# Is The Gay Marriage Debate Over? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2014, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472 "2014-05-02T00:00:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 37
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/721 "2014-05-08T15:34:42Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You may not have noticed the dozens of times it’s been mentioned in this thread, but this is wrong. Brown has nothing to do with “access to two different sets of laws,” whatever precisely that means. Just as a sort of good-faith exercise here: I think I can explain why **magellan** feels like his position is being misinterpreted. He doesn’t think _Brown_ involves two sets of laws, only two sets of schools; he thinks that marriage would have to involve two sets of _laws_ to be analogous to _Brown_. That’s specifically why he thinks _Brown_ isn’t relevant. He’s equating “schools” in the segregation context to “sets of laws” in the marriage context rather than equating the “sets of laws” in one to the “sets of laws” in the other. It’s confusing because obviously there are laws involved on both sides. In _Brown_: two sets of schools that they said were equal even though they were separate. Here: he’s saying, there’s NOT two sets of laws governing marriage, just the one. So it’s not a case of separate but equal because he doesn’t want separate schools (separate laws); he wants the same school… you just, like, register for them differently or something. He’s wrong, because there’s exactly the same number of sets of something in each case, however you count it up. But that’s what he’s saying. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/722 "2014-05-08T15:39:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > How about if it is federally mandated? For me, once you don’t get hung up on it having two different names, the argument that it is a fundamental issue of civil rights is much stronger. If done, that would eliminate what I think are you prime objections, no? How about there is no way that is going to happen(states giving up rights just like that)? What _is_ happening now, state by state, is what is possible now, and that is SSM. Get off the roof and put away your fiddle, Tevye. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/723 "2014-05-08T15:43:58Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Just as a sort of good-faith exercise here: I think I can explain why **magellan** feels like his position is being misinterpreted. He doesn’t think _Brown_ involves two sets of laws, only two sets of schools; he thinks that marriage would have to involve two sets of _laws_ to be analogous to _Brown_. That’s specifically why he thinks _Brown_ isn’t relevant. That may very well be what he’s saying. It’s a totally inapt comparison. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/724 "2014-05-08T15:48:41Z")
I wouldn’t put it in the category of correct comparisons, because I think that would diminish the meaning of “correct.” But I’m willing to call it a comparison that has been made, which is equally valid and in no way inferior. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/725 "2014-05-08T15:51:19Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Just as a sort of good-faith exercise here: I think I can explain why **magellan** feels like his position is being misinterpreted. He doesn’t think _Brown_ involves two sets of laws, only two sets of schools; he thinks that marriage would have to involve two sets of _laws_ to be analogous to _Brown_. That’s specifically why he thinks _Brown_ isn’t relevant. > > He’s equating “schools” in the segregation context to “sets of laws” in the marriage context rather than equating the “sets of laws” in one to the “sets of laws” in the other. It’s confusing because obviously there are laws involved on both sides. In _Brown_: two sets of schools that they said were equal even though they were separate. Here: he’s saying, there’s NOT two sets of laws governing marriage, just the one. So it’s not a case of separate but equal because he doesn’t want separate schools (separate laws); he wants the same school… you just, like, register for them differently or something. > > He’s wrong, because there’s exactly the same number of sets of something in each case, however you count it up. But that’s what he’s saying. **magellan** , read this carefully, because it’s exactly on-point. You’re taking two analogous situations and drawing a weak analogy between them by comparing apples in one situation to oranges in the other. Plessy and The Magellan Plan (hereafter MP) both affect two groups of citizens: a majority and a minority. If you’re going to talk about a group of citizens, analogize to the other group. Plessy and the MP both involve one set of laws, a set that distinguishes between the two groups of citizens. If you’re going to talk about a set of laws, analogize to the other set of laws. Plessy and the MP both establish two institutions, one for one set of citizens and one for the other. If you’re going to talk about a pair of institutions, analogize to the other pair of institutions. Plessy and the MP both claim to set up one set of rights attainable through these two different institutions. If you’re going to talk about one set of rights, analogize to the other set of rights. If you draw an analogy between a set of rights and two different institutions, or between two groups of citizens and one set of laws, you’re not drawing a clear analogy between the two situations. