Fact: SSM is out, SS Civil Unions are in.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Shodan

How is it more fair to treat marriage unfairly, instead of treating both marriage and civil union the same?

Because I’m taking a longer view. See below.

magellan01 proposed a society where civil unions are legally indistinguishable from marriage, not one where one side is heavily penalized.

Who is being penalized? The legally married? Their benefits haven’t changed one iota. Are you one of those liberal types who maintains that not getting an additional benefit counts as a punishment?
The hypothetical nation I had in mind - Anadac, why not? - has to its own satisfaction found the mythical nonhomophobic reason to deny same-sex marriage. They found it under a pile of squared circles and unicorn pelts. It is so rational in their eyes, all of them, that even gay Anadacians accept it. It may not seem so to nonAnadacians, but no matter. Homophobia in general is not assumed to exist in Anadac, nor will any conspiracy theories about gay agendas gain any traction.

That said, I picture myself in the role (and invite others to do the same) of a powerful legislator of Anadac, possibly the monarch, who also accepts that same-sex marriage cannot exist, but also wishes to see all my constituents treated fairly. In fact, I specifically wish to craft the best, fairest society for all. To that end, I create a parallel legal structure (“civil union”) which is open to all couples, and make it so desirable in comparison to legal marriage that legal marriage quickly falls by the wayside, with only a few determined traditionalists opting for it (and its relatively low benefits) by their choice. Meantime, anyone is free to use the words “marry” or “married” in casual speech or even in reference to whatever ceremonies they privately arrange to celebrate their joining, be it via legal marriage or civil union (or neither, possibly, someone could arrange a “marriage” ceremony even with no intent to get governmental recognition of any kind). I picture conversations like the following:

Jim: Did you hear? Steve and Tom are getting married.
Dave: You mean civilly united?
Jim: Yeah, whatever.

If Dave does this often enough, Dave will get a reputation as being anal.

Overall, I will consider this the best outcome possible, given the constraint.

I have to go away for the weekend, likely can’t post again for 48 hours. Possibly by them, magellan will comment to what level, if any, this thread gets on his “very interesting” scale.

[Bozuit]

In this hypothetical, would a civil union mean you only have to ask the genie to beat you a quarter to death?

[clairobscur]

@Pjen

In France they cannot officiate in the state process- only civil servants can do that and the marriage is conducted by them alone.

Nitpick : only mayors and deputy mayors, not civil servants. Civil marriage is quite ceremonial in France.

[Lenoxus]

I guess I’m alone in this, but I thought the OP was a clever counter-argument to those who say “I don’t care about legal benefits one way or the other, I just don’t think gay couples should get the label ‘marriage’ because marriage is sacred and special.” I read the thought experiment as, “Do you really want to go that route? Would you really hold on to the word marriage with a iron grip in exchange for giving gays more benefits?”

But now I see that it was directed at SSM-supporters who oppose the suggestion that unions are a satisfactory compromise. In that case, I guess I’m obligated to counter-argue…

How I would feel about such a proposal being made seriously is hard to conceptualize, because it would never be made seriously. There are zero SSM-opponents who who be willing to “haggle” the benefits of marriage far enough to make up for the two-statuses problem, precisely because (while they won’t say it aloud) they do think the legal benefits of marriage are of real importance, and they wouldn’t treat them flippantly even if some of their arguments go there. That’s exactly why I misinterpreted the OP.

In regards to the specific idea being dealt with, separate-but-equal is an entirely valid concern, not just in terms of social interactions but legally as well. You can’t have civil unions that are better than marriage, because that would never ever happen. And you can’t have them be “exactly equal” even with a sort of “National Marriage Synonym Law” (which I’m not aware of any precedent for in other legal areas, but I’d be fascinated by examples).

To consider YogSosoth’s example of Chik-Fil-A making an offer to married couples, I think Chik-Fil-A could successfully appeal to limit their offer to those who were actually married. Even if they couldn’t, a lawyer somewhere would be able to successfully present the argument for their client making a distinction which is in fact made by law.

Heck, simple yes/no questions in lots of contexts would trip this system up, because humans aren’t computers that can collectively agree to a mental search/replace. Any gay person asked “Are you married?” (by an online form or a customer service rep or a lawyer in court) would have to say “No”, and they wouldn’t always have the chance to clarify “But I’m in a civil union, which is 100% the same thing.” This is annoying enough in the contexts it already exists.

(Here’s a crazy thought: If there *were *a law that basically said “Whenever anyone says civil union they also mean marriage and vice versa”, then wouldn’t gay couples have an extremely strong legal basis in filing for something called “marriage”? Sure, the law could say “gay people can only get civil unions, not marriages”, but I imagine the couple’s attorney could lawyer up something like “Yes, they did get a civil union, but per this law it now translates into a marriage, so now they’re married.”)

