# 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:** 12
**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, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/221 "2014-05-13T15:06:36Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > 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. I think the need some have for a so-called “separate but equal” status shows that it isn’t even probable. You don’t separate two groups because you think they are equal. ---
**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, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/222 "2014-05-13T15:16:21Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > It’s like you didn’t read my link at all. But to reiterate: “No. No you don’t.” No, I read it. Did you notice that it says > [@](#): > > … the Convention has not yet been ratified by many States (currently Australia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are States Parties)… so actually, yes you do. > [@Mangetout](#): > > 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. Again, the UK cite shows that calling it marriage does not prevent what you object to. And second is the frankly rather bizarre notion that future bigots will be stymied in some way by calling it “marriage” instead of “civil union”. I don’t see any possible way in which that affects it at all. Suppose tomorrow we pass a law saying “All rights and responsibilities of marriage are now extended to same-sex couples.” Ten years from now, bigots propose a law saying “same-sex married couples cannot collect Social Security survivor benefits”. How is that any harder, or more likely to pass, than a law saying “same-sex couples in civil unions cannot collect Social Security survivor benefits”? Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/223 "2014-05-13T15:37:55Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. So you \*agree \*that calling it “marriage” provides a symbolic benefit that “civil union” is lacking. **Shodan** , would you agree with this? So when people argue that “civil union” is symbolically inferior to “marriage”, they are correct. And the “Why do you care what it’s called?” argument holds no water. The anti-marriage people want a society where gay unions are \*perceived \*as inferior, even if they are legally equivalent. Their position is akin to proposing that stepchildren and adopted children should have the same legal rights as biological children, but you’re not allowed to call them “son” or “daughter”. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/224 "2014-05-13T15:41:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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. No one is being disparaged or penalized in the OP, implicitly or explicitly. ---
**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, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/225 "2014-05-13T15:57:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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? Because marriage is already the word used to describe this relationship in many places and marriage has a superior social connotation and significance to civil union in many places. You’re asking “why not call them civil unions”, which is the wrong question. Here’s a question for you: why would they want to call them civil unions, when “marriage” already applies in many places, and is well within reach in the places which do not currently allow it legally? ---
**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, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/226 "2014-05-13T15:59:34Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Again, the UK cite shows that calling it marriage does not prevent what you object to. It may not prevent it, but it makes it more difficult. Plus, the word “marriage” already fits, and is in reach in the places in which it doesn’t. Why on earth would gay couples prefer “civil unions”, which has an inferior social connotation, when “marriage” either already applies or is within reach? ---
**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, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/227 "2014-05-13T16:06:27Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > So you \*agree \*that calling it “marriage” provides a symbolic benefit that “civil union” is lacking. **Shodan** , would you agree with this? No, I would not. The marriage traditionalists would have to come up with some real benefit, or the civil union folks come up with some real drawback to calling it “civil union”. One side finds it derogatory to call a civil union a “marriage”, but can’t describe any bad effect. The other side finds it derogatory to call a marriage a “civil union”, but cannot describe any bad effect. ISTM that the side proposing so major a change has the burden of accepting a distinction without a difference. If they would rather dig their heels in and complain and try to fulfill the negative expectations of the traditionalists, that seems a tactical mistake to me. [QUOTE=iiandyiii] It may not prevent it, but it makes it more difficult. [/QUOTE] I see no indication that it is any more difficult, as the UK cite and my hypothetical indcate. [QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] No one is being disparaged or penalized in the OP, implicitly or explicitly. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/228 "2014-05-13T16:23:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I see no indication that it is any more difficult, as the UK cite and my hypothetical indcate. I described how it would be easier if they were under different names – a locality could simply pass a law that only affect marriages or civil unions. If they are all “marriage”, then a law would specifically have to call out the gender of the married couple to affect one group or the other, and would therefore be more transparent in terms of the motivation to harm gay couples. Also, you’ve ignored my other points, such as the fact that “marriage” already includes gay couples in many places, in both common usage of the word and in legal status, so why would gay couples (and their supporters) elsewhere prefer “civil unions” to “marriage”? ---
**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, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/229 "2014-05-13T18:02:20Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > ISTM that the side proposing so major a change has the burden of accepting a distinction without a difference. Creating a civil union law that exactly duplicates marriage is much more complicated than changing existing marriage law to accommodate same-sex couples. So since you’re proposing a more complicated solution you need to justify why it’s worth the trouble. Change existing marriage laws to apply to same sex couples –\> trivial to implement. Create an entirely new legal framework that exactly duplicates every aspect of marriage law in every respect but name –\> extremely complicated to implement. How can you possibly justify the latter approach? Why would you even propose such a thing? ---
**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, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/230 "2014-05-13T18:24:33Z")
> [@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. If there was the will to do this it _could_ be done. And there you have it. You want inequal institutions - not inequal in the sphere of law, but inequal in the sphere of society. You want gay people to have access to the legal rights of marriage, but not the symbolism of it. You think that symbolism is important enough that gays need to be denied it. I think that symbolism is important enough that gays need to have access to it. > [@](#): > > 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. I kinda think that’s your problem, given that we’re, you know… winning. The idea that civil unions are inferior and insulting isn’t something that just gay people believe anymore - it’s now something that most people in the country recognize. But by all means, please continue to argue against SSM from the standpoint that gay people’s feelings on the subject just doesn’t matter. This is precisely the sort of behavior that’s made you Gay Marriage’s Greatest Ally. > [@](#): > > 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. There’s that anti-logic I was talking about earlier. If my goal is to demonstrate that X is just the same as Y, how on Earth does it make sense for me to invent my own terminology to describe X? That accomplishes the _precise opposite_ of my goal - it’s as clear an indicator as you could ask for that the two things are different. > [@](#): > > 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? Because doing so would violate the central tenant of the gay rights movement, which is that gay people are completely equal, in every way, to straight people. We don’t want the government to treat us worse, which is the almost certain result of your theory, whether you realize it or not. But we also don’t want the government to treat us _better_ - a separate institution for gays that was better than marriage would be just as bad, because we would be engaging in exactly the same bigotry we’re currently trying to fight. > [@](#): > > 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? The group I’m a member of is “people who deserve marriage rights,” and I’m very proud of my membership in that group. I find the idea that I can’t be in that group because I’m gay no less insulting than being told I can’t be in the Navy because I’m gay, or that I can’t live in a particular neighborhood because I’m gay, or that I can’t go into a particular business because I’m gay. In all such instances, someone is using my sexuality to limit what I can or cannot do, and each instance is precisely as insulting as the next. And you can wave your hands and say, “Well, that’s your problem,” as much as you want, it doesn’t change the fact that the public is increasingly unmoved by your position, and increasingly sympathetic to my own. The idea that a civil union compromise is inherently unfair is gaining traction, and if you want to stop that, you’re going to have to start caring about how other people feel about your ideas. ---
**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, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/231 "2014-05-13T18:28:30Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Creating a civil union law that exactly duplicates marriage is much more complicated than changing existing marriage law to accommodate same-sex couples. OK, then quantify the amount of effort needed to pass a law that says “Civil unions are the same as marriage”, and show how much less complicated it would be to pass a law that change all the laws that refer to marriage to include same-sex couples, and show that what you claim is true. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/232 "2014-05-13T18:32:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > OK, then quantify the amount of effort needed to pass a law that says “Civil unions are the same as marriage” Still more effort than \*not \*doing it. 