OK so segregation ended, and if history is “repeating itself” then by analogy, having CU will end and we’ll get full marriage. Seems like you are contradicting yourself.
Let’s see… slavery, then freedom, then voting, then desegregation, then lawful interracial marriages, then antidiscrimination. These things happened step by step over a long period of time. We did not go from slavery directly into full equal rights. If the bigots had to deal with both the end of slavery and having to integrate fully with black folks, race relations probably would have been much much worse than they already were.
The women’s rights movement did not suddenly explode into full rights for women one day either, it was a process.
Of course civil unions will be a path to full marriage, as younger voters gradually replace older voters, and as older voters get used to the idea and forget why they ever made such a fuss in the first place.
No, I’m not. Segregation was just another form of discrimination, just as civil unions are. It didn’t lead to equality; it was just another road block that had to be fought. Having civil unions isn’t progress, it’s a deliberate roadblock.
And segregation was a step back, not progress. It was a regaining of ground by the people who lost ground with the end of slavery.
They DID have to - then they passed segregation laws. They won, in other words, for a long time.
No, it will just mean we’ll have the same fight all over again in a few generations ( or never; progress isn’t guaranteed ), when the gays finally realize that civil unions aren’t leading anywhere and that they’ve just been locked into another ghetto.
And this doesn’t help your point at all. If you look at New York Law, Domestic Relation Section 3, it states:
Again, the State of New York does exactly what I say they do. They have a legal institution which has a list of requirements, and one of the requirements is a witnessed ceremony. And they’ve chosen to allow a religious ceremony to fulfill that requirement. That doesn’t mean that the religious institution of marriage has anything to do with the legal institution as far as NY is concerned. They are completely separate.
The section you are referring to makes it clear that NY doesn’t consider a license to be a necessary requirement for marriage. Fine. I never claimed that all states have the exact same requirements–I only pointed to CA’s license requirement as an example to make my point. My claim is that no state cares whether your religious marriage is valid as far as your church is concerned, and your citing NY law only serves to reinforce my point.
Yes, the actual specific requirements to form a legal marriage vary by location. But there is no state for which a religious marriage and a legal marriage are the same institution.
No, you are reading the law incorrectly. The law applies to the person comitting bigamy, not the clergy conducting the ceremony. And here “marry” is a legal term, not a religious one.
Yes, this is my point. If you want to conduct a purely religious marriage ceremony and do nothing to fulfill the legal requirements of marriage, then you will not have a valid legal marriage. You agree that a clergy member must do specific legal things to meet the legal requirements for marriage. Just because he’s a clergy member, that doesn’t mean that the state gave legal recognition to the religious institution of marriage. Your clergy member can also get a license to drive a car or be a doctor. That doesn’t mean the state is recognizing religious driving or religious doctoring.
Yes, and she very clearly is demonstrating that there is a distinction between religious marriages and legal marriages. You keep making my points for me.
And during all that time, people were advocating for full gender and racial equality. Maybe advocating for full equality is necessary to keep pushing the country incrementally forward. I don’t see any particular reason to believe that advocating for partial equality will somehow result in full equality eventually.
OK maybe I’m mistaken about that. I had the impression that there was already segregation during the time of slavery. But maybe there didn’t need to be, if all the slaves were stuck on their plantations and wouldn’t have the chance to mingle with the white folks in public places. But then there was still de facto segregation if not de jure. In any case, this further proves that segregation is not a good analogy, since it wasn’t a step forward but a step backwards.
Ideally maybe, but pragmatically? Which is better? Getting civil unions now and marriage later, or nothing at all now and marriage eventually?
Of course everyone should be advocating for full equality and pretty much anyone who believes in it is. We’re not talking about advocation here. We’re talking about legislation. Suppose you are a politician who has introduced a full marriage bill and it has failed due to lack of support. Then another politician introduces a civil union bill and it appears that there is enough support for that to pass. Are you going to vote for or against it?
Of course, I understand that in some cases there’s an additional element. Some civil union bills don’t just give gay couples the option of civil unions, they also go the extra mile and add language codifying the fact that “marriage” remains the exclusive domain of heterosexuals. Just so we know in no uncertain terms that gay couples are not as legitimate as heterosexual ones. But I think this is a separate issue outside the scope of the OP, and for the purposes of answering it we can assume hypothetically that a civil unions bill won’t delve into this territory (not that in real life that’s likely).
