# What are you getting out of all this, Bricker? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 23, 2004, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593 "2004-09-23T01:17:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/201 "2004-09-24T18:52:02Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > If everyone gets a civil union, there’s no **separate** institution. True in theory, but that possibility is so unrealistic that it can be discounted. Nobody is \*seriously \* proposing abandoning “marriage”, even as just a word, except as a debating point, nor would a seriously-intended proposal have any chance of popular acceptance at \*any \* time. It is entirely fair to demand from its proposer an explanation as to why some persons could justifiably be denied a full, _non_separate, _non_discriminatory insititution, not allow a semantic exit route from the fundamental question. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/202 "2004-09-24T18:56:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s unclear to me what “just a sideshow” means. There are a number of issues here: > > 1. Should the power to regulate - or forbid - same-sex marriage or other arrangements that bestow the rights and privileges thereof be reserved to the states, or should it be a federal issue? > > 2. Should the substantive law on this matter be a creation of the legislature or the judiciary? > > 3. Ultimately, what should the law be? > > Much of the confusion here arise from the conflating of these issues during debate. > > None of these issues are “sideshows” for another, if that word means a smokescreen, excuse, distraction, or pretext. Federalism is a necessary part of our government. There is a strong public reaction in this country now over the perception of “activist judges.” And, naturally, there is some measure of interest in securing reasonable, justified civil recognition of same-sex pairings in the same manner as husbands and wives are so recognized. > > - Rick Except that, as far as I can tell, risking being a fool by speaking for “most people”, most people aren’t interested in those conversations. Those are technical conversations involving knowledge of constitutional law. They are certainly interesting and important. There are even situations in which they are the paramount questions. But, for the most part, they’re not the questions being debated here, and they’re _certainly_ not the questions that are causing people to flame you. If you had said, from the beginning something like, “I think that gay people should be completely equal citizens of our great republic. And I think one of the most imoprtant and basic elements of human life is the right to get married. Thus, I truly and deeply believe that gays should be allowed to marry, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities. Sadly, however, my reading of the constitution does not [insert several pages of constitutional analysis here]. So, much as it pains me, and much as I find the current situation to be hideoulsy unjust, I believe that, due to the importance of rule by law, gay marriage can not currently be forced onto the states. I will continue to support whatever measures lead to further equality and justice, as long as I don’t feel they are unconstitutional. I will also support civil-unions-providing-full-rights as a stopgap measure”, or something like that, I don’t believe you would have been flamed much, if at all. Two things: (1) I’m curious to read your respnse to my post #87 in this thread, which contains the adoption analogy that **Matt\_Mcl** was referring to. (2) Hypothetical: You have two sons. One grows up straight, one grows up gay. The gay one joins a church which perfroms same sex marriages, legally-sanctioned or not. Both of your children have marriage ceremonies. At this point, would you treat your gay son-in-law any differently than your straight daughter-in-law? Would you refer to your gay son as being “married”? Would you refer to his partner as his “husband”? Why, or why not? Oh, and for the record: my opinion on the whole constitutional issue is that, no, a strict reading of the constitution certainly does not indicate that the federal government has the right to force states to recognize same sex marriages. However, a strict reading of the constitution ALSO does not indicate that the federal government has the right to force states to recognize interracial marriage. So, since we’re already shoehorning things into the constitution basically because we want to live in a non-racist society, we might as well also shoehorn things in because we want to live in a non-homophobic society. Basically, I think the 14th amendment, and the things that are found to derive from it, is a big hilarious joke. Unfortunately. