WMN: t3_2pxqz4_t1_cn1186v

[TITLE]

CMV: I believe that the Gay Marriage discussion isn't as important as the media portrays it to be

[LasalBoyagama]

The real problem is the concept of marriage itself. In my view, LGBT couples are already married, regardless of the legislation that is imposed on them. Marriage isn't a set of civil rights that confirms your connection to your partner, it's the choice you make to be in private, daily, lifelong commitment to another being. Tradition dictates that in order to be 'properly' married you have to exchange vows, get a ring, and have a massive celebration (the set of traditions change based upon the culture.) But marriage isn't that, it is simple commitment to another person. The main issue that gay marriage has is that not all couples are given the same civil liberties, but this does not mean that their marriages are void. Marriage isn't decided by bystanders, it's decided by the people who live inside the union. It is for this very reason that a gay couple getting married doesn't affect your own marriage. I've held this opinion for a while but have never had the opportunity to see if it stood up to criticism. CMV. EDIT: Just to emphasise I believe that the gay couples should receive the same civil rights as straight couples however what I am stating above is that these civil liberties aren't required to be married to someone. These civil liberties come second to the relationship that you share with someone and no documentation ever defines that. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[JimMarch]

It is important. See...bigots are weak-minded. It's a hallmark of their type of thinking. So if society supports bigotry in *any* public fashion, and especially if government supports bigotry, bigotry by private actors will flourish. That's why the Civil Rights Act of 1963 was so important for the civil rights movement. It sent a signal that bigotry was supposed to come to an end, and really began the process of actually doing so. That process isn't over but we're at least doing better and the improvements are ongoing. In the case of bigotry against the LGBTQ community, the marriage ban remains as a statement by our national government and most of our state governments that gays/lesbians/etc. are "lesser". That needs to end, and that's the importance of gay marriage.

[SOLUNAR]

marriage = benefits When the state is able to accept same sex marriages and provide basic benefits to the partner, there will be no issues.

[-Jamerican]

There's more to marriage than a ring, a paper, and a party. There are also financial benefits to being married, joint income, less taxes, and joint health insurance. A civil union doesn't really offer any of that, or at least not to the extent of a full marriage. I remember a young woman made a small documentary about how her 'wife' (they were in a civil union) died because she couldn't extend her health insurance over to save her life, leaving her with 2 kids. That kinda undermines your argument plus points out how stupid the half-baked concept of a civil union really is.

[BolshevikMuppet]

[STA-CITE]>The main issue that gay marriage has is that not all couples are given the same civil liberties, but this does not mean that their marriages are void [END-CITE]Well, no. In most cases, gay marriage being banned actually means that they have no equivalent to marriage. And while many of those rights could be achieved through other mechanisms (medical proxy, power of attorney, estate planning) many cannot. A gay couple could not engage in tenancy in the entirety, or receive survivor benefits under Social Security. And it is symbolic. Yes, divorce can still happen. Yes, the choice of being married is most significantly about staying together and the choice to be connected. But the whole "the choice you make to be in private, daily, lifelong commitment to another being" thing has never worked for straight guys trying to downplay the importance of marriage to their girlfriends, either. Because it is important, the symbol, the public statement, even that extra step of legal entanglement all are *proof* of the commitment.

[LasalBoyagama]

[STA-CITE]> Because it is important, the symbol, the public statement, even that extra step of legal entanglement all are proof of the commitment. [END-CITE]This is stepping into a broader issue about marriage in general but if you remove those aspects then the commitment is still there. Proof to others isn't necessary in relationship which is confirmed by those in it.

[THE_LAST_HIPPO]

Ive read many of yours and others' comments and I think the issue might be your understanding of the gay marriage debate. No one's arguing that not having legal marriage prevents gay people from having loving relationships; they're arguing that they should get the same legal benefits as straight partners. It doesnt matter what you see as marriage, its about how the way that states see marriages affects couples, regardless of how anyone else views the relationship. If your argument was preventing gay marriage doesnt stop same sex couples from being in love then I think most would agree.

