I dunno, why do straights insist on it ?
I wonder why nobody looks at this question from the other way around. Why married people should have privileges over singles or people living in cohabitation? Does institution of marriage is really needed today? Should government be involved in people’s love life at all?
Yes, because there are a multitude of legal issues that are relevant to the institution, which in turn is really just a formal recognition of the human tendency towards pair bonding. Most people do want their spouse to have privileges like inheriting their property, making medical & legal decisions for them if they are disabled or absent, be able to visit them in a hospital and go to their funeral, keep custody of any children if they die, and so on. All the things the homophobes try to block homosexuals from having.
I bet there are laws already that enable you to do so (I kept the laws related to children out, because it is really related to parenthood, not marriage itself). So we can get rid of marriage and to keep it simple just create some “relationship laws bundle” composed from this above, which each side can exit on demand and we can save a lot of money which is spent on divorce cases now.
“They” do? Really?
I’ve been around homosexuals of both genders all my life. I think I’ve been called a “breeder” once. Maybe twice. In nearly 50 years. Which pales in comparison to the dozens, if not hundreds, of times I’ve had racial, ethnic, and gender slurs directed at me.
Here’s an opinion: there are homosexual douchebags just like there are heterosexual douchebags. Being a jerk/insulting/intolerant has nothing to do with who or what you prefer to have sex with. Try associating with classier people regardless of sexual orientation.
OK, it’s what you believe. On the other hand, the vast majority of homosexuals I know in relationships are not Christian and don’t care if the Christians think they’re sinners or not. Reasons I’ve heard for full-on marriage include legal issues, tax issues, issues around healthcare and health insurance, pension concerns, and stability for any children they are raising such as custody in case one partner is incapacitated for a long period or dies prior to the children being adults.
On the flip side, my current boss is a lesbian who is against gay marriage. For religious reasons. That’s the funny thing about homosexuals. They aren’t a monolithic group marching in lockstep, they’re individuals and they have differeing viewpoints and opinions.
You have a rather cynical view of marriage. I’m beginning to wonder if the issue isn’t so much gay marriage but marriage in general for you.
Well, there’s a point on which we both agree.
Let’s put this another way: Congratulations, NOLA Cajun, you’ve been accepted to go to college at Harvard University. Get ready for four years of intense study that will help shape the rest of your life!
Oh, there’s one catch. The President of Harvard University has this thing about Southerners. He’s kind of ticked off that Southerners go around calling him a blue-blooded damn Yankee all the time. I mean, all the time. So after you fulfill all your study requirements, the same ones as your fellow students, you aren’t going to get a bachelor of arts degree. But you’ll get a nice certificate! That certificate will say that you completed your studies and did a good job. It is true that this certificate was created just for Southerners, but it isn’t like it is discriminatory or anything. If a non-Southerner wanted a certificate rather than a degree, they could ask for one. It’s strange, though, no non-Southerner ever does… they all just get the degree for some reason…
Anyways, depending on where you want to live and work, some employers may fully accept your certificate as being exactly the same as a degree (you did the coursework after all), and others might say, “Certificate? That’s not a bachelors degree! We might have a job on the loading dock for you, but no… you aren’t qualified to start in the accounting department… that just won’t work for us.”
But rest content in your own mind that you earned that certificate by doing everything that your fellow students did, and nobody can take that away from you, even if you have to work on that loading dock. You will know that you’re a Harvard man, and you have the certificate to prove it.
Feel better?
No, there aren’t. Which is one of the reasons why homosexuals want to have marriage; they don’t want to be kept out of the hospital when their SO is sick, they don’t want to be locked out of the funeral by their SO’s bigoted family.
I tend to agree that government should just get out of the marriage business altogether. But since so many legal rights are tied up in the institution of marriage there would, for practical purposes, need to be some sort of replacement. Then it just devolves into a semantic issue.
Others have mentioned several of the benefits of marriage: tax filing status, hospital visitation rights, rights of inheritance and so on. I’ll add one more - the rights of a child produced in a homosexual relationship are potentially impacted by the failure of society to recognize same sex marriage.
Yes, gays have kids. IVF, surrogacy, turkey baster, or even a night of hetero sex.
