# What motivates people to vote other people's rights away **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 4, 2009, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261 "2009-11-04T05:59:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/321 "2009-11-05T19:59:23Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > arguing that it is merely a matter of recognizing existing civil rights or that opposition to it is identical in nature to support of anti-miscegenation laws is not correct. Go tell the growing number of courts that have ruled oppositely. Their rulings are, quite properly, NOT based on the meaning of the word “marriage”, but on the meaning of the words “equal protection”. > [@](#): > > In all these discussions, only a single incidence has been reported of any culture that recognizes something similar to same sex marriage A dozen or so nations and half a dozen states to date notwithstanding, huh? Your flat, imperious say-so’s, including this latest example, may be mildly amusing, but they are somewhat lacking in persuasive value. ---
**Author:** ![pan1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e495f1/32.png) [@pan1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pan1)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/322 "2009-11-05T20:18:10Z")
This thread is too long to see if this has been mentioned: Marriage is a religious institution and has no place being governed or acknowledged by the government. Civil Union is a legal contract of shared individual responsibility and the contract should be recognized by the gov’t as legal and binding. Abolish all recognition of marriage. Define all existing marriages as Civil Unions for legal purposes and go forward. Married people can continue to consider themselve married in the eyes of their god(s). But thats between them and their deity(s). It is certainly ironic that the Conservatives claim to be for individuals rights and responsibilities, but to do so they have to abandon freedom of religion. The really insulting laws are the ones that say it’s illegal to give the same benefits to a gay couple as a heterosexual married couple. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/323 "2009-11-05T20:22:49Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > This thread is too long to see if this has been mentioned: > > Marriage is a religious institution and has no place being governed or acknowledged by the government. Wrong. I am married and I am not in the least religious. > [@](#): > > Civil Union is a legal contract of shared individual responsibility and the contract should be recognized by the gov’t as legal and binding. Wrong. You may want it to be that way, but that isn’t the way it is now. Also, I’m married. And if you think I need to go to a church to get the title I might humbly suggest that I disagree. > [@](#): > > Abolish all recognition of marriage. Define all existing marriages as Civil Unions for legal purposes and go forward. Never going to happen. Ever. Marriage is too much a part of society. > [@](#): > > It is certainly ironic that the Conservatives claim to be for individuals rights and responsibilities, but to do so they have to abandon freedom of religion. > > The really insulting laws are the ones that say it’s illegal to give the same benefits to a gay couple as a heterosexual married couple. As an aside, there are religions that will marry homosexuals. Why can’t those people get \*married \*in your proposal? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/324 "2009-11-05T20:24:04Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It is exactly the same. > > You are exactly as wrong as a person who thinks that allowing a black and white to marry would sully the institution of marriage. You are that person. That you have chosen a different group is hardly germane. > > It’s a wretched stance and you’re clumsily trying to come up with a logical rationale for it, but failing loudly and profoundly. I see you have nothing but name calling. Typical lefty technique of marginalizing anyone who disagrees with them by calling them racist, homophobe, or whatever. I will no longer respond to your posts unless you actually want to debate rather than behave like a child. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/325 "2009-11-05T20:26:40Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I see you have nothing but name calling. > [@yorick73](#): > > Typical lefty technique… Some what of a disconnect there… ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/326 "2009-11-05T20:26:59Z")
**pan1** , we tried that one a while back. It wasn’t met as well as I expected it to be. [Link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=493692&highlight=civil+unions) ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/327 "2009-11-05T20:30:52Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Some what of a disconnect there… Where is the disconnect? Calling someone out for name calling instead of discussing the issue is, in your mind, name calling? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/328 "2009-11-05T20:32:42Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I see you have nothing but name calling. Typical lefty technique of marginalizing anyone who disagrees with them by calling them racist, homophobe, or whatever. I will no longer respond to your posts unless you actually want to debate rather than behave like a child. I would like to debate. But you aren’t engaging. Describe in what way you are different that someone that supports a ban on marriage between disparate races? Do you think homosexuality is a choice? What, _ **exactly** _ mind you, do you think would happen if homosexuals were allowed to marry. Describe the negative effects other than pissing you off. If the effects are simply pissing off people who don’t want homosexuals to marry, is that reason enough to prevent it in your opinion? Don’t you think that people who didn’t want different races to marry were pissed off when blacks and whites were allowed to marry in the 1960s? Was them getting pissed off a good reason to continue the ban? I doubt you’ll answer any of these with anything more than fiat handwaving. But I hold out hope. