# Gay marriage **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 11, 2012, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622 "2012-05-11T16:22:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 4
**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 14, 2012, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622/61 "2012-05-14T03:11:43Z")
> [@sparky\_1](#): > > There’s always one of you. ?? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Man\_With\_The\_Golden\_Gun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Man\_With\_The\_Golden\_Gun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Man_With_The_Golden_Gun)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2012, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622/62 "2012-05-14T03:35:07Z")
If you want my real view, I personally agree with **CanvasShoes** that the biggest mistake the pro-SSM crew are doing is falling for the anti-SSM crew’s bait of bickering over the definition of “marriage” while completely ignoring the real issue of gay couples having inequal, if not nonexistent, legal rights compared to straight couples. To me, trying to define “marriage” is a pointless exercise because I don’t think it has much of a definition to begin with. A better way of achieving equality between gay and straight couples would be to dispense with the word “marriage” altogether and just have the government offer a one-size-fits-all package of full legal rights to any couple that wants them, gay or straight. No difference at all, and gay couples and straight couple will have the same legal rights, and neither will be considered married because no couple will be. So that’s the government, and legally “marriage” is now completely irrelevant. As for churches, they can make their own decisions about whether to “marry” gay couples or not. That said, the marriages they do perform will have no legal weight whatsoever and any religiously married couple will be considered no different in the eyes of the law from any unmarried couple in a civil union. Some churches will allow gay couples to marry there, some won’t. But any couple that gets married in a church will be having a gesture, while intimate, is completely symbolic and has no practical ramifications whatsoever. If a gay couple wants to marry in a church that allows it, fine. If they aren’t allowed to in one, find one that does. If none do, then it still isn’t much of an issue because they still have the same exact legal rights as straight couples anyway. (And any America that feels ready to enact this idea is probably going to have a large number, if not a flat-out majority, of churches that will marry gay couples.) The only way this would end up having a real impact on gay couple’s lives is if America becomes a theocracy, and if that happens, then gays will have a lot worse problems, such as trying to avoid getting killed. (And again, an America that is willing to enact this idea has zilch chance of ending up a theocracy.) If people want to bitch about the sanctity of marriage, great. Heterosexuals have destroyed that one on their own with half of marriages ending in divorce and idiots like that Kardashian woman staying married for less than the time it takes to finish a football season. Seems to me that there isn’t any sanctity left to destroy, and since marriage hasn’t always been about romance anyway, which is what the “sanctity of marriage” people are whining about anyway, then there was never any there to begin with. That’s the real problem I have with the pro-SSM crowd. The anti-SSM want to make it about the definition of marriage, and the pro-SSM people are falling for it and wasting their time arguing over that and not the actual issue. If the pro-SSM people would figure this out and not take the bait, then we wouldn’t have a handful of states with SSM now, we’d have a good half if not more and that’s assuming nothing happening on a federal level. The pro-SSM crowd have the right goal in mind, but what they’re doing right now will take a lot longer to achieve it, if at all. It isn’t about fighting the war, it’s about winning it, and the best way to do that is to know how your opponent operates so you can defend against it and give a better offense in return. I know a lot of pro-SSM people understand this and are trying to shift the focus on the legal issue, but there’s a lot who are still taking the bait. Fuck marriage, gay or straight. Loving relationships, regardless of who they’re between, aren’t summed up by a word, and if they were, it sure as hell wouldn’t be “marriage”. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2012, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622/63 "2012-05-14T04:41:33Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > Well, I, for one, am encouraged that this bass-ackwards nation is finally, albeit slowly, coming to the realization that not allowing same-sex couples to marry or, almost as bad, foisting the weaselly, bigoted, discriminatory, and separate and unequal status of ‘civil union’ on same-sex couples who wish to be married, is not only unacceptable but insulting. > > I’m not for ‘gay marriage’ (stupid term). I’m for marriage, period, regardless of one’s sexual orientation. I don’t have any legal or personal knowledge of how civil unions work. How are they unequal? Do they not include all of the legalities included in marriage ( like being able to decide for your partner in the hospital, estate decisions etc)? Forgive my ignorance but I seem to remember a couple of states using civil unions, as long ago as the 90s. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2012, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622/64 "2012-05-14T04:51:05Z")
> [@The\_Man\_With\_The\_Golden\_Gun](#): > > If you want my real view, I personally agree with **CanvasShoes** that the biggest mistake the pro-SSM crew are doing is falling for the anti-SSM crew’s bait of bickering over the definition of “marriage” while completely ignoring the real issue of gay couples having inequal, if not nonexistent, legal rights compared to straight couples. > … Stated SO much better than mine but yes. I mean, I’m confused here. As I asked **Onomatopoeia** what exactly are the legal rights within a civil union? If they’re not the same legal benefits of marriage, why not? And IF they’re not, good grief! Make it so! Heaven’s to Betsy…this isn’t that difficult, most anti-gay marriage folks are that way due to religion, so as **MWTGG** says here, then MAKE marriage a religious institution and make the gov’t sanctioned unions be termed something else. After all, that makes sense from an IRS, property division (and all that other stuff) standpoint. So why has the whole “MY word!” “NO MY word” nonsense been going on for SOOO damned long? GAH! just divide them up, I mean, we’re supposed to have separation of church and state right? ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2012, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622/65 "2012-05-14T04:52:35Z")
> [@Visorslash](#): > > So CU = legal = for everyone > Marriage = religious = depends I suppose. > > Probably going to get bashed for this, but oh well. You wanted an opinion. I’m not the OP but I’d say this is a meaningless semantic nitpick. I’m sure sparky! is using marriage as a catch-all term for legally recognized union. I’d even go as far to say that marriage equality supporters as a whole only care about legally recognized unions. No one is advocating for the right for Adam and Steve to get married in their local catholic church, just in front of a justice of the peace. So stating you’re against gay marriage because you don’t care about religious marriage is side-stepping the issue. No one’s asking you to support that. ---
