I’ve had no problem with gay marriage. We have it here in Canada and I’m happy with that. However, given the acrimony the issue has in the US, if I was American, I would rather push for civil union to address the equal rights issue, as a fair compromise. I’ll bet a lot of people who saw civil union as the fair alternative, voted for Proposition 8 in California.
Several months ago I was honoured to sit at the table where a gay marriage proposal took place. It was a very precious emotional experience.
Yesterday, in one of my reminiscing moments, I contemplated a civil union proposal in that particular setting.
“Will you enter into civil union with me?”
Its not the same thing emotionally is it?
How can we deny people the right to fully enjoy that precious moment? The words “marry” and “marriage” just plainly convey a lot more meaning than “civil union” and convey a lot more force to the joining of two people.
If this is what tipped me over into being a full fledged supporter of gay marriage and opposed to civil union as an option, I think people should be made aware.
Not to anyone who has actually given it any thought. Unless what you’re suggesting is that most people don’t “get it” until they’ve been personally touched by it somehow, in which case, you’re not wrong, but that’s totally different from “an argument”.
But that’s just it. If we’re going to CALL IT marriage, why can’t it BE marriage? Why mess around with “well, technically” BS when we’re talking about the loving commitment of two people? Let it be what it is.
Yes, which contributes to their opposition of gay marriage. If gay people want to settle down and raise kids, it goes against their Sodom and Gomorrah fantasy of drug dens, endless orgies and child molestation. If gay people can be as boring as everyone else, they come off as less of a threat.
But that’s exactly the problem. There’s that little naysayer voice in the back of your head whispering, “…but it’s not REALLY a marriage,” when you’re just as entitled as anyone else to be thinking nothing but, “OMG! Yes, YES, YES!!!”
I know, it sounds weird to be worrying about someone’s thoughts, but that’s what’s at the heart of “there’s no such thing but separate yet equal”. A gay civil unioned couple can’t introduce one another as “my wife” or “my husband” without fearing people thinking, “Well, kinda, but not really.” We know that those terms are legally reserved for people who aren’t them. And, emotionally and status-ally, that makes all the difference in the world.
I’m looking at this from a marketing point of view. I want to see gay marriage accepted in the US.
In order to succeed in that endeavor you need to win hearts and minds. Forget those biggots who don’t even want to see civil union. There is no argument that will persuade them. But Proposition 8 narrowly passed showing there is close to a majority of people who do want gay marriage.
Yet there are a significant number of people ( I believe) on the yes side of Prop 8 who oppose gay marriage given there is the “reasonable” alternative in civil union. They care for equal rights and believe that is the solution.
These people are generally older, been married longer and frankly for a lot of them see marriage in a less romantic light and a lot of hard work. For many, you might as well call their marriage a civil union. They no longer contemplate their initial emotions regarding the beginnings of entering marriage.
But if it ever comes to lets say a national campaign for a pro gay marriage amendment, the cliche of separate but equal just sounds like rhetoric to these people.
If they can be shown , reminded about what marriage meant to them when they entered into it, get a sense of what it would have meant initially if their option was civil union instead and what it can mean to gay people who want to experience the joys of initiating into a marriage, then I believe enough minds can be changed.
I envision a TV ad. One gay person pulling out a diamond in front of another gay person at a fancy table and asking " Will you enter civil union with me"
The scene spoke powerfully to me. I’m hard pressed to think it won’t work on anybody else.
Did you see the “Don’t Divorce Us!” video that went around just before Prop 8 was passed? Powerful stuff, although in the end it failed to move enough voters. I’m sure you can YouTube it, but my computer’s all wonky so I can’t find it for you right now.
Seems to me that the first order of business would be to talk to De Beers about it, see if they can work up some sort of advertising campaign. That’s basically the only reason it was romanticized in the first place.
I’m for civil unions for gays and marriages for straight people.
Or marriages for gays and civil unions for straight people. Or both. Whichever.
They’re just words.
If by “civil union” you mean “conveying to two people all the rights and responsibilities and benefits and detractions that the state can convey to two people seeking to join together in one household” then I’m all for it.
If by “marriage” you mean “all that jazz said above but done in a religious setting” then I’m all for that too.
Now everyone can enter into a civil union and you let the church or synagogue or mosque determine if you’re married or not.
I’m a Christian but a supporter of gay marriage because, IMO, marriage to the government should be a tax situation, a two-person corporation, and gender & sex is immaterial to that status.
I like the idea of a “civil union” being a legal status - between me and my government, and “marriage” being a religious sacrament - between me and my God. If a church wants too refuse to marry two people, they should be able to based on religious beliefs. To join in a civil union, though, just takes a government issued form and a notary public.
I got married in April - my wife and I signed a form for the government and had the sacrement sealed in church - two different events that simply coincided. Call it a “civil union” and a marriage and I wouldn’t bat an eye.
I think the notion that there must be compromise is a misleading one.
Compromise is appropriate when two greedy diners both want to eat the same pie. Compromise might consist of sharing it equally, or one having the whole pie today, and the other tomorrow, or some such.
I don’t think compromise is a necessary goal when one diner wants to eat his own pie and some random idiot walking past decides the diner shouldn’t oughta be allowed to eat the pie. Fuck him. It’s none of his damn business.