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.
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.