# Gay marriage opponents, listen up: I've got a secret to tell you **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 6, 2008, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496 "2008-11-06T19:08:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/261 "2008-11-12T13:10:44Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I remain curious about your 10th Amendment argument. First, the 10th Amendment is about federalism, not about separation of powers, so right off the bat, you’re off. Actually, I have explained this to you several times. Anyway, here is the text of the Tenth Amendment > [@](#): > > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. So the Tenth Amendment states that if the Constitution does not explicitly assign a power to the federal government, or specifically forbid a state some power, then the power belongs to the states, or the people. So unless one can point to a clause in the Constitution that clearly states that the federal government can do this or that, then the federal government may not do this or that. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court may establish rights. Therefore, that power belongs to the states, or the people. > [@](#): > > Second, the 10th Amendment only deals with not delegated, the Supreme Court has been delegated the judicial power (which includes judicial review). Article 3, Section 2 - > [@](#): > > he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;10 --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. The Supreme Court deals with rights delegated “under this Constitution”, the laws of the United States, and treaties, etc. Same sex marriage is not delegated as a right under the Constitution, is not encoded into any federal law, and is not part of any treaty. Therefore, it does not come under judicial review. Again, the Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court may establish new rights. Only enumerated rights, those rights arising “under this Constitution”, are subject to judicial review. Judicial review of enumerated rights does not include the right to establish unenumerated rights. The power to do that, therefore, belongs to the states, or the people. > [@](#): > > Third, what is wrong with State Supreme Courts deciding for SSM? There is no 10th Amendment problem there. Nothing, as long as one is clear that the California State Supreme Court has no right to establish SSM as a basic civil right any more than the US Supreme Court does. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/262 "2008-11-12T13:24:50Z")
> [@outlierrn](#): > > I’ll gather my cites, you answer the fucking question He did, [here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10436380&postcount=611) And admits that the harm is not concrete, nor material, nor is it identifiable. He cannot articulate it. He just fears that it will come to pass if gays are allowed to marry. And isn’t fear like that the quintessence of homophobia? ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/263 "2008-11-12T16:29:22Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Nothing, as long as one is clear that the California State Supreme Court has no right to establish SSM as a basic civil right any more than the US Supreme Court does. So are you saying the supreme court of the united states was in the wrong for declaring that marriage is a basic civil right? ---
**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:** [November 12, 2008, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/264 "2008-11-12T16:38:09Z")
> [@outlierrn](#): > > **Magellan01** you and **Aji de Gallina** have continued to misrepresent my position, so let’s try this analogy > I like women with long hair. I wouldn’t vote for a law forcing them to keep it long because their right to self-determination trumps whatever little harm comes to me from having short haired women in the world. > My question to you was, and remains, because no one as attempted to answer it, is to tell me what harm SSM brings to you _or any other_ 3rd party that is of sufficient gravity to warrant limiting their rights to the pursuit of happiness, or the basic civil right of marriage. > Put another way, as a straight man SSM _doesn’t_ effect me directly, but I participate in these discussions because I believe that the harm caused to citizens in the gay community in particular and society in general by discrimination is too great a burden to bear for the sake of the reasons you’ve stated. If you can show that SSM leads to an even greater harm, something that is worth discriminating against gays to prevent, then I’ll join you. but you haven’t, you haven’t even tried. > So I’ll say it again, > don’t like SSM, don’t have one > but before you try to stop anybody else, prove that it causes enough harm to justify it. It is not that I don’t understand it, it is disagreement. You say that I shouldn’t oppose SSM becasue it does not do enough harm. “_Enough harm_” is your own standard, and even if it were universal the meaning of “_Enough harm_” tends to be difficult to assess the closer you get to the middle part of the kiss-your-baby-good-night/burn-your-kid-alive continuum. I surely understand that John and Peter’s being married does me no direct evident harm (it may be difficult to observe if it does). I also understand understand that countries that have legalized SSM have not become post-apocalyptic wastelands; however is this because SSM is harmless? Is it because even if harmful there aren’t that many SSMs? Is it because the damage will be felt later? (SSM as a legal reality exists in the western world for less than 50 years). _If you don’t like smoking don’t go to places were well-informed adults smoke._ ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/265 "2008-11-12T16:44:02Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It is not that I don’t understand it, it is disagreement. You say that I shouldn’t oppose SSM becasue it does not do enough harm. “_Enough harm_” is your own standard, and even if it were universal the meaning of “_Enough harm_” tends to be difficult to assess the closer you get to the middle part of the kiss-your-baby-good-night/burn-your-kid-alive continuum. > > I surely understand that John and Peter’s being married does me no direct evident harm (it may be difficult to observe if it does). I also understand understand that countries that have legalized SSM have not become post-apocalyptic wastelands; however is this because SSM is harmless? Is it because even if harmful there aren’t that many SSMs? Is it because the damage will be felt later? (SSM as a legal reality exists in the western world for less than 50 years). To disagree slightly with the wording you are responding to, I will say SSM does no harm. You (nor anyone else here) has demonstrated that it causes any harm. It has been demonstrated that it absolutely will cause some good. What specific harm will it do? ---
**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:** [November 12, 2008, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/266 "2008-11-12T16:44:16Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > Sooo, despite the fact that you don’t know anything about any of these cultures involved and the differences between and similarities to male-female relationships in these same cultures, you would “guess” the people involved didn’t consider these “real” marriages in each and every example. > > How convenient for your arguments. I didn’t say ANYthing The cites were no more informative than that and the writers of the articles didn’t seem to have real familiarity with those cultures either, they were reviewing other guys articles. However, since the pattern in most of the cases is older-guy + young-kid = apprenticeship + buttfucking, I can deduce that the same pattern of “not being marriages” applies. It’s not like you majored in African-cultures-SSM either. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/267 "2008-11-12T16:50:46Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I surely understand that John and Peter’s being married does me no direct evident harm (it may be difficult to observe if it does). I also understand understand that countries that have legalized SSM have not become post-apocalyptic wastelands; however is this because SSM is harmless? Is it because even if harmful there aren’t that many SSMs? Is it because the damage will be felt later? (SSM as a legal reality exists in the western world for less than 50 years). Do you have any reasonable hypothesis as to what sort of harm there _may be_ to society if SSM is legalized? Is this hypothesis based on any evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Illuminatiprimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/illuminatiprimus/32/11520_2.png) [@Illuminatiprimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illuminatiprimus)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/268 "2008-11-12T17:12:37Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It is not that I don’t understand it, it is disagreement. You say that I shouldn’t oppose SSM becasue it does not do enough harm. “_Enough harm_” is your own standard, and even if it were universal the meaning of “_Enough harm_” tends to be difficult to assess the closer you get to the middle part of the kiss-your-baby-good-night/burn-your-kid-alive continuum. > > I surely understand that John and Peter’s being married does me no direct evident harm (it may be difficult to observe if it does). I also understand understand that countries that have legalized SSM have not become post-apocalyptic wastelands; however is this because SSM is harmless? Is it because even if harmful there aren’t that many SSMs? Is it because the damage will be felt later? (SSM as a legal reality exists in the western world for less than 50 years). > > _If you don’t like smoking don’t go to places were well-informed adults smoke._ This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. When you can actually demonstrate some kind of harm that same sex marriage HAS CAUSED (as it operates in several countries) to give your argument some kind of substance then I’ll downgrade you from “monkey mashing the keys of a computer” to simply “misguided”. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/269 "2008-11-12T17:21:43Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > So are you saying the supreme court of the united states was in the wrong for declaring that marriage is a basic civil right? Do you mean same-sex marriage? They haven’t done that. Do you mean marriage as defined between one man and one woman? They didn’t declare it, they recognized that it was a right already. If there were no laws establishing marriage as between one man and one woman going back to English common law, and in the common law of the US, and the Supreme Court made it up and sprang it on the country, then they would be illegitimate in doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/270 "2008-11-12T17:27:13Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Do you mean same-sex marriage? They haven’t done that. Do you mean marriage as defined between one man and one woman? They didn’t declare it, they recognized that it was a right already. > > If there were no laws establishing marriage as between one man and one woman going back to English common law, and in the common law of the US, and the Supreme Court made it up and sprang it on the country, then they would be illegitimate in doing so. I don’t believe that completely jives with your prior statements regarding the constitution and don’t personally agree with your assessment, but I don’t disagree with your logic. