What possible justification is there for civil unions having better benefits than marriage? They get compensated for being forced to use a different word? A semantic hardship? This hypothetical makes no sense to me.
If you want to convince homophobes there is a “gay agenda” in this country, this would be the way.
I believe that was an attempt at an argumentum ad absurdum. The goal is to extend an opponent’s beliefs past logical conclusions into the absurd to show that the premises are flawed.
That was in reply to “seperate but equal” suggestions, and was to show that the only way to avoid the stigma of “seperate but equal” is to make the minority requirement objectively superior to the majority requirement.
Bryan, does your hypothetical country, let’s call it Adanac, have an Adanacian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status? Because if it does, this part of your proposal would be open to challenge. You’re favouring one type of marital status over another in government laws and policies. What’s your reason for that, and why is that not discriminatory, contrary to the Charter’s guarantee of equal treatment of marital status?
Also, is your hypothetical country a federation? Because if it is, the definition of marriage may have federalism implications. How is the issue of marriage dealt with inside the federation? For instance, if in Adanac, the definition of marriage is a federal matter, but civil unions are left to the provinces, then there is a fundamental difficulty in making civil unions exactly equal to marriage: if marriage is defined federally, once you’re married, you’re married across the country, but if civil unions are a provincial matter, then being civilly unioned in one province may mean nothing in another province. That would make it impossible to guarantee that civil unions would be equal to marriage in Adanac.
That’s no different than in the US. Nothing that happens in the church/temple/mosque matters except for signing the marriage license, and they get that from the state.
Are religious leaders authorised by the state to carry out marriages. In France they cannot officiate in the state process- only civil servants can do that and the marriage is conducted by them alone.
If that were the case, wouldn’t he be attempting to prove the opposite? His opponent’s belief is that “separate but equal” could work. His hypothetical does not extend his opponent’s belief into the absurd, they extend his own belief that they are NOT equal into the absurd, where we try to introduce a balancing factor to the inequity. Seems like he is arguing against himself to me.
Over in the OP’s linked thread I said this:
This raises the question: Should presumption of legal parenthood be the same for (gays-only) civil unions and (straights-only) marriages in this separate-but-equal hypothetical?
You could make a case that it makes biological sense to legally assume that if a married/civil-unioned woman has a baby, her non-parturient partner is the baby’s other parent if male, but is not the baby’s other parent if female.
You could also make a case that presumption of legal parenthood for the non-parturient partner ought to be the default in both marriages and civil unions, or in neither marriages or civil unions. Or should we get rid of the legal assumption that two is the default number of parents for a child to have?
Get this sorted, boffins! The cause of goodness and fairness in the nation of Adanac depends on you.
Yes, but you don’t technically have to actually do a “marriage” per se. Typically States issue a marriage license, which is valid for 60 to 90 days. Someone who has authority to perform marriages then signs a document, along with the two persons getting married and I believe typically a witness or two, and then you send that back in to the State. The State then issues a marriage certificate, which is the gold-standard “proof” that you’re truly legally married.
The actual ceremony has no real legal significance as there is no strict definition of what it means to “solemnize” a marriage. It could just be someone sitting at a desk with you and your betrothed, along with some witnesses and saying “alright let’s sign these papers and then you’ll be married.”
So while ordained ministers have authority to solemnize a marriage, there is no legal relevance to the ceremony per se, it’s instead the signed document signifying a marriage has happened.
In the UK, if the child is conceived through donor insemination at a clinic and the parents are civilly partnered, the non-biological parent is automatically the second parent. So there’s precedent.
Crafting the best, fairest society, of course.
Who is “they” ? In this hypothetical, any couple can form a civil union (assuming they would otherwise be eligible to form a legal marriage, ignoring legal marriage’s requirement for heterosexuality).
Besides, this is a hypothetical country where citizens aren’t prone to paranoid fantasy.
Being in a civil union in Adanac isn’t a matter of marital status by definition. It is a matter of civil union status, which just happens to have the same benefits as marital status, only twice as good.
As for federation issues, assume Adanac has no internal political divisions comparable to states or provinces. Whatever legislation is proposed in this thread, it affects the entire population without jurisdictional dispute.
I’d guess that this assumption comes jointly from the fact that it used to be the case that opposite sex couples who lived together were married and the refusal of the law to acknowledge how widespread sex outside of marriage was. It would make a lot more sense today to assume that co-habitants are the parents, married or not, SS or OS. Obviously this won’t always be true, but the current assumptions aren’t either.
Yet nations do as a rule acknowledge marriages performed in other nations. And it is a concern about civil unions in the real world, not just hypothetically.
The people who set up the marriage/CU segregation system, of course. If they didn’t care then they wouldn’t set it up in the first place; they’d just let everyone be married.
How is it more fair to treat marriage unfairly, instead of treating both marriage and civil union the same?
magellan01 proposed a society where civil unions are legally indistinguishable from marriage, not one where one side is heavily penalized.
Then, if citizens are so clear-minded, they would recognize that civil unions are legally and practically indistinguishable from marriage, and there is no reason to penalize either.
Regards,
Shodan
Make a law that says that all instances of marriage in a law applies exactly to civil unions and vice versa. So if a law is made but just mentions marriage, for example, then by definition it will apply to civil unions. This way, no politician is able to make a law for one thing and not the other. We can also apply that across the board in things other than laws, so that if “marriage” appears in a Chick Fil A ad giving discounts to married people, then it must also give discounts to civil unioned people.
Would they acknowledge a brak, or a huwelik, or a ehe? Hell, even calling it a marriage doesn’t necessitate other countries from acknowledging it as can be attested to by gay couples married in Canada or polygamous families legally married in their country of origin visiting the States.
It seems that OP’s goal is the same as that of Left Hand of Dorkness, it’s just that Ecker approaches it in a rather round about way. Both have the goal of making civil unions more desirable than marriages so that you end up with everyone opting for civil unions. Ecker does it by expanding the benefits for civil unions, LHoD does it by reducing (to zero) the legal benefits of marriage. Overall though I think that LoHDs solution is by far the cleaner one.
Legally indistinguishable except that the state won’t call the same-sex relationships marriage. That’s because the traditional-ness or special-ness of marriage needs to be recognized and same-sex marriages don’t deserve that kind of recognition. So it looks like people are suggesting other benefits that will make up for the one they’re being denied. That seems fair in spirit even though there is a much simpler solution: call all of these unions the same thing - marriage, civil, whatever - because discriminating this way is wrong and is also pointless.
Those are other words for “marriage”, right? Probably they would. “Civil Union” on the other hand would not be, since it’s explicitly not a marriage. It was created to not be marriage. Therefore, since it isn’t a marriage it won’t be recognized as one, unless the country doing so is trying to make a political gesture against the Land of Homophobes.
But those that are forced to have civil unions are already being socially penalized by those that crafted this law that states that, no matter what rights we may give you, you are not good enough to be married. The re-naming itself is the punishment, because that is the only reason for it in the first place.