Discussion on Same-Sex Marriage: State, Federal, Community

J-Rod, so far your only argument to demonstrate how same sex marriages would devalue yours is some crappy reference to caviar which has already been summarily debunked. Thus everyone's waiting for you to make a new argument that might actually be able to hold water.

Furthermore, even if there were same sex marriages, you would still be able to reap all our legal benefits. The only concieveable way your marriage could be "cheapened" would be in your own mind. Not legal. In addition, there's many heterosexual marriages that I would say cheapen the entire concept of marriage far more than any two people of the same sex. The one I posted earler: Brittany Spears is a perfect example. So are all these TV marriage games. And what about all the marriages that are done for the wrong reasons, namely some guy knocks up his girlfriend and even though he was about to dump her ass, ends up being forced to marry her? To me, those are pretty cheap marriages that devalue the entire concept. But two people that truly love one another, regardless of sex, should be allowed to marry.

 

Risa said...In addition, there's many heterosexual marriages that I would say cheapen the entire concept of marriage far more than any two people of the same sex.

I catagoricly agree with that statement.

so far your only argument to demonstrate how same sex marriages would devalue yours is some crappy reference to caviar which has already been summarily debunked.

It has not been debunked. You just fail to realize that value is value, weather it is monitary, religious, sentamental or emotional.

But it was a crappy referance.

EDIT: Read my posts! I never once said it would devalue my marriage.

It would devalue future marriages.

 

I really really really want this to be a civil discourse. I want to understand the position of those against SSM, and I want help those same people to understand my position.

But I'm not strong enough to resist: J-Rod: Matt.22:23-33. By your definition you put more value into marriage than God.

I am enough of a romantic to belive in a connection that transcends life. However the social contract aspect of marriage, what is recognized by the state, ends at death. This avenue is driving us off topic.

Back to the cheapening of marriage, how can something who's value is intrinsic be effected by an exclusivity?

 

J-Rod posted on 3/9/05 9:38pm

---

It has not been debunked. [hr][/blockquote] Yes. It was pointed out how flawed the whole thing was since it assumes that marriage has value because it's rare. But marriage is not rare.

[blockquote][link=http://boards.theforce.net/user.asp?usr=J-Rod][b]J-Rod[/b][/link] [b]posted on 3/9/05 9:38pm[/b][hr]It would devalue future marriages. [hr][/blockquote] Only in your mind. Legally, future marriages would still enjoy the same benefits.

And if you're going to argue that man and woman were [i]meant[/i] to marry, that implies an intelligent power. Thus God says it's supposed to be this way. Believe that if you want. Then in that case, the marriages wouldn't be equal in the eyes of God. But that's not what anyone's asking for.

If you believe same sex marriage is a sin, remember, it's not your place to prevent that. God gave us free will. If we choose sin, that's our business. Not yours.

So again, legally, therew would be no difference. In God's eyes, it's his judgement which the bible tells us is His [i]exclusive[/i] power. So really, the only party left that really could have any objection would be you, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean that everyone has to follow suit.

I don't like taxes. But I can't see them going away. :(

 

It was not that long ago that here in the State of California, that the state was not required to recognize inter-Racial marriages. Specifically, the State did not recognize marriages between white women and minority's specifically untill court decisions and the legislatures stepped in.

Moral and religious reasons aside, there are some extremely important civil right precedents that were fought long and hard for in the Civil Rights movement, that will be trampled on if we ban same sex marriage.

Which is why I have such a hard time taking a position either way on this subject.

 

The unit of the family will be threatened by the PC brigde. Not too sure about the US but in many euopean countries we give tax breaks to families, there is the suggestion that these tax breaks should also be given to co-habiting couples (same and different sex). This would increase the likelyhood of non married couples as there would be no incentive to form a family, and in some cases would tax the family more, as in alot of cases a family unit will have the mother at home while the father works.

 

I don't think too many people really marry because of a few tax breaks. The largest reason is because two people love one another.

 

So, using your own logic again, does that mean that when a husband becomes unable to perform due to age or illness they are no longer married?

No, that is not my logic; however that is precisely my point. Is marriage just about sex? Is sex then just about procreation? You have been arguing that marriage is about procreation. Is sex therefore the core attribute of marriage? And should marriage be granted only to those who have sex, since you claim procreation is a core attribute? Of course not. So, if sex is not the core attribute for marriage, how can procreation as a result of sex be a core attribute? That is to say, if people are premitted to marry who cannot or choose to not procreate, how then can the argument be given that marriage is about procreation?

