Why call it marriage?

[George_S]

In the gay marriage debate, the battle line is on the word "marriage."

Why is using that word so important? Why not coin a word? Or why not compromise with "legal unions" for now?

[One Taste]

1. "seperate but equal"

[Dookus]

8. not really an argument

the problem with "separate but equal" was that things were demonstrably NOT equal.

If the legal rights were all the same as marriage, things would be equal.

[George_S]

15. Exactly, except for the word

Seems the rights would be most important, at least for now.

[sandnsea]

41. ALL are legal unions

Under state law. If you want a marriage, get one at your church, gay or straight. That's what I think we should do.

[lakemonster11]

42. I agree.

[donheld]

2. Should we as Gay's and lesbians

Compromise and except life as second class citizen's. We should have the SAME benefits and such as anyone else.

[George_S]

6. There would still be the same benefits

Maybe I'm dumb, but it seems like insisting on using the word "marriage" when the majority don't object to "legal unions" is backfiring. People better accept change gradually, in pieces. Seems success would be more likely with some compromise over that one word for now. Same benefits and legal power as marriage with unions.

[donheld]

11. Water came out of both fountains

both for the "Whites only" and the "Colored" Want to go back there?

[George_S]

12. Yes, I understood that

But Blacks didn't get everything all at once. They are still fighting.

"Marriage" isn't all that great of a word anyway. I mean, a lot of words are better and more fun and pleasing to say.

Why not coin a better one?

And let's face it, a same sex marriage will never be equal in EVERY way. It's physically impossible. Why not celebrate what is unique and special about it?

Something tells me I'm going to get yelled at pretty soon.

[foreigncorrespondent]

18. Um!!!

But Blacks didn't get everything all at once. They are still fighting.

Guess what buddy, so is the LGBTI community!

Now, why is it so important to the other side to want the word used only for them? Do they hold copyright, and ownership rights on that one word?


And let's face it, a same sex marriage will never be equal in EVERY way. It's physically impossible. Why not celebrate what is unique and special about it?

What is THAT supposed to mean?


Something tells me I'm going to get yelled at pretty soon.

Yeah you most likely will. Especially if you continue to take pot shots like the one above.

[George_S]

21. There weren't any pot shots in there

[donheld]

24. What part of EQUAL do you not understand

George we've spent many years gaining little by little, but never by settling for less.

[George_S]

30. Rights

1) Able to see you partner in intensive care.

2) Able to use the power of wills.

3) Able to use the combined income for taxes and loans like traditional married couples.

4) Able to share insurance like traditional married couples.

5) Legally able to live together as spouses without prejudice.

6) What did I leave out?

How are these new rights accepting less?

BUT I WANNA CALL IT MARRIAGE!

I laughed when I typed that, so hopefully no one will take it too seriously. It does make my point though.

[foreigncorrespondent]

38. Simple!!!

You named only six rights there, when in actual fact LGBTI people don't have over 1000 of the same rights as straight people. Go look it up!

My partner and I are currently living 8,000 miles apart, because your country refuses to recognize the validity of same sex relationships for immigration purposes! Marriage (and the day I say "I do" to my partner, you better bloody well believe it is MARRIAGE!) rights, will eliminate that problem for us.

You try living that far apart from the person you love more than life itself. Then try not seeing that person for over 12 months (I haven't seen my partner since she left here after a 28 day stay last October), and then you come back here and begin this thread again.

As for your point! Yeah I laughed at how bloody insensitive you are, because there is nothing funny in what you wrote.

[foreigncorrespondent]

37. Oh really?

And let's face it, a same sex marriage will never be equal in EVERY way

THAT is a pot shot!

THAT is like saying women will never be equal to men, because of physical differences. Yet if a woman does the same damn job as a man, then she deserves equality, does she not?

