Should the government drop the word "marriage"

[Sayonara]

And I will make it very clear AGAIN: I support DPs for gays because I want to see them get all the legal rights they deserve. I don't support calling a same-sex DP a "marriage," precisely because it is not "marriage" as I define the term.

So essentially gays do not "deserve to be considered married". Is that a correct reading of this comment?

 

If you define it differently that's OK with me;

One of the ongoing issues in this thread is that prior to DOMA and Prop. 8, there was no legal exclusion to the concept of a gay marriage. Showing otherwise falls into the domain of your position.

 

I won't threaten to shoot you in the face with a pistol or anything like that, because I'm not hysterical about this issue like another poster on this thread.

There has been significant moderator attention to this thread and much of it has pointed out that comments like the above are not welcome. I strongly recommend that you comply.

 

Who is harmed if gays get their full DP rights but can't call it "marriage?

I think you just answered your own question there.

 

The answers to these questions are entirely matters of OPINION.

Well, there's the concept of inequality being a form of quantifiable harm, which has been mentioned "once or twice" in this thread already. So no, it's not a matter of opinion at all.

 

I take it that you think your opinion is better than mine. I don't agree. So, where do we go from here?

Evidence your (plural) claims in such a way as to show that your opinion has a more sound basis.

 

There is only one place to go with this in America: to the courts. Now, here's the difference between us: if the courts decided to legalize same-sex marriage I'll abide with their decision and not say another word about it. BUT, if the courts decide NOT to support the legality of same-sex "marriage" will you abide with their decisions? Or will you say you know better about interpreting the Constitution?

Isn't a further legal challenge contingent on whether or not a more pertinent legal argument exists, as opposed to how brash some arbitrarily chosen internet forum user is?

[iNow]

Why is "supporting the status quo means you support inequality, because the status quo does not give equal rights to domestic partnership"? We have no status quo issue at all if gays would accept legalized DPs, when and if they become available, and forget about calling them "marriages."

You seem to be either missing or ignoring the fact that this assertion has been repeatedly debunked and proven false, yet you continue to assert it as accepted fact. This is part of the question being posed to you by Mooeypoo, and I'm curious if you can now, with the data I provide below, explain how a domestic partnership is supposed to be equal to marriage.

 

My data shows your assertion false. Where do we go from here?

 

 

 

A word change alone carries with it it's own problems, as there are actually 1,138 federal laws which pertain to "married" couples, but would not pertain to those in a "civil union" or "domestic partnership."

 

 

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

When politicians say they support civil unions but not marriage for people of the same sex, what do they mean? We find three main differences between civil unions and marriage as it's traditionally viewed:

• The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
  
  
• Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.
  
  
• Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don't believe gays should marry.
  
  

The Government Accountability Office

lists 1,138 federal laws

that pertain to married couples. Many in that long list may be minor or only relevant to small groups of citizens. However, a number of provisions are key to what constitutes a marriage legally in the United States:

 

 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

[scrappy]

I'm only against calling them "marriages."

Why?

Because a same-sex DP does not fit my definition of a "marriage." It may offend the dogma of this forum for me to hold such an opinion, but I have seen no rational arguments here that convince me to change it. I've seen plenty of emotional arguments, though, which are intellectually uncompelling. They might play well in a provincial theater, but they will flop on the big stage where public opinions matter like votes to a politician. What matters most here is reality; it's a cob, but it's all we got. Time to get real.

[iNow]

I have seen no rational arguments here that convince me to change it.

Then you simply haven't read or absorbed them, because PLENTY have been made.

[Sayonara]

Because a same-sex DP does not fit my definition of a "marriage." It may offend the dogma of this forum for me to hold such an opinion, but I have seen no rational arguments here that convince me to change it. I've seen plenty of emotional arguments, though, which are intellectually uncompelling. They might play well in a provincial theater, but they will flop on the big stage where public opinions matter like votes to a politician. What matters most here is reality; it's a cob, but it's all we got. Time to get real.

Are you conflating your own opinion with "reality"?

 

You have two concepts at work here. First you say that in your opinion, a same sex partnership is not a marriage because of your definition of the term. I don't think anyone would have a serious problem with that because it is your opinion which you are entitled to hold.

 

But when you say that you are "against calling them marriages" then you are extending your opinion - and ONLY your opinion - into the realm of trying to affect the behaviour of other people. I think you are sufficiently smart to understand why this is the less popular move.

 

This thread is about legal rights and as such arguments which are solely based on an individual opinion will tend to be behind the starting blocks each and every time.

[scrappy]

This thread is about legal rights and as such arguments which are solely based on an individual opinion will tend to be behind the starting blocks each and every time.

So far behind the blocks that you can't answer the following double questions, pose by me above?:

 

Who is harmed if gays get their full DP rights but can't call it "marriage?

