I still don’t understand why gays want to call their relationship a “marriage”.
My first reason is that most gays don’t actually get married. Wikipedia says only 20% of gays in the Netherlands are married. and the numbers keep going down.
“In March 2006, Statistics Netherlands released estimates on the number of same-sex marriages performed in each year: 2,500 in 2001, 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in 2005.”
Second, I can’t believe that it is simply b/c they want govt benefits which are usually given only to married couples. States have long had civil union laws which took care of this. It seems bigger than this.
So…that leave me wondering. Why? What does it do for them? How are things better for gays now than they were before the Supreme Court ruling?
Why did blacks want to be able to drink from the same drinking fountains as white people? Both provide the same benefits. Presumably, the black drinking fountains drew from the same water supply as the white drinking fountains. Why wasn’t that good enough?
Marriage has centuries of tradition behind it and brings the connotation that you and your partner are serious about your commitment to each other. Civil union sounds like a cheap substitute - you aren’t good enough to have the real thing, so have this other thing we gave you. It also removes the ability to be discrete about the gender of your spouse, if you so choose. Plus, there’s also language issues at hand. I can tell someone, “I got married over the weekend,” and no one will look at me funny. “I got civil unioned over the weekend,” just sounds funny.
When you have to sets of names for essentially the same thing, you end up with unequal opinions regarding that thing. For example, I used to be a Mormon. Mormons do in fact have two separate words for marriage - a marriage between two Mormons in good standing is called a sealing, while every other type of marriage is simply marriage. In Mormonism, regular old marriage is looked down upon. Mormon couples who aren’t sealed are assumed to be sinful and weak, while Mormons who were forced to settle for a regular marriage because they weren’t able to find a Mormon spouse were pitied.
So that’s why gays want marriage. They don’t want to be made to feel that their lifelong commitments are somehow different or less than others simply because their spouse happens to share their gender along with their heart.
Bullshit. There was not a single place in the United States where a same sex civil union gave the same benefits as a marriage. It never happened. The tax laws were different in particular inheritance tax, you couldn’t get a green card for your spouse and many, many more benefits. Don’t ever say that again. It’s a complete fucking lie.
Why is it that you give a shit what “gays” want to call their relationship? Do you think that it causes you harm?
If you’re right, then they had something which was significantly similar to marriage in every way – except it wasn’t getting called ‘marriage’, which is a mistake that cried out to be rectified. If you’re wrong, then they should’ve had access to something significantly similar to marriage – which should of course be called marriage.
Marriage rates are down for us straight people also. Should we do away with all marriage?
They had similar benefits in some states, not all, and not at all for the federal government. Plus there were all sorts of things like hospital visitations open to married people only. Isn’t it easier to open marriage to all than to rewrite tons of laws in 50 states?
Ya know. I hear the argument about a “civil union” a lot these days from a certain segment. Yet, I don’t remember one of those folks out on the barricades or even pretending to support a “civil union” with same legal rights as “marriage” for gays.
Tough shit, you* had your chance to support the sanctity of marriage solely between a man and a woman by creating the exact legal equivalent for same sex marriage.
*generic “you” not targeted at the OP, but rather at the bigots and otherwise that couldn’t be bothered to defend your beliefs while supporting equal rights and protection for gays.
If SSM opponents really wanted to preserve “marriage” they would have been first on the civil union with the same benefits of marriage bandwagon. That would have taken a lot of the wind out of the sails of the SSM movement.
They they weren’t is good evidence that preservation of marriage had little to do with it - opposition was pure homophobia.
I don’t think there was a single state that offered civil unions but not same sex-marriage as of the recent Supreme Court decision. States were offering same sex marriage or nothing.
I happen to live in a state that had a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, or anything similar. Thanks to the SCOTUS, that amendment has been overturned, and my partner and I will be getting married later this summer.
Our “engagement” has been almost 28 years long, and our desire to marry has little to do with governmental benefits. We want to be married simply because we love each other, and our love and commitment will endure as long as we live.
Hell, if Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley could get married . . . .
Congratulations! I’m literally teary eyed here. You’ve spoken of him often, and you two are so clearly a wonderful match; I’m so glad you’re getting married.
^ And that, while every word is sincere and directly meant for **panache45 **in particular, is also a very small part of why (some) gay people, like any other people, want to be married. Not only for the government benefits, but for the social ones. To have people excited for them because they’re getting married, just like anyone else. To have people take their relationship seriously. To be normal.
After all the conversations that have been had in the world, on this message board, in this very forum-suddenly, today, you are wondering these wonders and questioning these questions?