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/726 "2014-05-08T15:52:35Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You may not have noticed the dozens of times it’s been mentioned in this thread, but this is wrong. Brown has nothing to do with “access to two different sets of laws,” whatever precisely that means. That concept, to say nothing of those words, do not appear anywhere in the Court’s decision. SCOTUS made the basis of its decision very clear: schools segregated by race were inherently unequal, which violates the 14th Amendment. Uh, you’re agreeing with what I just said. > [@Marley23](#): > > The comparison here is between two types of schools and two types of relationships. Let’s lay it out again: Brown A) Two groups: black students and whit students B) Legal Benefit/Privilege each group desired: a good education C) Proposal: Let’s have a set of schools for Blacks and a different set of schools for Whites, which will be “Separate but Equal” D) Failure of Proposal: even if well-intioned, the reality is that the the set of black schools will not be equal to the set of white schools E) Solution: Give both black kids and white kids equal and identical access to the entire set of schools My Proposal A) Two groups: SS couples and OS couples B) Legal Benefit/Privilege each group desired: the rights and privileges associated with marriage C) Proposal: Let’s have one set of legal benefits and privileges that are equally and identical accessed by the two groups in A. Namely, SS couples brought together in a Civil Union and OS couples brought together in a Marriage. D) Failure of Proposal: not applicable E) Solution: See C. That is the analogy. It works from A - C, but fails after that because I’m not proposing that the two groups tap into two different set of laws. Now, you can point to faults in the proposal—perhaps crucial and devastating ones—but they fall outside the analogy. This is a fact, yet I’m sure it will _not_ put an end to people mischaracterizing my proposal by saying that it runs into the same problems with “Separate but Equal” the Board of Education ran into with Brown. It does not. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/727 "2014-05-08T15:53:14Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > I note that **magellan01** hasn’t chimed in to endorse it, as he would if he were sincere in simply wanting to preserve his preferred semantic usage and willing to negotiate in good faith toward that goal. I expect he has me on ignore and didn’t see my proposal until you quoted it. When I get home, I think I’ll start the thread he suggested, in which we presume homosexuals are limited to civil unions, unless someone beats me to it. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/728 "2014-05-08T16:01:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Uh, you’re agreeing with what I just said. > > Let’s lay it out again: > > Brown > A) Two groups: black students and whit students > B) Legal Benefit/Privilege each group desired: a good education > C) Proposal: Let’s have a set of schools for Blacks and a different set of schools for Whites, which will be “Separate but Equal” > D) Failure of Proposal: even if well-intioned, the reality is that the the set of black schools will not be equal to the set of white schools > E) Solution: Give both black kids and white kids equal and identical access to the entire set of schools > > My Proposal > A) Two groups: SS couples and OS couples > B) Legal Benefit/Privilege each group desired: the rights and privileges associated with marriage > C) Proposal: Let’s have one set of legal benefits and privileges that are equally and identical accessed by the two groups in A. Namely, SS couples brought together in a Civil Union and OS couples brought together in a Marriage. > D) Failure of Proposal: not applicable > E) Solution: See C. > > That is the analogy. It works from A - C, but fails after that because I’m not proposing that the two groups tap into two different set of laws. Now, you can point to faults in the proposal—perhaps crucial and devastating ones—but they fall outside the analogy. This is a fact, yet I’m sure it will _not_ put an end to people mischaracterizing my proposal by saying that it runs into the same problems with “Separate but Equal” the Board of Education ran into with Brown. It does not. The essential holding of _Brown_ is not that the Black schools were unequal because they weren’t as good, but that they were unequal and would always be unequal, because they were separate, even if they were just as good. “Inherently unequal.” Separate words for gay and straight marriages would have the exact same problems. The “failure” of separate but equal is not the failure to make black schools good enough, although that of course was true. The inherent problem is you can’t have a separate category for some people, even if you could make it “just as good as the real thing,” without the stigma of