Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Da Boss wrote:
If we make a change, it will have been because certain groups are too homophobic to accept gay marriage. I'm not okay with that. It's pandering to the homophobes so their feathers don't get ruffled. We very easily COULD do that, and I used to not care and think, hey, if it's equal under the law, who cares. But then, thinking about it some more, I realised that is vindicating the views of those who see homosexual love as inferior to heterosexual, and is just a "soft" kind of discrimination. So now I'm a lot more unyielding in my view.
(I say we because a very similar debate is going on at home in Ireland at the moment. We've got our own religious lobby groups here, extreme catholics for the most part).

I think you're being a little too frivolous in your use of the word homophobe.

I don't. I think if you hack away at all the weasel words and bullcrap, at the bottom of the majority of resistance to same sex marriage you find a nice little core of homophobia. Not the beating up gay men kind, of course. The "ew, no thanks" kind.

I'm willing to accept that there are people arguing who have been convinced by the arguments of the homophobes, and are not actually, deep down, homophobic themselves, but since they are arguing for a homophobic agenda I am comfortable tarring them with that brush in the hope that they'll wake up and smell the bigotry.

MDS.
Might as well take it from all. The word "marriage" is not in the Bible. Going by what others voiced on that here on Dakka. I believe Federal government and state should even not be in the decision making process for this. Remove the word thereby removing the religous aspect of influence in this debate. Change to...whatever for all. State still collect fee's for the "union" license fee and if the traditional couple want a actual marriage then they can find a church of their choosing to have it perform. As I can tell everyone on here is so glued on the usage of the word marriage that the word has to be in the documents is funny. Remove the word from both sides hence remove the issue. Both sides still have same status, same legal document, same responcibilities, same options on taxes and what not.

Just funny how people argue that everyone has equal share of the word "marriage"when that word can be removed same as the word "God" from government institutions and college/University grounds. They are both religous in nature and like the US Constitution says "Seperation of Church and State

Edit

Da Boss. You do know the word "Homophobe" is a slander right? My inner EOA wants to come out and correct you on that but this is Dakka

But marriage isn't religious in nature. It wasn't founded on religion, much of its significance was specifically political and for gaining territory, and even now it's used by even atheists whom have no faith in god. So no, it isn't really religion in nature.

 Jihadin wrote:
MDS.
Might as well take it from all. The word "marriage" is not in the Bible. Going by what others voiced on that here on Dakka. I believe Federal government and state should even not be in the decision making process for this. Remove the word thereby removing the religous aspect of influence in this debate. Change to...whatever for all. State still collect fee's for the "union" license fee and if the traditional couple want a actual marriage then they can find a church of their choosing to have it perform. As I can tell everyone on here is so glued on the usage of the word marriage that the word has to be in the documents is funny. Remove the word from both sides hence remove the issue. Both sides still have same status, same legal document, same responcibilities, same options on taxes and what not.

Just funny how people argue that everyone has equal share of the word "marriage"when that word can be removed same as the word "God" from government institutions and college/University grounds. They are both religous in nature and like the US Constitution says "Seperation of Church and State

Edit

Da Boss. You do know the word "Homophobe" is a slander right? My inner EOA wants to come out and correct you on that but this is Dakka

It's only slander if it's inaccurate.

I just want to say that I'm bowing out of the conversation. I've made all the points I have to make and have no desire to restate them over and over in argument.

Thanks for the nice discussion, gentlemen!

Again, glad Texas, the most rational state in the nation, shot the ban down.

All good. Remove the word remove the issue. To me its a fight over a "word". Nothing in any shape or form besides what was written and instilled upon others were written by human hands. Awaken the Sleeper. Remove the word

 Jihadin wrote:
Remove the word remove the issue.

Except that doesn't address the core problem, it just re-frames the issue as semantic and bows out.

 Jihadin wrote:
To me its a fight over a "word".

Freedom, justice, truth, and equality are all also just 'words'.

Freedom, justice, truth, and equality are all also just 'words'.

Ahtman...Seriously?