But Downs can be the result of procreation between patients. In that case it is preventable yet not illegal.

Only 3 to 5% of cases are inherited; the rest arise as an accident of chromosome arrangement during meiosis. Also, it should be noted that women with DS are fertile. Men with DS have traditionally been considered sterile; however, there have been two documented cases of adult men with DS fathering children. The children were not born with DS.
Therefore, preventing the marriage and potential procreation of two adults with DS statistically no affect on the number of DS cases each year. This means that that under due process of law, there is no just cause to prevent two consenting adults with DS from marrying.

Knowledge is a wonderful thing.

Hey, can't a marriage contract be written to include more than 2 people? The Constitution is about freedom, after all.

Only if the contract omits the one and only mandated element, that of the solemn promise to be exclusively committed to your spouse. There is no logical or emotional way to be exclusively committed to two or more people, because such a committment is not "exclusive".

Take away that solem promise, and you destroy the very concept of marriage. SSM maintains that solemn promise, and therefor does not harm the concept of marriage. Thus, SSM can in no way be compared to or used as precedent for polygamy or polygyny.

Again, by whose definition? See, if SSM can survive these agrguements, so can polygamy.

How can polygamy survive the arguments I stated? Specifically: "Marriage is a promise to remain committed to one person for life. Every marriage in the United States is founded on this one promise--everything else said in vows are variables dictated by the individual couples."

When you say "By whose definition?" are you saying that you do not believe that A "quality" marriage is universally defined as a loving, committed, intimate relationship between two adults by American standards?

Yet there were many others who simply worked harder to have a happy marriage. What's your point?

This argument suggests that no married couples work harder to have a happy marriage. You cite this as I note the amount of cases of marital abuse and loveless marriages, and the countless cases of forced adoptions of infants of single mothers. Are you saying that you would prefer to return to these tactics? How does this strengthen marriage or in any way benefit children?

Yes, because of real Constitutional issues. Remember that answer so I can finally quit having to give it.

How is it a real constitutional issue for some classes of couples, but somehow not for others? That is inequality without due process, as the WA Superior courts ruled, and therefor unconstitutional.

Already gave that answer a million times. Go look it up and please don't ask it again.

The only answer you have provided is: Marriage must be excluesive. If it isn't excluesive, then it is cheapened and not as important. You then de

 

Green_Jedi33: It just stands to reason that those who embrace gay marriage and the rearing of children within, could be depriving a child of a healthier upbringing.

You asked for any negative impact gay marriage could have on society, etc., and every time I offer what might be such a thing, words are put in my mouth, and some posters use gross sarcasm which is only insulting and makes me not want to offer .02 at all.

But what I'm asking you is: are same-sex couples when married the only case in which a child could (though I emphatically argue against this notion) deprive a child of a healthier upbringing? The clear answer is no.

First, same-sex partners are already permitted to raise children. They do so despite a much more legally destabilized and arduous family environment than other families who are permitted to codify their relationships in marriage, because they specifically lack the 1,049 benefits, rights, protections and responsibilities granted without question or hesitation to families of married heterosexuals.

Second, that a marriage is heterosexual in dynamic does not guarantee that a child will be raise in a healthy environment. Children in cases of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse come from families of heterosexual marriages. Children in cases of neglect are come from families of heterosexual marriages.

In 100% of all cases where children are raised with a "healthy" upbringing, they come from families that wanted them, respected them, and were parents to them. This includes children of homosexual couples.

I'm not making any judgements here.

Then provide your case studies that prove that children raised by married homosexual couples are not raised with a "healthy upbringing".

J-Rod: The marriage of my grandparents will live at least until I die. It was from them that I've learned how to treat my wife.
It was from them that I learned how I should be treated by my wife.

Notice what you are saying:
You learned how to treat your wife.
You learned how to be treated by your wife.

You are talking about a legacy of of emotional behavior. Do same-sex couples not have the capacity to treat their spouses the same way as your grandparents? Have you believe this, what evidence can you provide for this argument?

A childless marriage can be satifying. But if there are no children, there is no legacy, IMO.

Yet some heterosexual marriages do not carry on this legacy. how then can a "legacy" be a core attribute that identifies when a marriage should be granted if it is not mandatory?