[LasalBoyagama]

I think I have made the assumption that the gay marriage discussion wasn't about the legal rights. ∆

[crustalmighty]

What? Why? Why would they want to change the law if it weren't about legal rights? I'm glad you changed your view, but this comment has me very confused.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/THE_LAST_HIPPO. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/THE_LAST_HIPPO)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[tkc80]

The whole problem with this argument and the arguments you made responding to people is you are playing semantics. That's the problem that everyone is doing: playing semantics. Oh, "Civil Unions" are OK, but not "Marriages," or maybe "Domestic Partnerships" or whatever. The fact of the matter is; the ENTIRE reason is people want equal rights. By denying civil liberties that a MARRIED couple has (by law), they are denying the marriage. There are civil liberties that are required with marriage. Adoption is one in some states, visiting your husband or wife in the ICU is another one. Guess what gay married couples can't do? In accordance with state law, since the state does not recognize an LGBT couple as married, there are civil liberties that aren't accessible to them. The root of the problem is the unavailability for these couples to get married in order to receive these liberties.

[Makes_Poor_Decisions]

You are partially right that it's about civil liberties, but it's not just about civil liberties, is about respecting a minority population that is stigmatized still in the U.S. and many other countries. You are right that unrequited love is, in it's own right, the principle reward of a long-term committed and monogamous relationship. But is there to be said for the emotional toll it takes on preventing those couple from having officially recognized marriages? Why do you think you see those tearful courthouse weddings when gay marriage is legalized? Those people didn't suddenly start loving each other more because they were married, they were crying happy because they felt included and equal to everyone else. That's to say nothing to the societal impact of having legal gay marriage. In places where it is not allowed, it keeps alive a social stigma against LGBT persons, legitimizes it a way that goes beyond a simple social contract. Marriage is a symbol, and denying it to certain group is a symbol as well. When bi-racial marriages were illegal, was that really about the fact that the people didn't have the same legal rights, or was it about the continued prejudicial treatment of minority group with the explicit purpose of discriminating against that minority. That's why the issue is one that needs to be framed around marriage. It's a symbol, and those sort of things are extremely important for affecting real change. If you legally legitimize gay marriage, you legitimize the rights of LGBT people as equal not just in marriage, but as citizens who are equally valued as their heterosexual counterparts.

[LasalBoyagama]

[STA-CITE]> Those people didn't suddenly start loving each other more because they were married, they were crying happy because they felt included and equal to everyone else. [END-CITE]Good point. I guess I didn't factor in social recognition of gay marriage into my argument. ∆

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Makes_Poor_Decisions. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Makes_Poor_Decisions)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[StarOriole]

The American legal system disagrees that "marriage isn't a set of civil rights." There are many civil rights conferred by marriage, from minor benefits like taxes to more important ones like joint ownership of property, inheritance, custody of children, and hospital visitation rights. We *could* pass a constitutional amendment stating that "marriage" and "civil union" are completely equivalent terms on both the national and state levels. At that point, you're right that there wouldn't be much need to focus on gay marriage rights (although it would absolutely be important to focus on gay marriage-or-civil-union rights). That would simply turn the gay marriage debate into a two-step process. Unfortunately, it's no easier to pass a constitutional amendment equating marriage with civil unions *and* fifty state laws allowing gay civil unions than it would be to just pass fifty state laws allowing gay marriage. So, the existence of an alternate path that uses different terminology doesn't mean that the simple, straight-forward path is unimportant.

[LasalBoyagama]

I am not from the US so forgive me for my limited knowledge of the exact legal environment that this is playing out in. My argument is that even if two people are not recognised as having a civil union or a marriage by the Government, it does not mean that the two aren't married just that they are not given the same rights as marriage which is recognised by the government. The basic principle is that marriage isn't defined by the liberties and benefits that a government gives to couples but it is defined by the relationship between two people. Using that same principle I am saying that the gay marriage discussion should focus on the civil liberties that gay people aren't recieving rather than the fact that the state is not allowing them to be 'happy'.