Duty, Integrity, Commitment, Sacrifice, and Professionalism are just words to me. Battle of words eh. I know Freedom, Justice, Truth and Equality can be also added to me but they are just words to me. How does "marriage" fit into these words Ahtman. Marriage is a core value? If so in the words giving does it fit into? Closest be equality but marriage in documentation claims a union between man and woman. You cannot change the perception of marriage till we are long dead. Only thing can be done is remove the word from documentation. November is coming. So "Winter is coming" and cast your vote. So "bowing out" is an option but yet people want to fight. argue, and debate to keep a "word" in. One cannot have their pie and eat their cake to.

 Da Boss wrote:
I don't. I think if you hack away at all the weasel words and bullcrap, at the bottom of the majority of resistance to same sex marriage you find a nice little core of homophobia. Not the beating up gay men kind, of course. The "ew, no thanks" kind.

I'm willing to accept that there are people arguing who have been convinced by the arguments of the homophobes, and are not actually, deep down, homophobic themselves, but since they are arguing for a homophobic agenda I am comfortable tarring them with that brush in the hope that they'll wake up and smell the bigotry.

I think a lot of it is just tribal. 'Their side' is making noise on homosexual marriage, and so they just go along with it, than to have to side with the liberals on an issue. And I think it's that group of supporters that's largely dropped away as the polling numbers opposing gay marriage have declined over the last decade. Now we're really left with the social conservatives, who probably won't ever give up the fight (the issue becomes how many of their kids will continue the belief), and the really hard line right wingers, who just cannot concede that the liberals got this one right.

 Jihadin wrote:

Freedom, justice, truth, and equality are all also just 'words'.

Ahtman...Seriously?

Duty, Integrity, Commitment, Sacrifice, and Professionalism are just words to me. Battle of words eh. I know Freedom, Justice, Truth and Equality can be also added to me but they are just words to me. How does "marriage" fit into these words Ahtman. Marriage is a core value? If so in the words giving does it fit into? Closest be equality but marriage in documentation claims a union between man and woman. You cannot change the perception of marriage till we are long dead. Only thing can be done is remove the word from documentation. November is coming. So "Winter is coming" and cast your vote. So "bowing out" is an option but yet people want to fight. argue, and debate to keep a "word" in. One cannot have their pie and eat their cake to.

You were the one that presented the argument that is is just a word, I'm just pointing out the problem with that argument. The Constitution is 'just words', the oath you take when you swear into the armed forces are 'just words'. People have fought and died for 'just words'. Words are how express ideas and communicate. So yes, seriously, I think the argument that it is 'just a word' doesn't hold a lot of water. What words we use matter, especially when dealing with serious subjects.

You were the one that presented the argument that is is just a word, I'm just pointing out the problem with that argument. The Constitution is 'just words', the oath you take when you swear into the armed forces are 'just words'. People have fought and died for 'just words'. Words are how express ideas and communicate. So yes, seriously, I think the argument that it is 'just a word' doesn't hold a lot of water. What words we use matter, especially when dealing with serious subjects.

The words mention are morals and values are they not. Is the word "marriage" a value or moral. Its neither. Words mention are what you live by. Its who you are. Its what you are. Its how others perceive you. The word "marriage" has no impact. First off yes I said the Words, I swore an Oath. I'm on a different playing field then where you are at. Nice try on prodding me "People have fought and died for 'just words'. I am not taking that route because I lived that route. A fact you very well know of.

Your arguing for keeping the word marriage.
I am arguing to remove the word.

The word marriage to me as this issue keeps getting hotter needs to go in the bin with

Discrimination
Segregation
Profiling
and countless other words.

Yet people want the title "Married" regardless of the couple make up. Remove the word. Make it a non issue and viola twenty years down the road the nation will forget about it.

 kronk wrote:
Patton Oswalt said it best:

“If people that are against gay marriage just said, ‘I’m against gay marriage because thinking about two men having butt sex or two women having scissor sex kills my boner, dries up my vagina, I can’t have sex, it ruins my life. That’s why I’m against it', that would be a valid argument! We’d have to actually debate you on that!”

“But these lunatics always go, ‘It says in the Bible…’ Oh, OK, stop, hang on. I’m glad you like a book. Just because you like something in a book doesn’t mean you can have the thing you like in the book happen in real life. That’s what crazy people want!”

“I can’t go to the White House with a bunch of Green Lantern comics and go, ‘I want a Green Lantern ring! I saw it in a book I like. Make the thing in the book I like be here now!’ I would be justifiably tased if I did that.”