And what makes you think that civil unions will do anything but slow marriage down ? Like segregation, they’ll just be something else that needs to be eliminated.
Both polygamy and same-sex marriage are legal in South Africa. I haven’t heard of a same-sex polygamous marriage enacted yet, but AFAICT (IANAL), there’s nothing preventing one.
In the years immediately following the Civil War, the South was occupied by Federal troops. Under their protection, blacks made great advances in social equality, including running for (and winning) elected offices. During the highly contested election of 1876, it was agreed by congress that Rutherford B. Hayes would win the 20 contested electoral votes (he had lost the popular election by a significant margin) on the condition that he would withdraw all Federal troops from the South. Almost over night, the advances that blacks (and poor whites) had made in the South were rolled back, and the Jim Crow era began in earnest.
Thanks for giving me a better understanding of that era. I was a smart kid but history wasn’t my best subject
But I’m still not sure why you see it as analogous. I agree that the DOMA legislation could be analogous, because it specifically legislates against gay marriage. But, though not ultimately fair and definitely not ideal, CU is still a granting of greater rights than currently available. I don’t think there was any benefit at all to the segregation laws.
I could be wrong about “CU first” ultimately leading to marriage sooner than refusing CU and holding out for marriage. Maybe people will think “ok we gave them enough, there’s no good reason to give them any more”. But I think it’s more likely that CU will lead to a divide and conquer strategy. There’s two issues - equal benefits, and equal standing. I think that by working on each in turn, we’ll encounter less overall resistance. Plus I think that once everyone has CU and God doesn’t smite the USA, people will wonder why they made such a big fuss and be ready for marriage. Plus, there’s real couples out there could really use any increase in legal rights now.
I’d still be curious what you would choose to do in the situation I mentioned earlier - if you were a legislator who had already tried to pass a marriage bill and it failed, and someone else introduced a CU bill, would you vote for or against it (or abstain)?
That said, while I would like to see some kind of equal rights / anti discrimination legislation to address the second class citizen status of gays, on the particular issue of marriage, I’d actually rather see the government just downgrade everyone to CU than upgrade gays to marriage. Since clearly “Marriage” has proven to be a religious institution in the eyes of the government, separation of church and state should really exclude them from having any part in this aspect of couple unions.
Not here in Minnesota. Here, only women can commit adultery. (Something about men being expected to messl around, but must not mess up their husbands’ property.)
So a hetero wife, or either of a lesbian couple can, but neither party of a gay male couple could ever violate the Minnesota adultery law.
Not according to the US Supreme Court in the famous Brown vs. Board of Education decision. They clearly said that separate was inherently unequal. And the ruling did NOT depend on the actual conditions; they specifically said this was unlawful even if the facilities provided may* be equal.
*They said “may be equal” because even the southern defendants couldn’t keep a straight face while claiming that they actually were equal.
It’s the marital status of the woman that decides if it’s adultery:
Married man has nooky with married woman not his wife - that’s adultery.
Single man has nooky with married woman - that’s adultery.
Married man has sequential affairs with scads of babes, being careful to first make detailed inquiries about their singleness - nope, not adultery.
Or, to get back to the point at hand, if a gay guy strayed from his committed relationship and did it with a married woman, he’d be guilty of adultery.
Not intended as legal advice, but simply to comment on a bizarre law. This is criminalised in Minnesota? I always thought Minnesotans were sensible, grounded people. Did Garrison Keillor lead me astray? But then, there was that Governor The Body episode… :eek:
Yes, I already knew that the legal marriage contract does not require a religious ceremony in US. I was actually surprised at your examples of where this isn’t the case.
But my point is that it seems clear that the legal marriage contract itself is unduly burdened by religious influence, and certainly politicians are using religious arguments and language in their opposition to same sex marriage legal contracts. It’s also clear from their statements that they consider calling it “marriage” in the legal contract almost as big an affront as if religious institutions were required to perform same sex spiritual unions. They would seem to consider even a strictly civil “marriage” to still be a religious ceremony.
So my point is, if they are hung up on using the word “marriage” to describe both homo and hetero unions, then they clearly have no right to use the term “marriage” in the legal language of the civil union contract.
But then, there was that Governor The Body episode… :eek: