Hacker News Reader

Why is it the job of the gay folks to redefine civil unions to protect "traditional marriage"?

Had the folks who wanted to protect "traditional marriage" proposed removing marriage from the legal framework and replacing it with "civil union" do you have any idea the groundswell of support they would have had?

So, why didn't they? Why was there no campaign to remove "traditional marriage" from the legal framework? Why, instead, did a whole bunch of religious folks sponsor Prop 8 instead of a far superior and equal solution of removing the state altogether from "traditional marriage"?

Simple, Proposition 8 wasn't about marriage. It was about attacking "the gays". And people in the tech industry are smart enough to see it for what it was--a well-funded effort to inject religion-based bigotry into California law. And Eich is paying the price for that.

If I knew more about Prop 8 details, I'd comment on prop 8. I prefer the social and philosophical ideas around the wider debate, and the online activism overreaction, the tweeting Mozilla staff (who should just resign themselves IMHO).

If you're right that Prop 8 was about attacking gay people, then that sucks. This is where I'd like to hear from Eich on the matter. I've automatically assumed his innocence on the matter of gay-hatred, especially after reading his March 26 blog post.

Same-sex couples can still get married anyway, have a wedding without fear of the riot squad shutting the party down. Mickey Rooney married eight times. That's a lot of wedding parties. Definitely have the parties, the honeymoons. That stuff is the important stuff, then go after de-facto/unmarried/same-sex rights of couples.

Certificates for emergencies and so on, come on there's not actually that many rights. Some can be sorted out with co-habitation agreements and other arrangements.

What a sad thing for the Mozilla CEO that his own staff tweet against him just a day after his March 26 blog post promoting equality and stating he was open to advice from the LGBT community... https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

The solution of having a "civil union" that takes care of that stuff and then "marriage" is up to the church is generally acceptable to the LGBT community. However, nobody from the other side is willing to do this either; they just want to bash the LGBT bunch.

> If you're right that Prop 8 was about attacking gay people, then that sucks.

It was. Sadly. And that's what pissed off a LOT of people. The Mormons swooped in and spent enormous amounts of money to get it passed. The Catholic church did too, but not as much as the Mormons.

> This is where I'd like to hear from Eich on the matter. I've automatically assumed his innocence on the matter of gay-hatred, especially after reading his March 26 blog post.

Don't. He believes this and is unapologetic. I suspect it's part of his religion.

I respect him for sticking to his position even though I find his position abhorrent. However, both he and Mozilla should have seen this coming and not put him in the CEO slot.

> Certificates for emergencies and so on, come on there's not actually that many rights. Some can be sorted out with co-habitation agreements and other arrangements.

It's NOT that easy. If it were, I suspect California would have done it already. "Marriage" winds its way through a lot of laws--power of attorney, medical emergency decisions, death benefits, child custody, divorce splits, alimony, adoption, the list goes on and on and on.

The stories of some bigoted doctor preventing a gay partner from visiting or making decisions while their loved one is dying are not uncommon. Can you imagine the lawsuit if that happened to a husband or wife of a traditional marriage? It would be so huge that it wouldn't even get to court.

> You like to think that everyone is on the same page as you, but many people holding back expressing their opinion on this matter simply don't want to be accused by people like you of gay-hatred, bigotry and all the other pathetic labels you have for those who don't agree with you about what "marriage" is, its limits and scope, and how much of it is inherently about male + female union.

Maybe because there's no real rational reason for them to hold onto the term for themselves, and they'd probably not be able to cogently explain why they're against sharing it, so they do what you just did and get all hypothetical and defensive about it instead.

I'll try to explain my rational reason.

State-sanctioned marriage has a meaning if it's purpose is to promote reproduction. Which is what marriage was for up to 50 years ago. It's an institution that has benefits to society, so it makes sense to promote and protect it.

Now if you think of marriage as "any love relationship sanctioned by the government", you of course should include same-sex couples. My objection is that then you have changed the meaning, and now there is no rational reason for not including "a love relationship between a man and his three wives", or "a love relationship between two siblings". Or "a love relationship between four men, two woman and a goat". Or just "a relationship between any number of humans that they choose to call marriage", love (or sex) should be no requirement. As long as all humans involved are adults, and they don't pretend me (via government) to subsidize any of their costs, there is no rational reason to hold onto the term just for couples, same-sex or not.

So senior citizens shouldn't be allowed to get married? How about men who have had a vasectomy, or women with their tubes tied or a hysterectomy?

> This means you should be campaigning for equal rights for civil unions rather than trying to get everyone to re-define what they believe to be "marriage", which doesn't seem to be working.

It's not necessary to get everyone to re-define what they believe to be "marriage", just as it wasn't necessary to get all white people to accept black people as equals. All that's needed are enough people to tip the scales, and such support is inevitable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marr...