If, for example, I were named stpauler. Everyone on the message board calls me stpauler. I am known as stpauler. Except the administration decides to call me “fuckface” instead. They still allow me to post and do all of the things I would normally do, except when they refer to me publicly, they call me fuckface. Is that OK? I mean, I still get to participate, but they just insist on calling me something different because, well, tradition or something, it’s not really clear.
Now, swap stpauler for your name. Are you OK with that marginalization?
Can you describe what the issue would be with separate but equal in a situation where they are actually equal?
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
The seats at the rear of the bus are separate, but equal. Why did Rosa Parks make such a fuss?
[/QUOTE]
Because they were not equal. It might make a better analogy if they changed the system so that anyone could sit anywhere they wanted on the bus, but for whites, they were called “seats on the bus” but for blacks they were called “bus seats”.
But the OP does not propose that both groups are equal. The proposal is that one group gets the denigrating label of “Not Worthy Of Marriage” It is an official, legally supported slur.
“Civil Union” sounds so government contracty to me. What if we change it to “Marriage Plus!” or “Marriage Royale!” or “Real Marriage”? It’s jut a name, after all, and those that are only “married” will still get the same benefits.
Can you give us a real-life example? If not, then same problem exists that has been pointed out many times already-That “separate but equal” is a way for those who think they are superior to label those they feel are inferior. I don’t know why this message isn’t getting through to you, as often as it has been put forth already.
edited to add: Can you give us a single reason for this proposal that doesn’t support this idea?
States and localities could then pass laws that affect marriages and civil unions differently. If they’re both “marriage”, legally, then it would be much more difficult for local governments to restrict their rights.
That doesn’t strike me as a good example - he simply resists the hypothetical and says it is inevitable that they would be unequal. I don’t believe it is inevitable, but, like many of his arguments, it is a slippery slope argument and therefore cannot really be debated.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
That “separate but equal” is a way for those who think they are superior to label those they feel are inferior.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see how labelling it a civil union labels someone as inferior, especialy since no one seems to be able to describe any way in which it is inferior.
The only reason for it is to label those that can’t be married as “inferior”.
The reason for the label is to belittle. What is so fucking hard to understand here??
Oh it’s not the only thing. Other protections will probably be needed on a federal level. But it makes it harder – not to mention more transparently intended to hurt gay people.