I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'

I've been watching this, Dan, and you're doing GREAT! We're going to win this battle one day, and it'll be in no small part because of people like you. Thanks so much!You've made every point I would have wanted to make, but there's one small detail that I'd like to add. If I may interrupt for just a sec...Catholic Scientist wrote:

quote:

---

Even if you don't legally define marriage at all, because that's what marriage is, with no extra definitions attached to it.

---

Not according to Mirriam-Webster, which offers as one of its primary definitions of marriage:

---

W.W.E.D.?

schrafinator writes:

quote:

---

Unless you can show me some kind of real data or stats or anything substantive that indicates that lots of fraud would be likely, I just don't buy your reasoning for denying marriage to gays.

---

I agree, and I'm going to repeat an assertion I made in another thread, to which IIRC holmes disagreed: I find it very difficult to believe that two heterosexual men are going to enter a sham marriage with each other, granting conjugal rights to each other and necessitating a divorce before either could enter a straight marriage, just so they can save a bit of money on health insurance. With the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies offering domestic partner benefits to gay employees, it seems to me that it'd be easier to take advantage of such a thing now than it would be once gay marriage is legalized. And unless I'm very much mistaken, this has already been borne out in Massachusetts, where most companies have discontinued domestic partner benefits since marriage is now available to gays.

---

W.W.E.D.?

holmes writes dan:

quote:

---

While CS hasn't brought it up, does the 14th amendment work to protect all these other types of marriage as you argue it should cover gays? If not, why not?

---

I've given this a lot of thought since you brought it up with me a few years ago, and I must say you make a damn good case and one I've begun to lean toward. The only thing I can come up with to refute you would be that the state might have a legitimate interest in limiting next-of-kin to either one's parents or just one spouse. I can see where multiple next-of-kins (or would that be nexts-of-kin?) could create problems with regard to notification in case of death or serious injury, or in cases where a decision about medical treatment must be made. Perhaps a better legal distinction between 'spouse' and 'next-of-kin' is needed.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Catholic Scientist asks holmes:

quote:

---

Don't you think there is a better way?

---

I do. Civil unions only! The government recognizes nothing else, straight or gay. Leave the word 'marriage' to be bestowed by the churches as they see fit.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Catholic Scientist asks me:

quote:

---

What about all those laws that are already revolving around "marriage"?

---

They'll simply revolve around civil unions instead. If you mean what to do about the use of the word 'marriage' in the legal code, the law establishing civil unions would simply require that future editions of the legal code replace the word 'marriage' with 'civil union', with all rights and obligations unchanged. If you're talking about legal forms that reference 'marriage', the law could simply require that the word 'marriage' be understood by law to mean 'civil union'. A grace period could be allowed during which forms already printed could continue to be used.

---

W.W.E.D.?

You know, CS, this argument you're making, with a bit of help from holmes on at least one point, could just as easily have been made against miscegenation (as I'm certain it was). I mean, if whites are only allowed to marry other whites, for instance, then they could only engage in sham marriages to other whites.So should we outlaw miscegenation?

---

W.W.E.D.?

See how easy that was? And yet everyone says that no one would ever go for this. I've found lots of people willing to go for it. The only ones who aren't (that I know of personally) are fundamentalists. Every Catholic I've mentioned it to thinks it's a good idea. Must be something in the holy water.

---

W.W.E.D.?

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

One can argue that gays don't necessarily have to have children...

---

They will, one way or another. Seems to me the solution would be to designate one party as the legal equivalent of a maternal parent.

---

W.W.E.D.?

I would have waited quite a bit longer before I accused you of being homophobic about it. You seemed to me to be reaching for a fair solution so I proposed one. I'm delighted you liked it.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Try to be patient with them, CS. If you had jumped into one of these gay marriage threads soon after the last election I'd have bitten your head off from the first post. We gays were demonized mercilessly by right-wingers during that campaign and our nerves were raw (not all of the right-wingers of course, there are the odd Neil Boortz's around, but they didn't speak up much). Some of us just associated any opposition as coming straight from a Santorum-type bigot. It took a while to get over it, and some of us still haven't gotten over it. So please, just be patient.

---

W.W.E.D.?

holmes asks me:

quote:

---

What is your opinion of "log cabin" republicans?

---

Oh God, where do I begin!?! I suppose by saying that I've voted republican in the past myself, but that was long ago and it's not likely to happen again any time soon.They claim to stand absolutely in favor of gay marriage. Some of them, like Andrew Sullivan (although he abandoned them last election and voted for Kerry), are quite articulate in arguing the case. In fact, it was Sullivan who was the first I remember making a strong case for gay marriage. It was in a piece for Time magazine back when Clinton had taken office and was pushing for gays in the military. Sullivan argued, quite persuasively, that marriage should come first. Once that was accomplished, he felt that military service and other equality issues would fall into place over time with little resistance.I think their numbers have dwindled since 2004, but I don't know for sure. I don't pay much attention to them, although I do check Sullivan's blog from time to time.

---

W.W.E.D.?

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

I'd have liked to see that argument. I don't understand it myself.

---

Yeah, I wish I'd saved it. But you know how magazines are, you read 'em and toss 'em.It was a kind of "other side of the mountain" argument, as I recall. Sullivan felt that marriage would be the hardest mountain of all to climb, but that once we'd climbed it we'd have only to go downhill from there.

---

W.W.E.D.?

I love ya' schraf, but in all honesty I don't think he meant it that way. I saw that myself but passed on commenting because I'm honestly trying to resolve the issue rather than inflame it further. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, and unless and until he says something else insensitive and/or dismissive I would ask that everyone else on my side try to do the same.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Okay, we crossed posts here, and in this case I think you're making a valid point. I don't think the conservatives have considered a single potential negative consequence of anything they've done since 1994.

---

W.W.E.D.?