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/271 "2008-11-12T17:52:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > At times, perhaps with the phases of Greek civilization, they saw that it had a negative effect on society on made changes accordingly. I find it interesting that both homosexuality and heterosexuality have been around for eons. Early on, there was probably no bias for either. Eventually, it seems that one became praised, for (they finally realized) it resulted in children. Still we have ages upon ages of both being in existence and no clear examples of homosexual relationships (not just the sex part) being fully accepted. And IF they were, what made them suddenly unacceptable. which brings us back to your question, I guess. You make me want to cry. Please read the post I made replying to you in the other Prop 8 thread. If you’d like some more information on homoeroticism and homosociality in the ancient world, I’d be happy to help you learn about it. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/272 "2008-11-12T18:38:53Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > \ > I surely understand that John and Peter’s being married does me no direct evident harm (it may be difficult to observe if it does). I also understand understand that countries that have legalized SSM have not become post-apocalyptic wastelands; however is this because SSM is harmless? Is it because even if harmful there aren’t that many SSMs? Is it because the damage will be felt later?\ I tried to extrapolate to the future of Canada and what negative impact we might possibly expect from legalizing same-sex marriage here. I came up with: - more divorce lawyers required. The list of positive effects from same-sex marriage are numerous: - more economical stability, since a married couple is a very stable economical unit. - reduced prejudice against a group of people. - more stable couples to adopt unwanted children. - more business for marriage industry. Sorry, positive benefits outweigh negative ones. You lose. ---
**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:** [November 12, 2008, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/273 "2008-11-12T18:51:22Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > To disagree slightly with the wording you are responding to, I will say SSM does no harm. You (nor anyone else here) has demonstrated that it causes any harm. It has been demonstrated that it absolutely will cause some good. > > What specific harm will it do? > [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. When you can actually demonstrate some kind of harm that same sex marriage HAS CAUSED (as it operates in several countries) to give your argument some kind of substance then I’ll downgrade you from “monkey mashing the keys of a computer” to simply “misguided”. > [@featherlou](#): > > I tried to extrapolate to the future of Canada and what negative impact we might possibly expect from legalizing same-sex marriage here. I came up with: > > - more divorce lawyers required. > > The list of positive effects from same-sex marriage are numerous: > > - more economical stability, since a married couple is a very stable economical unit. > - reduced prejudice against a group of people. > - more stable couples to adopt unwanted children. > - more business for marriage industry. > > Sorry, positive benefits outweigh negative ones. You lose. It has never been my argument (at least in this thread) that SSM harms, I was just reposnding to the post where “harming others” was the standard of acceptability. My main argument is simply same-sex couples cannot get married because marriage is a man-woman thing. That’s it, and the last 1000 years of western civilisation agree with me. I oppose it in the same sense that I would oppose a law saying that heptagons can be 8-sided on the second thursday of an odd-numbered month in a prime-numbered year. The harm, if any, would be negligible and I would stillopoose it simply because heptagons can never be 8-sided. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/274 "2008-11-12T18:57:09Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It has never been my argument (at least in this thread) that SSM harms, I was just reposnding to the post where “harming others” was the standard of acceptability. > My main argument is simply same-sex couples cannot get married because marriage is a man-woman thing. That’s it, and the last 1000 years of western civilisation agree with me. I oppose it in the same sense that I would oppose a law saying that heptagons can be 8-sided on the second thursday of an odd-numbered month in a prime-numbered year. The harm, if any, would be negligible and I would stillopoose it simply because heptagons can never be 8-sided. So you basically have nothing except linguistics. Thank goodness no other word has ever expanded or changed in meaning during that last 1000 years of western civilization. Just to clarify then, would you support an amendment to every state constitution in the US and the federal government agreeing that every right, benefit etc of marriage granted to opposite sex couples in the relationship known as marriage was to be extended to same sex couples and the legal term for that relationship will be civil unions. Essentially, is the word your one and only opposition? (I must admit I’ve lost track of names in this thread so I don’t know if you’ve directly answered this) If you have other oppositions, what are they? ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/275 "2008-11-12T19:05:22Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > That’s it, and the last 1000 years of western civilisation agree with me. Shouldn’t you be annoyed that the the years before 300 CE don’t agree with you? The nerve of those Late Antique people, changing the definition of marriage! ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/276 "2008-11-12T19:11:59Z")
**Aji** , you might be interested in looking up The Persons Case in Canadian history. We had to re-define “person” so women would be included in the definition, too. (Good job with the quotes, by the way.) ---
**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:** [November 12, 2008, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/277 "2008-11-12T19:48:44Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > So you basically have nothing except linguistics. Thank goodness no other word has ever expanded or changed in meaning during that last 1000 years of western civilization. > > Just to clarify then, would you support an amendment to every state constitution in the US and the federal government agreeing that every right, benefit etc of marriage granted to opposite sex couples in the relationship known as marriage was to be extended to same sex couples and the legal term for that relationship will be civil unions. Essentially, is the word your one and only opposition? (I must admit I’ve lost track of names in this thread so I don’t know if you’ve directly answered this) If you have other oppositions, what are they? When the word is used to deifne a pre-existing thing it is more than linguistics. Words DO change meanings but the important aspect is the reality they explain. (Remembering than I’m not a US citizen nor resident) If I could be convinced that the GLBT community would accept it and never again try to change it, yes. Civil union is like “_marriagge light_” and wouldn’t make me happy (not that you should care). I would prefer the ability to draw contracts giving same-sex couples many of the “administrative” privileges/rights of married couples. > [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > Shouldn’t you be annoyed that the the years before 300 CE don’t agree with you? The nerve of those Late Antique people, changing the definition of marriage! I have avoided going into religion, but Jews and then Christians have had a stable meaning of marriage ofr much more than that. > [@featherlou](#): > > **Aji** , you might be interested in looking up The Persons Case in Canadian history. We had to re-define “person” so women would be included in the definition, too. > > (Good job with the quotes, by the way.) I’m familiar with the case (IANAL, though). That proves my point that the reality of “_person_” exists even if the law says otherwise. Ignorance fought on the quotes, nifty thing, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/278 "2008-11-12T19:51:05Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > (Remembering than I’m not a US citizen nor resident) If I could be convinced that the GLBT community would accept it and never again try to change it, yes. Civil union is like “_marriagge light_” and wouldn’t make me happy (not that you should care). I would prefer the ability to draw contracts giving same-sex couples many of the “administrative” privileges/rights of married couples. When you say ‘many’, what rights and privileges do you feel should be denied? ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/279 "2008-11-12T20:01:17Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I have avoided going into religion, but Jews and then Christians have had a stable meaning of marriage ofr much more than that. Can you clarify what you mean by this? Are you saying that the model of monogamous, one-man-one-woman Judeo-Christian marriage went back long before 300 CE? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/280 "2008-11-12T20:05:27Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > And? And, since civil marriage have nothing to do with the gender (or race) of the parties, the right to a civil marriage is NOT defined as between a man and a woman or a black person and a white person. The right to a civil marriage is a right that extends to all citizens, regardless of the gender or race of their partner. > [@wmfellows](#): > > I am merely observing that regardless of theoretical legal arguments, the actual cultural reality is the compared step between overruling bans on interracial marriage - always a minority legal practise - and allowing same sex marriage is deceptive, the second is rather larger - in applied fact. > > That is not to say it should not be done, but rather one is deceiving oneself if one actually takes those as similar steps in terms of actual cultural change. Court ordered change seems to have often had blow back, perhaps some attention should be paid to that. Of course there is blowback. Bigots, or more politely, those who would refuse to extend rights to others, do not go quietly into that good night. The end of slavery led to segregation. Should we not have ended slavery because of the blowback? Of course not. > [@wmfellows](#): > > Certainly the resistance from traditionalists and concerns over their religious practise are an item to address (as I gather there is a concern their churches could find themselves forced into treating with a form of marriage they do not approve of or recognise). It’s not an “item to address”, because it is a complete fallacy. It’s a made up bogeyman that the right has thrashed to death to scare people into voting for legal measures that restrict the right to marry. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496.md?page=15)