Yes. But that isn’t what most really want. Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is all about marginalizing sinners. They want marriage-lite, they want others to only drink from ‘the black fountain’. Homosexuals want equality and won’t accept half measures, nor should they.
If you think legally calling it all civil union is going to please all parties you’re naive.
And on top of that, if the institution isn’t called marriage, then it doesn’t get all the legal benefits of marriage. There’s an awful lot of law that uses words like “marriage” or “spouse”, specifically; not “civil union partner” or whatever.
And even if you were to actually pass a civil union that was precisely the same as marriage, it wouldn’t stay the same as marriage. Being a separate legal institution means that changes made to one don’t apply to the other. So you’d still end up with civil unions being a ghetto marriage.
“What’s behind the “Threat to Traditional Marriage” argument?”
nothing, just as the “argument” itself is nothing.
I think heterosexuals did more to kill of the sanctity of marriage.
Look at Britney Spears, got married, then called it a joke and got it annulled. OK fair enough, people make mistakes. But if she wanted she could’ve stayed married as a joke.
If anyone can treat marriage as a joke, including straights, it doesn’t make much sense to stop it at all.
Then the other thing is where does this lead?
OK if gays can marry, why not a brother and sister? Why not allow a man to take two wives or a woman to marry two or more men? If it’s all concentual why not allow it. Sure there’s the possiblity of genetics with children of close relations, but suppose those people can’t have kids or agree to sterilize themselves. Then what’s the arguement?
So many people now-a-days have the feeling of “So what if it doesn’t work, I’ll just get a divorce.” So if that is the attitude then the sanctity of marriage is aleady gone.
Now I don’t agree with the above but the logic generally flows from ideas like that
Homosexual sex is more desirable than heterosexual sex. If gay marriage is legal then there’s no reason to get married to the opposite sex, causing the death of the traditional family nucleus. Note: people who think like this are in the closet like whoa.
The legal aspects of this were thoroughly debunked in the In Re: Marriage Cases ruling in CA , the one that led to the Prop 8 campaign.
Note that this ruling was never overturned by Prop 8, and so when Prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional, In Re: will be the law of the land, in CA at least.
Skammer and Sitnam are both right. It’s both a way to say that expanding a privileged status is somehow on attack on those who already have it, and it’s grounded in bigotry.
The real bottom line of the anti SSM position is that they don’t really have any substantive argument at all besides sheer bigotry, so the best strategy they have is the sheer sophistry of trying to frame an expansion of a right as an attack on it purely because it is more inclusive.
It’s completely empty and devoid of sensibility, but the people they are pandering to don’t care about substance anyway. The politicos are pandering to bigots and “tradition” is just a coded way to do it.
That is interesting. I wonder what’s going to happen when an opposite-sex couple get’s “civily united” and either moves out of state and/or files a federal tax return. My WAG is that it’s not recognized and they’re still considered legal strangers, but I could also see courts rulling that a civil union is in fact a form of marriage and that since as long as it’s a between a man and a woman DOMA doesn’t preclude recognition of it. In other words it’ll be in and out of courts for years.
Of course I doubt many opposite-sex couples are going to willingly choose to entire into a union that’s only valid in one state and unrecognized by the federal government when they can enter into one with universal validty. It might be popular with senior citizens who don’t plan on moving out of state and would like all the (state-level) benefits of marriage, but don’t want their existing survivors pensions affected.
I think you can. My elderly (85 yo) mother has no issue with homosexuality per se, which, in fact surprises me from a woman that age and quite prudish (For instance she mistakenly believed for quite some time that one of her grand daughter was a lesbian with an in-èhouse girlfriend, and it didn’t disturb her the slighest bit).
However, she’s opposed to homosexual marriage, on the basis that it’s in her opinion plainly ludicrous. Basically, the idea of two men walking out of the townhall with friends or family cheering them for their marriage appears farcical to her. That’s one of those things that has never be done or even envisioned in her lifetime, and that she perceives as being “obviously” stupid.
One of the best explanations that I ever read is: Asymmetrical Information
It’s a long article, but well worth the read.
Eh, not really.
For those of you who don’t feel like reading the whole thing, I’ll summarize:
“People have been wrong about things in the past so it’s possible they’re wrong about this too. But I don’t know.”
It might also be helpful to remember that marriage and family in the Mormon church has much more metaphysical significance than in most religions. From wikipedia
So to them marriage is more than just a word, it actually has consequences.
That’s a prtetty shitty attempt at an explanation, actually. Basically, it says that straight people won’t want to get married anymore if homos can get married because then they won’t be able to define their “masculinity/femininity.” Jesus, what a load of crap.
That’s fine, but does it explain why it can’t have the same metaphysical significance for two dudes or two gals?
Oh, so when I got married the main purpose wasn’t supposed to be to “define my masculinity”? Oops.
This is essentially the view of my own, kind, atheist 83 year old mother. It goes hand in hand with her view that ‘there weren’t any homosexuals in her day’.
Riiiight Mum.
So what? How does gay people getting married affect their metaphysical bond?
Another argument is that since gay male relationships break up more often than do heterosexual ones, gay male marriages are going to break up at much higher rates than heterosexual marriages and therefore social attitudes (and perhaps even the law) will change to encourage the break up of marriage even more than it is now. This doesn’t address lesbian relationships, of course.
It is related to, but not identical to, the Britney Spears argument alluded to above. Yes, Spears certainly demeaned the institution of marriage with her antics. Imagine how much worse our society will be with millions more gay men acting in the same “marry in haste, repent at leisure” way.
Think of it as the Gresham’s Law of matrimony.
Regards,
Shodan