I’ve always wondered about this sentiment. The analogy to Jim Crow doesn’t work for me. “Separate but equal” then was anything but. One could clearly point to underfunded, lesser school facilities (as an example) that made crystal clear that all the “separate but equal” gang was full of malarkey. There were real-life examples that any reasonable person could point to.
What’s the real-life example for civil unions? If civil unions have all the rights and duties associated with “marriage,” can anyone provide a specific example of how the “separate but equal” disparity might manifest itself? I don’t mean this to sound antagonistic. Maybe I’m missing something.
But if the answer is that there’s no real manifestation other than in the hearts and minds of those who don’t support SSM, I’d argue that those hearts and minds aren’t winnable right now. Changing the definition of marriage won’t alter that.
A religious finding. The Church does not recognize the civil process; the evidence, standards of proof, and reasons for a civil annulment are not the same as what the Church considers valid.
However… most of the grounds for civil annulment also support a finding of nullity in the Church… so to go out on a bit of a limb here, I’d say that if you were able to get a civil anullment, you most likely will be able to use the same circumstances to get a church annullment.
Obviously, specific facts trump general assertions every time.
Probably along the same lines; a lack of support. Say officials refuse to conduct civil unions (with support from the system to ensure they aren’t sacked, and from the legal system to ensure any punishment is low), needed paperwork is delayed or “lost”, buildings for the service are “booked up”.
And that would just be for the actual service; if the legal system is complicit, non-recognition or discrimination can have only minor sentences, or even dismissals.
Why wouldn’t officials do exactly the same thing for marriage between same sex partners if they were so inclined to do so for civil unions? I fail to see how calling it a civil union would allow officials to mistreat it in any way that they couldn’t for a marriage.
It would be easier to draw parallels with opposite-gender marriages, legally. Previous marriage-related judgements would have more sway, and so lend more equality.
Mainly that the “equal” part doesn’t even exist for them yet in most places.
I’ll refer you to the full text of the advisory opinion, which does a better job than I can:
Minds and hearts do change. It takes work, discussion, convincing, exposure of prejudice (which few people like to hold and aren’t always aware of if they do). The example of the sky not falling over MA, civilization not collapsing (well, unless you listen to political talk shows, maybe), the general acceptance of non-gender-restricted marriage here, all work toward that end. I’m damn proud of what we’ve done, even though some were unwilling and a few still are.
It’s that “if” that’s the problem. Segregation would have been fine, legally, if the institutions were truly equal. But it was demonstrated that it was effectively impossible to create a black educational institution that was the equal of the white institutes. So too with the proposal of civil unions. If we go the route of creating civil unions as a parrallel relationship with “regular” marriage, there is going to be a legal battle for every single one of those rights and duties, and at least a few of them are going to be lost. There are also centuries of case law establishing proper interpretation and implementation of all of these laws. Incorporating gay marriage into the established institution of marriage extends the protection of all that case law to gay relationships. A seperate civil union law will require each of those cases to be retried, and again, the decisions will not always go the same way they did for regular marriage. Further, once those rights and duties are established, they will be more vulnerable to future legal attacks. A lawmaker who decides to go after, say, next of kin rights in civil unions can specifically target gay relationships without impacting the relationships of his straight constituents. If marriage is used as an umbrella legal term for all such relationships, not just straight ones, then specific rights cannot be stripped from gay relationships without stripping them from everybody.
Legalities aside, the whole argument of, “we’ll give you all the rights, but you can’t have the name” is just idiotically petty. If you’re giving us all the rights, why withhold the name, except out of spite?
OK, I can see where that might be relavent. I’m still convinced, though, that the road to marraige for same sex couples runs through the little town of Civil Union (in most states and in the country as a whole). There is a direct route from here to marriage, but it’s a lot longer. I think civil unions, which improves over the situation today, isn’t a bad compromise-- for now. If you want a parallel with segregated schools, you’d need to look at a time when minorities weren’t allowed to go to school at all. In that case, separate but equal would be a step in the right direction, even if it didn’t take you all the way to the destination.
I’m a non-Catholic (atheist in fact) who married a Catholic about 30 years ago in Australia, in a Catholic church. As far as I can remember, we didn’t require a dispensation from the Church to marry. I certainly was not required to convert to Catholicism. And we are still married, my wife is still a Catholic, and I’m still an atheist (even if I do go to Mass once or twice a year).
