I used to wonder about that too (the separate but equal thing). So I started a thread about it to find out. The gay posters didn’t seem to care what it gets called, so long as they get the same rights as the rest of us. As Diogenes pointed out in said thread, whatever legal term gets used can be ignored in popular vernacular in favor of calling it marriage.
Disclaimer: I am in favor of Gay Marriage. My BIL is in fact legally getting married in September.
This Op is truly asinine and stupid and living up to every preconceived notion that **Magellan ** holds about a small vocal portion of the board.
His opinion is mild and purely semantic in nature. I don’t agree with it but to show this much rage over one word for a poster that otherwise supports all the legal rights that all humans deserve and should get is outrageously stupid. He is so far from the Phred Phelps of the world as to deserve a little praise for being as progressive as he is when he shows himself to be a conservative on so many issues.
Full Metal Lotus, you sound like a frothing moron in this Op. What the hell aren’t there plenty of real targets to attack in this country? **Magellan ** appears to be completely in sync with our current Liberal candidate for President. Are you going to go after Obama the same way as you just did to Magellan?
If I was a poster that cared deeply for increasing understanding between the gay community and those that do not favor full equality I would be deeply embarrassed to have you on my “side”. Oh wait, I do care and I am deeply embarrassed. It looks to me that **Magellan ** has met us far more than half way when there are still sizable organized groups that would deny even the rights of civil unions to gay couples.
BTW: People change, I was homophobic when I was young. It took seeing bigger assholes with signs demanding that gays be quarantined to protect the rest of us from AIDS to make me re-examine my beliefs. I’ve come a long way in 22 years. As recently as 7 years ago I was in Magellan’s position of getting hung up on the word Marriage. I got over it. Maybe **Magellan ** will progress in another 5-10 years.
So in conclusion, fuck you Full Metal Lotus for being a shrill moron in this Op.
Jim
I agree that the end result is what’s important at the moment (baby steps and small victories and such) but it still perpetuates a marginalizing mindset. Much like the “one drop” rule, it succeeds in highlighting differences that feed prejudice. I realize that changing the official title to “marriage” for everyone won’t change the prejudice overnight, but like the One Drop Rule, it will eventually fade into history if we stop making the distinction. In fact, I wonder how many young people even know what The One Drop Rule is…
Alright FML, maybe you’d care to have a whack at me. I’m gonna lay out my homophobic, hate filled beliefs on gay marriage, and you can do your worst:
I don’t think the government should sanction gay marriage.
The only business government should have in the formalization of a relationship between any two people is WRT legal and civil rights. Everyone should have a civil union, and it should be available to any couple who desires it regardless of their respective sex.
“Marriage” should be a term conferred upon such a union by the church of choice of the participants, and if certain churches don’t want to sanctify same sex unions as marriages in their eyes, they have the absolute right to do so.
Pretty bad, huh? Maybe you better burn me at the stake along with Magellan01.
Well, we could ignore you.
Sure, magellan01 may be a thoroughgoing douchebag, but listen, Full Metal Lotus — stop helping.
This is my “perfect world” scenario, too.
Just curious, I got married to my wife by the Mayor of a local town in a civil ceremony. As the township and state consider this a marriage but there were zero religious overtones or connections to the ceremony and processing, can I say I was married?
I ask as I see no difference between my marriage and the marriage my BIL will be having in California later this year.
It is the same thing and if you insist there is still a difference than it should perhaps be made through the descriptive words of Civil vs. Church marriage.
Jim (Please keep in mind, I am not attacking you, I understand where you are coming from, I just no longer think you are correct.)
Well, to elaborate, with what I am proposing, you wouldn’t “marry” your wife in front of a mayor or JP, you and your wife would establish a civil contract that encompasses everything that marriage does now (legally). You and your wife would become, oh, call it “civil partners”. Bob and his partner Dave, or Suzie and her partner Jill would be able to do the same thing. You and your partner now have all the rights and responsibilities under the law as people we currently consider “legally married”. That’s the extent of governmental involvement in the matter. The state is now out of it. If you and your wife decide afterwards to marry in accordance with the beliefs of your church, you are free to do so (even if that church is a restrictive fundie one that only recognizes heterosexual marriage). If Bob and Dave couldn’t give a shit about marriage because they are atheists, they need do nothing further. Suzie and Jill could have their union consecrated by the Great High Priestess of Our Benevolent Mother Earth. It doesn’t matter. Legally, all three unions are identical. So yea, I am talking about “Civil vs. Church marriage”, but I think there need to be two completely different terms for them to avoid confusion. A civil union is what you do before the state, a marriage is between you and your chosen deity (or lack thereof).