[StarOriole]

In Australia, it may well be different. Since you didn't specify in your original posting, I went ahead and commented based on what I knew about America. In America, there was certainly a time when "gay marriage" versus "civil unions" was being debated, but even there, the idea was that "marriage" would happen in a church -- meaning it was sanctioned and enforced by a church and its congregation, not just the two people in love. The term "marriage" is never used synonymously with "love;" there is always an implication that there will be rights and responsibilities granted to the couple by some larger organization, be it their church community, social network, or the government. It sounds like you're defining "marriage" as being what Americans would consider a "long-term relationship," which is something decided by only those two people, and can be broken without any external ramifications. If that's what the word means in Australia, then I agree that it would be silly for there to need to be a huge debate about whether homosexuals can date indefinitely.

[LasalBoyagama]

[STA-CITE]> The term "marriage" is never used synonymously with "love;" there is always an implication that there will be rights and responsibilities granted to the couple by some larger organization, be it their church community, social network, or the government. [END-CITE]Throughout history that hasn't been the case. I have put the source for a video where I got the majority of my argument from, it has a small amount of talk about religion however is quite good at explaining what I am trying to say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQw0eLzfGNI

[StarOriole]

"Marriage" and "love" or "long-term relationship" may have been synonymous back in the 16th century, like that video says, but language changes. Once legal rights and responsibilities were given to couples, it became the government's business who was married to whom. At some point in the past 500 years, it became accepted that "marriage" is an officially-recognized union. Trying to make everyone else switch back to a 500-year-old definition of "marriage" is like arguing that "awesome" and "awful" should both mean "terrifying." That is no longer what (almost) anyone means when they say those words, and using an archaic definition means you aren't understanding the debate.

[the_skeleton_queen]

It's 2014. We shouldn't still be debating about whether or not people deserve to be treated equally. That's fucking insane, to me. Like, it like shouldn't even be a question. I'm grumpy just thinking about it. The fact that people still are openly discriminated is a really scary thing.

[LasalBoyagama]

I'm kinda the same here but my main issue is that, from the media that I have seen, all the discussion on gay marriage is pinned onto the fact that the heterosexual majority are oppressing the happiness of gay couples, I think that that discussion isn't important or relevant. I do think that giving gay couples the same legal status as heterosexual couples is important. Apart from some very loose arguments against gay marriage there really is no reason why all developed countries haven't already pushed the legislation through.

[Raintee97]

You're asking gay people to simply accept being second class citizens and forget all those rights that others can claim by being married just because they can came they are married. They are still second class citizens right? Others can do the same behavior and get rights that they can't right. Why should they be happy with being a second class citizen?

[the_skeleton_queen]

But that's the thing, man… by denying them the legal right, they can also be denying them happiness. Like, think about those gay people who couldn't spend time with a dying partner in the hospital because they weren't legally married or whatever. They weren't considered family. That's outrageous. Like, I'm outraged just thinking about it.

[Nagaempress]

In the Catholic Church if I marry and turn in a Marriage licence to the State I am married. If I Divorce in Civil court but do not seek an annulment then I am still Married but cannot gain any Marriage rights from the state. So in the Churches eyes I am still married. So yes there is a situation where you can be married and have it recognized and not have the legal rights to the other person.

[rougegoat]

You're starting from a bad assumption. You seem to be believing same sex marriage is about the ceremony and not about the legal status and benefits that go with it. Same sex "proper" marriages you describe have been done in the United States for literally longer than I've been alive. They've never been illegal as a ceremony does not confer the legal status of marriage. It's also not what same sex marriage proponents have been asking for. Same sex marriage proponents are focused on the legal side of marriage, not the tradition or ceremonial side of it. The legal status of marriage confers 1,138 legal benefits ranging from tax rates to power of attorney to inheritance rights. Those are barred from same sex couples arbitrarily. You can argue that marriage should not be associated with legal rights, but that's a long since lost battle. Marriage was a societal and legal institution long before any of the modern religions existed. We've been giving rights based on it since before England or Germany existed. The fact is that the society we live in has decided to link these benefits and then bar them from some couples. [STA-CITE]> The main issue that gay marriage has is that not all couples are given the same civil liberties, but this does not mean that their marriages are void. [END-CITE]Again, you're making the assumption that when the discussion of same sex marriage comes up, it is talking about the ceremony and not the legal status. That is not nor has it ever been the case. Everyone talking in favor of same sex marriage has and always has been discussing those 1,138 legal benefits directly attached to it.

