BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Denying gays marriage is not justified on religious grounds

Andrew Sullivan. "Why 'civil union' isn't marriage." The New Republic. May 8, 2000: "Equally, an appeal to the religious content of marriage is irrelevant in this case. No one is proposing that faith communities be required to change their definitions of marriage, unless such a community, like Reform Jewry, decides to do so of its own free will. The question at hand is civil marriage and only civil marriage. In a country where church and state are separate, this is no small distinction. Many churches, for example, forbid divorce. But civil divorce is still legal. Many citizens adhere to no church at all. Should they be required to adhere to a religious teaching in order to be legally married?"
Gays can only undermine marriage if seen as morally depraved

Andrew Sullivan. "Why 'civil union' isn't marriage." The New Republic. May 8, 2000: "how, exactly, does the freedom of a gay couple to marry weaken a straight couple's commitment to the same institution? The obvious answer is that since homosexuals are inherently depraved and immoral [according to opponents], allowing them to marry would inevitably spoil, even defame, the institution of marriage. It would wreck the marital neighborhood, so to speak, and fewer people would want to live there. Part of the attraction of marriage for some heterosexual males, the argument goes, is that it confers status. One of the ways it does this is by distinguishing such males from despised homosexuals. If you remove that social status, you further weaken an already beleaguered institution. [...] This argument is rarely made explicitly, but I think it exists in the minds of many who supported the DOMA."
Civil unions can be pushed to include equal benefits as marriage

Paul Varnell. "For Civil Unions". Chicago Free Press. March 8, 2006: "3. Civil unions in other states, unlike those in Connecticut and Vermont, would probably include a smaller number of benefits and entitlements than marriage, making them far from equal. But however hard this is to swallow, here again the point is to get a process started. Even if lessor variations on civil unions offer minimal benefits (e.g., hospital visitation), it is almost inevitable that as legislators and the public become comfortable with gay couples in formalized relationships, they will feel more comfortable adding additional benefits over time. [...] That model has worked well in California where gay couples have obtained more and more benefits with each legislative session. It has also worked in several European countries that have gradually added benefits, in some cases resulting in marriage itself. Most U.S. surveys show majority support for providing some benefits for gay couples. So let us work on obtaining those and then go on to others as the public comfort grows. If you cannot get all the justice you want, take what justice you can get and then work for more."
If the government affects the religious term of "marriage" it is in violation.

In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled to infer a "separation of church and state" all the way from federal to local levels. In this way if the government put the millenia-old definition of marriage as "man and woman" into the legal system that is purely in violation of this legal inferrance. If the government redefines a religious term, both in origin and use, than the government would effectively violate the "separation of church and state". It would be paramount as to saying that Parliament in the U.K. would redefine Queen Elizabeth II as King Elizabeth II. Obviously we can see that this is something that violates the inferrance of the Supreme Court to establish a "separation of church and state".
By offering alternative, civil unions undermine marriage

"Civil unions instead of marriage." Cranach. February 18th, 2009: "Heterosexuals have all but completely taken over the civil union option [in France] (92%, leaving just 8% for gays!). The civil unions give heterosexual couples financial advantages, but when one of them wants to leave, it is easy: 'If one or both of the partners declares in writing to the court that he or she wants out, the PACS is ended, with neither partner having claim to the other’s property or to alimony.' So much for family permanence."
Civil couples meet greater legal complications than married gays

"Civil unions called second-class status." Sun Journal. February 17, 2008: "A commission established to study same-sex civil unions in New Jersey has found in its first report that civil unions create a 'second-class status' for gay couples, rather than giving them equality.[...] [the report] find[s] that gay couples in Massachusetts, the only state that now allows same-sex marriage, do not experience some of the legal complications that those in New Jersey do [where there are civil unions]."
Civil unions give gays equal benefits w/o changing marriage laws

"Civil unions a vital compromise". The Columbia Chronicle. March 16, 2009: "the Illinois Religious Freedom and Protection Civil Unions Act (HB 2234) passed a House committee and is now on its way to the House floor, potentially making Illinois the first state in the Midwest to legalize civil unions. [...] If the bill were to become a law, it would be a simple, but highly effective solution in allowing same sex couples the same benefits, rights and responsibilities of a marriage without changing Illinois marriage laws."
Success rate of gay marriages is an inappropriate criteria

Andrew Sullivan. "Why 'civil union' isn't marriage." The New Republic. May 8, 2000: "Even if you concede that gay men--being men--are, in the aggregate, less likely to live up to the standards of monogamy and commitment that marriage demands, this still suggests a further question: Are they less likely than, say, an insane person? A straight man with multiple divorces behind him? A murderer on death row? A president of the United States? The truth is, these judgments simply cannot be fairly made against a whole group of people."
Civil unions are not necessarily recognized out of state