inferiority. > [@](#): > > Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does… > > Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system… > We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/729 "2014-05-08T16:02:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > How about if it is federally mandated? For me, once you don’t get hung up on it having two different names, the argument that it is a fundamental issue of civil rights is much stronger. If done, that would eliminate what I think are you prime objections, no? If that came up as an option, I would vote for it. But then I’d continue to support full marriage inclusion. And, as others mention, that is a far, far less realistic solution than what’s currently going on with states legalizing gay marriage. So I’ll throw a hypothetical right back at you – if a popular referendum comes up in your state, with the two options as allowing or banning gay marriage (and no talk of Civil Unions with this or in the near future), would you vote to allow or ban gay marriage? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/730 "2014-05-08T16:04:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Brown > A) Two groups: black students and whit students > B) Legal Benefit/Privilege each group desired: a good education > C) Proposal: Let’s have a set of schools for Blacks and a different set of schools for Whites, which will be “Separate but Equal” > D) Failure of Proposal: even if well-intioned, the reality is that the the set of black schools will not be equal to the set of white schools > E) Solution: Give both black kids and white kids equal and identical access to the entire set of schools > > My Proposal > A) Two groups: SS couples and OS couples > B) Legal Benefit/Privilege each group desired: the rights and privileges associated with marriage > C) Proposal: Let’s have one set of legal benefits and privileges that are equally and identical accessed by the two groups in A. Namely, SS couples brought together in a Civil Union and OS couples brought together in a Marriage. > D) Failure of Proposal: not applicable > E) Solution: See C. > > That is the analogy. It works from A - C, but fails after that because I’m not proposing that the two groups tap into two different set of laws. Now, you can point to faults in the proposal—perhaps crucial and devastating ones—but they fall outside the analogy. This is a fact, yet I’m sure it will _not_ put an end to people mischaracterizing my proposal by saying that it runs into the same problems with “Separate but Equal” the Board of Education ran into with Brown. It does not. The second example fails at C) because this would have to be Federally mandated by Executive Order. There is no way in hell this would even get out of committee, let alone voted on in the House and/or Senate and I think that , deep down, you know this and are hoping that we wouldn’t notice it. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/731 "2014-05-08T16:05:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Brown > A) Two groups: black students and whit students > B) Legal Benefit/Privilege each group desired: a good education > C) Proposal: Let’s have a set of schools for Blacks and a different set of schools for Whites, which will be “Separate but Equal” > D) Failure of Proposal: even if well-intioned, the reality is that the the set of black schools will not be equal to the set of white schools > E) Solution: Give both black kids and white kids equal and identical access to the entire set of schools > > My Proposal > A) Two groups: SS couples and OS couples > B) Legal Benefit/Privilege each group desired: the rights and privileges associated with marriage > C) Proposal: Let’s have one set of legal benefits and privileges that are equally and identical accessed by the two groups in A. Namely, SS couples brought together in a Civil Union and OS couples brought together in a Marriage. > D) Failure of Proposal: not applicable > E) Solution: See C. Nah. How about: > [@](#): > > Your Proposal > A) Two groups: SS couples and OS couples > B) Legal Benefit/Privilege each group desired: marriage > C) Proposal: Let’s have a marriage for OS couples and a different kind of institution for SS couples ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/732 "2014-05-08T16:07:14Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > That may very well be what he’s saying. It’s a totally inapt comparison. Again, you’re agreeing with me. :eek: You seem to miss the fact that I am NOT the one that keeps bringing it up. Check every friggin thread. It comes up in every one, but NOT by me. Why? Because Separate but Equal is not a problem that my proposal has. It may have a thousand problems, but that is not one of them. Yet, the charge is made and I have to go through the whole rigamarole again. And again. And again. With people like you asking the same stuff over and over, as if you never were in those other threads asking those same questions. But perhaps their is hope now. I see that **Jimmy Chitwood** gives a good summation of what I’ve been saying here: > [@](#): > > I think I can explain why magellan feels like his position is being misinterpreted. He doesn’t think Brown involves two sets of laws, only two sets of schools; he thinks that marriage