It doesn’t (shouldn’t) matter. But you’re being disingenuous if you think that an assumption about one’s height matters as much as their biological sex when talking about marriage in a historical context.
“Civil unions” and “marriage”, duh. Same concept, separate terms. Like “whites only fountain” and “colored only fountain”.
No, see you can’t stick to decidedly female or male names when trying to make the claim that homosexual marriage can be inferred when you tell someone that X and Y got married
Now find the part where I say that was an acceptable legal regime to have in force. Thanks.
They are essentially the same; namely they are purely arbitrary preferences and the business of no one but the people who want to get married. And again; if what is “historical” or “traditional” is so important, why aren’t you arguing for women being reduced to servitude or for the banning of interracial marriage?
I thought he/she meant calling all marriage “Civil Unions” in the eyes of the law. He/she may have been back-tracking or I miss understood. Anyway… yeah, it’s already called Marriage, why go to the trouble even if it was for heterosexuals too?
Have either of those things been as historically constant as heterosexual marriage?
I’m not disagreeing that they’re arbitrary, especially from a liberty/state recognition of status perspective. But acting as if biological sex doesn’t have any bearing on people’s colloquial usage of the term is quite silly.
You are arguing for the modern equivalent. If “separate but equal” is just for homosexuals, then it was just for blacks.
I would appreciate you not mis-characterizing my points, especially when I say, in my entree into the substance of this thread:
Which version of heterosexual marriage? And what does it matter, anyway? If “It’s tradition!” is a defense for bigotry, what does it matter if the tradition is a thousand years old or only 200? Does the fact that women have been oppressed for millennia mean we should bring it back?
How does that apply to rights? People obtain the same rights through different means all over the place. Women/Minorites/White Men all have their right to vote established through different means. Heck, quite a few SSMs are defined through court rulings, not statutory laws. Are those marriages ‘separate but equal’?
Why should it matter if the right to SSN Survivor benefits comes from ‘marriage’ or from ‘Same Sex Unions (hereafter called ‘XYZ’) shall have the same rights and benefits as marriage’? It’s the same right, regardless.
I don’t think ‘Separate but Equal’ would apply if blacks and whites drank from the same fountain, but they called it different names.
If we are allowing social customs drive the use of the term married. I would think it would be bothersome and impractical not to have two names. I would slip up and call the gay couple “married”.
How is this not just a shell-game with the result that the term “married” remains exclusive of some class? In other words - status quo? Is that your intent?
With the quality of logic and argument on full display in your posts, I can understand how Californians were not convinced of the disequity being wrought upon homosexuals by Prop 8. Good day.
Because the only shell game that matters for an equal protection analysis is the one being propagated by the state. If there is one, unifying definition for marriage in a jurisdiction, there is absolutely no disequal treatment. And, as Sinaijon pointed out, some nominal “difference” with no legal consequence (may not) even be a violation of equal protection.
(The Mass court’s ruling was based on, probably, their own interpretation of some other right in Mass’ constitution, not the federal constitution)
The presumptive reason there should not be a restriction on gay marriage is because there is no State purpose for making such a distinction. The idea that historically “marriage” is between a man and woman may or may not be true, but ultimately is irrelevant. It fails under the test of why that definition should be what determines the public policy on the issue. There is no public policy justification to maintain separate couplings. Given that the State wishes to involve itself in the marriage business, and I think it is useless to argue that they shouldn’t be from a practical standpoint, then there is no rational State interest in keeping that instuition from being extended to same sex couples.
Because that won’t happen, for one. The point of civil unions is to avoid equality.
No, they voted for Prop 8 because they were bigots. Period.
First, again, that won’t happen any more than “separate but equal” was ever anything but “stomp on black people”. And even it it did, it would last only until another law was passed that only applied to civil unions or marriage, but not both. And forcing same sex couples to be ritually humiliated is hardly equal treatment.
And yes, deliberate humilation is what we are talking about. Don’t believe me? Go around and refuse to acknowledge the marriages of straight people and see how they take it.
I understand that’s where you’re coming from. It’s a silly argument because marriage is just as much a legal institution as it is a religious institution. In the United States you don’t have to have any sort of religious ceremony to be married. It’s not a requirement.
If the government would do something, I will be happy to debate what it’s called. I’m damned tired of debating the name in the abstract. Acknowledge my relationship as a legal entity comparable to a male-female marriage and I’ll be glad to see whether whatever it’s called makes a difference.
The response to “Why can’t they call it something else?” is, “Okay, work to make it happen and I’ll try out calling it something else.”
No, not just a word, an artificial construct. Like, say, a legal contract or traffic laws. What does and does not constitute a binding contract is up to us, and we don’t have to drive on the right side of the road. It’s arbitrary.
And if we all agreed to call light of a certain wavelength ‘blue’ instead of ‘green’, we could do that too.