 

Who is harmed if gays get their full DP rights and also get to call it "marriage"?

 

Where is the harm in either case? Is there something more than OPINION on this matter that I've missed. And how will this matter ever be decided if not by OPINION? Honestly, this emotional rejection of public opinion is a death wish for those who fear it.

[Sayonara]

So far behind the blocks that you can't answer the following double questions, pose by me above?

You're a fine one to be talking about not answering questions.

 

Who is harmed if gays get their full DP rights but can't call it "marriage?

"Gays". Separate but equal is not equal. We have been over this many times both in this thread and the myriad others on the same topic.

 

Who is harmed if gays get their full DP rights and also get to call it "marriage"?

Nobody, save for the pride of certain people who choose to subscribe to a definition of a word which differs from the relevant and applicable legal term.

 

And how will this matter ever be decided if not by OPINION?

In the courts, as you yourself pointed out about half an hour ago. Legal arguments tend to have a rational basis.

 

Honestly, this emotional rejection of public opinion is a death wish for those who fear it.

And yet you keep tacking these little comments onto your posts which target emotional processes in the people reading the thread.

[john5746]

Judging by the pole results and this thread, it seems that the government should use a different name for all marriages, then the term marriage can be left for society to define. I think the younger generation would refer to gay couples as married and this would eventually become the norm in society.

[Sayonara]

Judging by the pole results and this thread, it seems that the government should use a different name for all marriages, then the term marriage can be left for society to define. I think the younger generation would refer to gay couples as married and this would eventually become the norm in society.

I don't know what the norm is in the USA, but here in the UK it is already common for people to refer to same sex couples in a civil union as "married". It's just the pragmatic and most parsimonious use of language. Calling them "civil unioned" or "domestically legally partnered" has never really caught on.

[john5746]

I don't know what the norm is in the USA, but here in the UK it is already common for people to refer to same sex couples in a civil union as "married". It's just the pragmatic and most parsimonious use of language. Calling them "civil unioned" or "domestically legally partnered" has never really caught on.

 

Well, I'm in the Bible belt portion of the US and the norm is to have eyes roll and gasps! It seems like "partner" is used often. In fact, we had a speaker visit who was talking about breaking down barriers and removing bigotry from the workplace. She mentioned her company and her partner. She then said "not that kind of partner".

[scrappy]

Who is harmed if gays get their full DP rights but can't call it "marriage?

"Gays". Separate but equal is not equal. We have been over this many times both in this thread and the myriad others on the same topic.

You mean their pride would be harmed? What else' date=' since they will already have their legalized DPs?

 

Who is harmed if gays get their full DP rights and also get to call it "marriage"?

Nobody' date=' save for the [b']pride[/b] of certain people who choose to subscribe to a definition of a word which differs from the relevant and applicable legal term.

Whose pride matters most? And how would you decide that? The fact that you bring up pride makes my point about emotional arguments.

[Sayonara]

You mean their pride would be harmed? What else, since they will already have their legalized DPs?

No, I mean that they would be second-class citizens. We've been there before (and I mean in societal terms and in terms of this discussion.)

 

Whose pride matters most? And how would you decide that?

It's not a case of pride versus pride just because you say it is.

 

The fact that you bring up pride makes my point about emotional arguments.

Actually it points out that the only emotional argument which has been put on the table as a front-line assault comes from the largest population of objectors. You don't have an inherent claim to any argument which uses the concept of emotional subjectivity.

[scrappy]

No, I mean that they would be second-class citizens. We've been there before (and I mean in societal terms and in terms of this discussion.)

No, they would decide to be second-class citizens, because nothing in any law would require them to be so. Is walleye a second-class fish if it can't be called a pickerel? (Especially because it isn't a pickerel!)

 

It's not a case of pride versus pride just because you say it is.

But you already said that the problem with the DOMA people is their pride? Doesn't it work both ways?

 

 

Actually it points out that the only emotional argument which has been put on the table as a front-line assault comes from the largest population of objectors. You don't have an inherent claim to any argument which uses the concept of emotional subjectivity.

Isn't that purely a matter of OPINION?

[iNow]

Repetition is not a valid form of argument.

[Sayonara]

No, they would decide to be second-class citizens, because nothing in any law would require them to be so.

You mean, apart from the law saying "YOU CAN'T CALL YOUR MARRIAGE A MARRIAGE BECAUSE YOU'RE HOMOS AND LEZZERS"?

 

Pull the other one.

 

Is walleye a second-class fish if it can't be called a pickerel? (Especially because it isn't a pickerel!)

Irrelevant. Gay marriages and straight marriages are not different kinds of fish.

