-05-21T02:26:54Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I disagree. I’m pretty sure in fact that i’ve suggested to you ways in which your methods don’t grant all the rights and privileges to you before; I tend to recall others doing so too. There’s considerably more than that single presupposition. Namely? > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > The law is not just what’s written down on paper. Read the text of your Constitution; could you, if you had no knowledge of current Constitutional law, correctly guess from the text every result of a legal case brought up? You’d probably get a fair idea, but you’d not get it quite correct, and wildly wrong in many cases, i’d think. Because the law isn’t just the text, it’s the interpretation. It’s the findings of juries, the interpretations of juries all the way up to the highest levels. It’s precedent as much as it is textual. The law IS what is written down. There is no (societal) law that is not written down. Now, that body of law is not stagnant, it can be expanded or narrowed. How? When a case is brought to the courts and a decision is handed down. That decision either adheres to existing law, or due to a nuance in the case an existing law is interpreted in a new way. If so, that becomes precedent which can then be cited in future cases. But all “law” is codified. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Add “and all the rights and privileges accorded to marriage will be accorded also to civil unions” to the texts, and you’ve still got no guarantee whatsoever that the storm of legal cases that will ensue (and I think we can at least agree that there will be such a storm) won’t result in a judge interpreting the text differently. But this can be fixed by using very explicit language, language that also cites the intent. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > And this hurts your ideals, too, because just as it’s possible a judge may consider civil unions less worthy of rights than marriage, it’s also possible they may consider them _more_ worthy. Keeping the two seperate means potential problems in that regard either way - your method may well mean the opposite of what you intend, by leaving the door open for civil unions to be considered by the law to be \*superior \*to marriage. Do you not think language could be crafted that would give judges no wiggle room? I do. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Think of it like this. In this thread, we have many people disagreeing, as we tend to do. We all have our own ideas about what we mean, what this issue means, and what our opponents on this mean. Which is pretty inevitable, coming as we are from our own different viewpoints. But here’s the thing; judges are just as human. The text provides a framework for them to work with, but there’s no guarantee that one judge’s view will agree with the next. There is room for interpretation when language is ambiguous. But if there’s a law that plainly states that a person, e.g., _must_ be 16 years old in order to qualify for a driver’s license, there’s nothing to argue. Nothing to interpret. I’m certain that such language can be crafted. I spent five minutes on it and it seems pretty good. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > And your method means they’ll have quite a lot of room to maneuvre in deciding precisely what rights and responsibilities mean, what comes under that “all”, what precedent applies between the two systems, what new changes to one also affect the other. I don’t see what room they have. And what those rights and responsibilities are is unimportant. Both groups are covered by the same set of laws. The beauty of this is that whatever group is the dominant one is stuck hurting themselves every time the wish to hurt the other group. What the specific rights and privileges are is a different issue than what were discussing. We’re discussing whether or not they both are to, or can, be treated equally. And I believe they can. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/179 "2009-05-21T02:35:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Do you not think language could be crafted that would give judges no wiggle room? I do. For a subject like this, I don’t. Moreover, judges are not automata that blindly implement the letter of the law, nor should they be. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/180 "2009-05-21T03:01:25Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > That is just so ridiculous it’s almost hard for me to accept you’re not sitting behind your monitor laughing your ass off that the suckers at the SDMB keep responding to you. > > As I know I’ve said to you before in other threads: I worked for a company who got a new proprietary software system, and during the transition period we had to “marry” the old files to the new ones. Do you object to this use of the word? Why or why not? > > What is more important to you: etymology or the rights, dignity, and self-esteem of your fellow human beings? I can tell you my answer: even as a word lover, it’s no contest. Compassion and brotherly love is going to win by a landslide. Now tell me your answer. You haven’t answered 90% of the questions asked of you in this thread, and I know you won’t, but answer me that one, please. Let me start by pointing out that, unlike you perhaps, this board is a form of recreation for me. I have a life. There are times I have time and can indulge myself here. Other times, real life makes demands of me much more important than me responding to a board where only about 30% of the people can even type posts worth reading, never mind responding to. Now, to answer your question. First, I’ll point out that you frame it in a way that is roll-of-the-eyes loaded. Do you really expect that I’d say, “Yes, a word’s etymology or the rights, dignity, and self-esteem of human beings”? Come on, man. Don’t be an ass. Don’t jump in with the other 70%. The fact of the matter is that words are valuable to us. (I’ve discussed the word “hero” several times, and the sad way that it is being adulterated.) We have an institution that has been foundational. It recognizes the natural drive for man and woman to come together and directs in in a way that is most beneficial to society. I think kids growing up seeing that society values it cause them to value it themselves, as has occurred for centuries. That is how we got here. It has served us well, as much as it may be suffering of late. I believe that by continuing to hold up traditional OS marriage, we provide valuable signposts for future generations. And that benefits them, their children, and society at large. “Marry”, “wed”, etc. are not threatened when the use is far removed from the original meaning. Again, take the word “hero”. When a baseball slugger is called a hero when he hits a grand slam in the bottom of the ninth, there is little confusion as to what the word means. But when every soldier is referred to as a hero simply by donning the uniform, I think real damage is done. We are working toward obscuring and adulterating a word. A word that we should reserve its import for the real thing. I feel the same way about “marriage”. Let’s talk about wedding one idea to another, male and female plug ends, and heroic baseball players. But let’s try to reserve “marriage”, like “hero”, for what we want it to mean. Now, I know we disagree and what we want it to mean, but that is part of my reason. I hope that helps your understanding of my position. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660.md?page=10)