See, marriage has already been cheapened for you, if that is what you believe...

...Well, it would at least seem that I put more value into marriage than these guys.
They believe in gay marriage.
I believe it devalues marriage.
Can nobody see any connection here that at least supports my view, if not proves it altogether?

Do you really want to go down this road?
You are now arguing that SSM devalues current marriages, not future marriages, as you previously argued. You say that because I believe SSM should be granted, I put less value in marriage (remember that I am married). Yet earlier you admitted that your and my marriage would not be affected by SSM; that it would harm future marriages.

So which is it? Who can judge the value of my marriage but myself and my wife? Who can judge the value of your marriage? By what justification do you therefor judge my marriage to be of held in less value than any other?

So that you are aware, my marriage consists of a solemn promise between my spouse and I to remain committed exclusively to each other and to honor each other alone in matrimony as partners in a family for the rest of our lives. Neither of us have broken that promise.

How then does my marriage have less value wh

 

I want to try to divert the discussion a little bit. I have an important question that no one has been able to answer to my satisfaction.

Why all the fuss?

By this, I mean why is there such a push to completely redefine marriage? Yes, it is redefining it, because marriage has for centuries been understood to be between a man and a woman. The same people who claim that our common law heritage comes from Europe then turn outside of that heritage to find the few examples that exist of customs similar to same-sex marriage in other cultures.

If the fuss is really over rights, and simplifying the process for gaining similar/equal rights, why not push for civil unions? The push for calling it marriage creates a significant amount of blowback that pushes many moderates away. Consider the reactions to the illegal "marriages" in San Francisco that led to 11 states passing laws or amendments against same-sex marriage, and led to the defeat of a civil union measure in California.

As Shakespeare wrote, "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." If it is about the rights involved, why make such a fuss over the name?

By focusing on the term marriage, especially by trying to force states to expand their marraige laws and redefine marriage, it creates unnecessary opposition, and makes the final goal even harder to achieve. May trying to force a redefinition of marraige, a term which has many religious connotations as well as secular ones, it creates the impression (real or not) that it is religion that is being attacked, and that there are plans to force churches to accept same-sex marriage despite their own doctrines to the contrary.

Yes, I know that one of the first responses is to claim that "separate but equal is not equal", but that argument by itself doesn't explain why the focus has to be on the term marriage.

Consider that if the focus were placed on the rights themselves, the society would come to redefine the term "marriage" on its own, without the blowback.

For example, most of the rights that gays want through marraige can already be provided through other means. Wills can be set up to designate inheritance matters. Medical directives and living wills can provide instructions and access relating to medical care. Powers of Attorney can give authority in legal and medical matters. Corporations can be formed to simplify property matters.

However, all of those matters are simplified through marriage. Why not focus on simplifying the process for other couples? Make it easier to designate individuals who can have access to you similar to family in the hospital. Make it easier to designate an heir (although it is still a good idea to have a will made up).

Work towards civil unions and society will treat them as marriages. Does the name matter all that much?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball - No one would like more than me to see the societal and legal components of such unions separated. In fact, I would strongly prefer that heterosexual unions not carry the legal name of "marriage." So to that extend I'm with you.

However, I'm opposed to encoding a separate class of union for homosexuals into the law. My reason is that doing so would provide a positive reassertion and reinforcement of difference. It would be entering into the law a statement that the nature or quality of a union between members of the same sex is different from that of the opposite sex. Any considerations of whether or not separate unions would be legal aside, to make the idea of difference an essential part of legal structure is principally wrong.

I'd love to grant homosexuals legal civil unions, so long as that's what heterosexuals are granted, too. If I can't get that, then marriages for both is the second-best option. But I simply think it wrong (and possibly an idea with dangerous implications for the future) to establish a legal differentiation between two types of otherwise equivalent unions, which is why I can't support homosexual civil unions as a good choice so long as heterosexual legal marriages stand so named.

Whatever the outcome, I'll work all the harder to encourage people to accept homosexuals as married in every sense of the word societally. But that's a separate issue from the law for me.

-Paul

 

Why all the fuss?

