[yellowapple]

My impression is that OP wants the current rights from marriage to be part of civil unions instead, not for said rights to be eradicated outright. The former sounds like a more reasonable position and would address your (and the parent commenter's) concerns.

[eropple]

It is a reasonable position, but a realistic one only if you believe that the opposition to same-sex marriage is the use of the word "marriage" and not a fear-driven hatred of people with a different use for their plumbing. As it happens, I do not; I am entirely certain that "civil unions" being applied to gay people would call down the exact same rhetoric from the exact same people. (I am further certain that the whole "defense of marriage" is only a proxy for not being able to beat the shit out of gay people for funsies anymore. Progress, I suppose.)

[yellowapple]

Except that reality doesn't agree entirely with that model; a large number of opponents to same-sex marriage have expressed acceptance of same-sex civil unions.

However, your point still stands true in the case of custody rights, since same-sex-marriage opponents tend to claim (rather dubiously) that children raised in such a family tend to experience psychological trauma.

I'm really more-or-less neutral on the matter; it doesn't matter what it's called so long as the rights are equal for everyone. "Marriage" is a good-enough term for that.

[woofyman]

Many of the statewide same sex marriage bans also prohibited civil unions. Virginia went so far to prohibit contracts that between same sex partners that established defacto civil unions.

[eropple]

> a large number of opponents to same-sex marriage have expressed acceptance of same-sex civil unions

Some folks express that, yeah. I do not believe it is an honest position in the general case and have suspected since the jump that that's a move of the goalposts designed to appear more reasonable than they are, ready to be dragged back further as they are approached.

[pekk]

What I think happened is that gay rights activists realized they would get better standing to fight for equal rights if they called it marriage. That was a successful tactic and I'm not quibbling with it. But I know there are people who would have been pacified as long as it wasn't the word marriage because I have talked to some of those people. If those people also are afraid of gay people in their hearts, that's terrible - but it actually doesn't equate to opposition to civil unions that are only a boring legal matter as opposed to the sexy, apocalyptic "attack on marriage."

[tommorris]

Civil unions would have been a nice compromise 20 years ago.

[pekk]

I can't agree. The word "marriage" in particular makes people irrationally excited and start thinking about their church's definition of marriage. So politically, it is a line in the sand. "Defense of civil unions act" doesn't have the same ring and wouldn't get Republicans out to the polls the same way. If, in an alternate history, this could have been made a matter of the government meddling in the issue of marriage as big brother, then we would have seen more input from at least the libertarian side of the right wing if not also the mainstream. As it is, I'm glad about the outcome but now we have another irreconcilable front in the culture war alongside abortion.

[kbenson]

How would removing rights granted by marriage and putting them under a civil union, which is what I took the parent to propose, supposed to not trigger irrational excitement of people who support marriage in it's current incarnation? You can argue that people shouldn't care if they just have to get a civil union in addition to their marriage, but we've already brought irrationality with regards to how marriage is defined into the argument as a behavior that we agree exists, so we can't ignore it now.

[wcummings]

>"Defense of civil unions act" doesn't have the same ring and wouldn't get Republicans out to the polls the same way.

Because its not coded language designed to appeal to homophobes, unlike actual Republican rhetoric. If it wasn't an "attack on marriage" it would be something else.

[DonHopkins]

It's the word "gay" that makes them irrational.

[enjo]

But if all we're doing is just changing the name.. then who really cares? Marriage isn't historically a religious institution, it's a civil one.

[jivardo_nucci]

Yes, the civil and legal ramifications are important:

- my inheritance: my spouse can get my SS income when I die, my wife inherits my goods by default, etc. Now gays get the same treatment.

- taxes: are different for married and non-married folks. Now gays get the same treatment.

IOW "follow the money".

This ruling will change how much money the government pays to its citizens and how money is passed among its citizens (after marriage and death in particular). But nobody ever discussed the ramifications of this and the entire discussion was based around a bunch of bombast.

So we're not simply "changing the name".

[kmonsen]

Also visitation rights in hospitals, for example on death bed. Co-parenting rights and many more.