OK, so we’re on the same page and just place difference importance on the word Marriage. If the word makes people happier, I think they should be free to use it and they would be under your system, it sounds like in your system the government would not recognize the word marriage at all an only the civil contract.
Therefore is would not be separate but equal in the eyes of the Government, only in the eyes of certain religious groups. I think it would be simpler to just use the word Marriage but I see nothing inherently wrong with what you spelled out.
Jim
The funny thing about this all is that, in general, the folks that are against marriage of gays use the terminology as a roadblock.
I never got that point. Here’s a group that belonged to the anti-pc crowd.
Now it seems the same folks that were fighting political correctness because they didn’t like the language to be limited or “correct” are now arguing that gays can’t use the word “marriage” because it isn’t correct.
/I’m not accusing anyone here of doing that. It’s more of a general on-topic rant.
Weirddave, that’s the smartest thing I’ve ever seen you post. I’m all for it.
Paint me in with the crowd that doesn’t understand why the OP required that kind of vitriol to address a poster who, while pretty wooden-headed, is hardly spewing hate.
Honestly. If you’re going to fling that kind of poo at mg01, what sort of ammo will you have left when the Stormfronters make their biennial visit?
Read the thread? I’ve been posting to that thread since the first page, you subliterate cretin. And I’m not defending his position. As I’ve said, his position is intensely stupid. But comparing it to a Klan rally is, amazingly enough, even stupider.
Ok, that sounds nice and all, but I doubt it will happen like that for a long time. So what do you do in the meantime? Vote for gay marriage because while it isn’t ideal, it’s better than what we have? Vote against it because more government marriage is the opposite of what you want? Vote for it because convincing everyone to give up government marriage together will be easier than convincing straight people to give up their government marriages and be equal to gay civil unions? Some fourth thing?
The thing is, as an atheist, I do give a shit about marriage, and would like to get married someday. Not civil unioned - married. Yeah, it’s just a word, but it’s a word that means a lot to me. I’m kind of sentimental like that.
In the larger context of securing equality for gays, I think advocating this would be a disasterous tactic. The number one argument from the anti-marriage crowd is that SSM is an attempt to “destroy marriage.” This proposal plays directly into their hands. The best tactic for the gay marriage lobby to take right now is to insist that allowing gays to marry wouldn’t have any effect on anyone else’s marriage. We’re not going to get everyone in the country to accept homosexuality full heartedly, but there’s a good chance we can split off the people who don’t like gays, but can appreciate a “you leave me alone, I’ll leave you alone” argument. As soon as you start proposing radical revisions to these people’s established relationships, you’re going to lose them for good.
As you know, I don’t see this as remotely a radical revision to my established relationship; indeed, if the government stopped calling it “marriage” (but allowed me to keep all those same legal rights), I’d find that a slight improvement. You may well be right that it would be a tactical mistake for people to put it forward; it may well be that a lot of people who believe that gays getting married would affect their relationship would be equally sentimental about the idea that what the government names their relationship would affect their relationship. But absent that, I think Weirddave has the right idea. Not on behalf of SSM: on behalf of me, who doesn’t want the government to force me into a symbolic approval of any old schmuck’s relationship.
Daniel
I’m with Weirddave, with a further caveat:
If government has chosen to be in the business of granting “marriages”, then government should grant them to both straight couples and gay couples.
Even if everyone is civil unioned?
You have the religious/nonreligious “marriage” ceremony afterward, and hey presto! Gay marriage!
I don’t give a shit about civil unions one way or the other. They’re a convenience for those who need the legal protections of marriage, but that’s all they are: a legal shortcut. There’s no emotional heft to the idea, no particular meaning or tradition behind them, as there is with marriage. If I ever enter into a civil union, it will be because it makes financial sense for my situation at the time, not because I have any emotional investment in it as an institution. Marriage is different. Marriage means something to me beyond a bundle of legal rights and responsibilities.
I could have a nonreligious, non-government sanctioned marriage ceremony right now, if I wanted to. I don’t want to, though, because it would be an entirely meaningless exercise. The value of a marriage is tied into its recognition by a larger society. Currently, that means either the government, or the church. Under Wierddave’s proposal, the government would no longer recognize marriage, and as an athiest, I don’t have (or want) religious recognition. Which means that I don’t have any way to get a marriage at all that has any meaning whatsoever.
Eh? Society doesn’t recognise marriages because of the ceremony even now. If you go to a church or wherever and have your hooplah, it doesn’t count unless you get the license too.