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.
No, I read it. Did you notice that it says
so actually, yes you do.
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
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”.
No one is being disparaged or penalized in the OP, implicitly or explicitly.
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?
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?
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
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”?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Still more effort than *not *doing it. 
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.
In what way is the government treating you either better, or worse, by calling it “civil union”?
Regards,
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
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.
New thread discussing the more likely scenario of marriage for same sex couples. Let’s discuss the horrible things that will happen to the institute of marriage if(when) that happens over there.
It’s treating me differently, which is reason enough to object.
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.
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?