[Ms. Toad]

51. Legally it's not the same benefits

Even if one state does a perfect job of matching right for right, a union (or whatever other than marriage you call it) has absolutely no legal meaning outside of the state (or other jurisdiction) that created it. Absolutely no meaning within the set of federal rights associated with marriage.

The legal overhaul that it would take to substitute a different word for marriage would require decades of work by state and federal legislative bodies and the courts, and by countless individual couples and advocacy groups as each case of first impression goes through the 50 state courts, and relevant federal courts. The costs would be enormous. For our adoption case, which went through two court levels and ultimately lost it cost over $10,000 (not counting legal work donated by Lambda). Even after the statutes are changed, that kind of work and money would be required for every single non-statutory right in every single state.

[George_S]

17. Gaining equal right that you never had...

... is not compromising. That is a victory.

[foreigncorrespondent]

19. I really need to ask...

...where you get your information from, because this makes no sense what so ever:

Gaining equal right that you never had

We did have those rights mate, the only thing is, those rights were STOLEN from us, the moment we began living our life the way God intended us to live it.

[donheld]

25. Foreigncorrespondent just for you

:hug::toast:

[foreigncorrespondent]

39. Thanks donheld!

Cheers back at ya, mate!!! :beer: :hug:

And I'm not sure how long you have been here (I have been missing for quite some time), but welcome to DU anyway. :)

[George_S]

34. The rights I meant are listed in another post

My question is answered.

Thanks to everyone for their 2 cents.

[foreigncorrespondent]

40. You still don't understand do you?

We HAD those rights until governments which believe in discrimination stole those very rights from us. Now it is a question of getting what was taken from us back!

[George_S]

46. No, I guess I still don't understand

But you sure aren't the one to explain it to me, and now I see the 3rd side of the coin.

[foreigncorrespondent]

47. There is nothig to explain...

...it is all common sense!

When you are born into a country, you are automatically a citizen of that country. As a citizen of that country you have the rights and privileges that every other citizen of that country has, because, let's face it, when you are born you aren't exactly spouting off that you are queer.

Now when you are born gay, most will tell you, they knew it all of their life. When you are gay, there is going to come a point in your life (and this is the ONLY choice a queer person will ever make, regarding his/her sexuality) where you can choose to either live your life the way you born to do so (as an OUT queer person), or, live your life as a complete lie (as a straight person.)

If the decision you make regarding that, is to live your life the way you born to, then you are automatically stripped of over 1000 rights (in the United States), because the government doesn't believe in equality for all.

Take me for instance. The decision I made was to live my life as a complete lie, and that is because of the pressure society has put on the LGBTI population.

During a 15 year relationship I had with a male, I had all the rights every other person had. After 15 years of living a complete lie, I realized it wasn't fair to him, and it wasn't fair to me, so I came out to him, because I needed to begin living my life the way I was born to live it.

When I came out, the LGBTI community had lots more rights than what our brothers and sisters have in the U.S. Recently though, our (conservative, Bush* buddy) government (with the help of the Labor party) HAS banned any form of recognition of gay marriage. From that moment, I was delcared a second class citizen in my own damn country. Now, my three year old neice has more rights than I do.

Back to the U.S., these people who believe queers don't deserve the same rights as them, what makes them believe they are of a higher being than us, to not want us having the same rights they do?

That is what it all boils down to. You cannot have different classes of people in a country, like you used to have on the old steamers crossing the Atlantic. A country isn't a ship. We didn't pay for a third class ticket in that country, we were born into that country.

If Jo Six Pack down the road can marry his gal, then Jo Queer Pack down the other road should be able to marry his guy.

Now because they are getting married, you can't call it a wedding, and then not call it a marriage, just because it is two guys, or two gals instead of one of each. Love is love, and with love there is no difference.

[Thumb]

3. It doesn't matter

Why deny so many people their rights over the word marriage? I don't understand it.

[George_S]

13. Neither do I

That's the other side of the coin. How does same sex marriage make a traditional marriage any less of a marriage?

