# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 768
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2008, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496/768 "2008-11-29T20:25:25Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > You said, why don’t gays in CA just get domestic partnerships and tell everyone they’re married? My response was that they are not married, in some very meaningful ways, and then enumerated some of those ways. The most important way being that this union is not recognized on a federal level, and is not transferable across state lines. This isn’t something that CA can remedy. It calls for change on a national level, which as I said earlier, will probably require action by the judicial branch. Ah OK, I now see where the disconnect is. I had stated earlier in this thread that I was only talking about Prop. 8. Obviously, you’re not. Here’s why I’m talking only about California and not the Federal level. I put this post from **Musicat** : > [@Musicat](#): > > I think some of us are worried that, while a Federal Constitution allowing gay marriage would trump state ones, that the possibility of someone proposing the _opposite_ at the fed level would be the worst case of all. > > I don’t think, given the present makeup of the court and the likely composition in the next 10 years or so, that SCOTUS overturning anti-gay-marriage amendments based on interpretation of the current Fed constitution is a slam dunk, and the worry would be if the decision goes the wrong way, all hope is lost. > > But as you said, as a practical matter, neither kind of Fed amendment is likely, given the extreme measures needed to pass at that level, so maybe it’s better to NOT try to fix things that high up. > > I find it interesting that the gay marriage proponents, knowing that in some states, a 50% vote is sufficient for either a constitutional change or merely a new law on the books, are saying: Why mess with passing a law which could be overturned when, for the same price, you can get an amendment that won’t be? together with this post from **Bricker** : > [@Prop 8 (CA)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/700): > > This is important precisely because of what I said above: the law must yield predictable results. If judges can disregard the printed law in favor of their own sense of compassion, fairness, or social order, then we practically guarantee a _lack_ of predictability, since not all judges will share the same view of what constitutes compassion, fairness, or social order in a given instance. > > And all of this is important because it goes to the heart of what we as Americans profess to believe in: we govern ourselves. WE are sovereign; we do not surrender our sovereignty to unelected judges. But ceding to judges such sweeping power is to do exactly that: surrender, in some small measure each time, our ability to govern ourselves. where he noted that some cases would have to be overturned to change the laws in this regards which could jeopardize all of our rights which could be overturned by judicial fiat. Taken together, I took them to mean that the chances of anything happening on the Federal level in regards to pro-SSM to be very unlikely. Given the unlikelihood of anything happening, I wasn’t pursuing the conversation as to the Federal level of discussion. It seemed to be too far off to have any real meaning at the moment. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > This isn’t the Prop 8 thread. This is the thread about gay marriage, so it doesn’t only pertain to CA. Litigating individual rights for gays to make civil unions, one right at a time, like marriage, seems quixotic to me considering the passage of Prop 8, inefficient, and catering to homophobes and bigots. It would be better than nothing if it worked, but I don’t think it would. And that was my point. If it worked to get equal rights to have domestic partnerships to be equal to marriage in CA, it seemed to be the most expedient thing to do. Why don’t you think it would work? **Miller** seems to think it would and in California, from what he says, there are only 9 issues. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > But what is he actually doing about it? Blathering away on a message board about his theoretical support for equal rights, while actually voting for the elimination of rights. Doesn’t that seem a bit ridiculous to you? And his suggestions are not remotely in the offing, as I’m sure you know, and probably won’t be. This state-level haggling is one step forward two steps back, and doesn’t address the larger problem on the national level. What would you have **magellan01** or anyone for that matter do about equal rights on a Federal level? If someone brings a petition for an amendment, as \*\*Musicat \*\*points out, it could do more damage than good if the entire nation supercedes the states’ rights and doesn’t allow gay marriage for anyone. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > It’s sort of close but no cigar, and if they’re voting yes on Prop 8, then I think you’re kidding yourself if you think they’re just going to give gays marital rights one by one. Why do you say that? According to [this website](http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.3348081/k.B080/Facts.htm): > [@](#): > > Since 1999, gay and lesbian couples and opposite-sex couples have been able to register as domestic partners, affording them many, but not all of the same responsibilities and benefits of marriage. Almost every year since the domestic partnership registry was established, new legislation has been introduced to close the gaps in rights and benefits between marriage and domestic partnership, which are still two separate and unequal institutions. There’s no reason to think that things would change in this regard. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > That would indeed be better. And then take the word marriage out of the law altogether and have all unions called civil unions. Leave marriage to the religious institutions. I highly doubt that’s in the offing though. That’s exactly the scheme that **Miller** was objecting to in the quote I quoted in my last exchange with you. He didn’t want everyone to change the word to civil union. > [@Miller](#): > > _I_ sure as fuck would know the difference. I realize that. That’s why I quoted your post to **Rubystreak** who feels that changing the system to civil unions for all would be a good scheme. I was pointing out that you objected to this in another thread where this was proposed. > [@Miller](#): > > That is, in fact, precisely what I’ve been talking about for some years now. Sorry, that was unfortunate formatting. I was telling **Rubystreak** that you weren’t talking about rights in your post. In the post I quoted, you were saying that you didn’t want the word changed to civil unions even if everyone else did it. > [@Miller](#): > > The problem with that is that many of the rights associated with marriage were determined via court ruling, and not litigation. I am not assured that a law saying, “X and Y have to be completely equal,” can necessarily be binding on judicial precedent. Particularly if the subject comes up in front of a judge who is prejudicial to gay rights. And, of course, there’s the fact that these cases, already settled under marriage law, _are_ going to come up again if we create a new law and call it “civil union.” Even if we are perfectly lucky, and every judge who reviews a case falling under civil union law is at least neutral on the subject of gay rights, it will take years and years, and millions of dollars, to build up the catalog of case law to support civil unions to the extent that marriage is already supported. The same problem occurs if it’s called civil union for everyone. > [@Miller](#): > > So, basically, my point is that pursuing civil unions in place of marriage will take longer to reach a position of equality, cost more, be less certain of a successful outcome, be less secure in terms of protecting our rights in the future, and are still unacceptable, because regardless of the associated rights, I don’t want a fucking civil union, I want a goddamned _marriage_. Perhaps. But none of what you say is certain here except for your preference. > [@Polycarp](#): > > The reason that “marriage” and “something equivalent to marriage” would be different is that they are not identical – and in the particular case that provoked this thread, Proposition 8 in California, it would be **impossible** for the State of California to construct “another relationship having the exact rights and privileges of marriage but distinct from it”, simply because California, much though it sometimes seems to regret it, does not exist in a vacuum, but as part of an indissoluble union of 50 states with a Federal government of specific but sweeping powers over it. California can mandate how its own courts and instrumentalities will act to treat DP as exactly equivalent to marriage, but it cannot mandate how the Feds. will regard DPs, nor can it mandate how 49 other states will regard DPs. If it licenses a marriage, though, FF&C or comity requires other states to regard it as a marriage – save for that emanative, penumbrous “public policy exception.” Yes, but as **Rubystreak** pointed out, there’s not much anyone in California can do about the fact that at the Federal level, gay marriage is not in place. Even if CA had not passed the amendment and gay marriage was allowed, there’s still the portability issue since many other states don’t allow gay marriage. > [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > Whether or not anyone, gay or straight, has what it takes to get someone to marry them has nothing to do with the discriminatory nature of any laws that apply to them once they do. Wow, that’s some serious taking my words out of context. If not, I’m unsure what your point is here. > [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > Were you actually serious about this argument? Yes, in the context in which it was stated. If you have an issue with my point in context, please reiterate it. Your point is not clear. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-listen-up-ive-got-a-secret-to-tell-you/471496)._