Gay marriage is between a man and a woman

[Realitycheck]

California Supreme Court is ruling tomorrow morning on whether Gavin Newsom's small string of allowed gay marriages can stand and whether or not the dissolutions were unconstitutional. My question is this. If civil unions carry all of the rights and "benefits" of a true marriage, then why does the homosexual community insist on encroaching on the bastion of marriage? They want to be different, but they want to be the same. It's apples and oranges. You can't buy an apple and get orange juice. It just doesn't work that way.

[ecoli]

if I had to guess, I'd say its more of what marriage 'represents' rather than the nomenclature.

 

IIRC, the first lesbian couple to get married got divorced several months ago.

[Realitycheck]

You could easily make a case about the sanctity of the term marriage, but that's not what I'll do. I think you would have an extremely hard time finding a precedent from nature to compare it to, but I won't take that tack either. I'm hitting the issue from the exact same angle, the definition.

 

–noun

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

 

When you have a new scenario in which pertinent facts are extremely different, it calls for the coining of a new word - civil union. It just doesn't fit in the same word. It requires a new one.

[ecoli]

Oh I would agree. I'd rather if the term 'marriage' was stricken from legal documents altogether.

 

I'm not even 100% convinced that government should be allowed to grant "civil unions" either.

[Pangloss]

My employer recently sent me a letter saying I have to prove that I'm married to my wife or they will drop her from our health insurance. Certainly they're fighting fraud, but I thought it interesting that they were so specific about the unacceptability of "domestic partners".

[Rev Blair]

We've had same sex marriage up here for a few years now, and it has changed nothing. The sky hasn't fallen, invisible sky gods haven't shot lightning bolts at Parliament, children aren't rutting in the streets. The predictions of the religious right haven't come to pass.

 

So what's the big deal? Let them marry.

[ParanoiA]

You could easily make a case about the sanctity of the term marriage, but that's not what I'll do. I think you would have an extremely hard time finding a precedent from nature to compare it to, but I won't take that tack either. I'm hitting the issue from the exact same angle, the definition.

 

–noun

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

 

When you have a new scenario in which pertinent facts are extremely different, it calls for the coining of a new word - civil union. It just doesn't fit in the same word. It requires a new one.

 

I agree, technically, that "marriage" has been defined lexicographically as between a man and a woman. Seems to me, the fight is with the lexicons of the english language, not our courts and government.

 

I'd rather take the tack that government doesn't have the authority to grant legitimacy to marriage or civil unions, only has the obligation to protect any legal contract of such, which would be defined in the contract.

 

So a "civil union" in one contract could be defined as any number or combination of men and women. Whereas "marriage" would always be a one man and one woman union because that's what the damn word means. When the word marriage is redefined by the lexicographers for the english language, then and only then will the term "gay marriage" not be an oxymoron.

[iNow]

State sponsored marriage conveys pretty significant financial benefits, so to disallow two from marrying effectively discriminates them from equal application of the laws and ability to capitalize.

 

The sanctity argument is frankly laughable considering what marriage has become, regardless of the sex of the couple.

[ParanoiA]

State sponsored marriage conveys significant financial benefits and that's a travesty. We should have never let the government go down that road. The idea that taxation or benefits should have a single thing to do with intimate commitments between individuals is just...weird.

 

Of course, if it were up to me, no citizen would pay any higher or lower percentage of federal tax than any other, so these "benefits" would be non-existant.

[iNow]

State sponsored marriage conveys significant financial benefits and that's a travesty. We should have never let the government go down that road.

 

Right, but we did, so it should be applied equally. Overall, though, I believe you and I to be pretty well aligned on this, that the law is not something which should remain. However, while it does, it should be applied equally and without discrimination.

[ParanoiA]

Right, but we did, so it should be applied equally. Overall, though, I believe you and I to be pretty well aligned on this, that the law is not something which should remain. However, while it does, it should be applied equally and without discrimination.

 

I certainly understand the insistance of parity, but I'd rather spend my energies on getting rid of the law. You're right, we certainly are aligned, ultimately, but I'd rather deliver some huge doses of libertarian remedy.

[Realitycheck]

Every person in California is now just a faceless, asexual drone. Anybody can marry anybody and there is no distinction, no lines drawn to distinguish the difference between males and females.

 

I'm really not surprised. Anything can happen in California, but I was thinking that perhaps the California Supreme Court was not so in line with the San Francisco District Court, where literally ANYTHING can happen.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

[ecoli]

Every person in California is now just a faceless, asexual drone. Anybody can marry anybody and there is no distinction, no lines drawn to distinguish the difference between males and females.

