What Do You Think About Marriage...?

[Iceblink]

So, if same-sex couples were given exactly the same legal rights and benefits as married couples get except that they couldn't get married but only have their partnership registered (i.e. civil union), it would be OK?

In the U.S. at least, no it would not be okay. We have already tried separate but equal without great success. Second, what would be the reason for there to be something separate? There would have to be some compelling reason to give some people something different than others, and outside of the government saying there was something religious about a government-issued marriage license, I can't think of anything else that could be used to justify saying there was something different. It would therefore be the government sanctioning a religious view and that could set a dangerous precedent in all kinds of areas of our lives beyond religion.

[Buzzer]

So, if same-sex couples were given exactly the same legal rights and benefits as married couples get except that they couldn't get married but only have their partnership registered (i.e. civil union), it would be OK?

We have something that's become something of a "saying" in America, and it's based on our history: separate is never equal. It wasn't with segregated schools, or segregated neighborhoods, etc.

My problem with a "separate" marriage-alternate for gay couples is that it's just begging for situations like a gay couple winds up with one of them injured in a hospital in another state and that state's hospitals only recognize "married" partners, not civil unions. We already have these kinds of problems. Give people hostile to gay rights any ground upon which to treat a gay couple as not having the exact same equal right or union as a straight couple, and you will see it used in policy or procedure or law in those places.

In my view making gay marriage completely identical to straight marriage is the only way to ensure that people will not assign gay unions to a lesser status or lesser recognition in practice.

[Steve]

I know getting married and a wedding is not the same thing. But if you have people who love you and support you wholeheartedly let them be part of your big day. We almost eloped but arranged it instead so that all of my mans immediate family could join us at the courthouse and at a brunch afterwards. Their love and support in the courtroom and at the brunch was so wonderful, I'm getting teary eyed writing about it now. That was one of the best moments of my life.

Awwww... You're making me tear up too.

Actually Bhp, marriage as defined by the dictionary (forgive me, I haven't checked Roget's thesaurus) is a synonym for wedding. Now you might be able to argue that a civil union is different than a marriage, but that's splitting hairs.

I want a civil union. It isn't that I don't want to get all gussied up in a lovely white ...tux, with lots of lacy bunting and flowers in front of family and friends, its more that I don't give a good crap about religion. I'd rather not be in a church, or have a minister marry Mark and I. He feels the same. Proclaiming our love in front of family and friends after 30 years is unimportant to us. If they haven't guessed by now it isn't my cross to bear if they're terminally clueless.

What I want is what Iceblink so eloquently posted. I want the same civil rights that every heterosexual not only enjoys, but takes for granted. I want all the legal protections. I'm not sure I would change my name to his. I have hated my last name for a long time. It's one of those Polish numbers with extra consonants tossed in for no good reason whatsoever and I am dead sick and tired of correcting everyone and their grandmother of its correct pronunciation. But that's just a detail.

I envy you Will and Adam (age before beauty). As soon as its possible,and legal, we will be wedded.

Now the more important question: Where are you taking each other on the honeymoon?

:confused:

[Iceblink]

When students graduate from our public school system, why don't we give our male student a diploma and give our female students something by a different name that acknowledges the same thing? After all, it means the same thing so what's the big deal if it has a different name?

[Buzzer]

When students graduate from our public school system, why don't we give our male student a diploma and give our female students something by a different name that acknowledges the same thing? After all, it means the same thing so what's the big deal if it has a different name?

Diplomette.

(We all know they give those out easier so the college can look good at how many women it's graduating...)

[Iceblink]

Actually Bhp, marriage as defined by the dictionary (forgive me, I haven't checked Roget's thesaurus) is a synonym for wedding. Now you might be able to argue that a civil union is different than a marriage, but that's splitting hairs.

I want a civil union. It isn't that I don't want to get all gussied up in a lovely white ...tux, with lots of lacy bunting and flowers in front of family and friends, its more that I don't give a good crap about religion. I'd rather not be in a church, or have a minister marry Mark and I. He feels the same. Proclaiming our love in front of family and friends after 30 years is unimportant to us. If they haven't guessed by now it isn't my cross to bear if their terminally clueless.

What I want is what Iceblink so eloquently posted. I want the same civil rights that every heterosexual not only enjoys, but takes for granted. I want all the legal protections. I'm not sure I would change my name to his. I have hated my last name for a long time. It's one of those Polish numbers with extra consonants tossed in for no good reason whatsoever and I am dead sick and tired of correcting everyone and their grandmother of its correct pronunciation. But that's just a detail.

I envy you Will and Adam (age before beauty). As soon as its possible,and legal, we will be wedded.

Now the more important question: Where are you taking each other on the honeymoon?

:confused:

Just want to point out, though, for the purpose of what you get from the government, the definition of "marriage" on a marriage license really is a civil union. The dictionary may define marriage as a "wedding," but the government is not giving you a wedding, they're giving you a license.