[brberg]

[STA-CITE]>The legal status of marriage confers 1,138 legal benefits ranging from tax rates to power of attorney to inheritance rights. [END-CITE]This seems to me to be like those stories where they find that the average person's body contains *eleventy bajillion* toxins. People are supposed to be wowed by the sheer number, but it's the dose that matters, not the number of unique chemicals. Likewise, I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of those benefits aren't that big a deal and/or are only applicable in unusual cases. A lot of straight couples live together for years without bothering to get married. And if you ask those who do, almost none will say that they did it for the 1,138 legal benefits, but will give social reasons that basically boil down to "It's what's expected of us." This suggests to me that the benefits of legal marriage really aren't that significant. I support gay marriage, but I don't think it's as big a deal as this claim makes it it to be.

[rougegoat]

[STA-CITE]> Likewise, I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of those benefits aren't that big a deal and/or are only applicable in unusual cases. [END-CITE]An incomplete list of those benefits: * Employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges * Per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating * Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances) Sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits * Larger benefits under some programs if married, including: * Veteran's disability * Supplemental Security Income * Disability payments for federal employees * Medicaid * Property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans * Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates * Wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax * Joint and family-related rights: * Joint filing of bankruptcy permitted * Joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records * Family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison * Next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims * Custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce * Domestic violence intervention * Access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods * Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs * Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses. * Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens * Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime * Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse * Court notice of probate proceedings * Domestic violence protection orders * Existing homestead lease continuation of rights * Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption * Funeral and bereavement leave * Joint adoption and foster care * Joint tax filing * Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society * Legal status with stepchildren * Making spousal medical decisions * Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver * Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation * Right of survivorship of custodial trust * Right to change surname upon marriage * Right to enter into prenuptial agreement * Right to inheritance of property * Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege) I'd say all of those are very important.

[LasalBoyagama]

But they are not essential to a happy marriage. (I do agree that these civil liberties are very important but they are not what defines a marriage)

[rougegoat]

They are the legal benefits attached to marriage though. That's also what the entire conversation about same sex marriage has always been about. Legal benefits of marriage. You're attempting to redefine the actual discussion by making it about how a couple acts and not about whether the government can bar people's rights based on sexual orientation. It is not nor has it ever been about whether a long term couple does brunch once a week. You're attempting to make it into a discussion on that instead of the actual issue at hand.

[LasalBoyagama]

[STA-CITE]> Again, you're making the assumption that when the discussion of same sex marriage comes up, it is talking about the ceremony and not the legal status. That is not nor has it ever been the case. Everyone talking in favor of same sex marriage has and always has been discussing those 1,138 legal benefits directly attached to it. [END-CITE]This might be true in America but in Australia at least the media hasn't mentioned civil liberties. Everything you are saying I agree with and I think that the Gay Marriage discussion should (if it hasn't already) focus on the civil liberties of gay couples.

[Vitamer]

For clarification: From what nation do you hail?

[LasalBoyagama]

Australia.

[karnim]

[STA-CITE]> This might be true in America but in Australia at least the media hasn't mentioned civil liberties [END-CITE]If you want to talk about gay marriage in Australia, you really, really need to clarify that in your post. Frankly, you should just delete this one and make a new post, if you want to talk about australia. When you make a post like this, people will assume it's the US. The US is where the biggest and longest debates about gay marriage have been, due to it being a state-by-state fight. Plus, reddit is an american website and you posted at 9 PM EST (6PM PST) which are pretty prime US redditing hours. If you are talking about the US though, bringing up australian media coverage doesn't really help any argument.