 

You are making the classical logical fallacy of highlighting imaginary differences between "kinds" of human being by comparing their arcane but legally protected partnering rituals with the anthropogenic arbitrary labelling scheme of harvested fish.

 

I think we can safely say if you have to go to a fish market to draw inspiration for the basis of your legal argument then you should just not bother going to court.

 

But you already said that the problem with the DOMA people is their pride? Doesn't it work both ways?

No. On one side the stakes are represented by equality, on the other by pride. It's so hopelessly one-sided that nobody in their right mind would bet back-of-the-sofa change on gay marriage being illegal for more than another generation.

 

Isn't that purely a matter of OPINION?

I don't see that it is, no.

 

 

It's pretty clear that while you are certainly enthusiastic about pulling this thread off-topic to discuss your opinions, you don't have much to actually talk about short of "I don't believe in gay marriage or transfish".

 

This thread gets back on topic now. The topic is in the OP for those who have forgotten it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You mean, apart from the law saying "YOU CAN'T CALL YOUR MARRIAGE A MARRIAGE BECAUSE YOU'RE HOMOS AND LEZZERS"?

I have to admit, legalese would be a whole lot more fun if it were all written like that. You need to start a trend.

[Sayonara]

I have to admit, legalese would be a whole lot more fun if it were all written like that. You need to start a trend.

In interviews I often have to explain legislation to people with limited vocabularies and I think I am developing quite a flair for it. One day I will be at court giving evidence and it will accidentally squirt out.

[mooeypoo]

And I will make it very clear AGAIN: I support DPs for gays because I want to see them get all the legal rights they deserve. I don't support calling a same-sex DP a "marriage," precisely because it is not "marriage" as I define the term. If you define it differently that's OK with me; I won't threaten to shoot you in the face with a pistol or anything like that, because I'm not hysterical about this issue like another poster on this thread.

 

That's STILL not answering my question. "Getting the rights they deserve" is not the same as getting the same rights as their heterosexual equivalences. Are you going to give a definitive answer, or do you plan to continue dodging the issue?

 

 

Why is "supporting the status quo means you support inequality, because the status quo does not give equal rights to domestic partnership"? We have no status quo issue at all if gays would accept legalized DPs, when and if they become available, and forget about calling them "marriages."

Quite simply because right now (in the "status quo") domestic partners do not have the same rights as married people.

An immigrant man cannot recieve a green card by creating a "domestic partnership" (or any other form of partnership) with another man. Heterosexual couple in the same condition can. That is only one example showing the inequality. One out of many.

 

You are either dodging the question or you are trying to cover your anti-equality opinions with confusion.

 

Pretty word-games or not, the current situation is inequality.You either support support equality and want to change the current situation so it will BE equality (and then we can start debating what is the right way of doing that, and what definitions to use) or you are against equality, for whatever reasons, and the discussion over what definition should be used is moot.

 

Stop evading the question, scrappy. Answer.

[Mr Skeptic]

Who is harmed if gays get their full DP rights but can't call it "marriage?

 

I know what you are saying, but as I understand it domestic partnerships are different beasts than marriage, with far less rights. I know you meant the same rights under a different name, but not everyone will.

[iNow]

I know what you are saying, but as I understand it domestic partnerships are different beasts than marriage, with far less rights. I know you meant the same rights under a different name, but not everyone will.

 

Including the government itself, ergo... Not equal.

[Mr Skeptic]

You have badly misrepresented my position. There is also this in my favor:

 

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/home/constitution.htm[/url

 

For the record, I think section 7 of the constitution is pretty important too. Perhaps even more important than an amendment. In short, laws are passed via the legislative branch, not the lexicographer branch.

[padren]

No, they would decide to be second-class citizens, because nothing in any law would require them to be so. Is walleye a second-class fish if it can't be called a pickerel? (Especially because it isn't a pickerel!)

 

 

But you already said that the problem with the DOMA people is their pride? Doesn't it work both ways?

 

 

 

Isn't that purely a matter of OPINION?

 

Scrappy, I think I address this here, post #248 in this thread. I would actually like it if you could address those points actually, when you have a moment.

[iNow]

For the record, I think section 7 of the constitution is pretty important too.

 

How so? We're talking about equality of rights and whether the government should call it a marriage if it's between two same sex individuals.

 

 

Section. 7.

 

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

 

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

 

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

[Pangloss]

I agree that even if the rights are the same, not allowing it to be called "marriage" is in itself a form of discrimination.

 

But I think we have to recognize that there is a valid opinion to the contrary that cannot be easily dismissed as discrimination or "homophobia". It may BE that, but it isn't NECESSARILY that. It may simply be that some people are pissed off at the usurpation of the traditional definition of the word. I've talked to a LOT of conservatives who say this, and I know some of them to be being honest when they say it has no bearing on their feelings about homosexuality (whether they recognize their own homophobia is another question).