[donheld]

27. Welcome Thumb

:hi::thumbsup:

[MercutioATC]

4. Why not make ALL legal unions "legal unions"?

Both for same-sex and different-sex couples. This would be the legal procedure recognized by the government.

A "marriage" would be a strictly religious thing and would have no legal significance.

We already do this to a degree. A religious ceremony doesn't have legal standing without a marriage license. Why not completely separate the two?

[donheld]

29. Just ban Marriage for Everybody

no marriage no divorse:crazy:

[JasonNeedlemeyer]

5. Same reason that non gays want marriage.

You wouldn't ask heteros to not call it marriage would you?

[George_S]

7. No one can reverse history.

False analogy since it can't be done.

[JasonNeedlemeyer]

9. I wasn't suggesting it should be done.

I was trying to explain why us gay people want to be married. We follow the law, and pay taxes we are entitled to be married just like any other couple is.

[George_S]

10. I know, and understand

That make sense, but is the word "marriage" NOW so important? All this time without it hasn't stopped anyone.

"Unions" is doable fairly easily. The majority don't have a problem with it.

Demanding too much at once can result in nothing.

Just asking is all.

[JasonNeedlemeyer]

14. Well, in theory so called unions would be a start.

However, they would make people like me second class citizens. In time gay people will no longer have to live in shame. I predict that homosexuality will be veiwed as normal in the next 20 or so years. There was a time when women weren't supposed to wear pants and now it is the norm. Someday society will treat us better. One day me and my partner will be able to hold hands and kiss in public and noone will think anything of it.

[George_S]

16. But don't you think that the majority...

... willing to accept civil unions is a giant step? Think about it. Not that many years ago gay sex was illegal and reason to register as a sex offender in California.

Dunno, just seems like fighting over the word is backfiring big time when so many are willing to accept that gays and lesbians can legally love each other for life. Society is willing to be very accepting and tolerate, so why push it so fast?

[lakemonster11]

43. "I predict..."

"I predict that homosexuality will be veiwed as normal in the next 20 or so years."

I think so too. I think you can see the change already in the younger generations of Americans.

I'm just out of college. I have had gay friends, gay teachers, gay roommates and housemates. I've watched movies and read books with gay characters. I've gone to gay bars.

I don't blink when I see two men or two women kissing---and it doesn't occur to me that I should.

My younger brother is a straight jock with a bunch of macho friends, but nothing gets him into a bigger rage than hearing George W. Bush & Co. push their anti-gay agenda.

[orpupilofnature57]

35. Would a flower with all thorns, still be called a rose?

[sonicx]

20. because

there's no reason not to call it marriage except for the fake magical "sanctity" arguement. If you were gay, wouldn't it hurt you to know that you can destroy 'sanctity' because of who you like to fuck?

Even Kerry and other dems are against the marriage label. they say it's for religious reasons, but it's really becuase gay marriage is unpopular and they want to keep their jobs.

[sonicx]

22. btw, if 'civil unions' are so doable...

why don't we have em yet, nationwide?

people ARE fighting for those, btw. They ARE taking the 'baby steps' approach.

[George_S]

28. OK, maybe I'm missing some info

Wouldn't be the first time.

But on the news I hear most are willing to accept civil unions and it there would be little resistance throughout most of the country.

That's my whole point. It is right on the verge of happening, maybe even through the fed government so it would be nationwide. That word marriage is blocking it and the backlash might be so strong there could eventually be a Constitutional Amendment against ever calling it a marriage.

Or is "marriage" a right-wing propaganda spin that is really against civil unions?

Anyway, just for the record, I'm for civil unions and am not for or against marriage. Either way would be fine with me.

[sonicx]

31. the word 'marriage' is not stopping civil unions

Conservatives in congress are. They are against ALL gay rights, even civil unions.

And if you look at the polls, 33-40% of the country is against any type of gay rights (most are conservative).

[George_S]

33. Right

And 60% or more support civil unions.