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/203 "2004-09-24T19:05:04Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > For some reason you decided to SKIP my other Hillary link. > [http://www.nypost.com/gossip/19209.htm](http://www.nypost.com/gossip/19209.htm) > > So Hillary “maintains a marriage is between only a man and a woman” based on moral, traditional and religious grounds. It’s NOT just Hillary wishing for states to have the ability decide something (that she disagrees with). But again…she apparently gets a pass. Oops. You’re quite right, I skipped that link. I apologize, and withdraw my claim that you missed my point. And, for the record, I find Hillary’s stated position to be bigoted and borderline evil. And if she honestly believes that, well, I’m disappointed. > [@](#): > > Good gravy man…I’ve only said this at least three times now. This is NOT about a simple policy disagreement, I don’t expect folks to point out every politician who holds a point similar to a poster. I said it before and I’ll say it again. This is about the LEVEL of vitriol. If politican X holds a position that makes him/her a “bigot”, equvalent to a “racist”, someone who “discriminates”, someone equivalent to a Nazi…that sounds like no small deal to me. Does it sound pretty significant to you? > > > [@me](#): > > > > Bricker posts on the SDMB, saying things that people disagree with, and gets flamed. Because he’s here. Because one can click “reply to” and respond to him, and he’ll answer back. That’s far more satisfying than just railing about various famous people. > > Oh I get that…although I guess it’s truly amazing then, that other politicians of any stripe get pitted. Whats the “satisfaction”? 😉 Well, I’ve kind of lost track of exactly what we’re discussing at this point… I agree that Bricker has gotten more anger directed at him than politicians who have expressed similar positions. But I honestly don’t find that very surprising, nor do I find it to really “prove” or “mean” anything. If you think it does mean something, what do you think it means? Or are you just honestly and openly puzzled by the phenomenon? ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/204 "2004-09-24T19:09:46Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > The position **Bricker** has advocated does no such thing, **matt\_mcl**. Of course it does. He’s repeatedly stated he is not in favour of the right to same-sex marriage. That is an inequality. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/205 "2004-09-24T19:17:43Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > However, a strict reading of the constitution ALSO does not indicate that the federal government has the right to force states to recognize interracial marriage. But the Supreme Court ruling in \*Loving v. Virginia \* does. Start likin’ it. Let me state my previous point more clearly: If one is to say that, yes, gays and straights alike should be allowed to have “civil unions”, that sounds fine in theory. But, if you thereby concede that there’s no basis for denying equal protection, why insist that the name for the institution be something rather than something else? If it’s okay to let “them” have something called “civil union”, why is it \*not \* okay to call it “marriage” instead? The proponents of that proposal do not have an answer for that that I’ve seen. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/206 "2004-09-24T19:18:45Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Isn’t marriage and family law in itself an intrusion into personal relationships? > > I have stated that I support federal civil unions with equivalent rights with marriage. My support goes only so far, in that I believe pressing for more would be unrealistic. It would likely doom both gay marriage and civil unions, per the backlash being seen now. > > I also believe that civil unions must be expanded beyond couples involved in a sexual relationship, to help people who want to set up households and share benefits who can’t be considered a “couple” by any definition. > > Now, you might not like this position, and want more. Hunky-dory. Good luck getting all the support you need for more, though, because this backlash demonstrates that this level of change is too radical for most people to consider. And a prolonged fight over this won’t be good for the nation, nor would it help people who need benefits immediately. I asked you this over in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=276693&page=1&pp=50), which apparently you haven’t been able to get back to, so I’m goint to re-post it here. > [@](#): > > Mr. Moto, I’m not sure why you think civil unions would have a better chance of becoming law if backed by the gay lobby. Seems to me, if homosexuals started lobbying for civil unions instead of marriage, then the idea of civil unions will be attacked every bit as viciously, simply because they are perceived as something gays want. Your position seems reasonable, but it’ll never work because the homophobes are not acting out of reason, they are acting out of pure spite and hatred. IIRC, you have personal reasons for wanting civil union legistlation open to people co-habiting in a non-romantic sense. Something about your aunt, right? I respect that, I’d be in favor of the sort of legislation you suggest if it ever showed up on a ballot, but it seems to me that yoking that cart to the gay rights horse would be about the best possible way to make sure it never, ever happens. > > I also agree with you: gay marriage is not going to happen on a nation-wide level any time soon in this country. It’s going to be a long, ugly, and bitter fight. But I don’t think that, if we wait for another five or six decades, the fight is going to go any easier. If we press for gay marriage now, we might get it by 2050. If we wait 'til 2050, we won’t get it until 2100. I think the country is as ready as it’s ever going to be for this issue: the only way it’s going to become more accepting of gay marriage is through the process of fighting for gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/207 "2004-09-24T19:20:33Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > True in theory, but that possibility is so unrealistic that it can be discounted. Nobody is \*seriously \* proposing abandoning “marriage”, even as just a word, except as a debating point, nor would a seriously-intended proposal have any chance of popular acceptance at \*any \* time. It is entirely fair to demand from its proposer an explanation as to why some persons could justifiably be denied a full, _non_separate, _non_discriminatory insititution, not allow a semantic exit route from the fundamental question. Those who would abolish marriage for everyone over this issue remind me of segregationists who, when forced with court orders that public schools be segregated, tried to abolish public schools all together rather than have white and black students in the same classes. ---
**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:** [September 24, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/208 "2004-09-24T19:25:28Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > True in theory, but that possibility is so unrealistic that it can be discounted. Nobody is \*seriously \* proposing abandoning “marriage”, even as just a word, except as a debating point, nor would a seriously-intended proposal have any chance of popular acceptance at \*any \* time. Yes, but people are seriously proposing abandoning “marriage” **as a legal institution**. And that’s not any more unrealistic than including SSM under the legal definition of marriage. Once again, proposals for abandoning marriage **as a legal institution** are not proposing separate-but-equal institutions. Daniel ---
**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:** [September 24, 2004, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/209 "2004-09-24T19:29:29Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Those who would abolish marriage for everyone over this issue remind me of segregationists who, when forced with court orders that public schools be segregated, tried to abolish public schools all together rather than have white and black students in the same classes. …and that’s just fuckin’ stupid. Daniel ---
**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:** [September 24, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/210 "2004-09-24T19:34:44Z")
Kentucky is a commonwealth, not a state. Only the most pedantic of people (like my annoying but cute spouse, but he’s from Kentucky so we have to make allowances) will correct you if you call it “the state of Kentucky.” Calling it a state is easier and everyone knows what we mean by it. Two questions for those in favor of “civil unions” for gay couples instead of “marriages.” 1. Were civil unions to come to pass, would you be bothered or offended or seek to correct someone’s terminology should they refer to their gay friends or themselves as being “married”? 2. If you favor the creation of “civil unions” that are not a romantic or sexual pairing, while at the same time there would be civil unions that were romantic or sexual pairings, would you object to those civil unions that have a romantic basis being called “marriages” in casual conversation? ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/211 "2004-09-24T19:36:46Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I believe there should be a nationwide, federal and state recognized civil union benefit that affords all of the benefits and protections of marriage. Separate but equal. As others have pointed out, that won’t fly. > [@](#): > > I believe said benefit should be open to other people who need to set up a household but aren’t in a sexual relationship. There is a need for this union for these people as well. Except that you advocate this separate but equal benefit for a group that I imagine is statistically insignificant. In addition, of course, to homosexuals. Thereby assuring that your imagined separate but equal benefit will never be allowed as a federally **or** state recognized union. Neat trick, that. Oh, and **Bricker** : My issue was with your union benefit and dicking around with the tax code so that it would be recognized, as well as the impossibility of enacting it. If, as you maintain, it should be a federal benefit, then you’re going to a hell of a lot of trouble to create it when you could declare SSM a valid marriage and save all of the time and hassle that accrues from your desire to create something that would never pass muster. Or are you not in favor of your position being voted on? Also, what happens when a couple moves from one state that recognizes their union to another that does not? Like you advocate here: > [@Bricker](#): > > I would amend the federal tax code to recognize civil unions with the same benefits as accure to marriage if the persons claiming such benefits reside in a state that recognizes their union. As **ElvisL1ves** said earlier, “Nobody is seriously proposing abandoning “marriage”, even as just a word, except as a debating point, nor would a seriously-intended proposal have any chance of popular acceptance at any time.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/212 "2004-09-24T19:36:51Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Of course it does. He’s repeatedly stated he is not in favour of the right to same-sex marriage. That is an inequality. But I’m also not in favor of state recognition of marriage for opposite-sex pairings. That is an equality. ---
