# 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:** 13
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/241 "2014-05-13T19:36:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > :rolleyes: If it was merely your opinion, that’s fine, but unsupported assertion is not at all convincing with nothing behind it. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/242 "2014-05-13T19:44:39Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > And there you have it. You want inequal institutions - not inequal in the sphere of law, but inequal in the sphere of society. That’s why he objects so much to the idea that his plan is “separate but equal.” It’s not the potential for it being unequal he’s worried about. It’s the thought it might be viewed as actually equal. ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/243 "2014-05-13T20:22:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Again, the UK cite shows that calling it marriage does not prevent what you object to. Which I take as an indication that we are Not There Yet. That there is further to go in order to make things fair. Not that we should stop and shift into reverse, > [@](#): > > And second is the frankly rather bizarre notion that future bigots will be stymied Oh, I don’t underestimate the cunning of bigots, and I don’t imagine that perfect legal equality will stop them. I mean, racism hasn’t completely gone away just because we decided black people are humans after all. > [@](#): > > 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. You’re right - calling it marriage makes no difference! So what’s your fucking problem? ---
**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, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/244 "2014-05-13T22:18:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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. Even if this is stipulated, the obvious conclusion is that the name “marriage” should simply be used for both same-sex and opposite-sex cases, since creating a complication that serves no actual purpose is clearly detrimental. The case is similar to that of designating certain colors [“grue” and “bleen”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_riddle_of_induction) instead of “blue” and “green”. There is no way, even in theory, of distinguishing between the descriptive value of the two options (prior to the specific time baked into the color definitions), and yet nobody actually uses the former outside the context of a logic puzzle that examines the question of why that is. ---
**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, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/245 "2014-05-13T22:24:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What you’re missing is the difference between the legal privileges and benefits marriage affords a couple and the symbolism that the word carries. Very well; you think the symbolism of the word is important. List some concessions you are willing to offer in exchange for keeping that benefit exclusively for your side. (Listing any “concessions” you are required to concede anyway will be met with withering mockery. More than your argument is getting already, I mean…) ---
**Author:** ![standingwave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/246 "2014-05-14T02:53:04Z")
The horror… [Federal judge rules Idaho gay marriage ban unconstitutional…](http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/13/3183291/judge-rules-idaho-gay-marriage.html) “Idaho’s Marriage Laws withhold from them a profound and personal choice, one that most can take for granted. By doing so, Idaho’s Marriage Laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love.” ---
**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 14, 2014, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/247 "2014-05-14T11:07:28Z")
Shodan, a clarification request: Bob is in a particular situation and gets government benefits. Tim gets in a similar situation and for some reason gets more benefits and/or better benefits than Bob, whose benefits are unaffected by Tim’s situation. Is Bob being disparaged or penalized? If you agree that he is, I have a follow-up question. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/248 "2014-05-14T16:35:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You objected to marriage and civil unions being legally the same because of the “separate but equal thing”. I am trying to find out what the basis of that objection is. For one thing, marriage already exists. You are still trying to deny something to same-sex couples that you permit different-sex couples. If you were proposing to call official recognition of different-sex couples “combinement” and official recognition of same-sex couples “athroization,” you might be able to persuade me that they are separate but equal (it would be an uphill battle at best, but you might). What you are in fact proposing is to wall off marriage and create a new arrangement for same-sex couples. You want to say “one is marriage and one is not marriage.” > [@](#): > > The objections are that calling one side civil union is inherently discriminatory, because of the motives of some on the other side. Using different terms is inherently discriminatory. That’s what “discriminate” means. You just deem it justifiable discrimination, and don’t think it’s inherently bigoted. > [@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? I’m not sure how you think you are going to succeed in separating this from the context of historical (and still extant) homophobia. It’s not as though we don’t know about it. > [@Miller](#): > > You think that symbolism is important enough that gays need to be denied it. He thinks the symbolism is so important that same-sex couples should be denied it, but not so important that same-sex couples are missing out on anything by not having access to it. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/249 "2014-05-14T16:37:29Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > He thinks the symbolism is so important that same-sex couples should be denied it, but not so important that same-sex couples are missing out on anything by not having access to it. Exactly: he’s saying it’s priceless but worthless. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/250 "2014-05-14T17:17:56Z")
