"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[SteveII]

No, marriage in the US is not ultimately a secular arrangement between couples and the government. That's ridiculous for several reasons--the main one being that most jurisdictions did not require marriage licenses until the late 19th century. Were those millions of married couple mistaken? Secondly, a marriage license is the government only intrusion into the institution of marriage. How does a marriage license do any more than keep a record and make sure you are not marrying a minor?

Steve, this is simple:

1. There's no mandatory religious aspect to marriage.
2. There is a mandatory secular/governmental aspect to marriage.

#2 only recently and not as full as you need to make a case that it is has much to do with the legal system and rights.

Why is #2 a thing?  It's more than just about not marrying a minor.  Again: taxes, next of kin, asset handling, etc.  If there's money and/or property involved, then there needs to be a way to track ownership claims.  This was especially true at a time when family assets/businesses were more prevalent.

Nope. Taxes have to do with tax law, not marriage law. Next of kin have to do with medical and privacy laws, not marriage law. There is a set of laws when dissolving a marriage because it is necessary to settle a civil dispute between divorcing people. Family law protect children from adults.  

Keep in mind, you're not even correct about your assertion that marriage licenses weren't required until the late 19th century.  Massachusetts has required them since 1639, with the idea/requirement spreading across the nation over the course of time until widespread adoption in the mid-19th century.  Moreover, marriage licenses had existed in Britain since the 14th century, so, it's not as though it was a new idea to the US.

Also, as time has gone on, any religious requirement for marriage has vanished.

I said most jurisdictions. I see you ignored the paragraph before where you got your info--didn't fit your narrative? 

I think you are confused why I am making a big deal about marriage not being a legal matter (besides it's true). It is to defeat any notion that this has anything to do with legal rights I am denying by my desire to keep the old definition.

[Ravenshire]

More from the article just quoted:

"van der Toorn’s work indicated that opposition to same-sex marriage mainly reflects resistance to change rather than opposition to equality. Proponents of same-sex marriage often criticise opponents for their lack of concern for equality. However, opponents’ attitudes may spring from objections to change rather than from a desire for inequality per se."

Regardless of the source of the opponents objections to gay marriage, if their efforts come to fruition, the end result is the same. Illegal discrimination. At that point, whether it stems from bigotry or not becomes irrelevant.

[polymath257]

Except for equal treatment under the law. Marriage is a legal institution, Steve. Denying gays marriage is to deny them equal treatment. Keep telling yourself that you're not a bigot. It won't change the facts, but I'm sure it will make you sleep better at night.

Wrong again. Marriage is not a legal institution--in any way. It is easy to see that out of the 10,000 years of existence, the government has imposed a few rules for like the last 5 minutes.

Just wow.

Yes, in fact, it *is* a legal institution. There have been rules and regulations surrounding marriage for as long as we have records. That is hardly just the last 5 minutes.

For that matter, I'd like to see your evidence concerning the nature of marriage, say, 7000 years ago. Any evidence at all?

And, in a *secular* society, the *legal* aspect is the *primary* aspect of marriage *as conducted by the government*. This is why there are tax benefits, survivor benefits, ability to make decisions, etc.

Anything *other* than the *legal* aspect is fluff and I really don't care about it. What I care about is equal treatment under the law: that means that *every* couple who wishes to marry can legally do so with *exactly* the same rules and responsibilities.

[Ravenshire]

I think you are confused why I am making a big deal about marriage not being a legal matter (besides it's true). It is to defeat any notion that this has anything to do with legal rights I am denying by my desire to keep the old definition.

(my bold)

How about kinship rights? Or would you be ok with it if after devoting your life to a life partner, your life partner is dying of some horrible disease, has made their wishes clear to you and the family that disowned them decades previously shows up and makes all the decisions without your input, without caring what you or your life partner decided and even has you tossed out of the hospital for having the temerity to speak up on behalf of someone you now know far better than they do? Would you be ok with that? Because that used to happen to gay couples all the fucking time before gay marriages started being recognized and kin rights granted to the same sex spouse.