 

Since when is it the government's job to make the distinction between male and female?

 

and that's besides the fact that you're exaggerating to the point of irrelevancy. "every person"... really?

[ParanoiA]

Every person in California is now just a faceless, asexual drone. Anybody can marry anybody and there is no distinction, no lines drawn to distinguish the difference between males and females.

 

If this is an accurate statement, then it's about time.

[Realitycheck]

The levee has broken!!! The world is coming to end!!!! Abandon hope all ye who enter!!!

[iNow]

It's amazing what happens when someone's tiny world view gets expanded and watching how they react to witnessing the larger reality around them of which they've been previously unaware.

[Pangloss]

It seems to me that what this really means is the increased likelyhood of a SCOTUS decision in the near future.

[Realitycheck]

It's amazing what happens when someone's tiny world view gets expanded and watching how they react to witnessing the larger reality around them of which they've been previously unaware.

 

You have absolutely no clue about what I have seen and the world does not revolve around California.

[iNow]

Interesting that you assumed I was referring to you.

[Severian]

Oh I would agree. I'd rather if the term 'marriage' was stricken from legal documents altogether.

 

I'm not even 100% convinced that government should be allowed to grant "civil unions" either.

 

I agree entirely. If the state would just stay out of it we wouldn't have all the problems we do have.

[pioneer]

When you alter the meaning of traditional words, it sort of messes up what it is suppose to represent. For example, one hundred years ago a straight male could also be gay, since gay meant in a festive spirit. Now straight males can't be referred to as gay without having to explain yourself to avoid possible confusion. Some straight guys are sensitive that way and can't take an old fashion compliment. The Christmas song deck the halls...... with gay apparel. What was clear imagery at one time, of people all dressed up for the holidays, creates sort of an odd pause. One is not sure how you are suppose to react because of the imagery it might create in the mind. One might picture sweaters or leather, chaps and Marilyn Monroe wigs. I not trying to pocking fun, just one can see how altering the word marriage could end up creating confusion.

 

It is easier to see if we hit closer to someone else's home. For example, the democratic party is often associated with people fighting on the side of the poor, animals and environment. Say a bunch of radical strip miners decide they wish to be call democrats. They don't have enough respect for the party to walk to the walk, but would like to have the name because it makes their group seem more environmental friendly. If they were loud and vocal enough, to where people are debating what is the harm, some non democrats might say, "we feel sorry for those poor strip miners who have been verbally abused for decades. They only want a new name so they can strip mine with more environmental legitimacy. The democrats are the ones who abused them". But under it all, they know this will also add an ambiguity association.

 

Get a bunch of "save the whale" activists together see if they can use the term Teamster. Pick any ethnicity and redefine it in a way that makes that group uncomfortable and see what happens. I was going to do a few but these are delicate times. The gays are better off trying to be creative and adding a new phrase. Have a national contest. Make up a nice new phrase with the winner being the first to be that.

[bascule]

If civil unions carry all of the rights and "benefits" of a true marriage

 

They don't

 

then why does the homosexual community insist on encroaching on the bastion of marriage?

 

Isn't marriage the joining of two people who love each other? Why should gays be treated as second class citizens?

 

How is allowing gays to marry "encroaching on the bastion of marriage"? Why is it any skin off your nose?

[CDarwin]

–noun

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

 

Why the dictionary says it! It must be the Natural Order of Things! "Marriages" exist in so many different forms in so many different cultures and on so many different bases, that definition is wrong on almost every point.

 

This is the point where we, as a culture, have to decide if it would be better for us to change and innovate or better to stick with the "way things have been." It's more rational and reasonable to change, I would advance, but maybe continuity is more important. But I should note that "Marriage is between a man and a woman" is in itself a relatively new standard in our society. Not too long ago "Marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race."

[PhDP]

They don't

 

It depends... In Québec, I think a civil union is pretty much the same thing as a marriage (anyway, both civil unions and marriage are available to homosexuals)

[Rev Blair]

Can anybody here tell me how gay marriages being allowed in their peculiar jurisdiction would change anything?

 

The law we have here in Canada keep churches from having to perform same sex marriages if they don't want to. I assume the same protection would apply to faith-based prejudices elsewhere.

 

So why would it matter to any straight person if gay people can marry? I've been married for nearly 20 years, and that didn't change when same sex marriages became legal here.

 

What did happen was that a lesbian couple that we know were able to get married. It made them happy, and I got free beer at the wedding. How can you be against free beer?