But then you would incur the wrath of God! He would fly down to earth on a flying nimbus, rabbit punch you in the throat, and then fly away giggling. Green Lantern, on the other hand, is a fictional character.

Wait.....
I thought a rabbit punch was a shot to the kidney?

 Jihadin wrote:
Wait.....
I thought a rabbit punch was a shot to the kidney?

Yeah, but not when The Lord does it...come on, use some sense!

 Jihadin wrote:
The words mention are morals and values are they not. Is the word "marriage" a value or moral. Its neither. Words mention are what you live by. Its who you are. Its what you are. Its how others perceive you. The word "marriage" has no impact. First off yes I said the Words, I swore an Oath. I'm on a different playing field then where you are at. Nice try on prodding me "People have fought and died for 'just words'. I am not taking that route because I lived that route. A fact you very well know of.

"I am sitting on this chair, because chairs are only for people like me."

(some years later)

"Okay, fine, you can have a chair of your own. But you are not to sit in my chair, because this chair is only reserved for people like me."

(some years later)

"Okay, fine, you get to sit in this chair as well. But we're not calling them chairs anymore, they're called seats. I will call it a chair when I use it, but I will never refer to it as a chair while you are sitting in it, and I want government to do the same."


Do you get what's happening hear? Wanting it changed from marriage is the last, final attempt at exclusion, after every other attempt was finally dismantled and rejected by society.

Yet people want the title "Married" regardless of the couple make up. Remove the word. Make it a non issue and viola twenty years down the road the nation will forget about it.

Or allow gay people to marry, and 20 years down the road the nation will wonder why people were ever worried about letting it happen.

Or allow gay people to marry, and 20 years down the road the nation will wonder why people were ever worried about letting it happen.

Of course they can marry. Just cannot use the title of "Marriage". Of course then the word "marry" gets replaced by the word Union. Your on the same track as me but still hung up on the word of "Marriage"

Now though...is a "chair" a moral or value? Its neither. Its a tool to set one butt in.

The word "Marriage" is not a personnel Value or a Moral. Its a TITLE.

Edit

Do you get what's happening hear? Wanting it changed from marriage is the last, final attempt at exclusion, after every other attempt was finally dismantled and rejected by society.

I'm not changing anything about "Marriage" Just remove the word. You all clinging to the word "Marriage" for its title. If we, as in the USA, want the title of the word. Might as well bring back Noble titles to. Duke, Viscount, Knight, etc etc

I didn't think the US ever had noble titles... like it's a part of the original bits of the constitution or something like that...
Incidentally, why can't they use the word married? It's not like every straight couple is married in a church but they still call it marriage... My mum had a secular wedding and that's still a marriage.
There's no reason to remove the word... and there's no reason to not use it. It would actually be pretty convenient.

Both sides want the word/title "Marriage" on their certificate. If you appease one side the other will not like it. Its like Clinton approach to DADT policy on what I am getting at. Went into effect 1994. 20 years later its been done away with. Gay's and Lesbians can openly served. Do away with the word "Marriage" and replace with another title and twenty years down the road its a no issue. Yet the word "Marriage" is the Relic that everyone wants a part of. So if the Federal government and the state government declare they were no longer using the word "Marriage" in the certificate and to be replaced with another title of, say, Life Term Partner where each spouse/partner has the same rights as everyone else. People though here are arguing for the word "Marriage" to be kept and cannot except the out of the box idea I have is getting funny.

Edit 1

The removal would create an uproar from religous groups and GL groups but they do not have a leg to stand on if another Title comes to replace the word "Marriage". If the new title and rights/priviliges is equal to all couples.


This is the a battle for the same rights as a traditional "Marriage"couple gets right? Its all about the "Rights" right? We're not arguing over the title of Marriage are we? It seems we're arguing over the title and not the rights which I am all for every couple having the same rights.

Are we arguing over a Title?
or
Are we arguing over Rights?

We're not arguing over Morals and Values are we which I think some think it needs to be a moral/value

 Jihadin wrote:
Might as well bring back Noble titles to. Duke, Viscount, Knight, etc etc

Yes please, I think that would be pretty badass.

 cincydooley wrote:
... ... ...

Privitize the word "marriage" since thats where all the arguments seem to stem from. ...

