Probably silly, yes, but when was the American populace as a whole ever accused
of being sensible? Ask someone if they support civil marriage for same-sex couples in the USA and polls show the likely response is “no”. Ask someone if they support civil unions with many/all of the same rights and responsibilities and the statistics shift much closer to 50/50 or even a majority “yes”.
I’m going to mostly echo other posters:
Argument against permitting polygamous civil union: It would require too much revision to current tax code, property law, inheritence law, and debt/consumer law to be permitted at this time.
Argument against permitting incestuous civil union: Some US states outlaw marriage of first cousins. Some states permit it. Therefore, it is obvious that civil society agrees as a whole (perhaps with the inevitable lunatic exceptions) that the individual US state is currently permitted, for whatever reason, to define maximum degree of relatedness for marriage with no need to rationalize it to the satisfaction of every single yoyo with an axe to grind. Thus, the same principle will apply to the civil union. In addition, permission of civil union within a priori members of the same nuclear family would require revision of several sections of civil law pertaining to tax and property. If one were to play the absurd game of pretending that law is 100% present-time self-sustaining, with no referents (correctly spelled) to history or precedent, one could make a very tenuous argument in favor of blood relation siblings children/parent unions so long as there were no prior legal connection. However, since discovery of a nuclear family connection tends to entail some other sorts of legal connections, this could be another element of the “too much other law would need to be changed”.
Argument against permitting bestiality based civil union: Demonstrate that any nonhuman species is capable AS A SPECIES of giving “informed consent” as the law generally recognizes “informed consent”. Until such time as you demonstrate this, the law is within its rights to deny these species any and all licenses, priviliges, attendant rights, addenda, miscellanea, obscurantia, et cetera, that append upon demonstration of “informed consent”.
As to your question: because we’re more concerned about rights than about semantics, and a rose by any other name etc., and because if we can get the concrete social advancement by giving up the word, then ewe’ve won the battle. Leave the rilgious right worrying at word “marriage” like a dog with the seat of the postman’s pants, while the postman merrily goes on his way. And then there’s the issue of not wanting the government to be poking around my love life.
As to your analogy, I’ve not yet heard anyone claiming that marriage is the exclusive province of Christian churches, so I’m not sure what that has to do with the debate. I HAVE heard people say that in the US, marriage has been a predominantly religious ceremony for the past several centuries; that’s quite a different kettle of fish.
Daniel
While I agree with the sentiment, I think the Civil Union route is more pragmatic and more likely to occur.
Always gotta look a level deeper, especially in Mass. politics. Maybe I’ve just gotten too used to a cynical over the years, but the Loscocco proposal looks to me mostly like a rhetorical attempt to get the no-SSM contingent to define, or at least face, what they think they’re “defending”. That’s been part of a tactical game in which, at different times, the pro-SSM side has voted for the “compromise” amendment, keeping any no-CU version out of consideration entirely, with the intent of voting against the compromise later. With no amendment at all passed, there’s no basis to even request a stay of the ruling. That hasn’t run its course yet, and there’s a lot more happening that isn’t even being speculated upon, but that’s what makes MA politics such a fun spectator sport.
But either way, the discussion here is only about word usage, not tangible effects of different legal status. That isn’t exactly meaningless; a look at the MA SJC’s rejection of the proposed civil-union bill bolsters the view that any difference of name creates a different group with different status, and that that itself is discriminatory, even though the difference is social rather than legal. YMMV of course, but the Warren Supreme Court provided some historic precedents for that approach.
I think we already have a major victory for civil rights here - there is no realistic way now that MA gays can continue to be denied full legal equality, not after May 17. Only the choice of word remains, and that is not going to be a convincing argument when/if any amendment reaches the ballot in 2006. The battle for legal rights is won in 2 states now, with more clearly moving in that direction. The social battlefield is another matter and will be for a long while, of course.
From the Family Research Council; Preserving Marriage in an Age of Counterfeits: How ‘Civil Unions’ Devalue the Real Thing:
Granted, the “civil unions” sleight-of-hand may in fact win over some fence-sitters (whose thinking on the issue is pretty muddle-headed, if you ask me), but it won’t appease the hardcore opponents of equal civil rights for gays and lesbians. The Family Research Council and their ilk may be bigots and crypto-theocrats, but they’re not complete idiots. And trying to re-name their marriages as “civil unions” will really get the Religious Right/cultural conservatives up in arms.
How would civil unions prevent the government from poking around in your love life?
Two ways. First, I know well that there have been plenty of historical cultures in which marriage and love weren’t always hand-in-hand; nonetheless, culturally for myself and most Americans, marriage is an institution of love. The vows I said to my wife weren’t expressions of convenience; they were expressions of love. The government has no business getting involved with this.
