Quote:All this is very reasonable. The problem is deeper though. The LGBT community has faced all kinds of hate and demagoguery in the past. The common thread in all that hate has been that they were made to feel as second class citizens. Not dissimilar to blacks during segregation. During that time inter racial marriage was a very hated thing. Would it have been reasonable to offer interracial couples a different type of union than marriage since so many were against it?  

 

I will try to be reasonable in my response. To a lot of people changing the term used to appease the religious is not acceptable because they still see it as the LGBT community being treated as second class people. In addition, there are plenty of people (including presidential candidates) for whom this issue is not about the word marriage itself but the act of the union. An argument could be made that by making a different classification to appease opponents of gay marriage (the term) would bolster the rhetoric from those that demonize the community at large.

 

Regarding your first paragraph.  The problem that you are discussing is not a legal issue, it's a social issue and has nothing to do with politics.

 

As far as your second paragraph, you need to separate the legal aspect from the social aspect.  Changing the term on a legal document does not really "appease" any certain group, and is actually more inclusive.  Again, this "fight" was about legal
rights, not social "rights".  There is no "different classification".

 

Regarding the part in bold, can you provide an example of this by a Presidential Candidate?

---