"Civil Unions Are Not Enough. Six Key Reasons Why." Lambda Legal: "Imposing Civil Unions Creates More Harms Outside The State. The federal government and some other states disrespect same-sex married couples when they cross state lines or deal with federal taxes or social security. When a couple's own state creates a separate status for them, it makes them even more vulnerable. As a result, same-sex couples are increasingly avoiding tourist destinations in states that bar them from legal protections, and national membership organizations and multi-state employers have begun to consider policies that avoid planning conventions, conferences or meetings in states where some members or employees may not feel that they are adequately safe as a legal matter (see the Safety Scale below). The more vulnerable couples are, the more time, trouble and expense for them to get protective legal documents (see the life-planning toolkit below)."
Civil unions give what matters: equal benefits not "marriage"

Steve Swayne. "The Case for Federal Civil Unions." Independent Gay Forum. February 28, 2004: "When Congress starts to consider the FMA, here's hoping a courageous lawmaker will introduce a federal civil union bill. Let's debate whether gay couples merit equality under the law, not whether straight couples can keep the word “marriage” to themselves. Let's discuss the special rights that empty-nest and childless straight couples currently enjoy and seriously examine what happens if we extend these rights to gay couples with children."
Homosexuality is wrong along with equal rights by gay marriage.

This is a common argument against gay marriage, and sometimes underlies the position of those that reluctantly are willing to accept civil unions. But, the premise is that homosexuality is immoral and wrong, so efforts for full equality through gay marriage are misplaced. If civil unions are unequal, the argument goes, than it is, nonetheless, fitting. This argument is not supported by most advocates of civil unions with equal benefits, but by some.
Gay parents have weaker custody right without marriage

Sharon M. Grosfeld, a family law attorney and a former state senator and delegate, said following a 2007 Maryland Court of Appeals case on civil unions: "Without the legal status of marriage, the question of custody when same-sex partners break up and children are involved is much more complicated. If a child is the biological child of one party and not the other, what are the legal rights of that other party, particularly if the child was nurtured by the other party since birth?"[12]
Civil union couples can say they're "married"

Paul Varnell. "For Civil Unions". Chicago Free Press. March 8, 2006: "Once you are in a civil union, you can refer to yourself as “married” if you like. A friend in Vermont who is in a civil union says he and his partner refer to themselves as married. So does everyone else. A friend in Norway reports the same thing: 'Oh, you two are married.'"
Word "marriage" is symbolic, should not be denied to gays

In its decision declaring the denial of the right to marry unconstitutional, Connecticut’s highest court said: "We agree with the following point made by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., in its amicus brief: 'Any married couple [reasonably] would feel that they had lost something precious and irreplaceable if the government were to tell them that they no longer were 'married' and instead were in a 'civil union.' The sense of being 'married' — what this conveys to a couple and their community, and the security of having others clearly understand the fact of their marriage and all it signifies — would be taken from them. These losses are part of what same-sex couples are denied when government assigns them a 'civil union' status. If the tables were turned, very few heterosexuals would countenance being told that they could enter only civil unions and that marriage is reserved for lesbian and gay couples. Surely there is [a] constitutional injury when the majority imposes on the minority that which it would not accept for itself."[8]
Civil unions are a reasonable compromise and way forward

David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch. "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage." New York Times. February 21, 2009: "Linking federal civil unions to guarantees of religious freedom seems a natural way to give the two sides something they would greatly value while heading off a long-term, take-no-prisoners conflict. That should appeal to cooler heads on both sides, and it also ought to appeal to President Obama, who opposes same-sex marriage but has endorsed federal civil unions."
Civil unions are "separate, but not equal"

During the 50s and 60 in the United States, a segregationist principle was established called "separate but equal" under the Jim Crow laws of the time. This was struck down by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, who wrote: "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."[2] Civil unions are precisely the same arrangement, attempting to give gays a "separate" arrangement than marriage, while conferring "equal" benefits. But, because "separate can never be equal", civil unions can never equal. Civil unions, therefore, are unequal, segregationist, and discriminatory, just as were the "separate but equal" laws of the past.
Gay marriage is unlikely now; civil unions are a practical step