Yet you claim their were no legal rights being denied.

That doesn't even go into the tax laws and other such that you tried to hand wave away.

[RoadRunner79]

Why do you think it is a bad argument then. I’ll address your concerns!

First, bachelors aren't barred from entering into the legal institution of marriage so they already have equal treatment under the law. Second, by definition, bachelors are unmarried men making a married bachelor a logical impossibility.

Funny how you've used a logical impossibility and a legal impossibility (toasters for fuck's sake) to defend your bigotry against people who are fundamentally just like you except for one little thing.

It is interesting, how similar your arguments against this reasoning (when concerning bachelors) mirrors some of my own. That in this case, you don't view it as discrimination and bigotry to say that they cannot be married, and that you point out that they are not being denied the opportunity, if they come to change and fall within the definition of marriage. That you reason to bigotry in one case, and not the other, however seems inconsistent.

[Divinity]

How fucking stupid are Christians exactly? Like were they all dropped on their fucking heads by their meth-head mothers or something? I'm legit curious at this point.

[Ravenshire]

First, bachelors aren't barred from entering into the legal institution of marriage so they already have equal treatment under the law. Second, by definition, bachelors are unmarried men making a married bachelor a logical impossibility.

Funny how you've used a logical impossibility and a legal impossibility (toasters for fuck's sake) to defend your bigotry against people who are fundamentally just like you except for one little thing.

It is interesting, how similar your arguments against this reasoning (when concerning bachelors) mirrors some of my own.  That in this case, you don't view it as discrimination and bigotry to say that they cannot be married, and that you point out that they are not being denied the opportunity, if they come to change and fall within the definition of marriage.  That you reason to bigotry in one case, and not the other, however seems inconsistent.

Are you really this thick-headed? That I reason to bigotry is entirely consistent given bachelor is a term used to denote a person's marital status. There would be no bachelors if there were no marriage. They don't have to try to change who they are or try to live a lie to get married. It's a simple naming convention that husbands are married and bachelors are not. Nor are bachelors discriminated against in our current society. A gay bachelor, however, was being denied rights unless he was willing to try to change who he is or try to live a lie by marrying a woman. In rare circumstances, the poor bastard would find a sympathetic woman, have a marriage of convenience, and still bone all the guys he wants. Are you really going to continue claiming our arguments mirror each other? Because broadening the definition of marriage to include same sex couples is nothing like making a word who's very definition relies on the word married (in this case, not married). Changing that would make the word meaningless. If you'd like to coin a new term for a person married to themselves, then campaign for that to be recognized, more power to you. Just be sure the definition is inclusive, that way you don't have to make an ass out of yourself defending that when it's challenged because you didn't want gays using your word.

Your argument is asinine, RR. Refusing people equal treatment under the law for being gay is just as bad as refusing it because they're black, or Jewish, or pick your favorite bigotry. Maybe you and Steve really aren't bigots, but when you act like them it's hard to tell if you're not.

---

More nails for the the "no rights denied" argument coffin.

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges.

over 1,000 of them.

Source

GAO Link

[Angrboda]

Aside from the inequity which was a practical consequence of the way civil unions and domestic partnerships were implemented, I think the California Supreme Court had a valid point In Re: Marriage Cases, quoted below. As the court observed, it would be akin to resolving the question of inter-racial marriage by creating "transracial unions." It's a long opinion, but I think it goes a long way toward affirming that the federal Supreme Court wasn't just pulling shit from their asses in ruling as they did, contrary to the opinions of Kennedy and conservatives elsewise.

A number of factors lead us to this conclusion.   First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples;  permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples.   Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.   Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.   Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise - now emphatically rejected by this state - that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.   Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest.   Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

IN RE: MARRIAGE CASES.  [Six consolidated appeals.]

