So, it sounds like christians who are gay want to be married and there is one vicar who is willing to do that. I don’t see why others should be able to deny them the right to practice their religion and use the same term that their religion uses for their straight counterparts. Also, I’m not advocating that any religious institution should have its hand forced into marrying whomever they do not want to. Be it on whatever grounds like straight, gay, mixed faith, or mixed race. The religious body should act on its own accord as long as the government allows equal access to marriage outside of that church.
So, I have yet to hear a reasonable defense for not calling it marriage except for “so it doesn’t ruffle some other peoples’ feathers”. That argument seems quite indefensible.
Well again my point is that, for the US, it seems to be that it’s currently a choice between total gay marriage (which lots of people oppose for whatever reason) or nothing at all. Surely a point in between would be better, if nothing else as a temporary stop on the road to full equality?
I feel like I’m labouring my point but I genuinely don’t understand the opposition here.
There’s no panacea as some states don’t even allow domestic partnerships. Moreover, there would most likely be some legal wranglings that would ensue when it came time to recognizing that a domestic partnership is just as equal as a marriage in the eyes of the law. One would have to pass a law ensuring that would be granted and that’s as likely as gay marriage to begin with. So, instead of find long distance ways to circumvent the system that may in the end not work anyway, why not go for the full marriage?
It is defensible on the grounds of pragmatism. If the goal is to ensure a set of rights and responsibilities equally to all couples, and that can be achieved politically by creating civil unions, while calling it marriage will mobilize hoards of fundamentalist voters, one could defend civil unions. If the goal is complete parity, legally, semantically, and in every other way, obviously civil unions won’t achieve that. It may be a case of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Sure, that’s why I said “as long as they get all the rights.” Meaning state and federal. Once they have those, I don’t understand why they want it to be called marriage so badly. The people who are fighting hardest against calling it marriage have a fucked up idea of what marriage is anyway, so why would gays want to associate themselves with that? If it were me, I wouldn’t call it marriage simply because I wouldn’t want to have anything in common with those people.
A marriage is defined by lots of things, but the label you slap on the relationship isn’t one of them.
I see your point, but at the same time, if you the map I posted you’ll see that the right has already been mobilized in multiple states with laws blocking civil unions. So I’m not certain that this would be a way to deflect that. Some folks just simply do not want any rights afforded to the gays.
Huckabee:
He made clear his opposition to gay couples gaining rights even similar to those of straight couples, effectively reversing comments he made last year to the Concord Monitor supporting civil unions, which he maintains have been misinterpreted.
Mr. Bush: Well, I don’t. I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman.*
OK - I think yours is a very defensible philosophical position. Practically, though, unless both the federal government and every government in the world is going to recognize civil unions as the equivalent of marraige, there will always be benefits associated to marriage that aren’t there for civil unions.
The question then is; why weren’t they equal? What about the specific case of segregated education meant that seperate but equal didn’t work? If it’s a problem that doesn’t exist with marriage/civil unions, then quite possibly it will be perfectly fine. If the same problem exists, however, likewise it would be fair to say that the situation would not be perfectly fine.
I would argue that the problem (summarised and generalised) that meant educational systems weren’t truly equal was that there was a significant part of the population very much against the idea; a significant amount of people who were willing to, at the practical level, deny true equality and, at the legal level, either rule or seek rulings that again were inequal. I’d further argue that a very similar situation exists today; that it is the same problem. And hence that seperate but equal in terms of gay marriage would very likely suffer from the same flaws as segregated education.
Here are my problems with having separate legal institutions:
The legal institution of marriage changes from time to time. Not every day, but it does happen. If we have a separate institution for civil unions, then every time marriage changes, we’ll have to go through an argument about whether or not to extend the change to the civil union. If the legislature is unable to muster the votes to extend the change to civil unions, then the two institutions will be out-of-sync.
If the change comes from a court, then we’ve got potentially the same problem. Since courts tend to make their rulings narrow, it’s very likely that a court may make a ruling about marriage and decline to extend the ruling to civil unions. That means until someone actually goes to court and litigates the exact same issue, but for civil unions, the two institutions will be out-of-sync.
Legislatures do stupid things all the time. They might actually intend to extend the change to civil unions, but somehow they forget to or they mess it up. And again, the two institutions are out-of-sync and we’re back in court trying to figure it out.