David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch. "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage." New York Times. February 21, 2009: "Most, of course, want the right to marry, and nothing less. But federal recognition of same-sex marriage — leave aside what you think about the merits — is not likely in the near future. The federal Defense of Marriage Act forbids it. Barack Obama and most other Democratic presidential candidates opposed gay marriage. And most Americans continue to oppose it." [Civil unions, therefore, are a practical step forward toward gay rights and equality].
Marriage has always evolved; should now include gays

Andrew Sullivan. "Why 'civil union' isn't marriage." The New Republic. May 8, 2000: "The institution of civil marriage, like most human institutions, has undergone vast changes over the last two millennia. If marriage were the same today as it has been for 2,000 years, it would be possible to marry a twelve-year-old you had never met, to own a wife as property and dispose of her at will, or to imprison a person who married someone of a different race." [It should now evolve to include gays].
Civil unions still "separate, but equal" if straights can do it.

The idea that opening civil unions to straights solves the problem of civil unions be "separate, but unequal" fails a very simple test. While heterosexuals may have equal access to civil unions, do gays have equal access to marriage? No. Clearly, therefore, allowing straights to participate in civil unions while continuing to deny gays the right to marry does not nullify the argument that civil unions are akin to "separate but equal" and actually unequal.
Marriage is not reserved solely for those that can reproduce

Andrew Sullivan. "Why 'civil union' isn't marriage." The New Republic. May 8, 2000: "[Many argue] that marriage is primarily about procreation. [...] The only trouble with this argument is that it ignores the fact that civil marriage is granted automatically to childless couples, sterile couples, couples who marry too late in life to have children, couples who adopt other people's children, and so on."
Gay marriage violates freedoms of religious groups

While some argue that gay marriage violates B.A. Robinson. "Same-sex marriages (SSM), civil unions & domestic partnerships". Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. June 17, 2009: "For most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow SSM, some religious individuals and groups feel that they will become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by being forced to marry same-sex couples."
Civil unions are a positive step toward gay marriage

"Civil Unions. The Blankenhorn-Rauch peace proposal on marriage." Hunter of Justice. February 22, 2009: "The most important aspect of the Blankenhorn-Rauch proposal is that it implicitly establishes what I agree is the right threshold for moving out of gridlock: support for civil unions that are materially equal to marriage, paired with some degree of opt-outs for entities that are thoroughly religious. [...] LGBT rights advocates can still pursue access to marriage itself on equal terms, which I also support, since the difference in designation is obviously intended to function as a signaling device for communicating second-class status. But those battles would be fought against a background and baseline of having had the material benefits already equalized."
Many opponents of gay marriage are tolerant of civilian unions

David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch. "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage." New York Times. February 21, 2009: "And while most Americans who favor keeping marriage as it has customarily been would prefer no legal recognition of same-sex unions at either the federal or the state level, we believe that they can live with federal civil unions — provided that no religious groups are forced to accept them as marriages. Many of these people may come to see civil unions as a compassionate compromise. For example, a PBS poll last fall found that 58 percent of white evangelicals under age 30 favor some form of legal same-sex union." [This all suggests that civil unions will be met with greater respect from the general American population, instead of the kind of recrimination that can lead to hatred and descrimination.
Civil unions will make people comfortable with idea of gay marriage

Paul Varnell. "For Civil Unions". Chicago Free Press. March 8, 2006: "Once you are in a civil union, you can refer to yourself as “married” if you like. A friend in Vermont who is in a civil union says he and his partner refer to themselves as married. So does everyone else. A friend in Norway reports the same thing: 'Oh, you two are married.' It seems clear that once people are comfortable with thinking and speaking of same-sex couples as 'married,' their willingness to accept gay marriage itself is sure to follow."
Civil unions avoid drawn out culture war on gay marriage

David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch. "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage." New York Times. February 21, 2009: "Linking federal civil unions to guarantees of religious freedom seems a natural way to give the two sides something they would greatly value while heading off a long-term, take-no-prisoners conflict. That should appeal to cooler heads on both sides, and it also ought to appeal to President Obama, who opposes same-sex marriage but has endorsed federal civil unions. A successful template already exists: laws that protect religious conscience in matters pertaining to abortion. These statutes allow Catholic hospitals to refuse to provide abortions, for example. If religious exemptions can be made to work for as vexed a moral issue as abortion, same-sex marriage should be manageable, once reasonable people of good will put their heads together. [...] In all sharp moral disagreements, maximalism is the constant temptation. People dig in, positions harden and we tend to convince ourselves that our opponents are not only wrong-headed but also malicious and acting in bad faith. In such conflicts, it can seem not only difficult, but also wrong, to compromise on a core belief. [...] But clinging to extremes can also be quite dangerous. In the case of gay marriage, a scorched-earth debate, pitting what some regard as nonnegotiable religious freedom against what others regard as a nonnegotiable human right, would do great harm to our civil society. When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it."
Gay marriages violates religious freedoms