Additionally, "“[F]undamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights.” (Hernandez v. Robles, dissenting opinion, quoted in the above opinion)

[Minimalist]

Let's see what "Murrica's Best Xhristard has to say on the subject....

[SteveII]

This research indicates that much of the opposition to same-sex marriage is grounded in sexual prejudice, despite that opposition often being publicly justified on different grounds. But, a modest proportion of conservatives’ opposition was not explained by prejudice. This fraction may reflect principled objections based on conservative political or religious beliefs.

Attitudes to same-sex marriage have many psychological roots, and they can change

This proves my position. You can be opposed to same sex marriage and not be a bigot. 

My opinion is that more people would have reported opposition to the change in definition if it hadn't been drilled into their heads that to believe that is bigotry. I don't say that is true, nor do I need it to be true--just seems like a reasonable thing to happen over time.

---

More from the article just quoted:

"van der Toorn’s work indicated that opposition to same-sex marriage mainly reflects resistance to change rather than opposition to equality. Proponents of same-sex marriage often criticise opponents for their lack of concern for equality. However, opponents’ attitudes may spring from objections to change rather than from a desire for inequality per se."

Another point I touched on but did not put so well...

---

More from the article just quoted:

"van der Toorn’s work indicated that opposition to same-sex marriage mainly reflects resistance to change rather than opposition to equality. Proponents of same-sex marriage often criticise opponents for their lack of concern for equality. However, opponents’ attitudes may spring from objections to change rather than from a desire for inequality per se."

Regardless of the source of the opponents objections to gay marriage, if their efforts come to fruition, the end result is the same. Illegal discrimination. At that point, whether it stems from bigotry or not becomes irrelevant.

There is a huge flaw in your reasoning. For that to be true, there would have had to be no other way to stop discrimination. There is.

---

Wrong again. Marriage is not a legal institution--in any way. It is easy to see that out of the 10,000 years of existence, the government has imposed a few rules for like the last 5 minutes.

Just wow.

Yes, in fact, it *is* a legal institution. There have been rules and regulations surrounding marriage for as long as we have records. That is hardly just the last 5 minutes.

For that matter, I'd like to see your evidence concerning the nature of marriage, say, 7000 years ago. Any evidence at all?

And, in a *secular* society, the *legal* aspect is the *primary* aspect of marriage *as conducted by the government*. This is why there are tax benefits, survivor benefits, ability to make decisions, etc.

Anything *other* than the *legal* aspect is fluff and I really don't care about it. What I care about is equal treatment under the law: that means that *every* couple who wishes to marry can legally do so with *exactly* the same rules and responsibilities.

Answer this question: are there times or places that didn't/don't require a government marriage license to get married (or even better--no government)? Yes or no? If you answer yes, then marriage is not a legal institution. To think that the "*legal* aspect is the *primary* aspect of marriage *as conducted by the government*" well...I feel sorry for you. There are like a thousand intrinsic reason to get married and maybe 3 legal reasons. 

BTW, the "legal" aspects you brought up are separate laws (tax, insurance, privacy laws--not 'marriage laws') codifying ancient aspects of marriage.

---

I think you are confused why I am making a big deal about marriage not being a legal matter (besides it's true). It is to defeat any notion that this has anything to do with legal rights I am denying by my desire to keep the old definition.

(my bold)

How about kinship rights? Or would you be ok with it if after devoting your life to a life partner, your life partner is dying of some horrible disease, has made their wishes clear to you and the family that disowned them decades previously shows up and makes all the decisions without your input, without caring what you or your life partner decided and even has you tossed out of the hospital for having the temerity to speak up on behalf of someone you now know far better than they do? Would you be ok with that? Because that used to happen to gay couples all the fucking time before gay marriages started being recognized and kin rights granted to the same sex spouse.

Yet you claim their were no legal rights being denied.

That doesn't even go into the tax laws and other such that you tried to hand wave away.

No, my objection to changing the definition does not have anything to do with a desire to deny rights. Rights are granted by law. Laws could have been added/changed without changing the definition.