I see two arguments in favor of gay marriage as opposed to civil unions.
As others have said, there are literally thousands of established legal precedents linked to marriage. Anyone who gets married automatically becomes part of these. This is not true of civil unions in which the legal standards of marriage are only intermittently applied.
And the other issue is a matter of equality. Gay people are equal to straight people. If a straight couple have the legal right to get married then a gay couple should have the same right. A gay couple should not have to explain or defend why they want to get married anymore than a straight couple has to.
They care because when the town holds a Teacher Appreciation Dinner and they’re not invited because only Teachers can go. Or when they’re told they don’t they don’t qualify for the ten percent Teacher’s discount at the lcoal bookstore. Or when they move to another state and they’re told that the local schools will only hire them if they were a Teacher back home.
The problem with “separate but equal” is that it’s never really equal.
If Pennsyltucky has this special “Class Instructor” title, with all the responsibilities and perks of a “Teacher”, and Mrs. Ersatz achieves that Class Instructor title, she can do all the things a Teacher does with all the perks a Teacher gets.
If Class Instructor Ersatz moves to East Dakota, though, which has no provisions for “Class Instructor”, Mrs. Ersatz cannot class-instruct, because her title and licensing is for “Class Instructor”, not “Teacher”. She’s crap out of luck.
In addition, while Teachers throughout the country receive a special tax discount from the federal government, the Feds don’t recognize Class Instructors, so that discount doesn’t accrue to Mrs. Ersatz.
Little Nemo and jayjay, you both raise excellent points. I was assuming that in jtgain’s example the “teacher” was equivalent in every way to the “instructor” except in name. Obviously in your examples the “instructor” would have a legitimate gripe.
My point is that IF everything else is equal, getting upset over a word is silly. But as soon as there is any advantage conferred on a marriage over a union, I agree that something needs to be done.
This is the best argument in favor of calling it marriage instead of a civil union that I have heard.
The problem, of course, is that no one, anywhere in the US, has actually come up with a civil union law that is absolutely equal to actual marriage, because no civil union is transferable (among other things over and above that…a civil union is not a civil union is not a civil union). I’m not absolutely certain that you can even transfer a civil union from a state that performs them to another state that performs them.
This is why every time someone asks why we don’t just accept civil unions, we have to explain…somehow the meme has gone around that civil unions are marriages with a different name. And they are not, not in any state that currently allows them.
Gay Britons also aren’t able to solemize their partnership in a religious ceremony even if the religious organization in question approves of same-sex unions. They must have a civil ceremony. Civil partnerships also don’t effect courtesy titles, but that’s a matter for the Queen to sort out. My personal preferences would be, in the following order, for; same-sex marriages, civil unions for all, or same-sex civil unions and opposite-sex marriages. I find allowing opposite-sex couples to choose between marriare or civil unions while restricting same-sex couples to civil unions (as New Zealand has done) insulting.
I’d go slightly a different way to you, alphaboi. Civil unions for all for all benefits; marriages available on a private basis with no legal standing for whoever an organization wishes to marry.
But, given that I think that is never going to happen (the derecognition of marriage by the state) my practical ideal is same sex marriage being approved by the state, and hopefully enough religious organizations will chose to provide services for those who desire a religious solemnification. In that case, they should be treated exactly the same as an opposite sex religious marriage.
**So long as the legal rights endowed on the couple remain equal, names hardly matter. **
We are talking about marriage rights. Nothing is stopping Rick and Mark from calling themselves married to their friends and family any more than my birth certificate which says “Bradley” stops me from telling everyone my name is “Brad.” So we’re not even talking about "who gets to use the word “Marriage,” because we all do. Given that we can use whatever language we like in our day-to-day lives, the goal is to make sure Rick and Mark have the same rights as a couple as their straight counterparts do.
And let’s be clear that while the issues are related, the fight for gay marriage is different than the fight for a fuzzy notion of gay acceptance — that wonderful point at which even the most neanderthal prejudices have magically evaporated, because this latter issue is a matter of what people think — which cannot be legislated, no matter how much we wish it could be.
