Legal Rights / PoliticsAfter Roe: Here's the GOP Plan Kill to Marriage Equality, LGBTQ Rights

submitted by leached_outcrop from (advocate.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]chazzstrong 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You'll still find a sizable population of 'edge lords' who consider themselves Conservative or Trump supporters that still ride the homophobia train here in the States, despite Trump's documented backing of LGB(T) rights for decades, but they are essentially the mirror opposite of the left's extremism. Most Conservatives in the US don't really care who you fuck, so long as you leave them and their kids alone. I, personally, don't consider myself a Conservative, but I do lean more Republican these days than Liberal...thankfully my interactions with these hateful inbred hillbillies is mostly confined to online spaces where the anonymity hides their true nature. Just further proof that the internet was probably a mistake.

Ironically I'm also in the ( I think ) minority that doesn't want marriage to be available to same-sex couples, but only because I want marriage as a concept stripped out of our government foundations entirely. Marriage is a religious event, everything legal-wise should be civil unions which should be open to all consenting adults regardless of sexual preference. I understand the fight for it, and I understand extricating it from our country is a pipe dream, but ah well.

[–]HelloMomo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I want marriage as a concept stripped out of our government foundations entirely. Marriage is a religious event, everything legal-wise should be civil unions which should be open to all consenting adults regardless of sexual preference.

How are marriage and civil unions different, legally?

[–]chazzstrong 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Legally? They're not. However Marriage as a concept is a union in the eyes of a God. It was devised purely for religious purposes.

[–]HelloMomo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That's a... weird and narrow defection, and I'm not sure where you got it from. While the details very, something that is recognizable as marriage is a cross-cultural universal.

Secondly, if it's just a semantic difference to you, why do you think the distraction is important?

[–]chazzstrong 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Because it's a cudgel that conservatives use to rail against gay couples. It's one less stone for them to throw.
And I realize that various forms of a union have been used long before religion got it's claws in it, but it wasn't considered 'marriage'. Again, that terminology and the way we view and use marriage now is purely originated in the old christian ways from like 900 AD and on, especially when it was made a Sacrament.
We don't marry anymore for alliances, or to reinforce heirs apparent, we use it to create a joining in the eyes of a God...and, apparently, to joint-file taxes.

[–]HelloMomo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What is there to be gained from calling a spade a "digging implement" instead of a "spade", if it means the same thing? Do you actually think that would meaningfully change the way people think about it?

[–]chazzstrong 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes. Yes I do.
I also think you're purposefully being obtuse.

[–]HelloMomo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm really not. I get that you don't like the social trapping of marriage or something, and in your heard they're tied up with the word "marriage", and you think that rebranding is the way to solve that. There are midst of so many political words game messes already pending. I feel like this idea has already been tested, and — from what I've seen of other cases of it — it's an absolute mess.

If you think trading out old words for new clean words without any baggage, could you name an example of this that you think went well? One that you'd like to model your proposed word change after?

[–]chazzstrong 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

See, this is what I mean by obtuse. You know the term 'marriage' is far more than just a word to people of faith. Again, it's considered a Sacrament in the Catholic faith. You know what that means, correct? Removing 'marriage' from government vernacular means everyone would be on even footing, there would be no debate about marriage vs unions or 'gay marriage' or any of that bullshit. Everyone would be joined in Civil Unions with the same rights and benefits regardless of sexuality, and there would be no room for debate. And then Churches could 'marry' their parishioners in accordance to their beliefs. This would also fit nicely into another of my ideas: removing Churches from the domain of 'non-profit'. Let them tithe and charge for the ceremony for whatever they want, and then we can tax them like any other business.

I'm not a politician or a legislator, I'm not about to unfold my grand scheme to get this codified into law. This is just a route I personally would applaud, and one that I think would solve a lot of problems on both sides of the ideological aisle.