@deuces

You just said that you wanted to start out with civil unions and then maybe eventually move on to marriage... Please answer the following.

(1) In what ways, other than the name, would your civil unions differ from marriage? What legal rights and responsibilities would be different?

(2) If there would be no difference other than the name, why would placing the identical legal framework around a gay relationship be fine as long as it is called a civil union but suddenly open up a can of worms or start us down a slippery slope if it is called a marriage?

I mean, if you really truly believe that gay relationships can't be governed by the same rules as straight ones, than surely you should be able to name some concrete ways in which your "civil union" would differ from "marriage," right?

This is the part where I, and I think most people ITT, fundamentally disagree with you. The way I see it, if you can't specifically name any real differences, then you should not be against gay marriage. Your line of thinking just gives people a way to object to gay marriage indefinitely without any real reasons. Any one can just say, "Well, you haven't proved to me that there won't be any issues." It's basically the same as saying, "Prove to me that god doesn't exist." It's just fundamentally backwards and sad.

I love the "I'm pro civil union but I've invented all these nonsense reasons to oppose gay marriage" bit, like we're not going to see through your transparent logic and pick up on the underlying bigotry and xenophobia.

Cause when you start to try and justify your point of view with something easily solved by find and replace.

It's pretty clear you're grasping at straws.

(so say nothing of the fact that trivial issues like this are worth working through in the name of equality).

Yeah, think I said this in a different thread, but "well we might have to change some words around on legal documents" is an idiotic and really borderline offensive "reason" to deny some people equal rights. It's so contrived I don't blame anyone for saying it's clearly just a veil for aggressively homophobic feelings.

Do you do any divorce law? Are there even any like weird gender specific written in the 1860s assed "The man gets to keep the donkey" type laws out there?

~75% of my practice is divorce/custody/child support. Nothing gender specific in Maryland, though you were allowed to rape your wife without consequence until like 1986.

TRADITION argument solid as usual

Wow, dodged a bullet there. If they didnt change that law in 1986 then how would the law have coped with gay spousal rape when gay marriage is legal next year given both involved are husbands?!?!

/Deuces McKraken

Pretty terrible strawmanning. He wasn't talking about technical changes on forms or antiquated, unenforced laws. He was speaking generally on common law.

It's certainly not clear at all whether Deuces is right or wrong on the law (I suspect he's wrong, but that's merely conjecture), especially when considering the seminal opinion on gay rights is vague on the scope of protected liberty:

The bell rung by Kennedy here, and throughout his opinion (alluding to Griswold, Roe, Eisenstadt) lies less in public recognition than in the protection of private acts, especially intimate ones. Opponents of gay marriage need simply show that the State may properly define its parameters by demonstrating that the institution of marriage is ill served by it. Given the mountains of common law discussing marriage in no uncertain terms this is no difficult scale for those seeking to deny it.

The only justice to find for Lawrence on Equal Protection Clause grounds was O'Connor. The Equal Protection argument was acidly (correctly, in my view) attacked by Kennedy as deficient, a slap in the face:

Sorry- but if you're hiding behind legal complexity as an argument against gay marriage, even just as an academic exercise- I don't have any time for your opinion. Basic decency and human rights aren't that complex.

I'm not "hiding behind" anything. I support gay marriage and voted against the amendment in MN. However, when one starts trotting out platitudes like "basic decency" and "human rights" I find it difficult to rebut the arguments of polygamists. I mean, who are we to say, categorically, that a father and daughter cannot marry even if they love each either consensually? Is the state interest really so compelling in a couple hundred marriages to deny the parties most adversely affected by the law the basic human right of marriage?

I have qualms over gay marriage for three reasons.

1. I don't recognise what gay people do as sex. It may bring sexual relief/satisfaction but from the anthropological point of view I don't think it can rightly be called "sex".

2. Polygamy. In Europe there is a case of a child with THREE legally recognised parents (the gay couple and the natural father).

3. Incest. In Europe there is a case of gay married sisters.

I support equal rights for gay people but I feel we've gone a bit overboard with this gay "parenthood" and gay "marriage" stuff. Equal but different is still equal.

So it's one thing that you're clearly wrong about (and even if you were right who the **** cares) and two that have nothing to do with gay people whatsoever.

What does this have to do with gay marriage? These same issues exist in hetero marriage.

might want to review a bit of US jurisprudence before making such an assertion

Cwocwoc,

You need to work on recognition of sex. I recommend going to a few select gay porn websites and watching over and over until you see anything you recognise.

You've confused "legal complexity" with "abject bigotry".

At least cwoc is the closest person to say he doesn't want gay marriage because he thinks it's icky. Just drop the thin veil of legal stuff and go full bigot.

I want to hear more about this gay "parenthood" he talks about. You sound sarcastic with you air quotes (that's how I read it), but afaik, gay dudes still have sperm, and lesbians still have eggs. I don't know a whole lot about biology, but I think you can still become a parent that way.

That child will one day rise to power and start WWIII, all because you people want to have your gay buttsecks. It's not even real sex, anyway.

So? Do married people need to have sex with each other?

So your problem is with polygamy, not gay marriage?

So your problem is with incest, not gay marriage?

Does this force churches to wed gay people?

No.

Then I don't really see the problem.