Hacker News Reader

I think you're misreading the above post. The point is not to say there is a justifiable argument against gay marriage but to say that not all opponents are like Fred Phelps -- i.e., not all opponents are motivated by pure animus as opposed to ignorance, FUD, or just faulty reasoning.

A big part of that ignorance is many (if not most) gay marriage opponents simply don't believe it's an immutable characteristic and don't fully appreciate how damaging it can be to suppress one's sexual orientation (e.g. don't ask, don't tell). And if you don't believe that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, then a gay marriage ban isn't discrimination against a minority but simply yet another public morality law in line with bans on drugs, polygamy, or public nudity.

That doesn't make the argument any less wrong, but IMHO, intent matters. Ignorance or stupidity don't deserve the same level of condemnation as outright hate.

It has nothing to do both "separate but equal" if the only difference is the legal term used ("marriage" for heterosexual couple, "civil union" for homosexual couple) and not the rights associated with it.

Separate but equal was about physical segregation of minorities, not just about using different legal terms for the same thing. And, by the way, something that a ton of people don't know about the separate but equal doctrine (because it doesn't appear to be taught in American public schools): It actually refers to the government's legal authority to mandate that privately owned businesses provide separate nut equal facilities for blacks. That's a lot different than the usual portrayal of Brown vs. BoE, as the government stepping in an conquering private racism.

> It has nothing to do both "separate but equal" if the only difference is the legal term used ("marriage" for heterosexual couple, "civil union" for homosexual couple) and not the rights associated with it.

It's the exact same theory: "different legal regimes but the same rights" and "different physical facilities but the same quality".

"Legal regime" sounds fancy, but if it's just a word difference I wouldn't see much of a problem. Similarly, we have word differences like "brother"/"sister" that are descriptive but which don't involve any difference in rights.

if the only difference is the legal term used ("marriage" for heterosexual couple, "civil union" for homosexual couple) and not the rights associated with it.

Which was not, is not and has never been the case in any of the gay marriage cases across the country.

I'm not disputing that. I'm not an expert in California marriage law. I'm just saying that if the only difference is the legal term, and there were no difference in legal rights, then the situation is not as simple as "bigotry" vs. "equal rights."

It's worth pointing out here that having it be a unified institution means the way it works in the one case and the other case are tied together (unless you introduce an explicit distinction). Having them under two separate umbrellas potentially allows them to drift apart or (more easily compared to the one-umbrella case) simply be changed to be different at a later date.

Your understanding of civil rights and Jim Crow is so wrong it's just astounding. I suggest you start with reading the wikipedia article on Brown v. Board of Education and Jim Crow laws.

Can you give me something more specific? Are you referring to the fact that Brown vs. BoE applied specifically to public schools rather than private businesses? That's true, but the separate but equal doctrine allowed states to prohibit private businesses from having integrated facilities regardless of whether the business owners were racist.

Yes, among other things. Just read the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

Are you implying there were a bunch of southern business owners who wanted to provide integrated service, but were unable to because of Jim Crow? That's what it sounds like, and it's so wrong it's astounding.

I'm well aware of Jim Crow laws. They mandated the racial segregation of public facilities, the military, restrooms, etc. What is the mistake you think I'm making about Jim Crow laws?

Surely there must have been at least a few business owners that didn't want to spend their resources on separate facilities. Otherwise the state laws which forced segregation wouldn't have been necessary.

Yes - they just didn't serve blacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book

What mistake do I think you are making? You said: "It actually refers to the government's legal authority to mandate that privately owned businesses provide separate nut equal facilities for blacks". No law ever forced private businesses to serve blacks in the south until the civil rights act. They may have been forced to racially segregate, but no law every forced white southern business owners to serve blacks.

> I'm pretty sure civil marriage has nothing to do with "the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution".

The difference is that you are more rational and clear thinking individual than many many others. Trying to apply your logic to their "logic" will just result in frustration.

The Cognitive Therapy approach to argument ("Well let me show you how your argument is internally inconsistent") doesn't often work in such case.

So what does that mean in this case. It means that they can have a deep belief that civil marriage is tied to the Christian idea and still accept that atheists and Hindus also take part in it. There is vague religious mythology associated with the Founding Fathers, Constitution and the idea of exclusivity of this country. We are shocked how some Islamic country go full on and just base their legal framework on Islamic rules, but there are swathes of Americans would love nothing more that see that happen here but with Christian ideology.

They have been also losing ground (abortion etc), saw a resurgence with election of Bush junior (a large Evangelical backing) and now they are losing ground again and are being backed into a corner. Instead of seeing the crazy irrationality of their action they lash out and create Prop 8 like campaigns. Tea parties and so on.

>> and would be completely fine with another civil contract with the same rights but a different name.

>Because "separate but equal" had such a good run last time around eh?

Do you take the same hardline stance with others who were opposed to gay marriage a few years ago and advocating civil unions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

> Do you take the same hardline stance with others who were opposed to gay marriage a few years ago and advocating civil unions?

I'm fine with civil unions existing (they're useful, for both same-sex and different-sex couples) and I'm fine with civil unions being a stepstone.

But civil unions is not marriage anywhere, least of all legally and across country lines.

So the issue is murkier, on the one hand once civil unions are in and civilisation hasn't ended it's easier to drive for marriage equality and the "opponents" to gay marriage can be used to get civil unions (that worked fairly well in most of western europe); on the other hand it means years or decades waiting as a sub-standard citizen (not all of western europe has marriage equality yet), it depletes the store of outrage/combativity for equality proponents it's not necessary[1] and I'm not sure it makes the overall process shorter: there seems to be a ~>10 years lag between partnerships and marriage equality.

[0] Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland added same-sex partnerships in the early 90s and superseded them with gender-neutral marriage in the last 5 years; France added civil unions (for both homosexual and heterosexual couples) in 1998 and extended marriage to same-sex couples in 2013; Finland enacted registered partnerships in 2002 and support full same-sex marriage has been falling ever since — from 45% back then to 65% now; Great Britain added civil partnerships in 2004 and further added full same-sex marriage in 2014.

[1] the netherlands skipped civil unions and just went straight for marriage equality in 2001

Eich was not 'stonewalling', he was following the guidelines that all Mozilla employees adhere to, which include not bringing personal views into the workplace. Stating his PoV on gay marriage (pro OR con) as a representative of Mozilla would have been wholly inappropriate. The thing you say would have proven his virtue would have in fact made him unsuitable to hold his position.

See here: https://medium.com/p/7645a4bf8a2