It’s kind of freaky. As recently as a couple of years ago, this subject would have been fodder for at least a few pages of disagreeing posts. This year…
<crickets>
I wonder if this represents progress, or localized homogenization.
Maybe the OP should ask his/her friend if s/he thinks gay people should have fewer freedoms under the Constitution than interracial couples, deadbeat dads and convicted criminals.
Which exemplifies one of the things these people are really afraid of, IMHO. Once interfaith marriage became common enough, long enough most people stopped caring. Interracial marriage is well along the same path as well. Let gays get married like anyone else, and in a generation or two no one but the crazies will care.
This could work the other way: If enough states pass enough ‘I Can’t Believe It’s Not Marriage’ laws (civil unions and the like) that grant enough of the benefits of marriage without the name, the debate might lose its immediacy in the minds of the majority.
The only comforting historical precedent is that the Jim Crow laws didn’t last forever.
The individual with whom you had that conversation isn’t all that up on California, is he or she? California’s voters passed a proposition against Gay marriage.
But why is marriage important? Surely marriage is a religous/traditional title?
NZ has bought in civil unions. They secure the EXACT legal rights as a married couple without any of the religous overtones. A hetrosexual couple can get a civil union the same as a homosexual couple.
I don’t understand why homosexual couples and many non-religous couples think that marriage is a better option then a civil union. Same lifestyle, same rights, less god crap.
Shouldn’t MANY American couples be arguing for civil unions? Keep the sky pixie out of how we run our lives!
Correct me if I am wrong, but Civil Unions do not accord the same rights as a marriage, especially in cases of inheritence and medical power-of-attorney.
I think that is why civil unions are regarded as lesser than marriages.
Because it has already been decided in this country that “separate but equal” (a phrase which came up in regard to racial segregation) is NOT really equal.
If marriage is inherently a right of heterosexuals, while civil unions are open to both heterosexuals and gay people, you do NOT have equality. As for marriage being a strictly religious institution, there are marriages performed in courtrooms and city halls all the time. No one is trying to force individual churches to perform gay marriages, but the word “marriage” must be used equally or gays are still being singled out and excluded.
Yes words DO matter and marriage is a a word of religion.
IF I had a hetrosexual partner I would say NO to marriage. I am not buying into some biblical bullshit. Civil Union protects my rights as a partner in every way.
Marriage is for the religious because it is a religious term. If I want to celebrate my relationship and cement it’s legal, moral and instrinsic rights I don’t need to call it a marriage. I would pleased to know that I don’t have to use such an archaic term.
That is your choice. However, as I have said, non religious marriage ceremonies are performed every day in the US. As long as that is the case, equal access to marriage is only fair.
But what is special about the word marriage if a cvil unon delivers the exact same rights in every way? Lets the religious types keep their “special” word, let the rest of us get the same benefits.
My now-husband and I were perfectly content with leaving our relationship one of cohabitation. (Didn’t need a piece of paper to tell us that we were committed, in other words.) However, I have health issues, and Hubby’s insurance wouldn’t cover an unmarried partner. To the courthouse we went.
[quote=calm kiwi
But what is special about the word marriage if a cvil unon delivers the exact same rights in every way? Lets the religious types keep their “special” word, let the rest of us get the same benefits.[/quote]
I’m uncomfortable with that, because to me it stinks of that old seperate-but-equal nonsense, where what blacks got was certainly seperate, but even Hellen Keller could have seen wasn’t close to being “equal.”
In essence, I think it legalizes discrimination. (Not Constitutionally, mind, but it sets up a precedent in law for homosexuals to be treated differently than straights.)
I see your point, but your take seems to be at odds with kambuckta’s view of the respective rights. Are they the same? (Not meant to be snarky, I’m genuinely interested)
Kambucta is from Australia. I could be wrong but I don’t believe Australia has adopted civil unions. In New Zealand ALL the rights of marriage are enshrined in civil unions. They are EXACTLY the same except for the religous overtone.
That means there is NO diference legally between a civil union and a marriage.
I go to a Unitarian church that performs gay weddings. They have no legal status, but they would if the people involved were legally allowed to marry. Some people actually want to get married in a church. I can’t think of any reason why they shouldn’t.
In Spain you have “matrimonio civil” and “matrimonio religioso”, if you’re a Christian you also get “matrimonio sacramental”. The legal benefits and duties are awarded exclusively by the civil marriage. You want to translate “matrimonio civil” as “civil union” instead of “civil marriage”, be my guest.
We’ll go on using the same word. And accepting same-sex marriages.