Right

The arguments stem from homophobic people resenting homosexual people calling their civil unions marriages. The term "gay marriage" is already in wide use although in most places it is still technically called a civil union.

I don't know how you can possibly imagine that the law of the United States could reserve a particular word for the exclusive use of churches and expect that to be in any way enforceable.

 Jihadin wrote:
MGS.
Might as well take it from all. The word "marriage" is not in the Bible. Going by what others voiced on that here on Dakka. I believe Federal government and state should even not be in the decision making process for this. Remove the word thereby removing the religous aspect of influence in this debate. Change to...whatever for all. State still collect fee's for the "union" license fee and if the traditional couple want a actual marriage then they can find a church of their choosing to have it perform. As I can tell everyone on here is so glued on the usage of the word marriage that the word has to be in the documents is funny. Remove the word from both sides hence remove the issue. Both sides still have same status, same legal document, same responcibilities, same options on taxes and what not.

Just funny how people argue that everyone has equal share of the word "marriage"when that word can be removed same as the word "God" from government institutions and college/University grounds. They are both religous in nature and like the US Constitution says "Seperation of Church and State

So, firstly if the word marriage is not in the bible, why are Christians laying claim to it, secondly the rest of the world, of all the other religions on earth and not religious, are quite happy both using the word for it's intended purpose and in sharing it with others, thirdly, again, we just extend that encompassing fence around the gays as well, simple. If certain groups cannot abide to share, they are equally free to leave, step over that encompassing fence and go start their own thing.

Christians already share that word with atheists, druids, muslims, animists, hindus, buddhists, jedi and a host of others who do not follow the Christian bible and none of that has caused them to throw this fit before, none of those marriages conform to the Christian definition, so they are marriages but not Christian marriage, yet another group wants to be able to use the word marriage and the Christians get very agitated, when they have no precedence, no claim, no ownership and no damned right to the word or the idea of two people ritually and legally binding.

So, honestly, they can suck it up or they can, themselves, abandon the use of the word and find something else. Because why on earth should the rest of humanity be forced to abandon a word because a group has said 'if we can't have it, noone can'.

They could go form a coalition of whatever varied groups and sects make up this objection-holding union of 'Christians' (and Penn Jillette has some very interesting things to say on the modern usage of the word Christian in America) and decide on a new term for what Christians are doing, 'TrueChristHeteroMarriage' or something, perhaps with a snappy abbreviation.

MGS I'm not going to defend the word "Marriage" on religious grounds. How can I defend it when I am not religious myself. The government is not a religion. It should stay out of this fray. Removing the word "Marriage" in official documentation and placing a "technical phrase or word should suffice. The defense of "Separation of Church and State" is now feasible as a defense. States still collect the fee's for license, Federal government still collect taxes on the couple, and the joined couple has all the rights and benefits that every other couple has be it same sex or traditional.

If a couple want to have a "Marriage" in the traditional way they can apply to whatever church/mosque/synagogue/place of worship and pay for their"title" out of pocket non tax exempt. Same applies to same sex couple to whatever church/synagogue.mosque/place of worship that's allowed it. Everyone is equal in God eye's right. Why should God care about their Marital status then.

The ole "if no one else can have it then no one can" I could care less. All couples regardless of make up has the same right. The State and the Federal Government is removed from the argument and still collect on fee's and taxes. Why should tax payers foot the bill to finance legal arguments when the word is removed from its vocab. Example be the word "illegal" that's being phased out.

No idea who Penn Jillette is...thanks for reminding me I need to shave I am not influence at all by religion. Which to my belief made me more effective as an NCO and a EOA past 13 years. I view everyone on the same level field and treated them as such. I will though...step back from the Native Americans when they go on their Spirit Quest (some tribes...Apaches, Navajo, Souix) I make those individuals fill out a paperwork and counsel them, and good naturally threaten them with my wrath when they go on their "Journey"

 Jihadin wrote:
MGS I'm not going to defend the word "Marriage" on religious grounds. How can I defend it when I am not religious myself. The government is not a religion. It should stay out of this fray. Removing the word "Marriage" in official documentation and placing a "technical phrase or word should suffice. The defense of "Separation of Church and State" is now feasible as a defense. States still collect the fee's for license, Federal government still collect taxes on the couple, and the joined couple has all the rights and benefits that every other couple has be it same sex or traditional.

