what if the certificate said "gay marriage license"?

And, of course, this is the problem with "civil unions": they're not called "marriage."

Now, I wouldn't use any of the conventional terms for heterosexual sex to describe gay sex, so I'm understandably reluctant to let activists start redefining other traditionally heterosexual terms just to stuff an agenda down the public's throat. 

Even so, I recognize a legitimate equal protection claim on the part of gays -- they have real challenges getting their partners recognized as next-of-kin.

What's interesting here is that I believe support for civil unions -- and thus for addressing the equal protection issue -- is high even if the public doesn't want to call it marriage.  Gays who are holding out for marriage are not helping the cause of gays who need the legal remedy of civil union.  Even worse, that legitimate claim is jeopardized by the implication that this is really all about social engineering.

English is what's known as a "natural language."  Dictionaries don't tell us how to speak it; they simply document how it's spoken.  That said, when was the last time you can remember government being used to redefine a word you use all the time?  Was it 1984?

Comments

[Leo]

I'm conflicted about posting this, because it is somewhat off topic, but what the hey. I remember reading something by Steven Den Beste ages ago on the topic of Equal Protection for gay marriage. He made a convincing (to me) case that it is not an issue of Equal Protection, citing the fact that laws should be applied objectively rather than subjectively. Basically, it's irrelevant that only a gay man wants to marry a man and a only a straight man wants to marry a woman. Both are allowed to marry a woman and neither is allowed to marry a man, and that's what matters.

Rereading his journal all these years later, I have to say I still agree with the basic premise. I don't have a horse in the race, so I'm fine with same sex marriage being legalized anywhere it's affirmed by the voters, but I think the equal protection argument is a tad flimsy. But then again, I'm hardly a constitutional scholar.

Here's the article, which I managed to dig up via google.

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/07/ObjectiveorSubjectiveequa.shtml

[John Galt]

I think I understand the premise; perhaps I'll have time to read the link later.

The problem is that we all want to be able to allow our closest companion to look after our affairs if the unthinkable happens. By law this falls on our closest relative, typically a spouse.

Gays cannot make their partners "relatives" under the laws of most states, and in all states that I have looked at where this is the case, some aspect or another of survivorship does not fall upon their closest loved one the same way it would fall upon a spouse.

That is simply wrong. And it's worsened by the fact that some vocal activists will only accept that the remedy to this be legally known as "marriage." If they would allow the relationships to be known as civil unions, this would have been resolved years ago.

[Leo]

I think the semantics of the whole "marriage" thing is just a pissing contest, to be frank. Politics has become so personal these days that no one wants to give an inch to the enemy, even as a compromise that clearly benefits all. In principle I agree with what you're saying. The government really shouldn't be in the business of denying someone the right to do something based on what seems like no motive other than the Bible. I'm just pointing out that equal protection is not the proper way to make that argument.

[Jamie Drane]

I don't understand why the government is involved in personal contracts anyway...

[Steve in Rhode Island]

I think what I am reading here is that everyone who has posted on this topic is in complete agreement. Gay couples should have every right and every protection that hetero sexual couples have. Next of kin, default inheritance, etc. No debate. All of the people I know that are against gay marriage do not intend to deny those rights or protections.

Just don't call it marriage. Can't we call it obamtramony or something? I would vote for a law where the obamtramony licenses issued to gay couples were recognized by all states and delivered the exact same protections that Married couples enjoy.

That way (theoretically) the gay couples get what they seek, and the religious organizations who basically invented the institution of matrimony are not encroached.

The only problem is that those ends are not good enough for the gay community. The sky is green damn it! and if you say otherwise, then you are just a tea bagging, red neck idiot who hates blacks. Straight up!

Just ask Janean Gorafalo

[Mitch Baker]

Three points:

First, just a quick add-on to Leo's point. Even though I'm straight, I actually have less of a "right" to marry than the typical gay man. Since I'm married, I'd have to first go through the legal process of getting divorced.

In fairness, though, that's pretty much semantics, which leads to the next point that any sort of equal protection really could only pertain to the privileges allowed to those getting married - power of attorney, employee/survivor benefits, tax considerations, etc (there are also requisite duties assigned to this relationship). Marriage itself certainly isn't a right; it is a legal construct (a good rule of thumb I like to use regarding whether something is a right is if I could exercise it on some deserted island). Whether granting homosexuals the opportunity to marry, creating a domestic partnership or simply having access to these privileges through some other sort of contracting, they'd have the same "rights".

This of course leads to my third (and really only) point of whether the government can discriminate as to who is allowed to enter into this privileged relationship (I'm going to risk being inconsistent for the sake of expediency and just call this marriage). Government routinely incentivizes behavior it deems beneficial to society (likewise with penalizing what it deems detrimental). The question then becomes what societal benefit might marriage impart (with the follow up question of whether said benefit would not be imparted by same sex marriage). One benefit could be the fostering of the optimal environment for creating and raising more individuals to add to society – children being raised by both of their biological parents. Even if the intent of a particular marriage is not to have children, the government could still decide that this is the best way to ensure that these stable environments are being protected (not to mention the fact that a couple’s original intent regarding children can change and unintended pregnancies can happen – having the option of an abortion is a whole new discussion, and I apologize in advance if this post causes the typical devolution into rants).

Of course, this then raises the ultimate question (I won’t call it a point since I already used the three allotted) of whether this really is the best way to foster the continuation of society or if other systems might also be useful. Personally, I think that the reason government should be involved with marriage at all is because there is a real societal benefit of creating a stable environment for children. However, I’ve seen plenty of biological parents who suck at it, and many homosexuals are able and willing to create a great environment for either the biological child of one partner or an adopted child. That’s why I think “gay marriage” should be allowed. Maybe I’m wrong, though, so it is a good thing we live in a country where the people can decide these things and that federalism allows for testing of various theories across the states, hopefully leading to more of a consensus nationwide as this plays out. If the courts continue to rule against the will of the people, however, I guess that last part is just wishful thinking.

[randy_randy]

next of 'Sin' or next of 'skin' is more like it