😉 ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/233 "2014-05-13T18:34:48Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > OK, then quantify the amount of effort needed to pass a law that says “Civil unions are the same as marriage”, and show how much less complicated it would be to pass a law that change all the laws that refer to marriage to include same-sex couples, and show that what you claim is true. > > Regards, > Shodan Considering the large and growing support for gay marriage, it would politically much more difficult and much more unlikely to pass a Civil Union law than a marriage law. Ten years ago, support for CUs was probably higher than support for SSM, but nowadays, considering the political success we SSM proponents have had, virtually none of us would support a CU law. ---
**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, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/234 "2014-05-13T18:37:04Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Because doing so would violate the central tenant of the gay rights movement, which is that gay people are completely equal, in every way, to straight people. We don’t want the government to treat us worse, which is the almost certain result of your theory, whether you realize it or not. But we also don’t want the government to treat us _better_ - a separate institution for gays that was better than marriage would be just as bad, because we would be engaging in exactly the same bigotry we’re currently trying to fight. In what way is **the government** treating you either better, or worse, by calling it “civil union”? Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/235 "2014-05-13T18:39:18Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Considering the large and growing support for gay marriage, it would politically much more difficult and much more unlikely to pass a Civil Union law than a marriage law. Ten years ago, support for CUs was probably higher than support for SSM, but nowadays, considering the political success we SSM proponents have had, virtually none of us would support a CU law. I was hoping for actual data. You made an assertion. If it was merely your opinion, that’s fine, but unsupported assertion is not at all convincing with nothing behind it. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/236 "2014-05-13T18:44:22Z")
The only reason for such a proposal is that they think they might fool some people into thinking they are trying to be “reasonable” in proposing something they _know_ doesn’t have a chance in hell of passing. This idiotic proposal would go into committee and never see the light of day again. ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/237 "2014-05-13T18:56:00Z")
[New thread discussing the more likely scenario of marriage for same sex couples.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=723334) Let’s discuss the horrible things that will happen to the institute of marriage if(when) that happens over there. ---
**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, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/238 "2014-05-13T18:57:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > In what way is **the government** treating you either better, or worse, by calling it “civil union”? It’s treating me _differently_, which is reason enough to object. ---
**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, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/239 "2014-05-13T18:58:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > OK, then quantify the amount of effort needed to pass a law that says “Civil unions are the same as marriage”, and show how much less complicated it would be to pass a law that change all the laws that refer to marriage to include same-sex couples, and show that what you claim is true. It should be obvious. If you pass a law that says “same sex couples can get married” then you might have to clean up some gendered language elsewhere in the legal code. (Assumptions that a “bride” always comes paired with a “groom”, that sort of thing.) If you pass a law that says “civil unions are the same as marriage”, you have to do _exactly the same level of clean-up_. But you \*also \*have to make a lot of other changes as well. You’re creating a whole new legal category, so that means that lots of other laws need to be changed. For example, what box do civil union partners check on their tax forms? They’re not married, but they’re not single either. You can’t just say “civil unions are the same as marriage” and handwave the problem away. That doesn’t answer the question of which box they should check. The tax code will have to be revised. Multiply that one example by a thousand and you’re looking at the scope of the problem you’ve created. You’re asking us to adopt a much more-complicated solution when a simpler solution is staring you in the face. It is therefore incumbent upon you to demonstrate why the more-complicated solution is essential. ---
**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, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/240 "2014-05-13T19:05:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I was hoping for actual data. You made an assertion. If it was merely your opinion, that’s fine, but unsupported assertion is not at all convincing with nothing behind it. > > Regards, > Shodan I shouldn’t need to cite the “large and growing support for gay marriage”. But if you want one, I’ll spend a few minutes finding the polling trends (but do I really have to?). The “politically much more difficult” statement is an assertion of opinion that I think logically follows from the aforementioned polling. The last statement, that most SSM proponents are not willing to ‘settle’ for civil unions, is a statement of opinion – I’m not aware of any polling that asks that specific question. In any case, my side is winning – do you have any data that suggests we should stop pushing for gay marriage and settle for civil unions? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034.md?page=13)