**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:** [September 24, 2004, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/213 "2004-09-24T19:39:49Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Two questions for those in favor of “civil unions” for gay couples instead of “marriages.” > > 1. Were civil unions to come to pass, would you be bothered or offended or seek to correct someone’s terminology should they refer to their gay friends or themselves as being “married”? > > 2. If you favor the creation of “civil unions” that are not a romantic or sexual pairing, while at the same time there would be civil unions that were romantic or sexual pairings, would you object to those civil unions that have a romantic basis being called “marriages” in casual conversation? My answers: 1. Not only wouldn’t I be bothered by it, I’d probably use that as the default setting for any two folks, romantically entwined, who’d received a civil union. In private life, I’m all in favor of gay marriages, and indeed for any marriages between any consenting adults. They’re great things; I love being married, and I recommend it to everyone. 2. I think my answer is clear from above. I want the government not to be involved in my love life, or in anyone else’s. I don’t need the government’s approval to be committed to my spouse: that ought to be between myself and my loved ones, not between myself and the state of North Carolina. All that the state needs to know is that I’m entwining my rights and property with that of another person: the state doesn’t need to know anything else about our relationship. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/214 "2004-09-24T19:44:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I’m also not in favor of state recognition of marriage for opposite-sex pairings. > > That is an equality. Do you mean to say you are actively militating against the ability of opposite-sex couples to be married? Or is that just a pipe dream for you? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/215 "2004-09-24T19:45:21Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Yes, but people are seriously proposing abandoning “marriage” **as a legal institution**. We differ over the word “seriously”. Do you know of any actual bills introduced in any actual legislatures to that effect, for instance? How much support has any of them received? There may be a few sincere persons out there, sure, but not enough to have any effect AFAIK. The position isn’t realistic or intellectually self-consistent, as I’ve already discussed. It’s just a word-chopping approach to \*appear \* to be compassionate and fair-minded while avoiding the obligation to \*act \* that way. Another example of that mindset would be the one **Blalron** mentions, where both whites and blacks would have been “equally” free not to have public schools, as long as separation could be maintained. Where does that analogy fail? How is abolishing marriage altogether not “just fuckin’ stupid” in the same way as abolishing public schools altogether? The real goal is pretty much exactly the same. Or maybe not: Segregationist parents at least could argue that their own children were affected by attending integrated schools. We married straights really cannot argue that our marriages are affected by the existence of married gay couples. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/216 "2004-09-24T19:46:04Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > All that the state needs to know is that I’m entwining my rights and property with that of another person: the state doesn’t need to know anything else about our relationship. > > Daniel So what’s wrong with the government’s using the word “marriage” to describe that entwinement? The way it does, the way it’s always done, and the way it did centuries before religion got its hands on it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/217 "2004-09-24T19:46:18Z")
Everybody who is posting “seperate but equal,” by the way, is cordially invited to shu… Excuse me. I almost got mad. Everyone offering this rationale should consider that _Brown_ was decided fifty-two years ago. If its reasoning were applicable to same-sex marriage, there have been fifty-two Supreme Court sessions to make that claim. No one has. The language of _Brown_ limits its finding to the field of public education. THERE IS NOT ONE SHRED OF FEDERAL CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT THE RENUNCIATION OF “SEPARATE BUT EQUAL” IN PUBLIC EDUCATION APPLIES TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. Your citations referring to this principal are thus distinguishable. Stop making them. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/218 "2004-09-24T19:47:45Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I don’t need the government’s approval to be committed to my spouse: that ought to be between myself and my loved ones, not between myself and the state of North Carolina. All that the state needs to know is that I’m entwining my rights and property with that of another person: the state doesn’t need to know anything else about our relationship. Then why’d you bother getting married, legally? Why didn’t you just have your religious service, then go to lawyers and get a whole bunch of papers drawn up to codify the entwinement? ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/219 "2004-09-24T19:48:13Z")
Um, it took twenty-one years between the time the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was brought in and the time when it was explicitly ruled that the equality provisions thereof required same-sex marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/220 "2004-09-24T19:50:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your citations referring to this principal are thus distinguishable. Stop making them. > > - Rick Why is it so hard for you to deal with the fact that not everyone fetishes the law and when most people talk about Rights, we are talking about Principles and Core Beliefs and not specific cases? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593.md?page=12)