You also need to take into account the fact that there are still lots of closeted people. I assume the number of ‘out’ homosexuals is higher in the Netherlands than, say, the US, but undoubtedly there are still some who keep it a secret because of fear of family or work repercussions. It’s a lot easier to hide even a live-in lover than a spouse.
Woohoo! Congratulations! I am really happy for you two!
So if all the states had Civil Union laws, the debate about gay marriage would disappear? I doubt it.
Of course not. Please read my post, and all of the other ones, for comprehension and try again.
I’ll try to dumb it down for you: Civil Unions do not grant the same rights as marriages.
Given that you seem to be able to at least put together a grammatically correct sentence or two, I’ll write your reply off to disingenuousness rather than stupidity.
I do, too; “separate but equal” isn’t usually a great argument these days.
We’ll never know, because the opposition to gay marriage took it off the table - the Ohio constitutional amendment that Panache* mentioned is one example. It bans not just same-sex marriage, but any recognized legal construction that’s similar to a marriage. At that time, and with public opinion generally on their side, it wasn’t enough to deny gays the actual term “marriage” - gays had to be denied any formal recognition of their relationships.
Opponents generally won those battles, and a lot states passed laws and/or amendments similar to Ohio’s. But history caught up to the opposition, and now that they lost the war they want to go back and get a do-over.
*Congratulations, Panache and partner!
I know, it’s funny watching a woman try to use a urinal.
Wait, Panache is getting married! Bachelor party time! Grats!
I don’t understand why non-gays want to call their relationship a “marriage”. Never been an institution I much cared for, can’t imagine opting for it myself. But hey, I’m all for letting people structure their romantic-sexual-companionate relationships as they see fit (even if I do kibbitz from the sidelines sometimes).
So whether you see marriage as this wonderful thing that gay folk should not be barred from or as this mostly unredeemable institution that gay folk should be equally entitled to get themselves stuck in due to their bad judgement, it seems self-explanatory that it should be equally available to all who want it, yes?
Me too. Ignore my snark about marriage. Best to you both.
Indeed. Had the bigots helped in structuring a nationwide same sex civil union thing that was identical to marriage, this whole thing would never have happened. Now it’s like “herp derp. What do you mean? We were always fine with civil unions.” Nice try.
Hajario, you know you can’t call another poster a liar in Great Debates. You’re getting a warning for it. Please don’t do it again.
Congratulations on your engagement and pending marriage, panache45!!! I am so happy you finally can be married!
I’ve got two friends here in Ohio that are going to get married now. They had already been engaged for quite a while but now they get to do it “for real.” Very cool!
You are correct. I thought that saying that a post was a lie was ok but I was, of course, mistaken. My apologies.
Let me add my congratulations and woohoo!
I’ve been ashamed of our buckeye state ever since that amendment passed. At least SCOTUS has now told them what they can do with that! And they’ve cleared the way for you and your partner. You’ve been waiting long enough!
So what term are we supposed to use when we want to refer to that relationship where procreation is a possibility? There is only one such relationship capable of procreation. We used to call it “marriage”. What is the term for it now?
There was never a term used solely for relationships in which procreation between the two was possible. Before gay marriage, plenty of married couples could procreate, plenty didn’t procreate, and plenty couldn’t procreate. After gay marriage, plenty of married couples could procreate, plenty didn’t procreate, and plenty couldn’t procreate. Nothing has changed in this regard – lots of men and women aren’t capable of procreating no matter who they marry.
I don’t think that cornopean was lying, but (s)he certainly was mistaken. Homosexuals fought for years to get civil unions with all the associated rights (inheritance, hospital visitation and medical powers of attorney, etc…) but were routinely shot down by the right wing. I find it amusing and ironic that this refusal to give an inch by conservatives resulted in the demands for equal rights and lead to the full on marriage equality! If they had given civil union benefits back in the eighties and nineties, we would not be where we are today.
I also find it ironic and amusing that the fight for gay marriage has probably done more to stem the tide of marriage decline than anything conservatives have done. For years the interest in marriage has declined (to the dismay of Christian, family value conservatives), but recently this has shown signs of turning around as gays have fought for their right to marry. I would bet this response will be short lived, but it is amusing nonetheless.
That’s funny; my dad got married last year. He and his bride are both in their early 70s have have no plans (or even the possibility) to procreate; what should I call his relationship?
Still marriage. Why do you need a special term to differentiate between couples that are fertile, and couples that are not? What exactly is the use case here? What circumstances are there where it would be important for you to make this distinction? And, of course, what term did you used to use for marriages between infertile straight people? Because those sorts of marriages have been around for a lot longer, and I don’t recall this ever being a problem before now.
Well, my marriage is called a “marriage.” We’re wacky!