The comparison to “separate, but equal” is actually relevant — but not in the way people tend to think. “Separate but equal” had to do with denying certain facilities to a certain group. In this case, the only facilities that would be denied to gay couples are those outside of the law’s reach: conservative churches who do not recognize gay marriage.
Remember that “Marriage” exists not just in the legal citizenship arena but also in the religious arena. And anyone who argues that religious values needs to stay out of government legislation must necessarily concede that the government cannot strike religious text from their books. Separation of church and state cuts both ways.
In my day job, I’m an art director. In the course of that job, we are charged with presenting “out-of-the-box” creative ideas to a client. The more unusual the idea is, the less comfortable the client is likely to be. To sell a client on increasingly creative idea, we have to be aware of where they sit on the “Buy-in Bench.” Attempts to move a person all the way from one end (Refusal) to the other (Acceptance) in one move is futile. We have to move them in only-mildly-uncomfortable baby steps, earning their trust every step of the way. Given the disappointing number of people in society who are threatened by homosexuals, we cannot ignore the reality of where they sit on the buy-in bench and respond accordingly to get what we want. This means fighting for the things that matter and conceding that which doesn’t.
If the fight for the rights of marriage is attainable via the adoption of a different label, gay marriage advocates who insist on “all or nothing” are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
No. The purpose of “separate but equal” in this case is to exclude homosexual couples from legal “facilities”; the only real difference is that in one case it was physical facilities, and in the other legal rights and privileges that were being unfairly denied. It’s still exclusionary, and still unequal.
That worked SO well for black people. No. History shows that if you want rights, you need to go for them all.
Except that it’s not. They have the choice between real marriage, name and all, or “civil unions” which are a very poor second.
Again, I’d like to point you in the direction of the UK’s civil unions, which are exactly the same except for the adultery bit and the fact that they must be between two members of the same sex. You seem to be asserting that by definition marriage and [insert alternative name here] will automatically be unequal but there’s no reason to suppose that given that there are plenty of examples in the world where they’re not.
No, they don’t. Currently gay Americans have the choice between continuing to fight for gay marriage and having no federally recognised alternative.
There’s a much bigger gap between 0 and 1 than there is between 0.9 and 1, or even 0.1 and 1.
And I’d like to point out, again, that that’s the UK. It’s already been pointed out in this thread several reasons why they won’t be equal. It’s not like you will ever see a law mandating that they be identical in all but name - because the whole point of civil unions is to produce a second class version and call it “compromise”.
By that logic blacks should have just put up with segregation, under the theory that someday things will magically improve. All getting civil unions will do is lock them into an officially mandated form of discrimination.
U.S. immigration law does not recognize same-sex marriage for green card purposes. However, as a practical matter, if a noncitizen is coming to the U.S. for an extended period on a work visa, etc. and has a domestic partner, either same-sex or opposite sex, and they can document the extended length and interdependent nature of their relationship, U.S. Consulates abroad will grant visitor visas valid for longer than the norm, and the domestic partner’s visitor status can be extended in one-year increments for as long as the principal applicant remains in nonimmigrant status. I’ve mostly seen this provision used in cases in which, for example, some Dutch exec wants his partner of 15 years who is the mother of his 3 kids to accompany him on a multi-year U.S. assignment, but it works for same-sex partners as well.
Polygamy doesn’t work for immigration purposes, no matter which genders are involved. (Is there any country that recognizes same-sex polygamous marriages, BTW?)
There is no universal definition for Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions. In some places they are constructed to be exactly the same as Marriage but with a different name as to not offend certain folks. But in many places they aren’t exactly equal. And in the US, even gay Marriage is never equal to hetero Marriage because state laws can only give state benefits - gay couples can not receive any federal benefits.
Assuming they are exactly the same except for the name, sure it matters. Think about it for any other group. Suppose white people could have Marriages but black folks could only have “Civil Unions”. Or skinny folks and overweight folks. Or young folks and old folks.
That said, I don’t think the name itself really matters, just the fact that different terms are used to discriminate against certain folks. I personally think it would be better if Marriages were just the ceremonies that churches perform, and Civil Unions were what defined the legal relationship for all couples, homo or hetero.