[LasalBoyagama]

Sorry I should have clarified...

[heelspider]

You are correct that you don't need the government to officially recognize the most important aspects of a good marriage....but that doesn't mean that it's okay to arbitrarily deny some people the ability to get the less important benefits of being married, some of which are pretty sweet. Couples who are legally married receive a ton of benefits that unmarried couples don't get. They have rights to equitable distribution if the marriage ends, for instance. They have the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse. They get tax benefits. They get retirement benefits and share health plans. Buying property together is a bit simpler when a couple is married, as is sharing a bank account, leasing a car, and a thousand other things. Gay people should be entitled to all of the rights and all of the benefits of marriage, and not just the ones which you very correctly believe are the most important.

[LasalBoyagama]

[STA-CITE]> The main issue that gay marriage has is that not all couples are given the same civil liberties, but this does not mean that their marriages are void. [END-CITE]I do understand that the benefits that come with the state recognising your marriage but what I find is that the majority of the discussion for reform is about not allowing gay couples to be 'happy'. There should be more focus on the civil liberties rather than the actual effect on the happiness of the marriage.

[ParentheticalClaws]

I certainly agree with you that the primary focus should be on the government benefits conferred by marriage. But I don't buy your implied argument that that's not already the case. Mission statements from some major organizations working toward marriage equality: "As the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC envisions an America where LGBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community." http://www.hrc.org/the-hrc-story "Marriage equality is an issue affecting real people in all of our communities. Even though progress is being made, there is still great inequality in this country and it has a direct negative impact on the lives of everyday people just like you. Everyone should have the chance to realize their hopes and dreams, have the same basic fundamental rights and protections under the law, and be able to celebrate their love as equal members in all aspects of society!" http://www.marriageequality.org/ "Freedom to Marry partners with individuals and organizations across the country to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and the protections, responsibilities, and commitment that marriage brings." http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/about-us These are all primarily focused on the concrete legal benefits of marriage recognition.

[LasalBoyagama]

[STA-CITE]>These are all primarily focused on the concrete legal benefits of marriage recognition. [END-CITE]It seems you are right and you have provided evidence for it. You have changed my view. I shouldn't have made the assumption that the argument for gay marriage isn't about the legal rights. ∆

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ParentheticalClaws. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ParentheticalClaws)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[millivolt]

Gay couples being happy and gay couples having civil liberties are not independent events. It's unrealistic to say that the only thing that really matters in a relationship is the feelings between partners. We're social beings, and what others say/think about us is important. Marriage is about more than the commitment; it's about the accompanying social/legal construct that has been inextricably linked to it for centuries in a wide variety of cultures. We can say things like "how about we just make sure that they have the same legal rights" but that's really not enough. I want gay couples to have everything that straight couples have. That is what will make them happy. They need the legal rights, and they need the cultural recognition, and both of those things fall under the "marriage" umbrella. The gay marriage discussion *is* as important as the media makes it out to be because right now, people are being denied recognition for the commitment they have made to each other. Every day that they don't have the same recognition as straight couples is an affirmation that they're just not quite as deserving, *despite the fact that they have made the same commitment*. It's an injustice, it has to stop, and that's why the discussion is important.

[LasalBoyagama]

[STA-CITE]> Every day that they don't have the same recognition as straight couples is an affirmation that they're just not quite as deserving, despite the fact that they have made the same commitment. It's an injustice, it has to stop, and that's why the discussion is important. [END-CITE]What you say does make sense and I think I have overlooked cultural recognition which might be more important than legal rights. Those last few lines at the end won me over. ∆

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/millivolt. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/millivolt)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[LasalBoyagama]

You seem to actually understand what I am saying but you are right, there are huge legal benefits to marriage which I seem to have underestimated. ∆

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/heelspider. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/heelspider)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[NOT_A-DOG]

