> You're demanding a special privilege for your partner and then talking as though it were a natural right.
It's not a special privilege. It's a privilege people who are straight get but not people who are gay, which is not okay.
It's the same kind of misrepresentation as saying Eich spent $1000 to hurt people like the poster. That's my point. No-one in these debates is actually setting out to hurt other people, yet from the other side that's how it's experienced.
I'm also pretty sure that you draw the line somewhere and I'd be surprised if you were fine with siblings being allowed to marry each other, even when they're deeply in love, they take care of each other like other couples and them being together doesn't harm you or anyone else the slightest.
Edit: My take on this is: Even though I'm married myself, I don't think marriage should be part of the legal system or the concern of the state. If the state wants to support people who take care of each other, it should state specific requirements and everyone who fulfils them gets the benefits, no matter who they are. And if people want to get married they can do that as part of a private ceremony, provided by the church or whatever, and if they can't live without the consequences of being married today, they can sign a private contract to their liking. No reason to involve the state in this private matter.
This is a valid position but the Prop 8 people showed no sign of believing it. They were, reserving marriage for themselves, not working to change the laws first, and this was very directly stated both in the language of the proposition and their advocacy for it.
Remember, gay marriage was legal at the time. They could have de-privileged marriage as a legal construct with no unfair impact but put no effort whatsoever into that. It was entirely focused on removing access to those benefits from gay people.
I lived in a relatively conservative part of California at the time, was canvassed a bit, a fair chunk of my family are Orange County Republicans, etc. The language was uniformly an argument on religious principles, and if you suggested reforming the laws which privilege marriage they were profoundly uninterested in those options.
You won't be singing the same tune when they take away the tax breaks, your right to visit your partner in hospital, your right to live in the same country as your partner should you be of different nationalities, etc. etc.
I'm so sick of straight people who essentially say "well if gay people can get married then I guess marriage shouldn't be a real thing any more". In 100% of cases these people turn out not to have even minimally thought through the implications of this. But maybe suddenly stripping straight people of their right to get married would be the only effective way to stop the endless stream of heartless and hurtful comments on threads like this.
I don't see how any of that should depend on people being married? All but one of those things are already possible where I come from without being married, and the last example could be easily fixed.
> I'm so sick of straight people who essentially say "well if gay people can get married then I guess marriage shouldn't be a real thing any more". In 100% of cases these people turn out not to have even minimally thought through the implications of this.
If have thought this through pretty thoroughly. So before we continue, answer the one simple question: where do you draw the lines, that exclude certain types of partnerships from getting married? If you draw it then you're doing the same thing opponents of gay-marriage do, and if you don't draw it marriage becomes a stupid concept within the legal system.
> But maybe suddenly stripping straight people of their right to get married would be the only effective way to stop the endless stream of heartless and hurtful comments on threads like this.
That is exactly what I was saying: Get rid of marriage as a concept within the legal system of a state.
Why do you think this idea is relevant here? It's only relevant if you want to argue that gay marriages shouldn't be legally recognized because no marriages should be legally recognized.
You mention that you're married yourself. If you really wanted the state not to be involved, you could just have conducted a non-legally-recognized marriage ceremony. So why didn't you? My guess is that you (a) didn't actually feel strongly about this issue at all and (b) wanted the many benefits conferred by a legally-recognized marriage. As to (b), gay people want these benefits too.
If Eich had donated money towards an organization that opposes marriages of more than two people, so this discussion had been about those types of relationships instead, I would have brought forward the same arguments. But I have the feeling that Eich wouldn't had lost its job in that case in the first place.
> Why do you think this idea is relevant here? It's only relevant if you want to argue that gay marriages shouldn't be legally recognized because no marriages should be legally recognized
No my take is: Either make all relationships legal (of course as long as none of the participants are exploited), if you insist on keeping marriages as a legal concept. Or, preferably, get rid of marriages altogether from the states point of view, since this is much more efficient and practical.
I'd find your opposition to the legal recognition of any marriages more credible if you divorced your wife in solidarity :)
No, again: If opposite-sex marriage is legal, then I think any other type of partnership should be allowed to become married as well, whether its same-sex with two men, 20 women, a whole family, ...
> I'd find your opposition to the legal recognition of any marriages more credible if you divorced your wife in solidarity :)
Why do you assume I'm married to a woman? I'm married because we get the most benefits out of it and my partner is kind of sentimental and has a different opinion about that topic, so I'm doing them a favor as well.
Like with every other human being, my views and actions aren't always consistent. For example I also don't like child labour, but here I am typing this on a machine that likely made quite a few children suffer.
Here in Australia, the government has decided that unmarried couples in long-term marriage-like relationships (with characteristics like intentions of permanence, sharing of finances and mutual financial support, living together, raising children together, etc) should be treated equivalently to married couples, and receive the same rights and entitlements as married couples do – those long-term marriage-like unmarried relationships are called de facto relationships. This has been enshrined in law, and is now mostly true (modulo some obscure legal technicalities, and the fact that some government agencies at times fail to adhere to the spirit or even letter of the law – although to my knowledge immigration is the main and maybe even only offender). So, in Australia, there are no special tax breaks for being married – unmarried people in de facto relationships can claim the same tax breaks. Family law courts, etc, treat long-term de facto couples as if they were married for issues like property settlements and child custody. This gave a somewhat different character to the same-sex marriage debate in Australia – unmarried couples, both opposite-sex and same-sex, already had pretty much the same rights as opposite-sex married couples, and extending the right of marriage was primarily a symbolic statement of equality rather than a change in people's real world rights and entitlements.