 

Now, with that in mind, if that's a valid opinion -- questioning whether the definition is being usurped for ideological purposes -- then whether or not it's discrimination if we call it something different ITSELF becomes a matter of opinion. This logically follows.

 

Put another way, the modern redefinition of traditional institutions as we open our minds is why we see the inability to use the word "marriage" as a form of discrimination.

 

--------------

 

Now I'm going to provide my own counterpoint here, because while I think that is a legitimate perspective, I think it's flawed, and I think it's a lesson we've learned before. Because everything I've pointed out above can be said about perfectly identical drinking fountains, one labeled "white" and the other "colored". And yet this was (and still is) seen as a form of discrimination. Why? Assuming they're identical, it shouldn't make any difference.

 

But it does. Just as it will matter if gays can't call it "marriage". It really is that simple. It's not a matter of what GAYS think, nor it is a matter of what opponents think. It implies a difference, therefore it is discrimination.

 

-----------

 

But that having been said, people need to respect the opinions of people who hold the one I've outlined above. You can't browbeat that opinion into submission. You have to treat it with education. So be nicer. Say your peace, and don't get so carried away about it. It's just a discussion, folks.

[padren]

Good post Pangloss.

 

I'll play devil's advocate and look at it a bit from the other side:

 

I can understand that if say, a mother wanted to be registered on a child's birth certificate as the father, and felt she was being discriminated against by having to be registered as the mother - we'd say "Hey, the term Father is for the sperm donor, not the person who gave birth to the kid, sorry." The terms Mother and Father have pretty tight, biological definitions. Likewise there was a case a while back of a woman wanting to get her driver's license photo in a burka completely covered except for her eyes. I believe the ACLU actually took on her case. Personally, I think a "Photo ID" is pretty clearly a form of identification whereby the person can be identified by photo, and if you don't want to be identifiable by your photo in such an ID it's not a photo ID. I think they'd have had a better case saying the requirement of any form of Photo ID is discriminates against religions that prohibit identifiable photos - but that would still have lost I am sure because we've already established the state has the allowance to require photo identification for certain privileges to prevent potential abuse and harm. The point is, that case and the scenario above fail because of the strict definitions of the terms.

 

To people who believe traditional marriage is marriage plain and simple, it seems to be the same argument: That to them, a marriage is based on the archetype of a man and a woman who will generally have kids. Even if surgery or biological abnormality or personal preference renders the pair "nonbreeding" they are still primarily identifiable by that overall archetype of a man and a woman who become one unit in the eyes of the law. I don't agree with that - but it's fair to say that is often how it's seen by opponents.

 

If a man has no arms and can play a mean kick drum, he can be called a drummer, and a musician, but if he advertises he's a banjo player it doesn't matter how badly he wants to be in his heart - he's still not a banjo player. If he's not able to play the banjo, there's just no way he can be called a banjo player.

 

If someone feels that a marriage is literally between a man and a woman, I can see how someone could feel a man and another man simply cannot be called married.

 

So really, I just want to put that out there in case anyone feels I "don't get it" when it comes to that argument. I already accept that argument and feel I the above are decent similar examples of that argument where it works.

 

 

But I still think it fails because ultimately we have to discuss whether the term should be opened up to include gay marriage legally. In the case of the burka woman, it can be demonstrated that it is harmful to give someone what we call a photo ID, when they cannot be identified by their photo. A birth certificate is supposed to record the biological parents in their biological roles, regardless of whether they have some odd religion whereby the mother considers herself the father for some reason, and it would be harmful if the records contained medical inaccuracies.

 

In the case of marriage, there is no demonstrable harm, and whether GBLTs were simply quiet or even if they did not exist before they do now - and they are petitioning for the right to marry. There is a case for the arguments that the majority believe marriage means heterosexual marriage, and that the legal definition has been intended to reflect that. Personally I accept that argument completely. I just don't think it is relevant in face of the other factors I mention.

 

If we had some odd definition of golf being a white person's game as per some "traditional" definition that was never an issue because it just happened black people never seemed interested in playing before... should they end up challenging that definition it would not be enough to say "they can play as long as they call it something else" - we'd legally recognize the term cannot be legally defined in such a closed definition. So why would we do that? Equality? If "they could play if they called it something else" they wouldn't be being denied the game, right? Bias? If white people cared that much about golf being "white only" they wouldn't volunteer to play with a black person even after the courts ruled, so it wouldn't have an effect there, right?

 

We'd say "regardless of the majority opinion that having white skin is critical to the definition of a player of golf, black people should be able to play golf if they choose."

No harm can be demonstrated by allowing the more open definition, and keeping it closed discriminates, so we'd be forced to open up the definition. Likewise, I can't help but to see it as the same with marriage.