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/329 "2009-11-05T20:35:44Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Where is the disconnect? Calling someone out for name calling instead of discussing the issue is, in your mind, name calling? I would have thought the disconnect was pretty obvious. Then again, much of what you have consistently failed to understand, and ignored when you have had it pointed out to you, is pretty obvious. Determined what laws cannot be transfered across to SSM yet? Come up with a credible & legally cognizable government interest in gays not being married yet? Worked out why alimony laws cannot apply to same sex divorces yet? Realized why the government interest in preventing polygamy and/or incestuous relationships might differ to that regarding SSM yet? Sorry, I am using a typical lefty technique of asking you to back up your comments, rather than accepting your Fox News supplied talking points as gospel truth. ---
**Author:** ![pan1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e495f1/32.png) [@pan1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pan1)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/330 "2009-11-05T20:38:11Z")
There are a few states that have laws that say: “Discriminaton based on gender is not legal” and “Marriage can only be between a man and a woman” Simplton logic says that both a man and woman are represented in marriage equally. But take it a little deeper and assume that one party in a marriage is a man. The second party is then under discrimination - it can only be a woman. How does this reconcile? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/331 "2009-11-05T20:38:23Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > Abolish all recognition of marriage. Define all existing marriages as Civil Unions for legal purposes and go forward. Is it better to do eliminate _everyone’s_ use of the word than to let gays use it too? How so? **yorick73** , what you see is simple _accuracy_. You’ve had every opportunity to show how your views are not what they are now being called, and your fallacies and falsehoods have been pointed out to you repeatedly and clearly. Yet you hold to them anyway. What else can we think? ---
**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:** [November 5, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/332 "2009-11-05T20:51:26Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s kind of funny how many atheists are proponents of the religious assertion of ‘inalienable rights’. _Somebody_ has to. It’s not like your fictional god has gotten off his ass lately and done anything about it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/333 "2009-11-05T21:03:51Z")
I’m with **yorick** to the extent of agreeing that he’s being met with much namecalling and ad hominem attack. As I recall, I met with the same sorts of attacks in a similar thread several years ago. Fortunately, there were also people in that thread who understood debate and were willing to engage me in it, because I learned a valuable lesson. **Lobohan** ’s efforts in this thread are, in my view, completely counterproductive and worse than useless. **Lobohan** , you yourself are impervious to logic. Do you understand the distinction **tomndebb** is drawing? A state might refuse to permit an interracial couple to marry. But if an interracial couple met and married in Montana, then moved to Virginia, they were still considered married. In fact, the very case you’re hanging your hat on, _Loving v. Virginia_ involved just that: a couple from Virginia left the jurisdiction to get married, then returned. Virginia did not try to claim they weren’t married. The Commonwealth prosecuted them for the crime of leaving the state to commit interracial marriage, but it didn’t contend they weren’t married. Have you even read that case? Seriously: you’re not helping things at all here. There is a principled argument to be made for same-sex marriage, but insulting the other side is of no persuasive value whatsoever, and ridiculing the other side’s understanding of basic issues when you yourself have problems understanding some of the core concepts is simply not useful. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/334 "2009-11-05T21:15:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m with **yorick** to the extent of agreeing that he’s being met with much namecalling and ad hominem attack. > > As I recall, I met with the same sorts of attacks in a similar thread several years ago. Fortunately, there were also people in that thread who understood debate and were willing to engage me in it, because I learned a valuable lesson. **Lobohan** ’s efforts in this thread are, in my view, completely counterproductive and worse than useless. > > **Lobohan** , you yourself are impervious to logic. Do you understand the distinction **tomndebb** is drawing? A state might refuse to permit an interracial couple to marry. But if an interracial couple met and married in Montana, then moved to Virginia, they were still considered married. In fact, the very case you’re hanging your hat on, _Loving v. Virginia_ involved just that: a couple from Virginia left the jurisdiction to get married, then returned. Virginia did not try to claim they weren’t married. The Commonwealth prosecuted them for the crime of leaving the state to commit interracial marriage, but it didn’t contend they weren’t married. Have you even read that case? > > Seriously: you’re not helping things at all here. There is a principled argument to be made for same-sex marriage, but insulting the other side is of no persuasive value whatsoever, and ridiculing the other side’s understanding of basic issues when you yourself have problems understanding some of the core concepts is simply not useful. Obviously a couple married on Montana or wherever would still be married if they went to Virgina. But for people in Virgina what I’m saying is true isn’t it? Interracial marriages were allowed all over the world when the American south had laws against them. So what at all does that prove? Mixed marriages in areas with anti-miscegenation laws were not available. So in that place at that time the opinion was had that marriage was between a similarly raced couple. I’d say you’re the one with the misunderstanding of what I’m trying to say. Look, if I rub you the wrong way, mah bad. I’d suggest you ignore me. If you want to debate the issue with me I’ll be in this thread until I’m asked to leave by a mod-hatter. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/335 "2009-11-05T21:20:41Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Have you bothered to read my posts? Gays have every right to marry. But, just like me, they cannot marry someone of the same sex. Presuming you to be heterosexual, **yorick** , you’re not just claiming an abstract “right to marry” – e.g., only the woman selected by your father as the proper mate for you, or the one assigned to you by some Official Marriage Commission. Specifically, you claim he right to marry the willing woman of your choice (and accord to women the right to marry the willing man of their choice). This is why the present law works a hardship against gay people. They do not have the right to marry the person of their choice – they are obliged, if they do choose to marry, to select from a pool of people they would not choose. Because gay people, as opposed to heterosexual people, are distinguished by the fact that they are drawn romantically and sexually to persons of their own sex. If you claim the right to marry “someone of the opposite sex”, what if we say that the person of the opposite sex whom you may marry is an 80-year-old widow? Is this the right you claim? Or is it the right to marry the person you love, the person you are drawn to want to spend the rest of your life with? And if it is the latter, can you grasp why it is a violation of a claimed right to deny gay people the right to do likewise? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/336 "2009-11-05T21:41:17Z")
**Bricker** , I’d like clarification on one point you’ve left nebulous. As a citizen, you feel that the proper mode of instituting SSM is through the legislature, not the courts. And you favor SSM provided that the legislature (or presumably a referendum where legal) enacts it. But, some questions: 1) Do you consider marriage a right? 2) If, as I presume, you do, is there a remedy available for being denied that right? 3) As a matter of personal interpretation, as opposed to what the courts have sen fit to adjudge, is this a right deserving of equal protection? 4) What level of scrutiny do you as an informed citizen feel would be appropriate? 5) Given your answers to 1-4, on what grounds do you object to a court-ordered change to the laws to permit SSM? While I’m phrasing this somewhat polemically, I’m genuinely interested in the logic underlying your position – it’s one that I can see emotionally solid grounds for holding. (“Let elected representatives, not the courts, determine what the law should be” and all that.) Sp I would love to see you explicate the grounds underlying your position, not as a “that’s homophobic” vs. “you’re changing the definition of marriage” style of argument, but as showing why your preferred methodology of obtaining SSM is better, or more appropriate. If you’d be willing to go one step further, your opinion as to how to counter fraudulent claims (“If gays have the right to marry, they’ll be teaching homosexuality is OK to first graders”) raised by less-than-honest SSM opponents, which have been the bane of several recent campaigns, like the Proposition 8 one, in the past few years. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/337 "2009-11-05T21:50:21Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > As a citizen, you feel that the proper mode of instituting SSM is through the legislature, not the courts. And you favor SSM provided that the legislature (or presumably a referendum where legal) enacts it. He’s not against SSM enshrined via judicial decree. He just likes it better when it’s enshrined in legislation (and it keeps opponents from crying about judicial activism). ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/338 "2009-11-05T22:21:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m with **yorick** to the extent of agreeing that he’s being met with much namecalling and ad hominem attack. But he’s also been met by a fair amount of polite attempts at debate. At least some of which he’s ignored (not that I’m bitter). (cough post 68 in this thread cough). As is always the case in situations like this, he’s being met by responses on a bell curve, with some super-angry-attacky, some utterly polite, and most somewhere in between. Anyone who looks at that and shakes their head in disgust at the inability of the SDMB left to argue politely doesn’t understand how people work. And, honestly, while I’m all in favor of polite and reasoned debate, I say that as a straight man who, while passionately committed to the cause of gay rights, isn’t directly and personally affected by it. No one is telling me that I can’t marry the person I love. If they were, I might have quite a bit less patience with observing the niceties of internet debate. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/339 "2009-11-05T22:26:39Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Presuming you to be heterosexual, **yorick** , you’re not just claiming an abstract “right to marry” – e.g., only the woman selected by your father as the proper mate for you, or the one assigned to you by some Official Marriage Commission. Specifically, you claim he right to marry the willing woman of your choice (and accord to women the right to marry the willing man of their choice). > > This is why the present law works a hardship against gay people. They do not have the right to marry the person of their choice – they are obliged, if they do choose to marry, to select from a pool of people they would not choose. Because gay people, as opposed to heterosexual people, are distinguished by the fact that they are drawn romantically and sexually to persons of their own sex. > > If you claim the right to marry “someone of the opposite sex”, what if we say that the person of the opposite sex whom you may marry is an 80-year-old widow? Is this the right you claim? Or is it the right to marry the person you love, the person you are drawn to want to spend the rest of your life with? > > And if it is the latter, can you grasp why it is a violation of a claimed right to deny gay people the right to do likewise? Nobody has the right to marry _anyone_ they choose. No matter how much I love someone and want to share my life with them, in order to legally marry them, they have to be[ul] [li]alive[/li][li]human[/li][li]of legal age[/li][li]not already married to somebody else[/li][li]not a close relative[/li][li]willing to marry me[/li][/ul]If these restrictions aren’t a violation of my rights, it’s not inherently obvious why the restriction that they be of the opposite sex would be a violation of my rights. (It may well _be_ a violation of my rights—I just think it requires a little additional explanation why, beyond just “people should be free to marry whomever they want.”) ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/340 "2009-11-05T22:40:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Please answer this for me, going back to “hero”. There has been a tendency in the past 25 years or so for the meaning of the word to be broadened. It used to be the guy running into the burning building. Now I often see it used to describe anyone who wears a fireman’s hat, or a badge, or a uniform. Hell, this jumped out at me back when the hostages were returned from Iran under reagan. They were described as “heroes”. I found that disgusting, putting people who had not consciously risked their safety in the same category as the guy who takes out a machine gun nest, jumping on a grenade, running into a burning building. Are you okay with this dilution of the word? Or do you think that the people who act in truly heroic ways might deserve to be placed in their own category? I’ve gone over all this before but, what they heck… First of all, even if I thought that every single point you made about redefining words was utterly 100% correct, even if my response was “by gum, magellan is right, if we let gays marry it WILL change the meaning of the word that I use to describe my relationship with my wife and make that word less special”, that would in no way convince me to oppose legalized SSM, because the actual tangible harm that is being done to gays, both due to the logistical issues of hospital visitations, wills, etc.; and the broader issues of being viewed as second class citizens; is VASTLY more important than meanings of words in the language. However, more directly, your analogy between “hero” and “marriage” is faulty. Here’s why: 50 years ago (oversimplifying here), you introduce someone and say “this person is a hero” and that means a lot, it implies something, it says something. Then “hero” gets used for more and more things, and it loses power and meaning. We agree with that. 50 years ago, before gay marriage was seriously considered, you introduce someone as your “wife”, to whom you are “married”, and it means something. It tells everyone that this is someone you love, to whom you have made a lifelong commitment, someone who is your partner in life. It’s a deep and special thing. (Ignoring the massive gender power imbalances that existed in traditional American marriages 50 years ago, and viewing it all with rosy glasses.) So, 5 years from now SSM is legalized, and 5 years after that you introduce someone as your “wife” to whom you are “married”. What does that now mean? It means EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Gays being married does not change one iota the meanings, connotations, implications, associations, or anything else, of the word when you use it. Thought experiment #1: high school and college students, being the scamps that they are, start a new weird trend in which any dating couple who’s been together for more than about a week starts using the word “married” (and associated words, “wife”, “husband”, etc.) to describe their relationship. This permeates pop culture, and pretty soon everyone is using it. Now repeat the above test… you introduce someone as your “wife” to whom you are “married”, and what does it mean? Now there’s clearly some validity to your argument, because in fact it communicates much less than it used to back in the good old days. But notice how different this is from SSM, because in this case the redefinition attacks the important parts of the definition, things like “lifelong”, rather than purely surface details. But note that even in this case, absolutely worst case you and your wife (assuming you’re married) have lost the ability to quickly and easily DESCRIBE your relationship. Your relationship itself hasn’t changed at all. Thought experiment #2: You meet a friend, Adam. Adam introduces you to his boyfriend/lover/partner Steve. While chatting, they say “oh, and we’re very excited, next August we’re flying to Vermont and getting married”. Question: do you know what they mean? Is your interpretation “these two people, who love each other and are committed to each other, are going to Vermont and while there they’re going to have a ceremony attended by loved ones in which they will express a lifelong romantic commitment to each other” or is it “wait, huh, you’re getting married? I don’t get it… marriage is man and woman, but these are two guys, so I’m baffled what they’re talking about”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261.md?page=18)