It is in some places.
It’s not a violation – it’s just not as good as marriage. Why would gay couples (and their supporters) settle for civil unions when marriage is within reach?
History of polygamy in the U.S..
And you can’t claim that you haven’t been told about why the “civil union” designation is insulting. You have been told over and over again, but you refuse to accept the word of those it insults.
There is nothing inherently derogatory about the term civil union. There is something inherently derogatory about demanding that opposite-sex relationships be called marriages and same-sex relationships be called civil unions. We went around and around on this in the other thread: you cannot simultaneously claim that only “your” type of marriage should be called a marriage and say that nobody is being disparaged. The difference between this thread and the other one is that magellan01 explained why he thinks only opposite-sex marriages deserve that name and specified that he felt that word was really important. Shodan hasn’t said that, and I expect that’s because he’s aware the position isn’t defensible. The only other difference between that thread and this one (other than length) is that magellan01 insisted he was not advocating for a separate but equal solution and Shodan is saying it doesn’t matter because they would really be equal.
In Virginia, marriage was legally defined as one man and one woman of the same race. Interracial marriages were null and void.
I have to agree with those who are saying that the real fight should focus on changing the definition of ‘marriage’ to include same sex couples. Basically, to do a drive by of the OP, I’m always hinky about the whole equal but separate argument, as I think that opens the door to systemic prejudice and institutional segregation. I really, truly don’t see why people have an issue with using the term ‘marriage’ to be solely about a man and a woman. It’s just a term after all.
It’s a travesty that citizens in this country don’t have the same rights and privileges due to their sexual orientation under the law. This country is all about freedom, and we SHOULD be leading the world in this, instead of trailing behind. We seem to have crossed the 50% in favor barrier, yet there are groups in this country that still resist. It reminds me of the later Civil Rights struggle, when it was obvious that the tide had turned, yet STILL folks resisted and did and said heinous things. They came out on the wrong side of history, and I’m confident that 20 years from now the folks resisting SSM today will look the same to those folks looking back.
And lots of places pre-DOMA actually too. Remember, a lot of states had nebulous wording regarding marriage -especially the sex of those to be married- prior to knee-jerk reactionism following the DOMA. Minnesota, where the first lawsuit was made, made NO mention of gender of the parties. But suddenly “it’s always been one man and one woman”? No. That’s revisionist history there.
True. So often, it isn’t a case of people trying to open doors as it is other people realizing that the doors are already open and attempting to slam them shut as fast as possible.
Because if the term was insulting then everything else wouldn’t be equal.
I think you have hit on the basic problem - what you are objecting to is “crimethink”. As in Orwell’s work, you are attempting to limit human thought by limiting human language.
Tell us, o telepath - what specific aspects of civil unions are these people thinking about when they so evilly refuse to parrot you? And how exactly do you propose correcting their Evil Thoughts?
For instance, some naughty, naughty person looks at someone in a civil union. And he thinks to himself “My marriage is better than that person’s civil union, because…”
Complete the thought.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t have to read your mind if you would state your reason openly, instead of resorting to non-answers like
Why do you want to refuse same sex couples the right to marry? Tell us your thoughts.
“… God approves of my marriage.”
Tell us please why YOU care what a same-sex union is called. Since you seem to think that the word doesn’t matter, why not just call it “marriage”?
If you’re looking for cognitive dissonance, post 127 is a goldmine.
Doesn’t this actually apply to people who don’t want same-sex marriages to be called marriages? And speaking of limiting thought, what are we to make of your insistence that every possible problem with this concept just won’t happen because … I’m not clear on why it won’t happen, but I suppose the word “equal” has magic powers.
If same sex couples aren’t worthy of marriage, then any substitute terminology used to describe what they have is derogatory. It is “not quite marriage”. It is “not really marriage”. It is “something less then marriage”. If all other aspects but the name are equal, then the name can only be derogatory by definition.
Actually I can - some (but by no means all) of the separate facilities and practices for men and women, like separate bathrooms.
But that’s the exception that proves the rule - *those particular *“separate but equal” things work because nearly everyone involved wants them to be separate. Men and women in our culture have separate bathrooms because most of the people using them want privacy from the opposite sex there, not because of an agenda against the opposite sex. On the other hand there are plenty of examples of gender segregation meant to exploit or oppress one gender or the other, and those are not equal. In other words, intent matters.
And that of course is the fundamental problem with the whole “civil union” idea; it’s never going to be equal, because it’s not meant to be equal.
[QUOTE=Me]
I really, truly don’t see why people have an issue with using the term ‘marriage’ to be solely about a man and a woman. It’s just a term after all.
[/QUOTE]
:smack: This is badly phrased. What I meant was I don’t see why folks have an issue using the term ‘marriage’ to be about ANY union between people, not solely about it being just a man and a woman.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And that of course is the fundamental problem with the whole “civil union” idea; it’s never going to be equal, because it’s not meant to be equal.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
Look at Brown vs. Board for some language addressing Separate but Equal in education:
Applying similar reasoning to SSM, you might get something like this:
Of course, if you would like, there are a few dozen court cases you can look up in which I’m certain this question has been answered.
Short version is that the separate-but-equal approach denotes that gay couples are inferior, EVEN IF there are no other legal differences, and that denotation can be harmful to gay couples. Even if the harm is slight–and I think it’s more than slight, given research into the relationship between community ties and health–even if the harm is slight, the harm of legalizing SSM is precisely zero, so a slight harm outweighs no harm.
In what way would they be separated?
Regards,
Shodan
For example: the message that “we straight people demand the exclusive right to use the word marriage because we deserve the history and tradition that word connotes; you gays call yourselves something else” is unmistakeably pejorative. And it will still be pejorative when Shodan or someone tries to come up with nicer wording. 
Dude, it was your wording. You tell me.
What I love about Shodan’s position is the glaring cognitive dissonance:
“The word ‘marriage’ has such a wealth of historical connotations that it should not be applied to same-sex unions”
and
“If the rights and privileges are equivalent, what does it matter what you call it?”
The word “marriage” is somehow powerfully fraught with meaning and completely arbitrary at the same time.
I can see that this one horse merry-go-round isn’t going anywhere, the one-note the “Why, Why, Why?” song is boring the shit out of me, and it’s getting pretty obvious that the only way to get that gold ring is to get off this ride.