Second, a civil union should have nothing to do with sex at all: see my response to athelas above about “incestuous” civil unions. They should be matters of convenience and efficiency.
As for the FRC, I agree that they’re not gonna be convinced by civil unions. We’re not loking to get them to be allies, however – we’re looking for the people in the middle, for whom “marriage” is culturally defined as a three-part relationship between a man, a woman, and God. Those people, practically speaking, are gonna be the ones who ultimately make the decision in this country: they’re decent folk but with a very traditional attitude. We’re trying to win them over, not the Family Research Council (whom I consider in no way decent).
It is precisely because the word “marriage” is unimportant that I want to change it to civil unions. Give the traditionalist all access to the word that they want – that is, prevent the government from defining it in a way they disagree with – and in exchange, win all concrete issues in the debate. It strikes me as especially muddle-headed to hold out for the word.
Daniel
I agree. In essence, I consider this to be a rebuttal to “but marriage is a religious institution,” (regardless of the fact that it isn’t, they just think it is, as pointed out by MEBuckner. If they are no longer taking a noble stand in the defense of the sanctity of marriage, what is their defense?
Secondly, regarding civil unions and sex… I see your point. There is no need to imply anything sexual from a civil union, as it is simply a legal agreement.
It doesn’t really matter from a SSM point of view. The major push for same-sex marriage is getting the legal rights, so this would be fine with us. If anyone really wants, they can throw in a ceremony and register with whatever church will let them. That is entirely up to the organizations and individuals. The minority of homosexuals who are Christian or Catholic will have to reconcile with their faith.
The only logical defense left against SSM is “EEWWWWEEEEE,” in which case, I’ll just sit back and smile as I imagine what goes through their head when they are getting a prostate examination and trying not to enjoy it a little.
I have no problem with an individual State government removing itself from the issue of marriage. Then, in due course reinstating a Civil Union procedure that is open to everyone. Of course there must be a requirement that all existing marriages under the old system will be able to continue without any modification until the marriage comes to its end (through death or divorce.)
I have a serious problem with the USSC forcing anything like this on all of the states.
You already know my opinion. 
I think this is an extraordinarily sensible approach – it leaves the government out of what is, at least in my view, a clearly religious institution. It grants to any couple, straight or gay, the equal legal recognition of their union, and reserves to the churches the use of “marriage”.
It’s a winner all around.
- Rick
Important nitpick: it reserves to the private sector the use of “marriage.” Atheists like me can still get married under this proposal; we just don’t have to ask the government for permission. And churches are free to disagree with me on what constitutes marriage, just like I’m free to disagree with them on what constitutes ethical behavior.
Daniel
Word.
I’ve long advocated this – everyone gets married, or no one does.
It all goes back to that simple rule we learned in grade school: if you’re gonna give out some goodies, you better bring enough for everyone.
Important nitpick: in many states, giving your goodies to everyone is grounds for divorce.
Daniel
This is the position I started out with (and still, to some point agree with, I think I’ve heard that France separates out civil and religious marriage entirely, you can do whatever you want in a church, but the state doesn’t count the marriage until you have something done in front of a secular authority…sounds like a brilliant idea).
But then, someone pointed out to me that eventually these people will have to deal with the federal government or other entities outside of the state, that may not recognize civil unions. Would unionized people (of whatever orientation) get to file taxes together? Would their relationship be recognized when they’re entering or leaving the country? When they get older, would they get the Social Security benefits that married couples currently enjoy?
You do realize that you may very well have succinctly described the vast majority of Americans in this case.
This is really a core conservative issue. Is it the business of the state to meddle in affairs that should be served by the private sector? If you are a conservative, you will agree that the government should not determine matters like “marriage”, which are properly for the private sector to determine. The government’s only proper place is to deal with matters directly impinging upon property law, taxation, and similar concerns. If you are some sort of colletivist/socialist, you will insist that the government must determine who is and is not married.
I don’t really give a rat’s ass what Dobson and his ilk think. If this compromise, and it is a compromise not a sleight-of-hand, can get the support needed to pass, then it’s a winner in my book.
Hey, now! I’m a card-carrying socialist (okay, not really, although I am a card-carrying Pope), and I don’t want the government doing anything of the sort. Comes from being a socialist-anarchist type, I guess – like a libertarian, except not so convinced about the primacy of property rights.
Daniel
Obviously, then, you’re not some sort of collectivist/socialist, you’re another sort of noncollectivist/socialist.
It is a sleight of hand. You can already get married in the United States without the involvement or approval of any religious figure or institution. There’s simply no need to change the name. After all, you could still call it a civil union and reserve it to heterosexual couples only.
Marc