That's a very good question, KK. Thanks for asking. You cite many points; let me know if I miss any in my response:

Why are a select few calling for equal rights through SSM? (whether you are agree or not that the issue is of equal rights, this is what is being called for by those like myself and the 19 plaintiffs in the case currently before the WASC)

There is but one "core" reason. Currently in the United States, 1,049 federal and more than 200 state rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities are granted without hesitation and without legal contention to couples choosing to solidify their family dynamic (whether just a couple or a couple intended to raise children, or any myriad variation of the family recognized in the United States today) through the act of marriage. In the act of this codified marriage, the family is legally stabilized by these 1,249+ articles, which include such basic family needs as joint parenting rights and joint insurance policies for home, auto, and health.

Concurrently, in the United States today, there are recognized and established family environments that are denied the opportunity to be stabilzed by these 1,249+ articles, thereby forcing a recognized yet unwarranted hardships upon these families. These hardships are incurred solely on the basis of a couple's combined genders.

If the fuss is really over rights, and simplifying the process for gaining similar/equal rights, why not push for civil unions?

Only because our system of law has established that separate is not equal. Likewise, "similar" is not equal. The argument before the WASC is whether or not the denial of civil marriages to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. Just as Jim Crow Laws were unconstitutional, so too are laws calling for separate classes of codified civil marriages/unions. These laws would by definition create separate classes of citizens, which is a direct violation of our federal and WA state constitutions.

...it creates the impression (real or not) that it is religion that is being attacked, and that there are plans to force churches to accept same-sex marriage despite their own doctrines to the contrary.

However, currently, churches are not forced by the state to accept marriages they choose not to perform or recognize. Many catholic churches, for example, do not recognize re-marriages after divorce, and often refuse to marry these couples until after the divorcee has had their previous marriage "annulled", rather than "divorced". In many cases, this would then mean that children from previous marriages would be seen by the church as "illegitimate", a label that some families will not tolerate, and so they seek re-marriage through other churches, or directly through the state in "civil marriages".

In order to maintain the equality of classes for marriage, while maintaining the desired definition of marriage by religious groups, the government would need to redefine all civil marriages as "civil unions", leaving the term marriage for religious unions only. Note that all 1,249+ articles are granted by "civil" marriage, not religious ceremony.

Consider that if the focus were placed on the rights themselves, the society would come to redefine the term "marriage" on its own, without the blowback.

This same rationale was the foundation of Jim Crow laws. "Black people have the equal right to drink from a drinking fountain, so give them their own drinking fountains to use." This rationale did not stand up in law as accorded in the US Constistution.

In the case of the state of Washington, the question right now is not whether or not to create a new classification such as "civil union", but whether or not the current and only classification of civil marriage is denying rights of one class of citizen without due process of the law. The issue of instituting a second class of union is not for the court to dec

 

My man Chev answered pretty nicely, but I'll give it a shot. Before I do, I would like all my fellow liberal friends to take note that totally partisan and rabid Republican TripleB has a heart, that he understand the complexity of the issue and has even begun to change his thinking on the matter as a political issue, even if he still has his own beliefs as to the moral issue. My conservative friends, just as you lost the battle to allow for racial equality, just as you lost the battle to allow gender equality, you too will lose this battle because Americans move forward.

This is evidenced by the fact that no modern conservative can openly take the view that blacks and women shouldn't have equal rights. Your entire party has changed its tune, and I don't doubt that most of my conservative friends have no prejudice or ill will towards women or minorities. So will it be with the gay issue. Look how far we've moved the country already. These state constitutional amendments and DOMA's are a last grasp at the straws. They will fail, in time, and your children, even if they are of the most conservative variety, will be more liberal on this issue than even you. My own parents, especially my mom, who is a fairly consistent lefty, is still against gay marriage although she supports civil unions. But times they are a changin. It's easier to discriminate against people you don't see, but I think as TripleB found out, when you have a human face to deal with, it makes your outdated political beliefs that much harder to sustain.

Why all the fuss?

By this, I mean why is there such a push to completely redefine marriage? Yes, it is redefining it, because marriage has for centuries been understood to be between a man and a woman. The same people who claim that our common law heritage comes from Europe then turn outside of that heritage to find the few examples that exist of customs similar to same-sex marriage in other cultures.

-Just because something has been done for centuries doesn't make it right. This is a weak argument. Marriage has already been redefined, Kimball, don't be naive. Divorce is readily available, and that has negative AND positive consequences. Furhtermore, the man is no longer the chief executive of a marriage, as was the custom nearly anywhere in the world until the last fifty or sixty years or so. In my marriage survey, the overwhelming number of people considered marriage to be an equal partnership, even the conservative ones.

