So, separate-but-equal hasn't really worked out in America each time we've tried it. And, like it or not, marriage is a religious institution that's worked its way into the secular world - tax codes, family insurance coverage, hospital visitation, inheritance laws, etc, all have language specifically about marriage. It's very easy to imagine a situation in which civil unions and marriages have different rules applied, from both the government and private companies... and in fact that's the case according to GLAD.
One of the big differences is that civil unions often aren't respected state-to-state, so a couple's New Hampshire civil union wouldn't be recognized if they moved to Arkansas, and the couple would lose the benefits (notably the tax and insurance benefits) of that civil union.
And, like it or not, marriage is a religious institution that's worked its way into the secular world
I have to challenge this. Official recognition of family bonding has been around since the beginning of recorded human history. Making note of who is married to whom and producing which children has been a legal concern the whole time. Marriage was co-opted by religion as it claimed jurisdiction over sexuality and reproduction but that's still no excuse to cede it to religious interests. Marriage is a secular institution that religion has as much right to participate in but no right to make any demands over.
As has been often observed, anyone who doesn't approve of gay marriage doesn't have to get one.
I'm not opposed, but I take those two as separate things, the Roman Catholic marriage and a secular marriage, or even one performed in a church that doesn't recognize marriage as a sacrement are not really the same thing. So I think that's where I personally sit, I'll call it a marriage, but it's a secular marriage that's different from a religious one. For other people who cannot or will not separate them, it's not the same way, they see you saying something about the institution that Christ started, you see a tax code and visitation. It's not so much about denying you anything, it's about what the sacrement is to them, and if marriages everywhere are sacremental, then it's not possible to have an extrabiblical marriage because Jesus defines marriage.
Like I said, I draw a line around those in my denomination, and anything that they do would affect the definition of marriage, but because we aren't living under canon law, there's a bit of separation there. those marriages are different, as they're secular and governed by secular law (and the laws of your church/temple/mosque/asram/amileavinganythingout) I don't get a vote on what a Muslim marriage is, or a buddhist one, or a hindu one, or a jedi one. That's what a secular government does. We don't live under ISIL or in Vatican City, we aren't under religious law, and thus what matters is lack of harm, consent, and legal consistency. Once you show all of that, it's a free choice in a free country.
But how does changing a single word change what's going on here? I think you mean that you'd be fine with gay marriage if they replaced marriage with another term, correct? But I don't see where using a different term changes anything else. If the new institution (let's call it a hulbaba) gave every right that the state grants to marriage, a marriage and a hulbaba are the same thing. We're arguing semantics, where two literally identical contracts are given different names even though they're the same thing. If hulbabas and marriages are identical in every way, then really, changing the word is a best a fig leaf to hide the reality that by granting gays hulbabas but denying them marriages, you've given them marriages but created a fictional name to deny that they are in fact married.
If the supreme court used any other nomenclature than marriage, it would have merely continued the debate. There is already the argument that gays shouldn't get married because they can get civil unions, except civil unions are NOT the same thing as a marriage. They are not universally recognized state to state. They also do not bring any of the federal protections granted by a legal marriage. The legal system in this country uses the term "Marriage" to define a union between two people that brings a certain social status, tax benefits and other civil and social benefits with it. If the Supreme Court were to allow gays to get any other term but married, an entire new framework of laws would need to be written, defining say "Federal Civil Unions" if that were to be the term used, and in order to make them equal to federally recognized marriages, each and every one of the benefits granted to a married couple would need to be granted to a couple engaging in a civil union. And even then, our history shows that separate is never truly equal. So, rather than create another legal quagmire, the Supreme Court stated that denying homosexuals the right to federally recognized marriages is discriminating against an entire social class of people, which doesn't fly with our constitution. Constantly calling for the government to use a different term would mean the government would have to change that term for every other married couple in the United States in order to make it fair and equal - which there is a push for in this country. Your argument is a strawman designed to try and convince people to deny rights to an entire class of people.
