# Fact: SSM is out, SS Civil Unions are in. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2014, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034 "2014-05-09T06:19:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/201 "2014-05-13T06:03:09Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > He’s really really good at arguing for SSM. He may be the best I’ve ever seen. A couple years ago, he got a bit fed up with being dogpiled on the subject, and announced that he wasn’t just going to support SSM bans at the ballot, but would volunteer his time to help pass them. I can only assume the large number of victories for SSM in the last few months are a direct result. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/202 "2014-05-13T07:34:57Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Nah, man, I mean you literally create analogies where you lay out a series of premises that are clearly building to conclusion A, and suddenly say they point to not A. Take this, for instance: > > I’ve been staring at this for ten minutes now, and I swear to God, I cannot figure out how you think that’s an analogy for SSM advocates. We’re not the ones who are angry because someone else is using a term that we think should be reserved for us. _ **That’s what you’re doing.** _ Trying to apply that sentence to SSM advocates is literally anti-logic. > > And this isn’t a one off deal. I swear to God, it’s _every single analogy you make._ Drivers licenses, branches of the military, separate but equal. You arrange a series of postulates that are all clearly aimed in one direction, and then, just before you come to the conclusion, you pull a u-turn and hare off in precisely the opposite direction that everything you’d been saying had been leading in. > > It’s genuinely astounding. IMO, this is the hallmark of a genuinely indefensible position. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/203 "2014-05-13T10:19:20Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > And it’s especially funky when you hear it in context. “We don’t want to share a term with the gays, but even though we have a history of hateful behaviors and discrimination and animus, this time we totally don’t mean it in any demeaning way and your insistence on seeing it as negative just shows how irrational you are.” > > The fact is, the anti-SSM people have forfeited any right to the benefit of my doubt. (Not that it matters in this case, since there is no one who could suggest this scheme who I would find credible.) Exactly. The position of, “why won’t you accept civil unions that are otherwise completely equal to marriage,” does not come free of baggage. It comes with the centuries of discrimination and hatred and bigotry, and in many it cases from the same people who, 5 or 10 or 20 years ago, were purveying that bigotry. Dan Savage puts it very well in [this article](http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/03/05/new-poll-shows-highest-support-for-gay-marriage-ever-pope-comes-out-for-civil-unions&view=comments). It’s worth reading the whole thing, but this is the crux: > [@](#): > > If Christians had looked at the suffering of gay men in AIDS wards in 1985 said, “The lives, loves, and rights of these couples must be protected,” and if conservative Christians had proposed civil unions then and gotten a civil unions statute signed into law by the conservative Christian president they helped elect, _that_ might’ve halted the push for marriage equality before it could even get off the ground. Which also raises the practical problem with civil unions in the US. (I realise that the OP of this thread was about a hypothetical country, but the discussion seems to have moved on.) There is no way in hell that the current GOP-dominated Congress would pass a law giving civil unions exactly the same federal rights as marriages. And without those rights, civil unions are _not_ equal; it’s the DOMA issue all over again. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/204 "2014-05-13T11:47:35Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > [QUOTE=magellan01] > Now if you were Sailor and felt disparaged by the existence of another group called sailors, then the problem seems to lie with some insecurity you have. I’ve been staring at this for ten minutes now, [/QUOTE] Oops. That should have read: Now if you were Sailor and felt disparaged by the existence of another group called _Soldiers_, then the problem seems to lie with some insecurity you have. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/205 "2014-05-13T12:08:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oops. That should have read: > > Now if you were Sailor and felt disparaged by the existence of another group called _Soldiers_, then the problem seems to lie with some insecurity you have. No. If I were a part of a married couple, and had a problem with the existence of another group called “a softball team,” then the problem would lie with some insecurity I had. However, if I am a member of a married couple, and am threatened by the existence of another married couple who are not exactly like me, then the problem would be with some insecurity I had. Wanting to call another couple who are just like my wife and I, excepting for what they do in the bedroom, by a different term is absurd. (For the record, I am not certain my hetero-married friends do the same things in the bedroom as my wife and I, and whether they do or not is irrelevant to whether they are a married couple.) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/206 "2014-05-13T12:36:39Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Genuinely trying to understand your position here–are you no longer considering your proposal to be separate-but-equal? If so, in what way do you consider your proposal to be separate? You objected to marriage and civil unions being legallly the same because of the “separate but equal thing”. I am trying to find out what the basis of that objection is. Civil unions and marriage would be legally equivalent in my scenario. Marshall’s opinion in _Brown v. Board_ was that the physical separation of segregation made it inherently discriminatory. There would be no physical separation in civil union vs. marriage. They would use separate terms to refer to the respective institutions. So they would be as far as I can tell truly separate, but equal. The objections are that calling one side civil union is inherently discriminatory, because of the motives of some on the other side. That doesn’t follow, since the same motives would exist no matter what they call it, and since there is no right not to have other people disapprove of you. The other objection is that calling it marriage would prevent later changes that degrade the institution, and that doesn’t seem to be the case either, as witnessed by the UK cite. Regards. Shodan ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/207 "2014-05-13T12:46:43Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Civil unions and marriage would be legally equivalent in my scenario. What scenario is that exactly? Are you talking just for a state or the US or the world? Right now, my same-sex marriage in Minnesota would be recognize by [The Hague Convention of 14 March 1978 on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages.](http://www.hcch.net/upload/outline26e.pdf) which states: > [@](#): > > Recognition of the validity of foreign marriages > While Part I of the Convention, on celebration, is optional and may be excluded, > Part II, on the recognition of the validity of marriage, in contrast is mandatory. The > question of the recognition of the validity of marriages is critical in an age of > exponential growth of mobility. The basic rule of the Convention is a simple one: > the State of celebration – it is important to note that this may be any State, not > just another Contracting State – determines the validity of the marriage, and the > Contracting States are bound, subject to a limited number of exceptions and > subject of course to the mandates of their ordre public, to recognise the validity of > the marriage if valid according to the law of the State of celebration (Article > 9). This has the great advantage of avoiding the need to review the applicable law > under the conflict of laws rules of the recognising State. Special provision is made > for marriages concluded by diplomats or consuls. Where a competent authority of > the State where the marriage was celebrated has issued a marriage certificate, the > marriage shall be presumed to be valid until the contrary is established (Article 10). > A limited number of exceptions are allowed (Article 11): a Contracting State may > (not must) only refuse to recognise the validity of a marriage where at the time of > the marriage under the law of the requested State, (1) one of the spouses was > already married; or (2) the spouses were related to one another, in the direct > line or as brother and sister; or (3) one of the spouses had not attained the > minimum age required for marriage; or (4) if one of the spouses lacked the > capacity to give their consent or (5) did not freely consent to the marriage. In > addition, ordre public may be invoked by the requested State, for example, when in > a concrete case the marriage certificate, or the underlying marriage itself, is a fake > or is otherwise fraudulent. So, while the Convention favours the recognition of > marriages, it avoids the possibility of resorting to “marriage heavens”. So for your “scenario” to work, we would have to: 1. Amend all state laws 2. Amend all US federal laws 3. Amend the Hague Convention of 1978 and get a WHOLE bunch of other countries to agree as well. Or 1. We could skip the whole “separate but equal” bullshit and just call it marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/208 "2014-05-13T12:49:01Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > … there is no right not to have other people disapprove of you. … There is, if/when they seek to codify that disapproval in the form of law. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/209 "2014-05-13T12:50:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The other objection is that calling it marriage would prevent later changes that degrade the institution, and that doesn’t seem to be the case either, as witnessed by the UK cite. I didn’t say it would prevent later changes, just that it would make them more difficult, and it would more transparently identify any such changes as purely meant to harm gay couples. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/210 "2014-05-13T13:23:29Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > So for your “scenario” to work, we would have to: > > 1. Amend all state laws > 2. Amend all US federal laws > 3. Amend the Hague Convention of 1978 and get a WHOLE bunch of other countries to agree as well. > > Or > > 1. We could skip the whole “separate but equal” bullshit and just call it marriage. I think you would need to do a good deal of amending changing the definition of marriage to include SSM - probably as much as creating civil union as a new institution. > [@Mangetout](#): > > There is, if/when they seek to codify that disapproval in the form of law. I don’t see how the likelihood of that happening is affected by calling it “civil union”. It would be more likely (IMO) if those who want to retain the current definition of marriage are disparaged and penalized, as suggested in the OP. My proposal avoids that danger. But it does require both sides to accept reality. Proponents of a traditional definition of marriage have to accept that recognizing an identical institution for same-sex couples does not disparage them. Proponents of same-sex unions have to accept that calling it "civil union’ does not disparage them either. But it is a recognition of reality. Traditionalists cannot point to anything about civil union that actually affects them, and thus fall back on “but I don’t liiiiiiike it!!!” And likewise for the other side - they can’t point to any actual negative effects either, and fall back on the same argument. Or un-falisfiable stuff about it will make it difficult to discriminate against same-sex unions, even in the teeth of evidence that calling it SSM hasn’t been shown to prevent it at all. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/211 "2014-05-13T13:38:08Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > [According to an article on Marriage Resources for Clergy.com](http://www.marriageresourcesforclergy.com/site/Articles/articles007.htm): > > > [@](#): > > > > Homosexual marriage will devalue your marriage. A license to marry is a legal document by which government will treat same-sex marriage as if it were equal to the real thing. A license speaks for the government and will tell society that government says the marriages are equal. Any time a lesser thing is made equal to a greater, the greater is devalued. I am reminded of the old joke about the difference between the righteously earnest Americans and the godless commie Rooskies – if you have one horse and your neighbor has two, your response is (if you’re a go-getter American) to work on getting yourself a second horse or (if you’re a pinko Rooskie) to sneak into your neighbor’s barn and poison one of his horses. Comrades **magellan01** and **Shodan** , like Comrade Preacher who wrote this screed, have declared their side of this fundamental divide… ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/212 "2014-05-13T13:44:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Can anyone else translate this…analogy??..for me? This question reminds me of the evening after the _X-Files_ episode “Jose Chung’s ‘From Outer Space’” originally aired. Somebody posted a query on the show’s Usenet group (don’t worry if you don’t recognize the name; it’s one of those stone-knives-and-bearskins things from the Before Times): “I missed last night’s episode. Can anyone post a brief plot synopsis?” The consensus was that the only answer to this question is “NO”. The same is true here. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/213 "2014-05-13T13:48:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Since you put that in quotes, no doubt you can cite the post where I said so. That’s why I didn’t put in it a quote box. Using quotes to indicate paraphrases is a board convention you understand perfectly well since you do it yourself 5 posts later. If the word “marriage” carries significant cultural weight, then something called a “civil union” will be perceived as inferior. But if the word “marriage” doesn’t carry significant cultural weight, then it doesn’t matter if we use it to refer to gay unions or not. You’re simultaneously arguing two contradictory positions. You’re saying that the word “marriage” carries such a wealth of historical and cultural connotations that we should come up with a different term to refer to gay people. But you’re also saying that words are arbitrary labels so we shouldn’t take historical and cultural connotations into account to determine if that different term is perceived as inferior. If calling something a “civil union” is just a matter of attaching an arbitrary label that doesn’t carry any sense of inferiority, then why not just call it “marriage”? It’s simpler and clearer. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/214 "2014-05-13T13:48:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I think you would need to do a good deal of amending changing the definition of marriage to include SSM - probably as much as creating civil union as a new institution. It’s like you didn’t read my link at all. But to reiterate: “No. No you don’t.” ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/215 "2014-05-13T13:50:44Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > Here’s an analogy: > > There’s a building, and a sign over the door says “MARRIAGE.” For a long time, only one-man-one-woman couples were allowed to go through that door. Now same-sex couples are demanding, or at least asking, to go in through the door. **magellan01** and others are saying they should be allowed in the building, but first we should cut another door and put a sign over it that says “CIVIL UNION.” And I do not understand why. I don’t see why we need to go to the trouble of cutting a second door into the same building. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > Is it wrong that I’m picturing some people as [Tom Michaels](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR3ChDXCv0I)? Personally, I have a mental image of George Wallace running around whack-a-mole style trying to somehow block all the doorways as new ones are constantly carved out. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Because there’s no need for a separate term, any more than we need a separate official term for a gay doctor or a gay librarian or a gay chartered accountant. Don’t give him ideas. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/216 "2014-05-13T13:52:21Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Traditionalists cannot point to anything about civil union that actually affects them, and thus fall back on “but I don’t liiiiiiike it!!!” And likewise for the other side - they can’t point to any actual negative effects either, and fall back on the same argument. If we call it all marriage - if it is defined as exactly one and the same legal concept, then any future proposed change to anything related to marriage affects everyone - and (if it’s a detestable change) it will have majority opposition, If we call it civil union, even if all of the rights and privileges (except name) are aligned at this point in time, it’s a separate entity, subject to future change independent of any change affecting marriage, so in the case of a future detestable change, all the people covered by the cosy and unaffected Marriage category, can sit and do nothing whilst inequalities are introduced. Making it all ‘marriage’ ensures future equality. ‘Separate but equal’, even if that made sense, allows for the possibility of one supposedly-equal category to go to shit later, especially if that category is a minority. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/217 "2014-05-13T14:00:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > My proposal avoids that danger. But it does require both sides to accept reality. Proponents of a traditional definition of marriage have to accept that recognizing an identical institution for same-sex couples does not disparage them. Proponents of same-sex unions have to accept that calling it "civil union’ does not disparage them either. Well, then, you’ll have no objection whatsoever to the proposal advanced on the “Is The Gay Marriage Debate Over?” thread.\* > [@Is The Gay Marriage Debate Over?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/810): > > Excellent. And since these are, in your own words, _exactly_ equal, you won’t mind switching the names. Same Sex couples get to have a “marriage”, Opposite Sex couples couples get to have a “civil union.” They’re exactly the same, so nobody should mind this, right? \*Period, not question mark. This is not a query; it is a statement of an obvious and inescapable corollary to your on-the-record position. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/218 "2014-05-13T14:35:42Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > If the word “marriage” carries significant cultural weight, then something called a “civil union” will be perceived as inferior. But if the word “marriage” doesn’t carry significant cultural weight, then it doesn’t matter if we use it to refer to gay unions or not. > > You’re simultaneously arguing two contradictory positions. You’re saying that the word “marriage” carries such a wealth of historical and cultural connotations that we should come up with a different term to refer to gay people. But you’re also saying that words are arbitrary labels so we shouldn’t take historical and cultural connotations into account to determine if that different term is perceived as inferior. > > If calling something a “civil union” is just a matter of attaching an arbitrary label that doesn’t carry any sense of inferiority, then why not just call it “marriage”? It’s simpler and clearer. No speaking for Shodan, but… What you’re missing is the difference between the legal privileges and benefits marriage affords a couple and the symbolism that the word carries. You might not agree with the idea, but it is a statement of fact that Civil Unions can be afforded the exact same set of legal benefits and privileges as marriages. That’s a fact. If there was the will to do this it _could_ be done. The symbolism aspect is _the reason_ that those who believe in traditional marriage want SS couples to us another word. The position is both logical and consistent. From a legal standpoint, SS couples should get all the benefits and privileges that OS couples enjoy. From a symbolic standpoint, while I understand why they’d want it, but that doesn’t mean that society needs to acquiesce to their desires. If SS couples believe that their Civil Union is inferior and feel bad, we’ll, that’s their problem. As **Shodan** (I think) said, there is no right to not feel offended. I’d go as far as to say that IF they really want to demonstrate that their relationships are every bit as wonderful as those of OS couples that they, that they should proudly start their own institution. Maybe over time it’ll be viewed as positively as marriage. Maybe it’ll be viewed as even better than marriage. Maybe it’ll fall short of marriage. Regardless of the outcome, it will be deserved. And this leads back to the earlier question I asked, what prevents SS couples from embracing their own form of union and being proud of it? Is there some feeling among gays that there relationships are, in fact, inferior in some way? Why not embrace it the same way Sailors and Soldiers each embrace and are proud of the groups they are members of? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/219 "2014-05-13T14:55:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Why not embrace it the same way Sailors and Soldiers each embrace and are proud of the groups they are members of? If they mean exactly the same thing, then why not drop marriage as a legal term and open up civil unions for everybody? On the other hand, don’t bother answering, because it isn’t necessary-You’re already losing this war. I have same sex friends that are already legally married in _every_ sense of the word, and more of them will be able to marry in the future. Do you feel diminished? Do you feel less “married”? Can you give us any predictions about how this will negatively effect those that refuse to drop their bigotry? Got any more bizarre analogies to share with us? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/220 "2014-05-13T15:01:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No speaking for Shodan, but… > > What you’re missing is the difference between the legal privileges and benefits marriage affords a couple and the symbolism that the word carries. You might not agree with the idea, but it is a statement of fact that Civil Unions can be afforded the exact same set of legal benefits and privileges as marriages. That’s a fact. And separate drinking fountains for blacks _can be_ kept maintained and cleaned just as shiny as those for whites. > [@](#): > > If there was the will to do this it _could_ be done. I think it’s already been demonstrated (and continues to be demonstrated in debates like this one) that the will to maintain equality in a notionally ‘separate but equal’ arrangement is not universal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034.md?page=12)