If the fuss is really over rights, and simplifying the process for gaining similar/equal rights, why not push for civil unions? The push for calling it marriage creates a significant amount of blowback that pushes many moderates away. Consider the reactions to the illegal "marriages" in San Francisco that led to 11 states passing laws or amendments against same-sex marriage, and led to the defeat of a civil union measure in California.

-Consider the fact that most of the people that are against gay marriage also oppose civil unions. I would settle for civil unions. But since it doesn't look like we are getting a settlement, I say gay marriage all the way.

As Shakespeare wrote, "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." If it is about the rights involved, why make such a fuss over the name?

Ditto. What's in a name? Why don't we get religion out of marriage all together? You know what I say, I say that the government should stop issuing marriage licenses alltogether. What's in a name? Why not call them domestic partnership licenses or civil unions? Why not let religous folk declare something a marriage, while the government gives a civil union type permit for gays and straights?

By focusing on the term marriage, especially by trying to force states to expand their marraige laws and redefine marriage, it creates unnecessary opposition, and makes the final goal even harder to achieve. May trying to force a redefinition of marraige, a term which has many religious connotations as well as secular one

 

My conservative friends, just as you lost the battle to allow for racial equality, just as you lost the battle to allow gender equality, you too will lose this battle because Americans move forward.

Robert (KKK) Burd is a conservative? Al Gore's dad (Whatshisname?) was a conservative? Whatever.

But, this will be my last post in this thread, as I can't seem to make my points clear. Either that or people are intentionally twisting my words.

'Sides, it's getting boring.

But mark my words, polygamy will follow, as will a higher divorce rate and a lower marriage rate. When it does, please be man enough to give me credit for being right, instead of "finding" a different reason for these events to happen.

 

I'd like to say we're having a decent discussion in here. Might I remind all of us to "Keep to the Code" so as not to derail the thread with bad form.

J-Rod, I'm sorry to see you leave. I've enjoyed the conversation (even though I've unfortunately not come to fully understand your position). I retract my previous post (timestamped 1:19pm today), as it was unfair to you.

 

I would like to point out that I ain't mad. I just seem to be unable to make the points in my head come out on my keyboard.

No hard feelings, bro.

 

Likewise, as always.

 

All right, my feelings on this are very, very tangled and twisted but I'll try to make a coherent case for my point-of-view.

I'm a Christian that is unsure whether homosexuality and lesbianism are genes or voluntary. My whole point is why should I care if another person gets married even if I don't argee morally with their decision?

Why am I to say to these individuals, "God tells me you're sinners, and, oh yeah, we have to perserve the traditional way of marriage for some vague reason"? They're free to live their own lives.

Right or wrong, the issue boils down to freedom. They're two consenting adults that are not harming or infringing upon mine or anybody else's right for that matter. Let them make their own mistakes.

I just can't see where people come off assuming they are at the liberty to tell other people that they can get married if they have certain desires for this gender but not for this one.

Enlighten me.

<[-]> Saber

 

I think we're wasting an awful lot of time on this in the US, personally.

Leave it to the states and local control. and the religions to sort out, and grant civil unions to all. It would satisfy equal protection, and give the control of marriage back to where it has been since time immemorial: the religions.

If you want to discuss a "threat to marriage", take a look at no-fault divorce laws.

Peace,

V-03

 

That has to be the sanest argument I've seen a Christian make thus far. Gratz.

 

My conservative friends, just as you lost the battle to allow for racial equality, just as you lost the battle to allow gender equality, you too will lose this battle because Americans move forward.

Why don't you can the inflammatory rhetoric, OWM. You don't need to bait people like that. My post was respectful of others' beliefs. Can't you do the same?

And this isn't a matter of conservative vs. liberals. Ever hear of John Kerry? Howard Dean? Are they conservatives? Last I checked, both of them supported civil unions but not gay marriages. This is an issue that crosses party and idealogical lines.

Just because something has been done for centuries doesn't make it right. This is a weak argument. Marriage has already been redefined, Kimball, don't be naive. Divorce is readily available, and that has negative AND positive consequences. Furhtermore, the man is no longer the chief executive of a marriage, as was the custom nearly anywhere in the world until the last fifty or sixty years or so. In my marriage survey, the overwhelming number of people considered marriage to be an equal partnership, even the conservative ones.