The word Marriage is the technical word for two adults forming a unit. It is not the gays, nor the government, nor anyone else complaining about the use of the word, it's those who wish to claim it for themselves and exclude others, thereby insinuating their own control and context into the word as a religious one. And I'm sorry to tell them, but they don't get exclusive rights to a word because they shout and carry on about it and how it's being destroyed because it's being applied in a way they don't like.

I believe they should be denied that theft of a common parlance word. I was not married in a Christian church, I am, however, very assured to know I was married, to my wife, in a state union, and if anyone thinks they can claim that word and deny it to me and tell me I had a 'union' with my 'life partner', or to those around me, because we don't happen to believe in their particular brand of invisible sky giant, well, they are in for a fairly unpleasant wake up call...

 Jihadin wrote:
MGS I'm not going to defend the word "Marriage" on religious grounds. How can I defend it when I am not religious myself. The government is not a religion. It should stay out of this fray. Removing the word "Marriage" in official documentation and placing a "technical phrase or word should suffice. The defense of "Separation of Church and State" is now feasible as a defense. States still collect the fee's for license, Federal government still collect taxes on the couple, and the joined couple has all the rights and benefits that every other couple has be it same sex or traditional.

If a couple want to have a "Marriage" in the traditional way they can apply to whatever church/mosque/synagogue/place of worship and pay for their"title" out of pocket non tax exempt. Same applies to same sex couple to whatever church/synagogue.mosque/place of worship that's allowed it. Everyone is equal in God eye's right. Why should God care about their Marital status then.

The ole "if no one else can have it then no one can" I could care less. All couples regardless of make up has the same right. The State and the Federal Government is removed from the argument and still collect on fee's and taxes. Why should tax payers foot the bill to finance legal arguments when the word is removed from its vocab. Example be the word "illegal" that's being phased out.

No idea who Penn Jillette is...thanks for reminding me I need to shave I am not influence at all by religion. Which to my belief made me more effective as an NCO and a EOA past 13 years. I view everyone on the same level field and treated them as such. I will though...step back from the Native Americans when they go on their Spirit Quest (some tribes...Apaches, Navajo, Souix) I make those individuals fill out a paperwork and counsel them, and good naturally threaten them with my wrath when they go on their "Journey"

First marriage's meaning in human society predates any of the religions that anti gay marriage people in the US happen to belong to. Second changing the name would have basic problems, and the word marriage is kept for the same reason that the Midwest conference the Big Ten still calls itself the Big Ten even though currently there are 12 teams in it (will be 14 on June 1st). Third many Christians and other religious people are actually cool with it, even going as far to allow the religious ceremony of gay marriages at their place of worship.

They don't change the name Big Ten to Big Fourteen because: It is tradition, the current name is well known (ask someone in the Midwest what the big ten is and they will be able to answer), the name is everywhere and would be costly to change. It is same with marriage. Besides think of the forms you have filled out that that ask about marriage status (both government and private) that would have to be changed, which would cost money.

Lastly what would stop private groups from discriminating against this new status, by simply not changing their forms or rules to include civil unions and keep with marriage? All of sudden you would have married couples that one day have access to something and the next day they don't all because they didn't get married originally in a church.

So you all arguing for the Title of "Marriage". I thought the argument was same sex couple to have the same "Rights" as traditional couple. I'm for all couples having the same "Rights" but if the word "Marriage", the TITLE, is to be included in then the process is drawn out much longer at tax payer expense. So equal "Rights" for all couple under a new title or keep the issue on the burner till marriage is added. Mind you in my perception if your fighting for the word "Marriage" to be included in then your denying the "Rights" of same sex couples which can be more easily handle, for lack of words, a "Civil Union" affording the same Rights as traditional couples in a much shorter time.

Stop fixating on the word "Marriage" and fixate on what they want and how to do it.

November is coming for the States election. Make your vote. Since "Marriage" is regulated by the State then the State needs to change their policy. Hence your vote count

So state what you are for.

Are you for the "Title" of marriage to include every couple.
Are you for the everyone having the same "Rights"

Blood Hawk.

Your equating a mythical religious term with sports term. Like Sebster throwing the chair on me. Documents in programs are basically a "Form Filler" program. Simple thing is to remove the word marriage and update the programs in use. Simple job, more, likely to accomplish in a four months.