[jrs235]

"Now gays get the same treatment."

Actually now ANY TWO people can get the same treatment. Two straight males can get married. If I was single and I had a friend with good benefits, I'd make a case to get married... The savings on insurance and taxes we'd share. Now if millions did this, the cost of those benefits will go up drastically.

[JonoW]

How is this any different to a male and female friend better married just for tax benefit? Its not widespread now, why would it become widespread when people of the same sex can do it?

[jrs235]

I would say social taboos prevented it from happening between more often between platonic men and women more so in the past.

[vidarh]

Feel free. And realise the massive financial risks you are taking by being legally tied to someone. Especially someone who does not have the same kind of emotional bond to you as a genuine spouse hopefully would.

[jrs235]

Have you seen this on HN yet?: http://www.jefftk.com/p/how-to-get-a-massive-discount-on-col...

Get married to a platonic roommate with a prenup. Risky some what, but with prenups and no fault divorce the risk is greatly diminished.

The access to finding another human to join incomes and assets for tax planning purposes has doubled.

[vidarh]

A prenup is insufficient unless you're also in a legal environment where a spouse can not financially make both of you jointly and severally liable for a debt, for example.

It doesn't help you if the other party doesn't get any of your stuff in a divorce if you're still saddled with debts they took on while you were married.

There may be places where this is possible, but I doubt it'd be worth it once you factor in the cost of sufficiently safeguarding yourself, unless there are massive amounts of money involved.

[jsker]

What stopped you from marrying a female friend back when you were single?

[jrs235]

Nothing. Except I tended to hang out with and lived mostly other straight men. I'd probably have been able to convince one to do prenup and marry for strictly platonic income and tax planning reasons. See comment above or below related to prenups and no fault divorces.

[enjo]

I think our wires got crossed here. I'm arguing against the idea that we should change the name to civil unions and make it legal, as opposed to just legalizing equal "marriage".

[yellowapple]

I certainly don't care what it's called, as long as there's something that confers those rights.

That said, I do object to the oft-stated remark that marriage has historically been a civil rather than religious institution, primarily because historically that's been a distinction without a difference. Such remarks tend to take a separation of church and state for granted when, in reality, both those things were very frequently conflated until maybe the last few centuries, and even then it was a very gradual shift in practice.

Hell, church and state are still one and the same in much of the modern world (see also: significant portions of the Middle East, the United Kingdom, various others). Implying that this was any less prevalent historically is, well, silly.

[OJFord]

Can you support that claim? I always thought it was rooted in religion, and the practice dates back to a time when every person and thing was religious since we really knew no better, as far as I'm aware.

[Retra]

It doesn't really matter what it has historically been. What matters is what it should be.

[masklinn]

So he wants the exact same thing with a new name for essentially no reason? That strikes me as an inane waste of resource.

[mod]

The reason is to abolish the religious ties, I believe.

[acjohnson55]

But that's a silly and dishonest argument because there are plenty of areligious hetero marriages. If separation of church and state is anything more than lip service, statutory marriage isn't an explicitly religious institution. Not to mention that religions exist that have no problem with gay marriage.

[yellowapple]

I agree, but it's far less a waste of resource than abolishing the rights conferred by marriage entirely, which was my only point.

[masklinn]

With the palm of least waste of resources being to keep marriage as it is, right and name.

[pekk]

If we are only concerned with nebulous "resources," we won't change anything. Obviously that should not be our only concern.

[masklinn]

I'm still waiting for an actual reason to rename the operation be forced to edit a few thousand statutes and negotiate or renegotiate a bunch of international agreements.

[roghummal]

Refactoring? Waste of resources?

[masklinn]

Changing a name to something which is no clearer for no reason is not refactoring, it's pointless wankery.

[Retra]

If I changed my name to 'fuckwad' people would treat me differently. Half of people's biases and thought sequencing is a result of simple word choice, not analysis of meaning.

Addendum: If this weren't the case, nobody would bother with propaganda or marketing.

[yeahdude]

Pointless wankery is offering an opinion like "no clearer for no reason" without justification.