Quote:A lot of terms have changed meanings over the years. Marriage is now the term used when two people wed, no matter what it started out as. Why change it now? No one was up in arms about the term when straight people got married anywhere other than in a church, so why get upset about it now?
I wouldn't call myself upset by any means, but there are a couple of reasons:
1. It is, historically, a religious custom, and with the benefit of hindsight, the US government perhaps should have recused itself from the practice and issued a license with a different term lacking religious connotations. I'm sure you'd have the farthest-out-there wackjobs up in arms over government "legitimizing homosexuality" by issuing civil unions, but they would be a small minority. The extreme blogs, the Fox News sheep and the county clerks are one thing, but there are a lot of people out there opposed to same-sex marriage--probably most people opposed to it, actually--because "marriage" is a ceremony within their religion, and their religion does not recognize a union between two members of the same sex.
A sermon from a Southern Baptist minister in Virginia that made its way to YouTube is well worth-watching, even at 20 minutes long. I won't link it here because it is in no way, shape or form CoC-compliant, but the gist of it is that it's the sermon he gave the weekend of the <i>Obergefell</i> verdict, and while it's pretty clear throughout that he has some serious reservations about performing a same-sex marriage, it's also clear that he does not hate gay people, he does not preach inequality, and he is, best I can tell, someone who recognizes that there's a culture problem in that particular church conference regarding the treatment of homosexuals and seeks to be more inclusive of them. That's the type of moderate, everyday person I'm referring to who has no particular issue with homosexuals being joined for life, but is not comfortable with the application of the term "marriage" to it. That kind of leads into my second point...
2. I'm generally the type who believes that when dealing with a highly-sensitive issue, both sides should walk away from the table feeling ok about the end result, with a few outliers on either side up in arms. Had the Supreme Court come back with a verdict extending the legal and tax benefits of marriage to all people while simultaneously taking the word "marriage" out of government paperwork for everyone going forward, I think you'd have a far less polarizing situation. Because a verdict came down that was exactly what one side wanted and exactly what the other side didn't want, you push people further towards fringe politics rather than bringing them towards the center. Life is about give and take, not about flawless victories. I've had to mediate a few disputes between employees, subcontractors, even clients in the past. My rule is typically that you want everyone to walk away feeling pretty good about the end result, but a little pissed off at the same time. That's how you know that the end result was fair, and that you've ultimately strengthened your team rather than shoving one party off to the side and leaving them feeling marginalized, which can come back to bite you.
Again, given the context that "marriage" is used in, the Supreme Court absolutely made the right decision in extending that to everyone. I think an alternative ruling taking the term "marriage" out of government and replacing it with "civil unions" for everyone would have been better, though.