B.A. Robinson. "Same-sex marriages (SSM), civil unions & domestic partnerships". Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. June 17, 2009: "For most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow SSM, some religious individuals and groups feel that they will become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by being forced to marry same-sex couples."
Civil unions have to be explained; unequal status with marriage

"Civil Unions Are Not Enough. Six Key Reasons Why." Lambda Legal: "3. A civil union has to be explained and does not get the same respect as a marriage"]: "Only the word married conveys the universally understood meaning applicable to the lifetime commitment many couples make. Marriage has a meaning unmatched by any other word. Regardless of whether civil unions and marriage offer the same benefits and obligations on paper, when the government relegates same-sex couples to civil unions rather than marriage, it forces them to explain the difference at work, at school, in hospitals and elsewhere. Those couples lose the respect and dignity that they deserve for their commitment to be responsible for each other."
JD/MBA valuable in a political/legislative career.

"MBA vs MBA/JD joint degree." Google Answers. November 5, 2006: "Yet another example of a career where a JD is a definite asset, but not a requirement, is politics. Generally, no education is required to be a politician (and I'll avoid the obvious opportunity to make a wisecrack here). However, given that our elected representatives are the ones who vote on the laws of the land, definitely a JD (and an MBA) would be an asset in making the right decisions."
Getting into one program sometimes offers backdoor to another.

"Pros and Cons of a JD/MBA." Veritas Prep. April 8, 2009: "The other opportunity advantage that pertains more specifically to law students is that getting into an elite law school can sometimes provide a “backdoor” into a great business school. For someone who may not have the work experience, leadership skills, and analytical abilities to get into Harvard Business School in a typical admissions process, one way around that may be to crush the LSAT, pair it with your high GPA, get into Harvard Law and that walk across the Charles River and ask to be let in to HBS."
Other joint degrees sometimes better than JD/MBA.

Mark Murray. "Are Two Better Than One? The Pros and Cons of Joint Degrees." JD Jungle Magazine: "3. Any other combo? Before you stock up on extra letters with a JD/MBA, take a quick scan at other joint degrees. Though the JD/MBA is the popular kid on the block when it comes to degrees combos with law, there might be other pairings that better align with your ultimate interests. Other joint degrees include Law and Public Policy, or Law and Public Health. For those who are so artistically inclined, a joint degree of Law and MFA might be an option. Or those with a bend towards education, a JD and a Master in Education might make the grade."
Law/business increasingly intertwined; JD/MBA invaluable

"Why pursue a JD and an MBA?" Georgetown Law Center: "The worlds of policy and management have become inextricably intertwined since the advent of increased government regulation of business, as well as the burgeoning international trade market. In a global economy, the role of the attorney in the day-to-day management of businesses has become paramount, as the modern business manager needs immediate access to legal advice."
JD/MBA enhances business problem solving

Miriam Rivera, JD/MBA '95, former Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Google: "Throughout my career, I've had to do cutting-edge deals, create new business relationships, invent what had never been done before. My Stanford JD/MBA helped me be more creative, more agile. I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to do interesting work, solve sophisticated problems, and understand the complex environment that organizations must navigate to succeed."[2]
JD/MBA unlikely to get you higher salary than JD or MBA alone.

"Introduction to the JD/MBA Dual Degree." TopLawSchools.com: "The real rub is that the additional $215,000 you are spending for the MBA (assuming you were already going to law school) is not necessarily going to translate to a higher starting salary. Law firms will not necessarily prefer candidates with a JD/MBA over candidates with just a JD; furthermore, if you go into a field like investment banking, the reality is that any job you take was likely on the table with just your JD (or just your MBA), and your starting salary will be the same (usually ~$150k with bonus)."
JD/MBA very applicable to career in consulting.

"MBA vs MBA/JD joint degree." Google Answers. November 5, 2006: "On a more positive note, a JD/MBA can also - in the hands of the right individual - fast-track a journey through the consulting world. Major consulting firms are always looking for people who can relate well with their clients. Whether the client is a law firm, a company looking for advice on a merger or acquisition, or a corporate client struggling to survive in the face of legal battles involving patents or other intellectual property rights, a consultant who can 'talk the talk' will often be able to deliver a better customer experience. Again, I can relate to this, as consulting firms also hire engineers/MBAs to work with their tech clients. It imparts instant credibility to the consulting firm when they can send in consultants who actually understand what the client's business actually does!"