Why do gays insist on marriage?

[tapu]

The title of this thread annoys me every time I see it. The underlying assumption is hostile, insulting, and rudely clear.

Let’s rename it: Why do gays have to insist on marriage? At least you can read it however you want.

>:^[ <pissed off tapu

[jayjay]

And the whole premise is wrong, anyway. The people who are deadset against marriage equality ALSO don’t want us to have civil unions, of ANY kind. Look at any state that has had a civil union (as opposed to a “gay marriage”) law put up for referendum…the people spearheading the fight against it will be the exact same people who claim that their major beef with marriage equality is the word “marriage”. It’s not. It’s that gay people might be recognized as anything but criminal by the government. If they could, they’d vacate Lawrence v. Texas.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jayjay

And the whole premise is wrong, anyway. The people who are deadset against marriage equality ALSO don’t want us to have civil unions, of ANY kind. Look at any state that has had a civil union (as opposed to a “gay marriage”) law put up for referendum…the people spearheading the fight against it will be the exact same people who claim that their major beef with marriage equality is the word “marriage”. It’s not. It’s that gay people might be recognized as anything but criminal by the government. If they could, they’d vacate Lawrence v. Texas.

Well, magellan says he’s not like that - that he’s okey-dokey with equivalent-in-all-but-name civil unions, and we’re apparently being rude for not praising him for his enlightenment.

[jayjay]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, magellan says he’s not like that - that he’s okey-dokey with equivalent-in-all-but-name civil unions, and we’re apparently being rude for not praising him for his enlightenment.

Well, I stopped believing magellan’s fairy tales a long time ago.

[MyFactCheckBounced]

@Bryan_Ekers

You’re inventing new terminology, when my question was much more basic: how does the government enforce “the contractual/legal aspects of marriage (inheritance, hospital decisions, pensions, etc.,)” (or “xarriage” or whatever)? They would have to know that two people were married/xarried, right? One would hardly expect them to just take the word of someone who says “I was married/xarried to that rich person who died and I want the government to enforce the inheritance laws and give me all the dead person’s stuff”, even if that person is waving around a pretty certificate of marriage issued by some church that might no longer exist (or might never have existed), or exists in another country. We would expect the government to rely on its own records, filed when the marriage/xarriage was initially formed, and isn’t that basically what a marriage license is - making sure the government has your marriage on file, and is thus obliged to go to legal bat on your behalf on issues of “inheritance, hospital decisions, pensions, etc.” ?

Gotcha. I’m not proposing that the government does any less or any more due diligence in terms of demanding a xarriage license, witnesses for the xarriage to be legal, or anything else. You still have to go through the rigamarole, and the government enforces every contractual aspect of xarriage, whether you like the outcome for your personal situation or not. All the xarriage laws stay the same as the previous marriage laws.

What you can’t do is wave around your marriage license like it’s worth a sh1t in court.

There you go. You get your word, just not a bunch of rights attending to that word… it’s a ceremony about who a given religion approves of, etc. It’s not a ceremony that confers rights. Rather, it’s an “age-old institution blah blah blah between one man and one woman worlds without end amen.”

A xarriage is for us secular types that care about contract enforcement.

Either that or we all have to keep our churchy views out of our state marriages.

[Dr.Drake]

I think your xarriage proposal sounds great. It’s just like a regular xontract. Changing a letter keeps the xinstituion intact, while throwing a bone to the xigots. If we adopt this, the United States of Xmerica would…

Fuck that, it’s a really stupid idea. Marriage is an institution known in all cultures and all periods of history, worldwide. The notion that Judeo-Christians have any sort of special claim on it should be easily dispelled by a few incontrovertible facts.

[ctnguy]

@That_Don_Guy

Second, Rosie O’Donnell’s reasoning is, “If you go to other countries, they may not recognize ‘civil unions’ as marriages.”

@Shodan

Do you believe these other countries will recognize a gay marriage as a marriage either?

There are countries that allow gay marriage but do not recognize foreign civil unions. Canada has this problem. In South Africa one lower court has recognized a UK civil partnership but the question is not settled.

[D-bear]

Why Do Gays Insist On Marriage?

I could pour out a nice long post, or I could simply link to this video, but be warned… I’m a big, 6’3", 280#, bearded bear and I was sobbing like a little school girl after watching it…

We need to end this discrimination now.

[Guinastasia]

@D-bear

Why Do Gays Insist On Marriage?

I could pour out a nice long post, or I could simply link to this video, but be warned… I’m a big, 6’3", 280#, bearded bear and I was sobbing like a little school girl after watching it…

We need to end this discrimination now.