So if that "marriage" issue were corrected to the truth, there is a good chance Bush couldn't use it. Bush may win some liberal voters who think they are voting against "gay marriage." I'm sure he is trying to.

It's making sense now.

[George_S]

23. Exactly

Can you blame them? That's what I mean about going too fast and demanding it all right now when society in general, the great majority, accept civil unions.

Thing is, "civil unions" is a terrible term and there has to be a better one. It sounds so governmental.

[sonicx]

26. the GLBT movement has accepted the watered down

stuff (domestic part., civil unions) many times. noone is flatout demanding gay marriage or nothing at all.

[George_S]

32. Ah

That explains it.

So the right wing hijacked the issue and as usual made it something bound to result in a backlash when unnecessary.

So how come the journalists who know this don't fix it?

If it's a non-either/or-issue, how come people like me who are fairly well informed don't know that?

And thanks for clearing it up. It was confusing.

[Astrochimp]

49. My tax $$$.....

If they give the same rights, yet call it something else, a lot of laws & paperwork will have to be changed. Who will pay? Me with my tax $.

[Lexingtonian]

36. because it's the difference between segregation and integration

As a practical matter, a political fight for gay civil unions is the same fight as for gay marriage. If as an activist you're going to fight for something as exhausting and polemical and full of experiences of bigotry as this stuff, you might as well ask for marriage.

The political problem with gay civil unions is how to define them. Basically, there ends up being no respectable rationale for denying any particular right/protection conferred by marriage- any imposed shortcoming will be tested in the courts pretty quickly, and probably overturned as discriminatory. So the end of the political process tends to be about the choice between all-but-in-name gay marriage (labeled 'civil union') or gay marriage proper.

At this point the debate stops being about gay couples. It is really all about the society's integrity at this point- and in the name/label applied lies a decision of whether to segregate or to (possibly) integrate married gay couples.

Gay people appreciate the rights of marriage in either case. But the distinction between segregation and integration inherent in the labelling touches on the fundamental terms of gay life; the rights conferred by marriage are of practical use, but not as transforming of life as a gay person.

FYI, the proposed state constitutional amendment in Massachusetts, which is now considered politically 99% dead, is one that creates civil unions with all the rights of marriage except the name.

[sosdemok]

44. partnership

Actually in my country, Norway, we call it partnership. The main difference is that gay couples cannot adopt kids.

[Swamp Rat]

53. Hêia

Velkomen!

[freestyle]

45. Because civil marriage is what states license and certify

and holy matrimony is what goes on in churches, and different religions probably have different terms. The state has no business treating people differently simply due to the gender of the partners involved. That is discrimination. What is problematic is that at some point clergy began acting as agents of the state, blurring the lines between the civil and religious ceremonies. The separation of church and state needs to be restored and civil marriage must be equal.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

48. why not call in blatant discrimination when it is just that?

why pretend god has anything to do with this?

[GinaMaria]

50. Because what I have is a marriage

I married my husband in a secular civil service. While it is a legal union, it is also a marriage. We actually used part of an ancient pre church (read pagan) Celtic ceremony called hand fasting. Religeons do not own the word 'Marriage'. No one not you, the government or anyone else gets to define my relationship with my husband. What we have is a marriage.

[greekspeak]

52. This is not a semantic argument

The moment you set up the semantic domain "union" next to "marriage" they become competetors, different, opposed. Human nature likes to rank, rate and pigeon hole such relationships. One soon becomes better or preferable. If gay unions and heterosexual marriages are to be equal, we cannot start the process off with value judgements.

[Clintmax]

54. You got it!

And THIS is the very reason it should be called MARRIAGE.

[intheflow]

55. Civil vs. Religious

The question shouldn't be debating the meaning of marriage , it should be about civil (public, secular) vs. religious (private, faith-based).

Homosexuality is only an issue to the religious right.

So don't allow gays to get married in your church/denomination.

But leave the rest of us alone.