That would be true if it was just some odd tradition. But it isn't just the ceremony, but also a tax. Right now there is a gay tax. Gay couples have to pay higher taxes than straight couples because the government gives a tax break for married couples. The reason for this is that married couples tend to be more efficient and better for the government. The government wants to encourage marriage, so as with all things they encourage they subsidize it. Gay people provide the exact same benefits to marriage, if not more! Adoption being the largest one. This tax comes through in multiple ways. The yearly tax and through inheritance. The government doesn't tax inheritance as much for marriage, but if they are simply partners then they get taxed when their "partner" dies. The State also doesn't allow for gay couples see their loved ones in hospitals or prison because they aren't married. If this was just in the church I wouldn't care. But this is much more than that.

[LasalBoyagama]

That's a way I never thought about it. If you set the heterosexual marriage benefits as the norm then there really is a 'gay tax' ∆

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/NOT_A-DOG. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/NOT_A-DOG)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[agentxorange127]

If gay marriage is not allowed in a state - 1) Their marriages technically *are* null and void, as the state does not recognize them. 2) Marriage is not actually decided by the people in the union, since there are legal requirements as well as legal benefits. Which brings me to my next point. 3) There are several legal benefits (as well as tax benefits) to being married. States which do not allow gay marriage do not give these legal benefits to gay couples. You might believe you are married to someone, but the term "marriage" is a political one indeed since it has legal ramifications.

[LasalBoyagama]

1. The entire point of this post is to say that marriage isn't (actually) a legal principle, it is fundamentally a relationship between two people. If you look back in history the state rarely ever recognised marriages due to the lack of infrastructure to record all of them. However people did not feel that their marriages were void because the government didn't have records of it. 2. You are correct if you are talking only about the lack of equality concerning the civil liberties of gay couples when compared to heterosexual couples. 3. That is exactly what I am saying is the problem, that Gay couples are not given the same rights as other couples.

[youcanfeelme]

There are many gay couples who found that after 3 or 4 decades together, they were unable to see their spouse on their death bed just metres away or had the deceased possessions confiscated by the (unsupportive) family of the deceased even if jointly purchased for a home because of legislation surrounding marriage, would you tell those people equal marriage isn't a big deal when it means something as important as seeing your partner in hospital or receiving inheritance/insurance/tax benefits? Not to mention the economic, professional and tourism problems that come with a marriage being recognised in one state but not in the next Additionally, many would not be satisfied with the blatantly separate but equal and condescending system of "civil partnerships" as it enshrines second class citizenship into law, and in places like the UK was only constructed as a rather embarrassing illogical compromise for full marriage rights in the first place Whether someone sees themselves as equally married doesn't matter in the eyes of the law, in the eyes of hospital policy or other policies, and in the eyes of society who use that symbol of second class citizenship as a justification for second class sentiment and treatment. As long as second class citizenship is enshrined by law it will be criticised. Many places are merely cashing a cheque which was given to them a decade ago when the payer said they didn't have the credit to be able to pay at the time and instead handed over this rather half arsed, makeshift "specially made for you" but nonetheless counterfeit substitute and told them to come back later In addition there is the larger scope of history, in that gay unions haven't been enshrined as equal in law since Ancient Rome before the first Christian emperors, so for some having gay unions blessed by the state as equal once again for the first time in 1700 years or so has a lot of historical connotations and and is quite symbolic in that context

[stillclub]

You get a marriage licence from the government. It's nothing but a legal document

[BrellK]

[STA-CITE]>1.The entire point of this post is to say that marriage isn't (actually) a legal principle, it is fundamentally a relationship between two people. [END-CITE]But... it *is* a legal principle. You can't just *ignore* a huge portion of the **law** that explains that. It is what it is, and certain people based on their sexual preferences are treated as second class citizens in the United States because of it. [STA-CITE]>However people did not feel that their marriages were void because the government didn't have records of it. [END-CITE]I guarantee you that every time a spouse isn't allowed to see their loved one on a death bed because politicians need to play politician's games, they would agree with you. The simple fact is that we have more regulations now than we have ever had in the past. Maybe things like the deathbed visit weren't an issue in the past, *but now they are*. [STA-CITE]> 3.That is exactly what I am saying is the problem, that Gay couples are not given the same rights as other couples. [END-CITE]So one portion of Americans are not being treated fairly under the law, which is a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. Why do you think that the discussion about equal rights "isn't as important as the Media portrays it to be"?