I don’t know that anyone is arguing differently. The point, in this and most other threads on the topic, is showing why civil unions only work as a temporary compromise, and do not settle the issue in any way. If civil unions were on the table, I’d take them, sure, but I’m still going to turn right around and keep demanding marriage. In terms of activism, there’s really not much point in agitating for a compromise. A compromise is what you get because the other side is not yet prepared to give you what you’re actually demanding.
Yes and no. The political process isn’t exactly a bargaining process like buying a car-- I’ll offer you 20,000 but I’ll settle for 22,000. There is no reason why you can’t take a two-pronged approach in the political process-- push for Civil Unions while keeping the pressure on for marriage. And if the push is directed at the judiciary branch, you risk genearating a legislative backlash that will set the whole process back 50 years or more. I have no doubt that a SCOTUS decision along the lines of the MA decision, were it to happen now or in the near future, would end in the passage of Bush’s Marriage Defense Amendment. Then even the legislative process would be effectively shut down until a super-majority supported SSM-- I don’t see that happening for generations to come.
Well, presumably either the priest who talked to us before the marriage, or the priest who condcted the ceremony, got the dispensation without my noticing that he had. That’s possible. Certainly, neither seemed really worried about marrying a Catholic to a non-Catholic.
For one thing, spousal immigration visas only apply to actual spouses, at least in the US. (I believe the UK is doing better at this.)
Every single right, power, decision, and other thing that is applied to marriages will be decided separately for “civil unions”, or laws will have to be passed to back that up, which will take time and lobbying effort.
I agree that the SCOTUS finding a right to gay marriage in the Constitution would be disasterous for the movement as a whole, but I also think that the odds of that happening are virtually nil. The ultimate goal of a push for gay marriage would be an ammendment specifically guaranteeing such a right (and, ideally, the other rights extended to other minorities in the 14th) but as you say, that’s generations off. Currently, the focus should be on winning marriage rights on a state-by-state basis. In practical terms, this means different strategies depending on the state in question. California has a real shot at passing a marriage bill in the near future, and we’ve already got a domestic partners law, so in this state, the next logical step is to push for marriage. In less progressive states, the focus should indeed be on civil unions, as marriage is not an attainable goal at this time. When you get down to states like Alabama, we pretty much have to be content with preventing someone passing a law legalizing a Homo Hunting Season. The only way you’ll ever see gay marriage in these states is when enough of the rest of the country is onboard with SSM to impose it on them from the federal level - which is the generational plan again.
However, if we’re talking about the philosophy of the SSM movement, the goal is not civil unions, and that is ultimatly not going to be an acceptable solution. The issue is not ever going to go away until marriage is a guaranteed right throughout the entire union. So when someone proposes civil unions instead of marriage (as opposed to a step towards marriage) it’s important in the long term to explain why this is not acceptable.
Let me start by saying I’m not advocating civil unions over SSM. But I still haven’t seen a answer to the question, which was if civil unions apply all the rights and duties of marriage, what specifically would occur that would be a “separate but equal” disparity?
The example you provide assumes that civil unions do NOT have the same rights as heterosexual marriages. If that is the case, yes, I see the problem. But that’s not the question.
What is the specific problem that might occur if civil unions encompass all the rights and duties of heterosexual marriages? What would be different except the name? Elvis, the text you provided begs the question, I believe. It simply assumes a stigma, though it doesn’t explain how that stigma would create a disparity.
Again, I’m not arguing for civil unions over SSM. I’m asking why it’s more than a semantic distinction. After all, even if we call it marriage, the same gang who opposes it now will not suddenly discover any affection for the institution. Let me put it differently: insofar as the law is concerned, what is a heterosexual marriage except a civil union, one that is defined by certain rights and duties?
The problem with civil unions is that they can’t possibly be equal. The importance of precedent in our legal system alone guarantees that a new legal structure like civil unions will not have as much protection as marriage, which has centuries of law behind it. That’s not something you can legislate into exsistence: it’s a permanent and unavoidable inequity inherent to the way the law itself works.
Let me turn it around on you: if “seperate but equal” had worked in the South, what would be wrong with segregation?
For immigration issues, the question is not limited to US law; it also has to do with whether other countries recognise the “civil union” as being the same thing as a marriage. There are extensive treaties covering how various countries will treat each other’s marriages; those will not magically become treaties covering civil unions if one country chooses to start granting them. Even if a country, internally, treats civil unions as the same thing as marriages, that will not change how international law addresses them – which is, as far as I know, “not at all”.
(Further, I am of the opinion that calling the things a “civil union” cannot contain all the rights and duties of a marriage, because by definition it does not include the right to be called “married”. But that’s neither here nor there, and it doesn’t translate well if one doesn’t share an axiom that marriage itself is of value.)