**Author:** ![legalsnugs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@legalsnugs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legalsnugs)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2012, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622/66 "2012-05-14T09:30:01Z")
> [@Visorslash](#): > > I voted no. _dodges thrown objects_ > > My views are probably badly stated, but I just want to say I have no problem with gay people getting the same legal rights as heterosexual people in regards to being together, just that I think marriage is a religious thing. … See, that’s where you’d be wrong. Marriage, as I stated earlier, is NOT a religious thing. You are not legally married in a religious service if you don’t take care of the state’s civil requirements. You CAN, however, be married in a civil ceremony with no religiosity whatsoever. The reality is exactly backwards of what you, and many others, seem to believe marriage is. It’s a societal contract, a legal contract between two people, be they christians, taoists, atheists, muslims, zoroastrians, whatever. Religion is not a requirement for marriage and may actually impede it. For example, if your religion allows you to marry your 10 year old sibling, too bad - the state does not, so no legal marriage has taken place. Religion does not determine legal marriage. The state does. ---
**Author:** ![Visorslash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/ee59a6/32.png) [@Visorslash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Visorslash)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2012, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622/67 "2012-05-14T09:44:49Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I’m not the OP but I’d say this is a meaningless semantic nitpick. I’m sure sparky! is using marriage as a catch-all term for legally recognized union. I’d even go as far to say that marriage equality supporters as a whole only care about legally recognized unions. No one is advocating for the right for Adam and Steve to get married in their local catholic church, just in front of a justice of the peace. So stating you’re against gay marriage because you don’t care about religious marriage is side-stepping the issue. No one’s asking you to support that. Uh, I did say later on in that post that I probably should’ve voted for. I’m not against unions of any kind. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2012, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622/68 "2012-05-14T10:55:33Z")
Color me shocked by the result. Further proof that the makeup of the general population of this board bears little resemblance to that of the public as a whole. > [@sparky\_1](#): > > Fuck that. If it quacks like a duck and shits like a duck, then it’s a duck. I for one am firmly opposed to people marrying ducks. > [@The\_Man\_With\_The\_Golden\_Gun](#): > > “SDMB: Are you for or against tossing kittens into woodchippers?” I’m against that too, since technically it’s a form of declawing. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622/69 "2012-05-21T10:24:24Z")
Why are gay people getting hung up on the word “marriage”? Two prongs. The first is the 14th amendment, equal protection before the law and the ruling of the Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board that something cannot be separate and equal. Marriage is the right referred to in the 16th article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the right to marry is independent of race, nationality or religion. Which leads to the second point, that if marriage were really a religious institution, then congress would be supporting an establishment of religion by proffering certain rights to married couples since those rights wouldn’t be available to the irreligious (which simply isn’t true, as atheists marry frequently). Then all the stuff Bricker talks about comes in (rational basis [with or without teeth], strict scrutiny and due process). From a logistical standpoint, there are plenty of politicians that’d oppose and debate civil unions for all posterity (Mitt Romney for instance), then once civil unions are achieved, there’d probably be a push to have sexuality recognised as a suspect class (if it isn’t already) and federal anti-discrimination legislation, then there’d be a federal case arguing that civil unions violate the equal protection act which’d probably pass. So they may as well argue for this fundamental right (as defined by the UDHR mentioned above) now. Then we can go back to focusing on poverty, disease, starvation and [death](http://unicornbooty.com/blog/2011/10/10/uk-threatens-to-cut-off-foreign-aid-to-countries-that-persecute-gays/). ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622/70 "2012-05-21T11:27:20Z")
> [@Candyman74](#): > > Yeah, First World Problems. > > It is sucky, but it isn’t like widespread poverty, disease, starvation, and death; or bloodbaths and civil wars in developing countries. > > We should all count ourselves lucky that our serious political matters are about marriage and not about survival. ‘First world problems’ usually means complaining about something trivial. Marriage rights aren’t trivial if they allow you to live in the same country together, or visit each other in hospital, or collect widow’s pensions or benefits or not pay inheritance tax on joint property, or have the right to continue to be a parent to any children you have after a divorce or the death of the biological parent, where being married certainly would help a lot. No, it’s not as bad as death. _Nothing is_. Nothing, absolutely nothing is worth talking about if that’s the standard you’re putting out there. ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Gay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ab097/32.png) [@Enola\_Gay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Gay)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622/71 "2012-05-22T05:53:19Z")
> [@hogarth](#): > > The government should manage civil unions where any two adults can have one. > > Then religions can have some extra thing called a “marriage” which the government is free to ignore. How about the government manages “marriage” (since that’s the way it is right now) and religions can manage “holy matrimony”? I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone gives a flying fuck who _someone else_ decides to marry. Same sex marriage would not become **mandatory** , so why does anyone oppose it? Makes no sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622/72 "2012-05-22T06:56:01Z")
I don’t know how to answer. I’m kind of against marriage in general, not gay marriage in particular. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622/73 "2012-05-22T15:19:55Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > So you have to be FOR or AGAINST it now? Why can’t you be a DON’T CARE, leave 'em alone type of guy? That sounds like FOR. ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Gay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ab097/32.png) [@Enola\_Gay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Gay)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622/74 "2012-05-22T22:45:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That sounds like FOR. Agreed, if you are pro-choice, you are FOR. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622/75 "2012-05-22T23:28:09Z")
> [@sparky\_1](#): > > Let anyone marry anyone or anything. Mkay? Anyone? Sure. Anything? A separate Poll. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage/621622.md?page=3)