But, it's not fair to ask gay people to wait around until marriage is removed from our entire legal system (taxes, immigration, property rights, family law, custody...). So in the mean time marriage equality is a much easier fix.
Maybe someday there will be a ruling based on the Equal Protections Clause that bans treating married people differently than unmarried people under the law. Wouldn't that be interesting?
I'm straight (and divorced), and we got married for many of the same reasons that LGBT folks want to--it makes sense. Visitation rights, inheritance, tax treatment, etc.
It's unlikely that marriage would be removed as something of concern to lawmakers--has that kind of thing ever happened anywhere, any time, any way?
I respect OP's opinion, but it's ivory tower and we're talking about real people right now.
possibly unnecessary edit: just want to reiterate that I think OP is _right_, it's just not practical, and I'll sacrifice rightness for a rather-large "quick and dirty win".
However, your point still stands true in the case of custody rights, since same-sex-marriage opponents tend to claim (rather dubiously) that children raised in such a family tend to experience psychological trauma.
I'm really more-or-less neutral on the matter; it doesn't matter what it's called so long as the rights are equal for everyone. "Marriage" is a good-enough term for that.
Some folks express that, yeah. I do not believe it is an honest position in the general case and have suspected since the jump that that's a move of the goalposts designed to appear more reasonable than they are, ready to be dragged back further as they are approached.
Because its not coded language designed to appeal to homophobes, unlike actual Republican rhetoric. If it wasn't an "attack on marriage" it would be something else.
Addendum: If this weren't the case, nobody would bother with propaganda or marketing.
- my inheritance: my spouse can get my SS income when I die, my wife inherits my goods by default, etc. Now gays get the same treatment.
- taxes: are different for married and non-married folks. Now gays get the same treatment.
IOW "follow the money".
This ruling will change how much money the government pays to its citizens and how money is passed among its citizens (after marriage and death in particular). But nobody ever discussed the ramifications of this and the entire discussion was based around a bunch of bombast.
So we're not simply "changing the name".
Actually now ANY TWO people can get the same treatment. Two straight males can get married. If I was single and I had a friend with good benefits, I'd make a case to get married... The savings on insurance and taxes we'd share. Now if millions did this, the cost of those benefits will go up drastically.
Get married to a platonic roommate with a prenup. Risky some what, but with prenups and no fault divorce the risk is greatly diminished.
The access to finding another human to join incomes and assets for tax planning purposes has doubled.
It doesn't help you if the other party doesn't get any of your stuff in a divorce if you're still saddled with debts they took on while you were married.
There may be places where this is possible, but I doubt it'd be worth it once you factor in the cost of sufficiently safeguarding yourself, unless there are massive amounts of money involved.
That said, I do object to the oft-stated remark that marriage has historically been a civil rather than religious institution, primarily because historically that's been a distinction without a difference. Such remarks tend to take a separation of church and state for granted when, in reality, both those things were very frequently conflated until maybe the last few centuries, and even then it was a very gradual shift in practice.
Hell, church and state are still one and the same in much of the modern world (see also: significant portions of the Middle East, the United Kingdom, various others). Implying that this was any less prevalent historically is, well, silly.
Later, France created a very powerful form of non-marriage civil union (the PACS) and saw it become incredibly popular with straight couples.
There are actually "religious" organizations who for a small fee will give you a certificate to act as a minister to perform a weddings, no dogma required. I believe these are accepted in all states.
In my state of Colorado, a couple can marry themselves without the need for any official from the state or religion. Couples marrying themselves are free to ask a friend to stand in as an informal "official" during a ceremony, but legally, they sign the marriage certificate as having married themselves.
In the US the question of gay marriage is really about the government recognizing the it and giving gays and lesbians the legal rights and responsibilities found in marriage. Most church's will continue to be against it and not perform such ceremonies. Although a few, such as my own Unitarian Universalist have been advocating for gay marriage for decades.
From what you are describing, in EU you HAVE to be married by a government official even if you are religious. That's the wrong attitude to take. To each their own, let the people choose.
From bureaucratic perspective the important part is that the state is aware of the "social contract" two people made between each other and there is a witness who witnessed the "execution" of that contract. That's all. Who that witness is, as long as they are trustworthy, shouldn't matter.
In a religious ceremony you're married in the eyes of your god, and states don't have to recognize it.
They serve a different purpose, and it makes no sense for a social contract in one community to carry weight in the other.
Not really. Most folks I know, even the ones who got married in a church, were technically already married when they signed their marriage certificate at city hall.
I won't claim to be a marriage expert, but I don't think things are all that different from the Netherlands.
I guess there are actual annulments, but I always thought of those from a religious perspective, not a legal one. I can't fathom that the requirements are the same as presumably the religious one stipulates no intercourss.
I have no need to redefine people's religion if they willingly separate it from the state.
The described scenario in France means that you can have a religious marriage if you so wish; an official contract-signing 'event' out of necessity.
Makes sense IMO - not a government's job to tell a church who is or isn't allowed to marry under their religion.
since some sort of legal status is required for many
purposes in most countries
This reminds me of the Tea Party slogan "No Taxation Without Representation!", the chanters seeming to have forgotten that they have representation. An elected official who represents them. Just because the chanter wasn't in the voting bloc that won doesn't mean that democratic process wasn't followed...
More so, by expanding the institution of marriage to gays (as it was not long ago expanded to interracial couples) it will ultimately help build public support for redefining marriage.
(undermine in the sense of reverse a principle upon which the arguments used by SCOTUS to defend various decisions depend.)
How many Human-to-human systems out there have invariants coded in for gender/sex settings? It might make for some interesting scenes of discriminatory software in court for businesses that utilize them.