Divorce has been around for more than 2000 years as a component of marriage. After all, you can find references to it in the New Testament. That's hardly "redefining" marriage. However, marriage has always been, fundamentally, defined as being between a man and a woman. Even in the various polygamous setups the individual marriages have still been between one man and one woman (for example, a man with two wives would be married to both, but the wives would not be married to each other).

That's not being naive, that's a simple fact.

Consider the fact that most of the people that are against gay marriage also oppose civil unions. I would settle for civil unions. But since it doesn't look like we are getting a settlement, I say gay marriage all the way.

PPOR. From the polls that I've seen, the majority oppose gay marriage, but favor civil unions.

Ditto. What's in a name? Why don't we get religion out of marriage all together? You know what I say, I say that the government should stop issuing marriage licenses alltogether. What's in a name? Why not call them domestic partnership licenses or civil unions? Why not let religous folk declare something a marriage, while the government gives a civil union type permit for gays and straights?

I would have no problem with that, as I have stated repeatedly. However, there is a difference between that and having the courts expand the legal definition of marriage.

But this whole thing turns back on you. What's in a name? If they get all the same rights, what do you care what they call it?

For many people, the term marriage itself has a very special, even sacred, meaning. To have the courts forceably redefine the term comes across to them as an attack on their beliefs. Most people don't respond to well to such things. The polls about civil unions versus gay marriages show that important perception difference.

By focusing on the civil union aspect, it can help bridge that difference. You don't win people to your side by forcing things down their throats. If you can win them over gradually, you will face far less opposition and gain more of your goals in the long run.

Kimball Kinnison

 

For many people, the term marriage itself has a very special, even sacred, meaning. To have the courts forceably redefine the term comes across to them as an attack on their beliefs. Most people don't respond to well to such things. The polls about civil unions versus gay marriages show that important perception difference.

By focusing on the civil union aspect, it can help bridge that difference. You don't win people to your side by forcing things down their throats. If you can win them over gradually, you will face far less opposition and gain more of your goals in the long run.

Wait wait wait, win them over??? Would you want to "gradually win them over" if the government said Mormons weren't allowed to get married? Forget that, I don't give a crap about winning anyone over, I care about the end result, it's a simple matter of right and wrong.

Also why should we care about history? Why should I care how marriage was defined for the past few thousand years? For the last few thousand years slavery was fine, even the bible was cool with slavery, should we continue that for the sake of tradition? Or how about stoning? This issue is incredibly simple for me, I look at homosexuals and I can see that they love like I can love, they want to have the same rights and go through the same processes that heterosexuals can do. Who am I to tell them they can't? How would that affect my heterosexual marriage? Marriage is a personal, and will always be a personal thing, my future marriage will not be define by what happens with everyone else in the world. If the divorce rate was 99% and the rest of the world regarded it as antiquated, I wouldn't care, because to ME that marriage is an official recognition of the love that I share with my partner.

I'm just continually boggled by all those against gay marriage. One day people are going to look back and the fight against it is going to be another stain on our history. It seems like after the thousands and thousands of stains we already have people would learn...but I guess that's just not possible.

 

I believe (and hope) the gay community will eventually get the right to marry in the US. Perhaps not today, this year or even this decennium, but it took a while for other races to get the same rights as white people, or for women to get the same rights as men.
Perhaps you Americans aren't ready for it yet, but I'm happy I'm a Belgian, we had this discussion some years ago and now we're all happy it's over, and I'm happy I'll be able to marry another guy.
I think when more countries aprove SSM, it will become more accepted in general and if the US is still behind by then, they'll soon follow the rest.

Edit: you said it, Cyprusg

 

Wait wait wait, win them over??? Would you want to "gradually win them over" if the government said Mormons weren't allowed to get married? Forget that, I don't give a crap about winning anyone over, I care about the end result, it's a simple matter of right and wrong.

Then, you are basically saying that the word marraige is far more important than the rights that go with the institution.

It is often better to not go for "all or nothing". As an example, there was a large movement for ending slavery at the time of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, it was one of the points that nearly ended the entire endeavor before it was started. However, cooler heads prevailed, the anti-slavery parts were removed, and they decided to focus on one step at a time.

Which is more important, the rights or the word? Right now, there is a lot more support for supplying the rights without the word, and the battle would be a lot easier. By trying to force it all at once, it runs the risk of denying everything.

Kimball Kinnison

 

KK, do you contend the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is the name?