[turtleintegral]

[STA-CITE]> The entire point of this post is to say that marriage isn't (actually) a legal principle, it is fundamentally a relationship between two people. [END-CITE]This is wrong though. Marriage *is* a legal principle, and it always has been. String pair relationships are going to happen regardless of what the law states, but marriage itself is a legal union between two people that comes with many legal benefits that non-married people don't get, regardless of the strength of their relationship. Marriage *fundamentally* is a legal principle, and it always essentially has been.

[Raborn]

[STA-CITE]>The entire point of this post is to say that marriage isn't (actually) a legal principle, it is fundamentally a relationship between two people. If you look back in history the state rarely ever recognised marriages due to the lack of infrastructure to record all of them. However people did not feel that their marriages were void because the government didn't have records of it. [END-CITE]You seem to be missing the point of WHY it's so important. The benefits and privileges that are in impacted by the state not recognizing a marriage are demonstrable. If one of the couple are sick, visitation rights. If one dies, what happens to the shared property? Children, wills, powers of attorney, all kinds of things are tied to marriage and the state and for two people entering into that kind of agreement, marriage on the state level is important.

[StillAnAss]

[STA-CITE]> The entire point of this post is to say that marriage isn't (actually) a legal principle [END-CITE]You may believe this. But the law disagrees with you 100%.

[LasalBoyagama]

That was worded poorly. What I should have said is that marriage can exist without legal principles.

[Brawldud]

But the fact is that it *doesn't.* You can argue all day whether people can be 'married' without being legally wedded, but at the end of the day, the gay marriage discussion is absolutely important, because at present, many parts of the US (and hell, a pretty good slice of the world) treats gays as inferior in the eyes of the law. Legally allowing gay people to be married (and thus giving them access to basic civil liberties that straight couples have enjoyed for centuries) codifies their equality into law, which is a very fundamental step toward total societal acceptance. All you've been doing, throughout every one of these comment threads, is talking about how people can be married just by loving each other, thus rendering the entire gay marriage argument moot, but then saying that gay people should have access to the rights that married people have. To put it bluntly, your idea about marriage has no basis in reality. There is absolutely no question in the media or in public discussion about if gay people love each other. Nobody is arguing about gay marriage using the definition you are offering. Whether marriage *should* be a legal contract that affords civil liberties to the couple is a completely different matter entirely and falls out of the scope of this CMV. **You've ignored every single argument pointing out what I just said to you**. I sincerely question if you were posting a bona fide CMV.

[Raintee97]

Marriage is all those things, but marriage recognised by the state is all those things and all the extra benefits that come with being married. A couple can say they are married just because the feel that way, but that state will disagree.

[LasalBoyagama]

That is exactly what I am saying. The issue with gay marriage is not that gay couples are not being allowed to get married but that they are not being given the same liberties that heterosexual couples are being given.

[Raintee97]

saying your married is not being married. I mean I can say I'm married to anyone I want to. When I file for my taxes, I can't fill out my forms as a married person. So, in that case, I'm not really mattered in any sense. If the only way that a person can get "married" is to do so in a way that gives none of the rights that other groups of people who are married get is exactly equal. Their marriages are void. They aren't married. The state doesn't consider them married. They get zero benefits to be married. Your idea that marriage isn't considered by outsiders seems to greatly conflict with reality.

