More Gay Marriage Debate

Lorraine talks about why she supports civil unions, but not marriage, for gay couples. My response follows:

Education

So we can’t call it “marriage” purely because some people are unable to understand that marriage has multiple definitions and multiple meanings (state and religion)? Seems like we’re catering to the ill-informed and education is a better medicine. It really seems to me that the majority of the population doesn’t understand the difference between a state-recognized marriage and a church-recognized one.

Even fewer are aware of the supreme court cases that define exactly what separation of church and state is. I cite the Lemon Test in about every post about religion, but I’ll do it again:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”

Dictionary definition

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Marriage also is the following:

• The state of being married; wedlock.
• A common-law marriage.
• A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
• A close union: â��the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comicsâ�� (Lloyd Rose).
• Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

Legal definition

“Heather has Twenty Mommies and One Daddy?” - you’ve got to be kidding, Lorraine. There is no way that gay marriage will lead to other marriages involving family members, animals, or multiple partners. It’s so easy to define marriage as something that includes gay couples but excludes those other things that it’s not even worth bringing that argument up (though if someone isn’t able to do the critical thinking about it, I’ll gladly help you understand).

Gay Elite

Regarding the “Gay Elite”, I’m not sure who they are, but it sounds like you’ve been listening to the Republican talking points a little too much. Sounds quite a bit like the “Liberal Elite” and the “Elite Media” to me. You know, one of those phrases that when the new talking points come out you’ll ever every talking head on the talk shows repeating ad-nauseum. Regardless, I lived in San Francisco and those “Gay Elite” never pushed for teaching anything other than the law (or their proposed law) in public schools. So I can tell you that “Heather has One Daddy and a ‘Special Pet’?” is not what a those “Gay Elite” I know would propose teaching.

Lorraine, I have to say, I’m happy that you support civil unions for gay people and are willing to break from the Republican platform. You said yourself these people want to settle down, but then you go and say that they want to force their way on everyone. Well which is? Do they want to be covert or overt? And if there are a couple bad apples, as there are in every group, you’ve got to be able to distinguish them from those that really just want marriage, which is the argument at hand.

Separate but equal

Under your proposal we end up with two names (civil union and marriage) recognized by the state which are equal in nature? Doesn’t that seem both redundant and frighteningly similar to “separate but equal”? Of course, we can’t just remove marriage from the state laws, because then married couples will get pissed off. But if we don’t call it the same thing, we head down the path of “separate but equal” again — this time separate definitions that are supposedly equal.

Plus, think of the overhead law-makers will have to go through now. Instead of writing laws for “married couples”, they now have to use the phrase “married couples or civil unions”. What a pain in the ass! We do want a smaller government right? Why should we have to administer two things that are exactly the same thing? If I were running a company that did that, I would fire the person who came up with that money-draining idea.

Unhinging morality

Give them their legal rights, but don’t cause another chaotic scene in religion. Don’t unhinge morality.

What does this mean? I assume you mean, “don’t try to make religions accept marriage”. I don’t believe anyone has proposed that. This is a state issue and religion isn’t really part of the argument (for gay people, at least). I agree that gay couples should take the battle with their church if they want, but it has nothing to do with state laws.

Check out my last post for a couple of good threads on religion and its place in the state.