As it stands that sweet, innocent (and most likely heterosexual), cherubic baby can have one of his parents walk out and not have the right to his/her support. His/her birth parent can use the current state of law to prevent the other parent from having any contact with the child.
It may not happen often, but it happened in my family. 
In many (most? all?) states a child produced during a marriage is assumed to be the child of both parties to the marriage. If same sex parents were married then courts could hold both parents responsible for child support in a divorce. The court could look out for the best interests of the child without being constrained by only one parent having parental rights.
Well then there is problem with american law. What if you wanted to give said laws to a friend or a girlfriend you aren’t in marriage with?
What does that even mean?
I mean you may not have family or be married, just have a good friend you want to have law to visit you in hospital or decide about medical procedures when you are unconscious. I mean it isn’t that weird.
Fine, and you need to pay a lawyer to set up that legal arrangement. Now do that for all the other hundreds of other legal aspects of marriage and you have a ramshackle approximation of marriage at the cost of a ridiculous amount of money and effort.
I’ve always been thought that this was a taxation and employment benefits issue. “Married” couples (hetero) are likely to produce little taxpayers, which keeps the money flowing. Keeping them alive/educated/etc enhances the revenuej stream. Homosexual couples can’t independently create little taxpayers. So in that regard, homosexuality is a fiscal liability to the society overall.
My thinking is, call it what you want. Most of society will respect it (to varying degrees, of course). Most large companies will treat a “civil” spouse the same way they would a “married” spouse. With the companies that don’t treat it that way… I guess the grieved parties should seek other employment in the same way that straight folks would likely not enjoy or be given the opportunity to work at the Blue Oyster.
And yes, the Blue Oyster is an 80s movie reference.
Except of course if that was the problem then sterile couples wouldn’t be allowed to marry, and they are. Serial killers are allowed to marry. This is about punishing homosexuals, and nothing else.
How about a law that said a straight marriage is automatically dissolved if no children have been produced after (let’s say) three years? I doubt that would be approved; and yet it comports entirely with the alleged procreation-based argument for denying gay marriage.
But can you understand that drawing attention to parallels that do exist between the two situations is not the same as saying they are exactly the same? Do gays have to be attacked by dogs and sprayed with fire hoses before they are “allowed” to call themselves an oppressed minority?
No one has said that it is “just like” what blacks had to go through, only that the difference between marriage and civil unions has obvious parallels with the segregationist concept of “separate but equal.”
Segregation was a highly institutionalized, entrenched, systematic denial of basic rights. It’s no wonder that its effects continue to be felt. If it proves to be “easier” for gays to gain the right to marry, I think that is cause for celebration.
I gather the OP has bailed.
Here is the answer to your OP:
It’s not about rights. That lie has been revealed. When I’ve proposed scenarios in which the Civil Unions were fixed to include 100% of the same rights and privileges that married couples enjoy, that was still insufficient. They want all the feel-good stuff that the institution of marriage brings and showers them with. They want to take all the good stuff that has become associated through marriage over the centuries—especially the last one—grab onto those coattail and ride them into a rainbow-filled Happiness Land.
As many on these boards know, even though they choose to forget it from time to time in order to hurl invective, I am a firm supporter of SS couples enjoying 100% of the rights and privileges that OS couples enjoy, via Civil Unions. BUt that still gets me called bigot and homophobe rather easily on these boards. If they so admire what an institution like marriage can bring those involved in it, let them start their own institution. Not with trepidation and half-heartedness, but with pride. If everything is as wonderful as they say with these relationships, maybe straights will want to grab on to their coattails in the future.
On that note, I’m done. Just wanted to offer an answer to your OP. The reasons the analogy with miscegenation and separate-but-equal fail have been explained extensively. A Search will find them if you’re interested.
Good luck with your discussions of the subject on this board. You’ll need it.
What part of “separate but equal is unconstitutional” do you not understand?
Separate but “totally” (wink wink, nudge nudge) equal is not acceptable. You are correct.
So marriage is better than a civil union, and you want to reserve the better institution for heterosexuals only? You do not see the discrimination inherent in that view?
Thanks for the drive-by. If you get tired, pull over! If you get hungry, eat something!