would have to involve two sets of laws to be analogous to Brown. That’s specifically why he thinks Brown isn’t relevant. > > He’s equating “schools” in the segregation context to “sets of laws” in the marriage context rather than equating the “sets of laws” in one to the “sets of laws” in the other. It’s confusing because obviously there are laws involved on both sides. In Brown: two sets of schools that they said were equal even though they were separate. Here: he’s saying, there’s NOT two sets of laws governing marriage, just the one. So it’s not a case of separate but equal because he doesn’t want separate schools (separate laws); he wants the same school… ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/733 "2014-05-08T16:10:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It may have a thousand problems, but that is not one of them. One of which I brought up in my previous post. Care to talk about it? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/734 "2014-05-08T16:20:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Uh, you’re agreeing with what I just said. I’m explaining that this “two sets of laws” nonsense is… well, nonsense. > [@](#): > > My Proposal > A) Two groups: SS couples and OS couples > B) Legal Benefit/Privilege each group desired: the rights and privileges associated with marriage > C) Proposal: Let’s have one set of legal benefits and privileges that are equally and identical accessed by the two groups in A. Namely, SS couples brought together in a Civil Union and OS couples brought together in a Marriage. You’re still proposing two separate groups and insisting they’ll be equal. > [@](#): > > It works from A - C, but fails after that because I’m not proposing that the two groups tap into two different set of laws. As I’ve been saying throughout this thread, segregation and separate but equal were not based on “different sets of laws.” Whatever a “set of laws” is. > [@magellan01](#): > > Again, you’re agreeing with me. :eek: Now you’re doing something even weaker than dealing in bad analogies: you’re taking people wildly out of context. It’s a little hard to take this as a mistake. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/735 "2014-05-08T16:21:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I see that **Jimmy Chitwood** gives a good summation of what I’ve been saying here: Including the part where he explains how you’re wrong? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/736 "2014-05-08T16:23:23Z")
By “traditional marriage” do you mean Christian “traditional marriage”, or do you support people of other religions being able to follow their own versions of “traditional marriage”? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/737 "2014-05-08T16:56:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Uh, you’re agreeing with what I just said. > [@magellan01](#): > > Again, you’re agreeing with me. :eek: > [@Marley23](#): > > Now you’re doing something even weaker than dealing in bad analogies: you’re taking people wildly out of context. It’s a little hard to take this as a mistake. I think it’s possible we’ve just been talking past each other, so I’ll put this a different way and try to be a little more specific: in post #718 I was not agreeing with you in any way; I’m not sure how you got there. I was saying (again) that your “two sets of laws” concept is baloney. It has nothing to do with the _Brown_ decision or the notion of separate but equal. I was not commenting on the comparison of your SSM idea to the unconstitutional doctrine of separate but equal. What you are proposing is “separate but equal.” Period. In post #723, **Jimmy Chitwood** said “he thinks that marriage would have to involve two sets of laws to be analogous to Brown.” _That’s_ what I was calling inapt. Not the comparison, but the concept that “sets of laws” are the issue with Brown and with your SSM proposal. I’ve said somewhere between half a dozen and a dozen times that that’s wrong, but I shouldn’t have used the word comparison. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/738 "2014-05-08T17:02:34Z")
Is there any example of two groups of people actually having exactly the same rights but were required by law to label their rights differently? To me, the “required by law to label their rights differently” makes my question absolutely impossible, but I’m willing to listen. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/739 "2014-05-08T17:09:55Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Is there any example of two groups of people actually having exactly the same rights but were required by law to label their rights differently? Damn good question. Try to imagine giving women the all the rights a man has to vote except for the right to call what they do “voting”. Instead, what _they_ do would be called “legal advocating”. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/740 "2014-05-08T17:11:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Damn good question. Try to imagine giving women the all the rights a man has to vote except for the right to call what they do “voting”. Instead, what _they_ do would be called “legal advocating”. I would cut someone. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472.md?page=38)