Do I need to clarify what Form Filler is?

Other being the document of "Marriage" I already mention that couple post above.

Lastly as was demonstrated in Oregan. The floral company lost its suit due to Oregan State Civil Rights violation of Same Sex couple.

 Jihadin wrote:
So you all arguing for the Title of "Marriage". I thought the argument was same sex couple to have the same "Rights" as traditional couple. I'm for all couples having the same "Rights" but if the word "Marriage", the TITLE, is to be included in then the process is drawn out much longer at tax payer expense. So equal "Rights" for all couple under a new title or keep the issue on the burner till marriage is added. Mind you in my perception if your fighting for the word "Marriage" to be included in then your denying the "Rights" of same sex couples which can be more easily handle, for lack of words, a "Civil Union" affording the same Rights as traditional couples in a much shorter time.

Stop fixating on the word "Marriage" and fixate on what they want and how to do it.

November is coming for the States election. Make your vote. Since "Marriage" is regulated by the State then the State needs to change their policy. Hence your vote count

So state what you are for.

Are you for the "Title" of marriage to include every couple.
Are you for the everyone having the same "Rights"

Gays being able to call their marriage a marriage would be equal to what everyone else currently has, so let's grant them true equal status and not 'something that's like what everyone else gets but called a different name'.

No one is fixating on the word here but those who refuse to share it, despite not owning it.

"But you can have a ceremony and call it something else"

"nope, everyone can have a marriage, because that's the name of the ceremony everyone else currently gets"

The word Marriage is not the purvey of Christians, it is not the purvey of the religious and it is certainly not the purvey of the group of Christians currently refusing to share it with the gays.

So, this can either go the long way or the short way, but it's still going, eventually, to go the right way...

So arguing for the word "marriage" to be included in on the package hence knowing full well its going to drag out in court going to take years to process through. While removing the word marriage and coming up another title that includes all couples with the same "RIGHTS" is to be delayed.

So you rather to keep fighting over the title of "Marriage" to be included in.

So my idea of a simple "fix" to the problem where everyone has the same "Rights" as a joined couple. Is not workable because the word "Marriage" has to be included in. A word that is significant among the religious types. So take longer time to get a"jab" in on them to claim "Marriage" spans all couples regardless of make up. I could care two rat farts over the title of "Marriage" What I do care for is everyone having the same "Rights" as everyone else. So why am I wrong wanting the same "Rights" and removing the word "Marriage" from all official documentation?

Are you fighting for the same "Rights"
or
Are you fighting for a Title

It seems your fighting more for the title then you are for their "Rights" (I know where your coming from MGS). I'm fighting for their "Rights" being the same.

So arguing for the word "marriage" to be included in on the package hence knowing full well its going to drag out in court going to take years to process through. While removing the word marriage and coming up another title that includes all couples with the same "RIGHTS" is to be delayed.

Fights for over civil rights are never pretty, and they can be long drawn out slug fights but are worth it.

So you rather to keep fighting over the title of "Marriage" to be included in.

Yep, anything less is just giving gays second class status.

So my idea of a simple "fix" to the problem where everyone has the same "Rights" as a joined couple. Is not workable because the word "Marriage" has to be included in. A word that is significant among the religious types. So take longer time to get a"jab" in on them to claim "Marriage" spans all couples regardless of make up. I could care two rat farts over the title of "Marriage" What I do care for is everyone having the same "Rights" as everyone else. So why am I wrong wanting the same "Rights" and removing the word "Marriage" from all official documentation?

First it is appeasing the people who want to deny rights to gay couples and also it probably won't even work. Do you honestly think that those who still believe that pray away the gay programs work, or the really hard line ones support and instigate what has been happening in Uganda will take your fix to the problem and shut up? Of course not.

Are you fighting for the same "Rights"
or
Are you fighting for a Title

Both?? The right to have the title?

Besides what does your plan do about all the Christians that disagree with those are who anti gay marriage and whose church has already embarrassed gay marriage and have ceremonies with all the religious pop and circumstance and are even officiated by a priest? They would still be a Gay couple who are married, and the anti gay Christian would still be pissed so....

 Jihadin wrote:
Are you fighting for the same "Rights"
or
Are you fighting for a Title

They aren't separate things in this case. Trying to simplify it down to a purely semantic argument shows a misreading of the situation.