I don’t think “the traditional view of marriage” argument is anything more than pure bullocks. Only forty years ago, the traditional view of marriage was “one man and one woman of the same race”. Not long before that it was “the ownership of a women by a man”. In the bible, there are plenty of “one man, many wives” examples. Marriage has been many different things to different culture, religions, and time periods.
The “harming Marriage” argument is complete bullocks too. There is no gay marriage anywhere that will have any effect whatsoever on your hetero marriage. No one is going to say “well I was going to attend your wedding, but now that the gays can get married, I didn’t see much point”. On the other hand, a few gay people, knowing that the world will embrace them as they are, won’t waste their own and other’s lives in trying to pretend they are straight and having a hetero family.
All that said, a civil union is still better than nothing at all. Being giving scraps when every else is having a four course meal is kind of insulting, but it’s arguably better than starving. Some would argue though that respect and dignity are more important than immediate material gains. I tend to think that pragmatically if calling it Civil Unions lets us get the benefits sooner, it’s worth the temporary compromise. And that when people get used to CU, they will see that the world didn’t end and be ready for the transition to Marriage (or decide just to call everything CU, homo and hetero). But I don’t blame the people who want to hold out for the real thing.
Well most of the Middle East and North Africa. Does the US government recognize polygamus marriages for diplomatic visa (say the Saudi ambassador wants both of his wives to live with him)?
Interesting. While I would have preferred that we made marriage (in name) available to gay couples, I think that making civil unions completely open to both same- and opposite-sex couples is a better option than making it only available to same-sex (and some small class of opposite-sex) couples as this approach is less likely to lead to a ghettoization of the option (to use Illuminatiprimus’s term).
The first people I knew to take advantage of the legislation were a hetero-couple, who for their own reasons, preferred this option.
Civil Unions confer almost all of the same rights and responsibilities as Marriage (as does an established de facto relationship) with the notable exception of the couple being unable to adopt as a couple (but it is possible for one member of the couple to adopt). I would hope this will be amended at some point.
Passing the Civil Union bill, but stopping short of making changes to the Marriage Act was a matter of political pragmatism:
I wish this form of compromise measure wasn’t necessary, but it is the price of a democratic process. Arguing for “only all or nothing” is more likely to result in nothing than everything. Our current system isn’t perfect, but it is a step in the right direction, and if the poll’s comment on generational differences is correct, it’s a step on a path that we can choose to follow in the coming years.
Just to add: an NZ Civil Union can be performed either in the registry office or by a Civil Union celebrant in a place of the couple’s choosing – which could include any church that agreed to the ceremony. In effect the name and the paperwork are different; the form of the thing can be about as similar as you want.
Ideal? No. Better than nothing? By a long shot. (IMHO).
Not to the best of my knowledge, but I don’t know that the situation has ever come up, either. I suspect that if it did, some way would be found for any spouses after #1 to have their own, independent immigration status (as other Embassy staff?).
Anecdotally, a former colleague who used to work in the foreign student office at a local university swears there was a foreign research scholar who had multiple wives, and just used to rotate a new one in every year. Easy enough to do - all the spouse needs to show is a marriage certificate to prove the relationship, and how is the U.S. Consulate going to know if the guy has other wives at the same time?
I suspect that you did not quite read Eva Luna’s question in the way she intended. The question was not whether there is anywhere in he world where polygamy is practiced, but whether a polygamous union in which no party is of the opposite sex exists anywhere in the world. I am pretty sure that the answer is no.
I think several posters in this thread have a misconception about US marriages. In the US, the legal institution of marriage is wholly distinct and unrelated to the religious institution of marriage. It’s possible to have a valid legal marriage while having an invalid religious marriage and vice-versa. Now, it used to be the case that these were the same in the early days of the country, but that just hasn’t been the case for a very long time now (it may be the case in some tribal reservations–I’m not up on my tribal law).
Except for the adultery bit? Then the two institutions aren’t equal, are they?
It’s already been stated in this thread why it is extremely difficult to keep civil unions and marriages equal under US law. Now, because of the way the English legal system is structured, I can imagine it being somewhat easier under English law to keep the two separate institutions in sync, but given that by your own statement they aren’t currently in sync, I’m having trouble believing it.