So, separate-but-equal hasn't really worked out in America each time we've tried it. And, like it or not, marriage is a religious institution that's worked its way into the secular world - tax codes, family insurance coverage, hospital visitation, inheritance laws, etc, all have language specifically about marriage. It's very easy to imagine a situation in which civil unions and marriages have different rules applied, from both the government and private companies... and in fact that's the case according to GLAD.
One of the big differences is that civil unions often aren't respected state-to-state, so a couple's New Hampshire civil union wouldn't be recognized if they moved to Arkansas, and the couple would lose the benefits (notably the tax and insurance benefits) of that civil union.
I have to challenge this. Official recognition of family bonding has been around since the beginning of recorded human history. Making note of who is married to whom and producing which children has been a legal concern the whole time. Marriage was co-opted by religion as it claimed jurisdiction over sexuality and reproduction but that's still no excuse to cede it to religious interests. Marriage is a secular institution that religion has as much right to participate in but no right to make any demands over.
As has been often observed, anyone who doesn't approve of gay marriage doesn't have to get one.
I'm not opposed, but I take those two as separate things, the Roman Catholic marriage and a secular marriage, or even one performed in a church that doesn't recognize marriage as a sacrement are not really the same thing. So I think that's where I personally sit, I'll call it a marriage, but it's a secular marriage that's different from a religious one. For other people who cannot or will not separate them, it's not the same way, they see you saying something about the institution that Christ started, you see a tax code and visitation. It's not so much about denying you anything, it's about what the sacrement is to them, and if marriages everywhere are sacremental, then it's not possible to have an extrabiblical marriage because Jesus defines marriage.
Like I said, I draw a line around those in my denomination, and anything that they do would affect the definition of marriage, but because we aren't living under canon law, there's a bit of separation there. those marriages are different, as they're secular and governed by secular law (and the laws of your church/temple/mosque/asram/amileavinganythingout) I don't get a vote on what a Muslim marriage is, or a buddhist one, or a hindu one, or a jedi one. That's what a secular government does. We don't live under ISIL or in Vatican City, we aren't under religious law, and thus what matters is lack of harm, consent, and legal consistency. Once you show all of that, it's a free choice in a free country.
Nonsense, The Supreme Court could/would have included any other nomenclature.
But how does changing a single word change what's going on here? I think you mean that you'd be fine with gay marriage if they replaced marriage with another term, correct? But I don't see where using a different term changes anything else. If the new institution (let's call it a hulbaba) gave every right that the state grants to marriage, a marriage and a hulbaba are the same thing. We're arguing semantics, where two literally identical contracts are given different names even though they're the same thing. If hulbabas and marriages are identical in every way, then really, changing the word is a best a fig leaf to hide the reality that by granting gays hulbabas but denying them marriages, you've given them marriages but created a fictional name to deny that they are in fact married.
If the supreme court used any other nomenclature than marriage, it would have merely continued the debate. There is already the argument that gays shouldn't get married because they can get civil unions, except civil unions are NOT the same thing as a marriage. They are not universally recognized state to state. They also do not bring any of the federal protections granted by a legal marriage. The legal system in this country uses the term "Marriage" to define a union between two people that brings a certain social status, tax benefits and other civil and social benefits with it. If the Supreme Court were to allow gays to get any other term but married, an entire new framework of laws would need to be written, defining say "Federal Civil Unions" if that were to be the term used, and in order to make them equal to federally recognized marriages, each and every one of the benefits granted to a married couple would need to be granted to a couple engaging in a civil union. And even then, our history shows that separate is never truly equal. So, rather than create another legal quagmire, the Supreme Court stated that denying homosexuals the right to federally recognized marriages is discriminating against an entire social class of people, which doesn't fly with our constitution. Constantly calling for the government to use a different term would mean the government would have to change that term for every other married couple in the United States in order to make it fair and equal - which there is a push for in this country. Your argument is a strawman designed to try and convince people to deny rights to an entire class of people.