Watching that, I didn’t know whether to puke or cry.

[ekedolphin]

@tapu

The title of this thread annoys me every time I see it. The underlying assumption is hostile, insulting, and rudely clear.

Mmm-hmm. And I was under the impression that the proper term is "gay people," not gays.

[Dr.Drake]

@ekedolphin

Mmm-hmm. And I was under the impression that the proper term is "gay people," not gays.

I think “person” is implied by the adjective. Since it’s not originally a denonym, “gay” isn’t capitalized and sounds a little odd as a substantive (i.e. it would be weird to say “he’s a Gay”), but adding “person” is a bit of a hypercorrection.

[Shodan]

@ctnguy

There are countries that allow gay marriage but do not recognize foreign civil unions. Canada has this problem. In South Africa one lower court has recognized a UK civil partnership but the question is not settled.

Thanks for the cite, but I can’t tell what the difference is that Canada is objecting to. Is there one?

Regards,
Shodan

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Shodan

Thanks for the cite, but I can’t tell what the difference is that Canada is objecting to. Is there one?

It’s actually borderline amusing in its Kafkensque. The litigants in the mentioned case, Hincks and Gallardo, are Canadians who met in the U.K., got a civil union there in accordance with local law, returned to Canada, eventually broke up and are seeking a divorce. The glitch is in getting Canada to recognize that Britain’s civil union is equivalent to marriage, for the purposes of being dissolved under Canada’s divorce laws. I’m guessing the issue is not just over the couple dissolving their bond, but also entails the division of money and property, complicated by the alleged involvement of abuse and adultery.

Seems to me H&G should’ve got a Canadian marriage license as soon as they got home, rather than assuming U.K. law would automatically translate over, but that’s hindsight for you.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

If their civil union isn’t recognized, can’t they just go their separate ways like any other non-married couple?

[tapu]

@ekedolphin

Mmm-hmm. And I was under the impression that the proper term is "gay people," not gays.

There’s kind of a hierarchy to my ear. The worst is “the gays.” If you really want to sound like Archie Bunker, that’s the way to go. Saying just “gays” sounds wrong in the title here, but in discourse, I can see something like, “Well, gays are basically looking for the same rights as laid out in the Constitution.” That’s a little more okay to my ear, given context. As you say, “gay people,” where “gay” is an adjective describing what are basically just people—“same as you and me”—is really the most appropriate term.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

If their civil union isn’t recognized, can’t they just go their separate ways like any other non-married couple?

The fact that they litigated it makes me assume there was a money/property issue involved. This cite, for what it’s worth, says:

[H & G] buy a home together, open a joint bank account, and together furnish their house with all the items needed to make a house into a home. Unfortunately, their life as a couple turns for the worse, and due to marital problems, abuse, and adultery, one of them files for divorce.

The article goes on to describing Hincks as the one pursuing the issue. I suppose further research could shed more light.

[The_Hamster_King]

So let me get this straight:

The government should provide some sort of civil union.
It’s not important what it’s called.
It should be just like marriage.
But we can’t call it marriage.
Because it’s important what it’s called.

:dubious:

[Lamia]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Horseshit. It’s adopted from the Latin maritare, which predates Christ by at least several hundred years, let alone the Church.

What’s really interesting in the context of this discussion is that the classical Latin maritare was apparently used quite broadly. In the OED’s etymology for “marry” it mentions that maritare was “used of people and animals and in viticulture”. Since the OED is a subscription resource I can’t provide a link, but Wiktionary says basically the same thing.

I mention this because we do sometimes get posters who say they object to same-sex marriage for linguistic/logical reasons, claiming that “marriage” can only mean a union between a man and a woman so the term “same-sex marriage” is self-contradictory in the same way as “married bachelor”. But it looks like the Romans were perfectly happy to use the same word for the legal union of a man and a woman as they did for mated pairs of animals or even two vines that had been grafted together. So if the Church wanted a word that meant only the union of a man and a woman then maritare was the wrong one to choose.

[Bryan_Ekers]

If it’s still important to them, they can always make up their own word to describe the bonding ceremonies sealed in their various houses of worship.

I hear “xarriage” is available.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

@The_Hamster_King

So let me get this straight:

The government should provide some sort of civil union.
It’s not important what it’s called.
It should be just like marriage.
But we can’t call it marriage.
Because it’s important what it’s called.

:dubious:

I have never understood how allowing two people of the same sex to marry will threaten my heterosexual marriage. I’ve also never understood why some people criticize gays for having multiple sex partners, and then those same people are aghast at the notion of same-sex marriage.