Worthless is a _form_ of priceless. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/251 "2014-05-14T17:23:11Z")
Its like Schrodinger’s cat, only its gay and wants to have equal rights or not ---
**Author:** ![Lenoxus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/fbc32d/32.png) [@Lenoxus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lenoxus)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/252 "2014-05-14T22:34:44Z")
Several references here have been made to \*something \* in the UK whereby same-sex marriage has a different status despite legally being “marriage”, but the only link I’ve seen is to [the Wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom), from which I can’t tell what is different. Is there some recent news I missed? (I’m an American.) ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/253 "2014-05-15T00:25:50Z")
> [@Lenoxus](#): > > Several references here have been made to \*something \* in the UK whereby same-sex marriage has a different status despite legally being “marriage”, but the only link I’ve seen is to [the Wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom), from which I can’t tell what is different. Is there some recent news I missed? (I’m an American.) In 2005, the UK created “civil partnerships.” They conferred all or nearly all of the legal rights of marriage but were _not_ marriages. There’s now _also_ same-sex marriage everywhere except Northern Ireland, but that’s very recent. ---
**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 15, 2014, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/254 "2014-05-15T00:43:09Z")
So sanity finally set in. Good for them. ---
**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 15, 2014, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/255 "2014-05-15T06:08:39Z")
> [@Lenoxus](#): > > Several references here have been made to \*something \* in the UK whereby same-sex marriage has a different status despite legally being “marriage”, but the only link I’ve seen is to [the Wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom), from which I can’t tell what is different. Is there some recent news I missed? (I’m an American.) I was a bit unclear about that too - it was the statement below: > [@Shodan](#): > > Calling it marriage doesn’t seem to [have stopped the UK](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom). I don’t see how what it is called is going to stop that kind of thing. > > Regards, > Shodan Which in context, appears to be saying that calling SSM ‘marriage’ in the UK has somehow allowed inequality to persist, but this was never elaborated upon. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/256 "2014-05-15T06:50:18Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Which in context, appears to be saying that calling SSM ‘marriage’ in the UK has somehow allowed inequality to persist, but this was never elaborated upon. There are still some minor differences. For example, UK law provides overlapping but not identical lists of places where SSMs and OSMs may be celebrated. (In particular, an SSM may not be celebrated in a church or chapel of the Church of England.) The Church of England cannot celebrate an SSM outside its own churches or chapels, even though it can do so for OSMs. Other churches and religious communities need to go through “opt in” procedures to acquire the right to celebrate SSM, though the have a standing right to celebrate OSM. An OSM can be annulled for non-consummation but an SSM cannot. Where two women marry, and one of them then give birth to a child, there is no presumption that the other woman is a parent of the child (whereas there would be a presumption of paternity in an OSM). There are some fiddly differences to do with survivor’s pension rights under sboth social security and employer-sponsored pension plans. I don’t understand the technicalities of these, or how far-reaching the different treatment of SSM and OSM is in practice. The Secretary of State retains a power to make orders providing for SSM to be treated differently from OSM in other respects. ---
**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 15, 2014, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/257 "2014-05-15T07:09:09Z")
Fair enough - I think that’s probably just an indicator that we’re not there yet - the semantic part has been done, but the legal equality bit still needs some work - none of this invalidates the case for striving to make it equal and the same. I guess that could be the disconnect in this debate. As I understand it, people aren’t ‘just’ asking to be able to legally call it ‘marriage’ - they’re asking for it to \*\*\*be \*\*\*marriage. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/258 "2014-05-15T07:30:32Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Fair enough - I think that’s probably just an indicator that we’re not there yet - the semantic part has been done, but the legal equality bit still needs some work - none of this invalidates the case for striving to make it equal and the same. > > I guess that could be the disconnect in this debate. As I understand it, people aren’t ‘just’ asking to be able to legally call it ‘marriage’ - they’re asking for it to \*\*\*be \*\*\*marriage. Yes. They’re asking for it to be marriage, and one of the incidents of marriage is that it gets called “marriage”, so any relationship where that is not the case is something short of marriage. It doesn’t follow that all distinctions are objectionable. It’s generally true that a marriage can be celebrated in a church, but a _particular_ marriage may not be able to be celebrated in a _particular_ church if, e.g, that church only celebrates marriages between its own members, or that church won’t celebrate the marriages of divorced people and one of the couple is divorced. I don’t think that means the the union of the couple concerned is something short of _real_ marriage, and that they are denied equality until the law forces every church to be willing to marry them. In the same way, I don’t think that an SSM law has to compel churches to celebrate SSMs if they don’t want to. Similarly, the fact that there is no equivalent of non-consummation for SSMs I think comes down to the fact that society doesn’t have a concept of “consummation” which it regards as fundamental to SSM. And, without that, I don’t see that the concept of “non-consummation” has any meaning in the context of an SSM. I can’t speak to the different pension treatment in the UK, because I don’t know how it works in practice. My instinct is that there ought to be no difference between SSMs and OSMs as far as pension rights go, but I’m open to being persuaded that there are good technical and/or practical reasons for the differing treatment, and that it is not such as to diminish SSM by comparison with OSM. ---
**Author:** ![Lenoxus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/fbc32d/32.png) [@Lenoxus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lenoxus)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/259 "2014-05-15T21:56:00Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > There are still some minor differences. > > For example, UK law provides overlapping but not identical lists of places where SSMs and OSMs may be celebrated. (In particular, an SSM may not be celebrated in a church or chapel of the Church of England.) > > The Church of England cannot celebrate an SSM outside its own churches or chapels, even though it can do so for OSMs. Other churches and religious communities need to go through “opt in” procedures to acquire the right to celebrate SSM, though the have a standing right to celebrate OSM. > > An OSM can be annulled for non-consummation but an SSM cannot. > > Where two women marry, and one of them then give birth to a child, there is no presumption that the other woman is a parent of the child (whereas there would be a presumption of paternity in an OSM). > > There are some fiddly differences to do with survivor’s pension rights under sboth social security and employer-sponsored pension plans. I don’t understand the technicalities of these, or how far-reaching the different treatment of SSM and OSM is in practice. > > The Secretary of State retains a power to make orders providing for SSM to be treated differently from OSM in other respects. Ah, I get it. It sounds like some, but not all of those issues arise simply by virtue of there being a national church; for the first time, I’m glad my country doesn’t have one of those. In terms of the possibility of American equivalents to such double standards, I remember hearing somewhere that 2014 was the first year the IRS would accept joint tax returns from SSM couples. But I think that was simply a direct consequence of the Defense of Marriage Act being ruled unconstitutional and thus the federal government officially recognizing SSM, not something the IRS opted to do when it could have refused. Instead, it seems like the risk of a double standard would come from state law, not federal; I see little room for, say, a hypothetical Republican president and legislature in 2017 passing some kind of “SSM is lesser” law, since that would run right in the face of the ruling that overturned DOMA. It would take a constitutional amendment. As for the states, I don’t think voters in a state that currently doesn’t have SSM would approve of a “SSM but not as marriage-y” law, so you would instead need the change to happen in a state that already recognizes SSM, and that’s not likely either. I’ve never considered this before, but perhaps it’s an advantage of federalism that major reforms can start in one state and sweep the nation, rather than be passed in forms compromised by the need for a whole country’s consensus. Still, I doubt that’s much consolation to the residents of the 32 states, including my own, where SSM is entirely unrecognized. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/260 "2014-05-15T21:59:02Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Fair enough - I think that’s probably just an indicator that we’re not there yet - the semantic part has been done, but the legal equality bit still needs some work - none of this invalidates the case for striving to make it equal and the same. IANAL, nor am I very familiar with the UK legal system, but AFAICT an important difference here is that the Church of England is an established or State church, which means that church policy and civil law are **very** entangled. I’m not sure (based on my existing knowledge, which admittedly isn’t that much) that there’s a way out of this situation for the UK that wouldn’t involve either unequal restrictions on SSM or government policy overriding Church doctrine. Both of which undesirable outcomes we can avoid here in the US with its (IMHO) more intelligent approach to separation of church and state. We can declare legal or civil marriage to be the same for same-sex or opposite-sex partners, while still keeping the government’s nose firmly out of religious institutions’ criteria for what they consider marriage to be and whom they consider entitled to partake in it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034.md?page=14)