[Aike]

In the U.S. at least, no it would not be okay. We have already tried separate but equal without great success. Second, what would be the reason for there to be something separate? There would have to be some compelling reason to give some people something different than others, and outside of the government saying there was something religious about a government-issued marriage license, I can't think of anything else that could be used to justify saying there was something different. It would therefore be the government sanctioning a religious view and that could set a dangerous precedent in all kinds of areas of our lives beyond religion.

I just asked to push your earlier argument (that legal rights and benefits are "all this battle is about") to its logical conclusion. What I'm getting at here is that marriage has symbolic value, that is to say it serves as a ritual that comes with social recognition, and I don't think one can argue for gay marriage solely based on legal stuff. It always leaves the space open for conservatives who can argue precisely that gay people wouldn't need to be able to get married if they received all the same benefits from a civil union. I think people rely on legal stuff to back up their pro-gay marriage arguments too easily because grounding one's opinions on a symbolic value doesn't sound like a tangible argument, although it is.

[Iceblink]

I just asked to push your earlier argument (that legal rights and benefits are "all this battle is about") to its logical conclusion. What I'm getting at here is that marriage has symbolic value, that is to say it serves as a ritual that comes with social recognition, and I don't think one can argue for gay marriage solely based on legal stuff. It always leaves the space open for conservatives who can argue precisely that gay people wouldn't need to be able to get married if they received all the same benefits from a civil union. I think people rely on legal stuff to back up their pro-gay marriage arguments too easily because grounding one's opinions on a symbolic value doesn't sound like a tangible argument, although it is.

Here in the U.S., it currently is all legal stuff, because this is going to be decided in the courts, not legislation or voter initiatives and the drive to bring the question back to the voters seems to have pretty much stalled with the success going on in the court. When it is not before the voters or an elected body, the emotional arguments aren't that effective and that is likely why the side opposing marriage equality has not fared well because most have tried to use those arguments when going before the courts. This entire battle has moved to the courts where you have to have a legal argument to make your case. The court will require it. Those same-sex marriage bans passed in states are falling one by one because they were passed appealing to some people's symbolic and emotional ideas of marriage while ignoring the rights of equality of certain minorities.

[Jake]

Well it's seems that we're redefining marriage again? Marriage is a contract, it doesn't matter whether you do it in a church or at the city hall, it's still a contract. Now one can add whatever romantic definition you want it is still a contract. I married my dude because I know that it was the right thing to do, not necessarily to seal our love into a piece of paper, because LOVE was already there before I decided to propose to Alex. Due to my situation, because I worth few $$$ I have seen friends of mine being stripped of their right because they didn't have that contact to protect what they have built together.

Yes, there is a whole sentimental meaning to it as well, but my goal was definitely not just the love bounding part. but if I was going to get married it may as well be GRAND and god did I made it grand

Alex and I married in the Notre Dame Basilica in Montreal, we arrived mounted on white and black horses, Alex on the black stallion and me on the white one. We have been celebrated by my uncle who is a catholic priest. This made a lot of fuzz, but that's what I wanted. I wanted to make an example of it. Yes I'm an atheist, but I still have the tradition blood flowing in me.

And why have I married Alex, beside the very profund love I have for him; I'm sure many of you have seen what's I'm attaching here. Just click on the link, and download the 70mb video, it's a small vid but it says it all and that's what I wanted to avoid my baby to go through because I sure know how is my family.

Click here to download the small film.

Point made. If you love someone that much, protect your love. It's not always about taxes.

[Aike]

Here in the U.S., it currently is all legal stuff, because this is going to be decided in the courts, not legislation or voter initiatives and the drive to bring the question back to the voters seems to have pretty much stalled with the success going on in the court. When it is not before the voters or an elected body, the emotional arguments aren't that effective and that is likely why the side opposing marriage equality has not fared well because most have tried to use those arguments when going before the courts. This entire battle has moved to the courts where you have to have a legal argument to make your case. The court will require it. Those same-sex marriage bans passed in states are falling one by one because they were passed appealing to some people's symbolic and emotional ideas of marriage while ignoring the rights of equality of certain minorities.

Yet the "emotional" (I would say "political") side of the argument is precisely what you also have to win over in order to ensure that the progression of our rights is not going to be halted (or, as it sometimes happens unfortunately, reversed) by some conservative asshats who can draw on commonly recognized religious or family values. Moreover, as Pix pointed out, legal rights alone do not necessarily guarantee you the actual benefits you're entitled to if the law is not being followed or deemed legitimate. The law is not merely procedural but also symbolic in the sense that it has to rely not only on the threat of force or sanctions but also on a publicly recognized set of values. All of which comes down to the fact that we shouldn't surrender the "moral" side of the argument to our enemies.