Same-sex couples in MA used the word “married” because same-sex couples in MA are legally married.
Yeah, but it amounts to a civil union. MA chose to use the traditional word, but it doesn’t impact the validity of the union. It’s a word.
Yeah, but it’s not a civil union. It’s a marriage. See?
I also meant to add that it doesn’t make it any more acceptable to the church, either.
It may be, but there is absolutely no difference between a civil union and a civil marriage. So why bicker about the word?
Because it’s not a civil union, it’s a marriage. It says so right in the law.
(Dude, I’m arguing facetiously, here. But this is precisely the sincere argument you’ll get into with other folks.)
An excellent question. Why do heterosexuals demand exclusive use of the word “marriage”?
I’m very insistent on gay marriage over civil unions (although I’ll accept civil unions as a stopgap), but I’m also an atheist who believes there is no such thing as a “spirit.” I don’t want the spiritual significance of the term married, I want the emotional and cultural significance of the term “married.” The term carries a lot of weight in our society, and it bothers me that gays should be denied that to assuage the spiritual bugaboos of a bunch of bigots. Even if civil unions had complete parity with marriage, the fact that so many people insisted on the creation of a seperate term to maintain a distinction between themselves and homosexuals grates. Even if the practicalities are the same, the sheer pettiness of it is still a slap in the face.
I’m not one of 'em so I can’t tell you.
Personally, I don’t care what word is used, they can call it Zertalflat if they want. What I care about is having the state and federal laws changed so that my relationship is able to have the same legal rights, protections and standing as the current opposite sex marriages.
Agreed. They’re not fooling anyone but themselves, and the sheer idoicy of it makes them look like morons. And I’m more than fine with that. Do they really think their constituants are that stupid? If I were one of the people that was against gay marriage, I’d be pissed off that my state government thought they could pull a fast one one me, and if I was gay I’d be pissed that they continued to make the distinction. The whole thing is lose-lose.
The problem is not the state purporting to deny marriage to homosexual couples. The problem is the state purporting to grant marriage to heterosexual couples. Marriage is an issue completely irrelevant to the state, and the state lacks not only the authority, but the power, to legislate in any regards on marriage. Marriage is between the people being married and (if He exists) God, and nobody else. Homosexuals have the same ability to marry as anyone else, and always have.
Now, what does have relevance for the state, for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, is civil unions. That’s a whole slew of legal issues bundled together, covering things like custody of children, intestate estates, mutual power of attorney, household income for purposes of taxation, and many others. The state can and should legislate on civil unions. And civil unions may often coincide with marriages, but that does not mean that marriage is within the purview of the state.
I guess this distinction is hard for me to understand as a non-religious person that got “Married” by the Mayor of Seabright, I do not see why we should call it marriage for my wife and myself but only civil union for same sex couples. It does not appear to me as anything but outdated semantics coming into play.
I do understand your point, and I am fine with the compromise, but in the end, marriage commonly means what you describe as civil union to a very large number of Hetero couples. Are we to surrender the term Marriage to only the religious? I guess I do not really care, but it seems like a silly semantic argument and off the point that most states will not even concede basic civil union rights.
Jim
Before we-all get too elated, remember that earlier this same week the opposite decision was rendered on the opposite coast: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/290034_marriage26.html
Win some, lose some. And some may be moot, at least for a while, if some constitutional amendments make it thru the next election. I know it’s on the Wisconsin ballot (an anti-gay measure) and the chances of it passing are good.
Couldn’t have put it better.
Me too either.
That’s just a re-affirmation of the earlier decision from the same court. Washington’s supremes had already abrogated their constitutional duty some months back.