[ywgdana]

Because marriage isn't just some symbolic institution. Denying marriage to couples radically, unequivocally, directly harms them in legal matters like being able to make medical decisions during emergencies, property rights, benefits at work.

So when someone is "anti-gay marriage", then yes they are taking a position that will harm gay folks. So yes, it is anti-gay.

[peeters]

And yet, put it that way to a gay marriage opponent, and I guarantee you a sizable portion would respond as follows:

A: You're against gay marriage? So you don't think gay partners should share the same legal status when making medical decisions, in property rights, or work benefits?

B: Wow, I never thought about it that way. No, I think they should share all of those benefits.

A: So you're for gay marriage?

B: No, I just think all of those rights should be granted outside of the marital context.

[curun1r]

That's the frustrating part about this issue...it's basically all semantics. The simple solution would have been to remove all recognition of marriage by the government and replace it with the concept of civil unions between any two consenting adults. There shouldn't even be a requirement of a romantic relationship...why should the fact that two people have sex or live together have any bearing on how they file their tax returns, how medical decisions are made or how property is disposed of? Hell, there's plenty of married people who are separated and no longer having sex or live together and yet they enjoy the legal perks of marriage.

Once you limit the government's role to recognizing a contract, albeit one that's common and standardized, between two adults, marriage becomes the domain of the church. If your church wants to deny marriage to homosexuals, the first amendment gives them the right to do that.

[tommorris]

Your "simple solution" would require the invalidation of all straight people's marriages. Politically, that's about as toxic as proudly saying you are going to be building a pre-school on top of a nuclear waste dump.

I wrote a long rant about this a while back: http://tommorris.org/posts/2555

[nilkn]

Exactly. Reading this thread, I get the distinct impression that many posters have never even interacted with someone who disagrees with them on some of these issues. As someone who grew up in the midwest, I've seen this exact exchange happen countless times.

[JoeAltmaier]

Riding on the back of the bus gets you to the same bus stops, clearly. Yet we rejected Jim Crow laws decades ago as unsuitable in our modern society.

Letting some citizens ride on the 'civil union' bus, and others on the 'marriage' bus is what's at issue. Its still wrong to discriminate in this way, especially if the majority vote to give themselves the better seats.

I imagine its hard to feel the humiliation of sitting in the back of the bus, if you never have to do it yourself. It took Rosa Parks to make it plain to all of us, that the institution was racist, intentionally belittling and wrong.

[smsm42]

I know there are sizeable number of people who support giving gay couples all the property, legal, etc. rights under "civil union" umbrella but oppose calling it "marriage" under religious or cultural or any other notions. I personally think governmental sanction on marriage is a problem here and as soon as people are ready to do the right thing - meaning, take government permission out of this voluntary contract and leave the government only to be notified that such contract happened and not permit or deny it - all the problem goes away. But I certainly can see that these people I describe above is not for limiting legal rights of gay people in medical decisions, property rights, etc. but they object to that being called "marriage". This is their position, and denying its existence does not really help anybody.

[daveqr]

https://www.google.com/search?q=gays+who+oppose+gay+marriage

Easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys when you think in black and white, isn't it?

[exodust]

ywgdana, your definition of marriage is joined with legal matters, but don't assume others will share the same definition. Little girls don't dream of having "property rights" they dream of "getting married".

And you're wrong that anti-gay marriage = anti-gay. I take offence to that.

I don't give a damn about marriage in general. But I DO give a damn about gay folks, their rights and equality.

I have very dear gay friends, and care about them deeply. But I don't put marriage and their rights to make medical decisions in the same boat, and nor should you. Instead, you should be voting and fighting for those legal rights to be extended to same-sex couples, and leave marriage completely out of the equation.

"Marriage" is an old-fashioned tradition, very much about a bride and groom and the beginnings of starting a family, kids and all the rest. That's what it is.