Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I don't understand something. Someone correct me here (which i have no doubt someone probably will), but:
1. Marriage is a social not a civil institution.
2. The people (AKA the society) of Vermont put forth their legislature to make decisions which they believe will vote for the same things they believe.
3. This legislature approved gay marraige.
4. Therefore, hasn't Vermont's society accepted gay marraige by electing representatives who accept gay marriage?

Maybe I should wait until the next state legislation election to see if these guys all get kicked out before this statement can be considered true....

You're more or less right about this. I doubt any legislators will be given the boot next election cycle over this because Vermont society is, outside of some intolerant patches, at least tolerant of same-sex unions. A few cowards voted against this legislation because they "got more no calls than pro calls" even on the Democratic side. Personally if I had any influence over Corcoran's (a guy who did just that) next election I'd give him the boot, but as this is not an election year I doubt he'll get much of a backlash.

I'd just like to put forward that since the institution of marriage is recognized by the federal and state governments and brings certain benefits it must be defined as a civil and not a social institution. Ceremonies held at churches are social in nature, but the right to make medical decisions for a loved one when they are sick, and the right to file joint tax returns are very definitely not merely social. Were marriage a social institution the only thing one would need to do to get a same-sex marriage is find a church or other religious institution/person who was willing to preside over a, materialistically speaking, meaningless ceremony. That is as I have shown not the case.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're more or less right about this. I doubt any legislators will be given the boot next election cycle over this because Vermont society is, outside of some intolerant patches, at least tolerant of same-sex unions. A few cowards voted against this legislation because they "got more no calls than pro calls" even on the Democratic side. Personally if I had any influence over Corcoran's (a guy who did just that) next election I'd give him the boot, but as this is not an election year I doubt he'll get much of a backlash.

I'd just like to put forward that since the institution of marriage is recognized by the federal and state governments and brings certain benefits it must be defined as a civil and not a social institution. Ceremonies held at churches are social in nature, but the right to make medical decisions for a loved one when they are sick, and the right to file joint tax returns are very definitely not merely social. Were marriage a social institution the only thing one would need to do to get a same-sex marriage is find a church or other religious institution/person who was willing to preside over a, materialistically speaking, meaningless ceremony. That is as I have shown not the case.

But if marriage is a civil not social institution, then it must treat everyone the same, including same sex marriage. Brown vs Board of Education stated that separate but equal institutions are inherently unequal. Marriage and civil unions are supposedly separate but equal, but under that ruling it is unconstitutional, therefore same sex marriage is legal and the judges are right to rule in its favor.

That is, like you presented, if marriage is to be a civil not a social institution.