I think other countries, including the US, should do the same thing as Australia has – extend long-term/serious unmarried couples the same legal rights and entitlements as married couples.
And once you've done that, there really is no obstacle to abolishing marriage as a secular legal institution. People who want to participate in it, either as a cultural institution or as a religious institution (or both) are free to do so, but there really is no compelling reason for the government to get involved.
This impractical pie in the sky stuff about abolishing marriage as a legal institution is almost always just a lame excuse for opposing same sex marriage. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up or why you think it's relevant to Brendan Eich.
I already said that, for the case of immigration/visas, it wasn't working that way in Australia; but, that is the only case in Australia in which I know about. But, that's a problem with the Australian immigration system that could be fixed with sufficient political will; it isn't a problem with the principle that serious/long-term unmarried couples should have the exact same rights as married couples, it is just a correctable failure to fully and correctly implement that principle in practice.
For many years I was in an opposite-sex living-together relationship, including having a child together, without being married. (We did eventually get married.) I know people in my extended family who have lived together (in opposite-sex relationships) for 30 years, had kids, never got married, never experienced themselves as being disadvantaged in any way compared to legally married couples. So my lived experience in Australia tells me that unmarried couples rarely or never experience any discrimination on the basis of their marital status, outside of the immigration system. (And maybe some religious institutions, but that has nothing to do with the government or legal system.)
> People usually used this impractical pie in the sky stuff about abolishing marriage as a legal institution as a lame excuse for opposing same sex marriage
When did I say I oppose same-sex marriage? I support same-sex marriage, but I also support abolishing marriage. The two positions are not mutually exclusive – so long as the state is in the business of recognising marriage, it should treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally – but, it should get out of that business altogether.
> I'm not sure why you're bringing it up
I didn't bring it up; someone else did. But since it has become part of the conversation, why shouldn't I share my view on it?
The idea of removing marriage as a legal institution and "fixing" 101 other rules that used to depend on marriage is, as I said, pie in the sky stuff. This silly idea is great cover for homophobes. It's harmless to discuss it in the abstract, but not so much in the context of the question of whether gay people should have fundamental rights.
If immigration officials are not treating married and unmarried couples equally, that's a problem with either the law or its enforcement in practice – both of which are fixable with sufficient political will – not a problem with the principle that married and unmarried couples ought to receive identical treatment.
If the principle of equal treatment were legislated, and if that legislation were consistently enforced, what then would be the problem with abolishing state recognition of marriage (for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally)? I can't see how there could be any.
> You "support" gay marriage in rather a quiet and ineffective way, I'd say.
In 2017, Australia had a national postal plebiscite on the question "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?". (Technically called the "Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey", since by calling it a "survey" the government was able to carry it out without the permission of Parliament.) I voted "Yes". I told my friends and family I was voting "Yes". I even posted a photo of my "Yes" ballot paper on Facebook (I covered up the barcode so that I didn't spoil my vote by doing so). Over 60% of my fellow Australians voted the same way. Within a month of the result being announced, Australia's Marriage Act was changed to reflect the result of that vote. So how exactly was my support ineffective?
In your pie in the sky world, I'm sure they will. In reality, not so much.
I deleted my point about your support being "quiet and ineffective", as I didn't have a justification for that - sorry. But I do think you are very naive in thinking that undermining the importance of marriage as a legal institution is a good way to advance rights for gay couples.
Right. Because government agents and agencies never systematically violate equal treatment mandates.
In the case of immigration/visas, a big problem is that (in many legal systems) most immigration/visa decisions are not judicially reviewable. (There are often exceptions for certain areas of immigration law, such as refugee status determinations and deportation proceedings, but if you are refused a visa from outside the country you usually have no legal recourse.) This means that, even if you believe you have been discriminated against on a legally prohibited ground, no court will even hear your claim.
I think that's wrong, and that should be changed. And it impacts all kinds of people; I'm sure some people get discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality when seeking visas and have no legal recourse, but plenty of people get discriminated against on other grounds – or even just get visas denied for completely inscrutable reasons (e.g. Daniel Stenberg's continual denial of a US visa) – and have no recourse either. But this is a problem which could be fixed with sufficient political will; the law could be amended to grant rights of judicial review in all visa/immigration matters.
Another point: you can say "even if the law says that married and unmarried couples should be treated equally, immigration officials will ignore/violate that law", but you can equally say "even if the law says that same-sex and opposite-sex married couples should be treated equally, immigration officials will ignore/violate that law". I don't understand how, the risk that some immigration official might discriminate against a same-sex couple is a good argument for retaining the legal recognition of marriage, since immigration officials can discriminate against same-sex couples whether marriage is a legally recognised institution or not.