In the various debates I have read about gay marriage a few people have mentioned that they do not have a problem with gay unions, but they want the word "marriage" to be reserved for heterosexual couples.



How do queer people feel about this?



If there was a legal institution known as a "union" that was legally identical to "marriage" would you be happy or would you feel like you were short changed?

I don't think that seperate but equal is a good way to go.

I agree with mikie. I don't like it.

If it was really about semantics, then my arguement makes more sense:

I think the difference in definition between 'marriage under God' and 'marriage under the law' is more significant than 'gay' or 'hetero' marriage.



Two non-religious women get married by a justice of the peace. A non-religious man and woman get married by a justice of the peace. Same thing.



Two Christian men get married by a pastor. A Christian man and woman get married by a pastor. Same thing- the people feel it's the same thing-getting God's blessing to commit to each other their love...yadda yadda. Whether or not thier particular church condones it is up to the church.



My point is that it makes more sense that the word 'marriage' should be reserved for people who believe in God, and all us athiests or agnostics should be joined in 'civil unions.'



That's how I see it, at least for the Christian religion. I cannot comment on other religions, because I don't know what they consider 'marriage' to be.



This is why I think the whole debate about gay marriage is BS. It has nothing to do with 'marriage', it's just about fear.



I hope that made some sense...

Only the U.S. Mint makes cents

I'd like to hear these people define the distinction and why they believe civil unions are ok but marriage is not.



personally, I think the "civil unions are ok but not marriage" excuse is a bunch of rhetoric that people have adopted to try & hide prejudice against l/g/b's. Kind of like the "I'm not racist, but" preface to a racist statement.

Marriage is marriage. Fair is fair. These are humans who deserve the same rights as all other humans. To marry. To have children. To be there for each other at the hospital. To inherit each other's things when they die. All of it. Religion has too prominent a place in American legalities like marriage. It is a civil union in the government's eyes but is called marriage. Everyone should be allowed to do it if they want to. Married people tend to be solid taxpayers. They tend to provide stable homes for their children. It is to be encouraged. God is not in charge of the government. Supposedly WE are. Let's attempt to treat everyone equally. Enough with half-measures that appease the freaked-out religious right. Gay people did not just occur ten years ago. They have been here all along. As long as there have been humans. Attempting to achieve all the dreams that heteros have of home and family and love. I wish some of us would just get over the fact of their existence and end this last bit of flagrant discrimination so we can get to work on the less flagrant but still all-too-real discriminations still tarnishing this wonderful country.



Steps off soapbox to go make dinner.



d

There arguments were roughly that "marriage" is a religious institution defined by their church and defined to be a hetero union. While these people wanted gays to have a legally/socially recognizable union they felt that having "gay marriages" was a matter of people redefining their religion for them.

You should be banned, just for that reallllly bad joke



My dad is one of those people who thinks it should be legally equal, but not called marriage. I completely disagree. I don't think seperate but equal is at all wise. Nobodys saying the Church has to go and change what it defines as marriage, even though there's no legitimate reason to say it's for het. couples only.

My thought is this: If we are going to call them "Civil Unions", and call all hetero marriages "Civil Unions" too, fine. I don't care what the government calls them. If this helps some people seperate law from religion, so be it. I personally don't get it, but whatever.



For the government to have two different names is a really bad idea. It just begs for prejudice. Like said above, seperate but equal has been proven to be bad already. Someday, our grandchildren will look in the history books and wonder how people could have been so bigotted.

I agree- and if this is their argument- that 'marriage' is a religious institution defined by the church- then I should never be considered married (I am straight) because I am totally non-religious and would not feel blessed by God. Yet, I would be considered married by the law- and the church would not argue this. Therefore, it is hypocritical for religious people to accept someone like me being 'married', since I go against their definition, but then they use the definition excuse to argue against gay marriage.



And if they are ok with me getting 'married' legally, then they should admit that there are already two different definitions of marriage, and therefore, gays should be able to marry under the legal definition of marriage. If the church does not want to let gay people get married under the religious definition, **** 'em, the church is allowed to discriminate- isn't that it's purpose- but the law isn't.



p.s. if someone understands what I am saying and can put it more eloquently, I would appreciate that. People I talk to about this don't understand my angle because I'm not good at making things clear, even though in my head I make perfect sense!

I believe that gay marriage should be allowed, but that if a church chooses not to marry a gay couple that is their right and they should not be forced to allow it. Many churches wouldn't marry my Mom and Dad because one is Catholic and the other Baptist, and I think churches have the right to make these distinctions as private organizations.

Nontheless, I think the courts/governments should honor the rights of gay people to be married. Separate but equal was ruled constitutionally NOT OK...we can't just choose where we want that to apply and where we would rather leave it out.

maybe i'm naive. i just don't see what the big deal is. i want to marry a woman who treats me wonderfully and who I love to death. why the F*CK is it anyone else's business?

The issue, prarie girl, is basically the religious and societial concept that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, under God. There may just be more people in the U.S. who believe this and also who feel it is something vital to protect. I disagree, but no man is an island- we are all, more or less, subject to the ideas, beliefs, and dogmas of the societies we live in.

I am not totally sure how I feel about homosexuality, even though I am in favor for gay marriage. Its not easy for everyone, for a lot of people homosexuality isn't an easy concept to grasp and it threatens what people believe about things. This causes a hostile response. I'm not saying this to be hostile towards you in the least- I just think that until people take time to understand both sides of an argument and be open minded in that way, positive solutions/understandings will be difficult to come by.

This drives me insane. No privileges should be reserved for heterosexuals, even if it's just a word. That goes against everything America is supposed to stand for. (Hello, equal rights? Separation of church and state?)



Either it's all civil unions or it's all marriage, as far as I'm concerned. I want my friends and family members to have the same rights I do. I don't care how anyone feels about homosexuality--no one's feelings should have any bearing on what is fundamentally an issue of equal rights.

why is marriage such a privilege? What difference does it make if you're 'officially' married or not? This is not a statement of my opinion, it's an honest question. I'm not married, nor have I ever met anyone worth marrying, so I don't understand why some people do it, especially those who are totally non-religious. What extra meaning does it give?

I assume you understand about the legal rights of married couples versus unmarried, right? Married status confers legal and financial benefits for taxes, retirement, property ownership, inheritance, insurance rates, family and medical care, even car rentals. Let's not forget adoption, child custody, and sponsorship of a non-American partner.



The "extra meaning" is all yours to bring to the idea of being married. As an atheist I don't really believe in the holy union part but I can understand people wanting to declare a lasting commitment to each other in front of friends and family. I think lasting commitements are too few and far between in this world. I would like to see such commitments encouraged in all people, gay or straight. I say this as a divorced person too !



d

I agree.

me too

As usual, I can't remember my sources to back myself up on this.



I heard a while back, on NPR, some people talking about this exact topic. I think I remember one of them saying that civil union does NOT offer all of the same benefits as marriage in all states and that even in the ones where it does, that could change. Sooooo, even if people start out with civil unions being the same thing as marriage with only the difference of religious blessing, the law could be later changed in regard to the equal legal status of civil unions and marriage.



Hmmmmmm.



Words are important, I think.



Sunny

Superjane, I think you did a fine job, and I couldn't agree more. I am a Christian and I was married inside a Church. Now, I'm sure there are religions and beliefs that would say my marriage isn't "real" or valid. Fine, so be it. So long as the government doesn't get involved, I could care less.