In short, it is cumbersome to keep two separate legal institutions perfectly in sync, and you’re going to waste a lot of people’s time and money trying to do so. It’s a perfectly useless way to spend my tax money. However, I am a lawyer, so I guess all the extra money coming to me to help people navigate this mess makes up for it.
It matters to some people. If it didn’t matter, they’d call them the same thing they call hetero unions. Anyone who says it’s just another term for the same thing is mistaken. It’s much more than that.
stpauler - Great map. Thanks. The ballot initiative to change the constitution in Ohio in 2004 was the beginning of the end of my affiliation with the republican party. In my view, politicians who really don’t care one way or the other about the issue put in on the ballot in Ohio to mobilize the Christian right to ensure Bush’s reelection. While I supported his reelection at the time, I thought it was indefensible (there’s that word again) to use this issue in that way.
The problem with overcoming the objections of the Christian right is a problem of getting them to think about it instead of mindlessly following James Dobson or others like him. Such thinking is possible. Here’s something I posted in a previous debate on this issue:
I have been a member of a discussion group at my church for a few years. It consists of twelve couples, including a nurse, a nuclear scientist, a factory owner, several teachers and several school administrators. Half of the people in this group have masters degrees. A couple of weeks ago, one of these folks told me that widespread legalization of gay marriage would make his marriage meaningless. He really said that, and others in the group nodded in agreement. I asked him some questions about what he said, like “Really? A government action could render your 32 year commitment meaningless?” He didn’t back down, but I saw a glimmer of thought. I told him something similar to what I quoted here. People like this man need to have there minds changed. He’s an educated, intelligent and caring person who has internalized an irrational but persuasive argument.
There are some provisions in the US Constitution that make it likely that marriages which are legal in one state will have to be recognized by all. Article IV, Section 1, says in part that
I think this is understood to require that Ohio recognize a marriage which was legally executed in Massachusetts.
I understand your points. I feel that a combination of political persuasion, court action and sensible compromise will get us to the goal of full equality eventually. If civil unions need to be a stepping stone on that path, I’m OK with that, but I’m not directly impacted, either.
The differences that there are, to my mind at least, are small and inconsequential.
For example. Under English law, there’s only one ground for obtaining a divorce: that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. To prove this ground, one of five facts must be proved: behaviour that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with; adultery; 2 years separation with the respondent’s consent to a divorce; 5 years separation without the respondent’s consent to a divorce; or desertion by the respondent for at least 2 years.
Now, for Civil Partners, the ground for “dissolution” of the partnership is exactly the same, and the facts that can be used to the prove the ground are exactly the same as well, except adultery isn’t one of them. The reason for this, I’d guess, is that adultery between a heterosexual couple is fairly well defined, but I doubt anyone wanted to have a go at defining adultery between same-sex couples. And considering adultery would come under “behav[ing] in such a way that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent”, it’s not really necessary anyway.
So, yes, essentially, apart from the names, Civil Partnership and Marriage are practically identical under English law.
If a British person enters into a civil union with his or her partner, and then gains US residency, does the partner have the right to US residency as well? I think probably not. I will admit, though, I have no idea if a same-sex couple legally married in their country of origin would have residency rights…
Note that I am not disagreeing that they might be practically identical under English law, just using this as a springboard…
So what we should do is take the government out of the marriage business (where they shouldn’t be anyway) and make everyone, gay and straight, get a civil union which is indistinguishable between gay and straight and which contains all the rights and privileges currently granted to marriage. Then, if the straight couple wants to go down to the Baptist church and get their god’s permission to start fucking, that’s fine, and if they don’t that’s fine too. And if the gay couple wants to leave it at the civil union that’s fine, or if they want to head over to the Unitarian church for a marriage that’s fine too.
Seems like that would make everyone happy. Of course, some people don’t want certain others to be happy, so this won’t fly.
The idea of civil unions seems disingenous to me. It is a way of legalizing same-sex marriage without calling it marriage. It is an insult to those against gay marriage, and it marginalizes people who want full marriage rights.
It is like telling a person they cannot be a teacher. They can stand up in front of a class full of students and impart knowledge on a variety of topics, give exams and assign letter grades, but we won’t call them teachers because we want to protect the traditional definition of the word “teacher”.
So why would the teacher care? My guess is they chose their career because they wanted to stand up in front of a class full of students and impart knowledge on a variety of topics, give exams and assign letter grades. Not because they wanted to be called a teacher.
Words only have as much power as people give them.