[Lenoxus]

The OP is somewhat like this thought experiment: would civil rights activists would have been okay with governmental segregation if the law explicitly treated people of color “twice as well” in every quantifiable way?

It’s incoherent to begin with, since it would simply never happen.

Secondly, if it did happen, it would breed resentment among whites. (Look at affirmative action, an idea I generally support but acknowledge this drawback of.)

The resentment problem with these doubleplusgood civil unions is partly addressed by not restricting unions to gays, hence leading to a long-term shift of all couples from one type of partnership to the other. However, I think the resentment would still be there in the beginning. Traditionalists and even otherwise-sympathetic straights would see it as a slap in the face, and they would actually have a point.

Thirdly (in either the segregation or the marriage thought experiments) ultimate enforcement of the law wouldn’t work. The various individuals and groups and governments and private companies that were asked to keep everything “separate but twice as good” would figure out ways to not do that, and things would easily shift the other way.

Anyway, as others have said and will say, the “Why do you care about a word?” argument clearly cuts both ways. I think the pro-SSM standpoint has a much stronger position in wanting a single word than do their two-word-insisting opponents. They’re not the ones asking for a special status, and they’re well aware of the inevitable practical legal differences. By contrast, if the anti-SSM side is unaware of the differences, then their insistence on a special word for straights is a meaningless demand to be lexically superior, and if they are aware, then they’re explicitly in favor of legal second-class citizenship.

[Little_Nemo]

@Lenoxus

The OP is somewhat like this thought experiment: would civil rights activists would have been okay with governmental segregation if the law explicitly treated people of color “twice as well” in every quantifiable way?

How would that work? Is it physically possible to ride in the back of two buses?

[wonky]

@Little_Nemo

How would that work? Is it physically possible to ride in the back of two buses?

Your mama is sooo fat…

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Little_Nemo

How would that work? Is it physically possible to ride in the back of two buses?

I don’t quite grasp all of Lenoxus’s interpretation of the OP, but I’d suggest the analogous analogy to bus segregation is to say “Blacks cannot ride the Type A buses. Type B buses are required by law to have air conditioners.” The end result being everybody riding the Type Bs except the hardcore racists and, I guess, people who get chilly easily.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Miller and jsgoddess, y’all raise some reasonable points. I’m not sure I’m reversing position, but you’ve both given me something to think about. Thanks!

[Bryan_Ekers]

By my count, this is the second time I’ve started a thread in direct response to someone saying “wouldn’t it be nice if someone started a thread about a particular aspect of this issue…” (which I interpreted in both cases to mean “Wouldn’t it be nice if you troglodytes were sufficiently evolved to see the wisdom in my position instead of disagreeing with me in such an uncouth manner?”) and the instigator didn’t deign to contribute.

[Little_Nemo]

@Bryan_Ekers

By my count, this is the second time I’ve started a thread in direct response to someone saying “wouldn’t it be nice if someone started a thread about a particular aspect of this issue…” (which I interpreted in both cases to mean “Wouldn’t it be nice if you troglodytes were sufficiently evolved to see the wisdom in my position instead of disagreeing with me in such an uncouth manner?”) and the instigator didn’t deign to contribute.

I’m not sure if that’s a legitimate complaint. Suppose I started a thread about football and somebody started posting about baseball. I might suggest he start his own baseball thread and leave my thread to its original topic. But that doesn’t mean I want to post in a baseball thread.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Little_Nemo

I’m not sure if that’s a legitimate complaint. Suppose I started a thread about football and somebody started posting about baseball. I might suggest he start his own baseball thread and leave my thread to its original topic. But that doesn’t mean I want to post in a baseball thread.

It’s an observation, not a complaint. And in both cases the topic of the new thread was word-for-word taken from the other person and on point, rather than a generic “if you wish to keep discussing a topic which is at best tangential to the topic under discussion here, I invite you to start a new thread.”

Further, I perceived in both cases that the tone was disingenuously wistful, as though the person was having an “I have a dream” moment where a real discussion of the issue (as they perceived it) could take place once this board had further evolved. I don’t mind admitting, even at the possible risk of moderator throat-clearing, that my own motive was in part a screw-you response to call an obvious bluff. I like this message board, and if someone wants to suggest we’re not sufficiently mature to have a certain kind of discussion, I’ll be glad to start it on their behalf and see if they’ve got the balls to take a direct challenge on the terms they themselves described - having fixed their goalposts, can they tend them?

Nothing specific can be concluded by their abstention, I admit. I just find it vaguely telling and satisfying in both cases.

[Mangetout]

@Miller

That’s true in the US, but the OP isn’t set in the US, it’s set in some hypothetical other nation that, apparently, has a sufficiently different history of how it treats it’s citizens that the compromise offered in the OP is universally acceptable. “Just make everything civil unions” might be a workable proposal in that society.

Alternatively, marriages are only for straight people, while civil unions are open to everyone, and offer significantly better benefits. Marriage as a legal institution withers on the vine. Marriage as a social institution thrives, and the fact that the thing everyone calls marriage is referred to in the law as “civil unions” becomes one of those “weird old law” bits of trivia, like how it’s allegedly legal to shoot a whale from a moving car in California.

Admittedly, what I’m trying to do here is get what I want (“everyone uses the same institution”) within the bounds of the OP (“gays can’t have marriage”). Obviously, the ideal (to say nothing of most rational) solution is to get rid of civil unions, and open up marriage to everyone.

I agree. Anything else is a compromise in which some party or other will perceive itself to have been damaged.

Or have both (as options) for everyone - I mean, I guess there will be heterosexual couples who might want a civil union in preference to a marriage - even if they are legally only different in name, and practically only different in detail of ceremony.

[Mangetout]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Meh. I don’t really give much of a crap about the bad logic of bigots. If they’re not willing to let gay folks get married under the law, I see no advantage to letting them get married under the law. Let them suffer the same fate as their victims, I say, and if that gives them a martyr complex, I’ll buy 'em a cross.

By playing into their hands, you not only reinforce their convictions, you move the boundary and may effectively recruit some of the fence sitters to the opposition - I mean, alongside the ‘gays are trying to destroy marriage’ folks, there is a continuum of views, including a contingent of ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’.

Destroying marriage so that everyone can have the same is a sour grapes solution.

[Der_Trihs]

@Little_Nemo

How would that work? Is it physically possible to ride in the back of two buses?

Sure, if you have a friend with a chainsaw and some large plastic bags. Kind of messy though.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Mangetout

By playing into their hands, you not only reinforce their convictions, you move the boundary and may effectively recruit some of the fence sitters to the opposition - I mean, alongside the ‘gays are trying to destroy marriage’ folks, there is a continuum of views, including a contingent of ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’.

Destroying marriage so that everyone can have the same is a sour grapes solution.

Last thing first: nothing in my proposal destroys marriage in the slightest. It simply makes it a non-governmental affair.

First things first: in this scenario, the bigots are already pretty close to winning. The scenario says that SSM is totally off the table forever. In that case, trying to persuade bigots to join my side is a waste of time.

[Der_Trihs]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Last thing first: nothing in my proposal destroys marriage in the slightest. It simply makes it a non-governmental affair.

That does destroy marriage, since that’s what marriage is; government recognition of a relationship between two people. If that wasn’t so then homosexuals could have all gotten married years ago by finding some church somewhere willing to declare them married and preforming a ceremony; it’s government recognition that makes marriage meaningful.

[Mangetout]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Last thing first: nothing in my proposal destroys marriage in the slightest. It simply makes it a non-governmental affair.

Some people are going to consider any such move an attack on the institution. Heck, I almost think it would be an attack on the institution of marriage (which is why I would like it made available to everyone, not taken away).

First things first: in this scenario, the bigots are already pretty close to winning. The scenario says that SSM is totally off the table forever.

I guess I am fighting the hypothetical, but I can’t help it. In my reality, the balance is actually swinging the other direction. In the scenario “what if the bigots were close to winning?”, most outcomes are shit.

In that case, trying to persuade bigots to join my side is a waste of time.

There are always fence-sitters. It’s your choice whether you want to help them down on your side of the fence, or push them over to the opposition.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Der_Trihs

That does destroy marriage, since that’s what marriage is; government recognition of a relationship between two people. If that wasn’t so then homosexuals could have all gotten married years ago by finding some church somewhere willing to declare them married and preforming a ceremony; it’s government recognition that makes marriage meaningful.

Are you married? I am. Government recognition is the least meaningful part of my marriage, and I’d be suspicious of anyone who was married who said that’s the most meaningful part of their marriage.

The mutual contractual benefits available to me under the government label of “married” could be labeled anything else, and I’d be a bit happier.

This isn’t to say that if I were gay I’d be okay with getting a civil union where others get a marriage. There’s the whole separate-but-equal issue. But if civilization collapsed and there were no government, I’d still consider myself married; if we’d been living post-zombie-apocalypse in 2003, my wife and I still could have gotten married in our secular ceremony (although with a tragically shorter guest list).

If you’re not married, you might want to listen to what married folk say on the subject. I know my view isn’t the only one, but you may not really be qualified to talk about what’s meaningful about marriage.

[Shodan]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

This isn’t to say that if I were gay I’d be okay with getting a civil union where others get a marriage. There’s the whole separate-but-equal issue.

Can you describe specifically what the issue is with separate but equal? Keeping in mind that they are actually, legally equal - they are simply called something different by some people.

Regards,
Shodan