[LasalBoyagama]

[STA-CITE]> When I file for my taxes, I can't fill out my forms as a married person. So, in that case, I'm not really mattered (married?) in any sense. [END-CITE]In my opinion, that isn't what marriage is about. Filling a box saying that you are married isn't what marriage is about. It is an emotional attachment to another person. No state can truly ever take that away from two people. [STA-CITE]> The state doesn't consider them married. They get zero benefits to be married. [END-CITE]Do you need benefits to get married? If your perspective marriage is defined by the benefits that you receive from the state then your perspiration is distorted. I AM COMPLETELY AGREEING WITH YOU THAT THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF A GAY COUPLE WHEN COMPARED TO THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF A STRAIGHT COUPLE ARE NOT EQUAL AND THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM. However they still are married, not through the eyes of the state but through their own.

[sciencemax]

in the u.s., a marriage is a legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. on a governmental standpoint, it has **nothing** to do with love.

[I_am_the_Jukebox]

[STA-CITE]> In my opinion, that isn't what marriage is about. [END-CITE]Doesn't matter. Legally, that's precisely what it is about. It's taking two separate legal entities and joining them into one. Marriage is a social and legal construct, first and foremost. The concept of a marriage as a bond of love is actually quite recent.

[huadpe]

[STA-CITE]>In my opinion, that isn't what marriage is about. Filling a box saying that you are married isn't what marriage is about. It is an emotional attachment to another person. No state can truly ever take that away from two people. [END-CITE]Except if your husband or wife isn't a citizen and the only way for you to stay in the same country together is to be legally married so you can sponsor him or her. For bi-national couples, legal marriage is often the difference between whether they can live together as a family or not. It's a huge freaking deal.

[Namemedickles]

[STA-CITE]> I AM COMPLETELY AGREEING WITH YOU THAT THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF A GAY COUPLE WHEN COMPARED TO THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF A STRAIGHT COUPLE ARE NOT EQUAL AND THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM. [END-CITE]Okay, then your argument (or view if you prefer) is pointless. You are just saying that we shouldn't say that it's a marriage issue because by the definition you are using, they are already married. That's just silly. When I (and it appears most of the commentators here) say "marriage" we are talking about the legally sanctioned version of marriage which provides those certain civil liberties. Marriage has a legal definition, that's what we are fighting for and that is what the media is talking about.

[Vitamer]

In short: The legal version of marriage is the only one that matters.

[Namemedickles]

Well said.

[Raintee97]

They aren't married. At all. So when the state looks at their pairing at times like if one person is in the hospital and such, they are just two people. Their love doesn't matter. I get what you're trying to say here but if it was really the same you would see hetrosexual couples forgo getting married with actual marriage licenses, but you never see that happen.

[Grammatical_Aneurysm]

Not to mention custody and guardianship of children.

[MizzKittay]

And inheritance if and when one spouse dies. The marriage equality case that made it to the SCOTUS last year or two years ago was about a lesbian woman who had to pay $300,000 in taxes to receive/keep the house she lived but that only her girlfriend owned. If they had been able to wed she would have inherited the house for free.

[ParentheticalClaws]

Minor correction: Windsor and her wife had been legally married in Ontario, and lived in New York, which, at the time of Windsor's wife's death, recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. However, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) prevented federal agencies, including the IRS, from treating same-sex couples as married, even when they legally were. So the decision didn't assert a right to marry; it just made it so that federal agencies have to recognize the rights of couples who are legally married in their jurisdictions.

[MizzKittay]

Thank you! :-)

[kiirana]

[STA-CITE]> It is an emotional attachment to another person. No state can truly ever take that away from two people. [END-CITE]That isn't marriage, that's love. A man and a woman who do not love each other can get married. A man who loves a man cannot get married in many areas. It would be very hard for a government to say "you cannot love people of the same gender", but it can say "you cannot sign a contract binding yourself legally to a person of the same gender." If you want to argue that marriage should not be a legal institution, that is a different CMV. Marriage, as it stands, carries significant legal benefits that cannot be conferred upon some gay couples no matter how strong their emotional bond is.

[Brawldud]

I'm not entirely sure if OP came here to discuss his actual CMV topic. Nearly all of his comments in the thread are arguing about what marriage 'is' and whether it's a legal term or an emotional one.