My challenge was to the idea that the difference between civil unions and marriages was “purely semantical,” Stratocaster, and there are solid reasons for raising the objection. Marriages are “portable” – a(n opposite sex) marriage contracted in one place is recognized in other jurisdictions without any challenge. There is extensive case law on marriage. In an ideal hypothetical situation where “marriage” and “civil union” are truly identical concepts known by different names, this would not be a distinction. But outside Nephelococcygia, such ideal situations do not exist. And if they were truly identical, what would be the need or desire for two disparate terms? At present, a civil marriage and a religious marriage are identical in law throughout the U.S. and in, I believe, the English-speaking world. (Clairobscur can address the rather odd situation in France.) Explain to me the distinction between a civil union and a civil marriage. (And, while you’re at it, why should not a religious gay couple attending a church which recognizes same-sex marriage have a religious marriage?)
Tom, I believe that you’re belaboring a point. Prior to, say, 1975, there were vanishingly few legally-recognized gay marriages (there are a couple recorded, a bit of historical trivia). Hence the term “marriage” at law certainly generally referred to a monogamous marital union of one man and one woman. But I would hesitate to suggest that this was the sole meaning that people would construe the term marriage to have: “King Solomon had 100 wives”’ “Harmodius and Aristogeiton considered themselves married”; “The early Mormons contracted polygamous marriages to effect rapid population increase, among other reasons.” All these would be well-formed statements (truth value debatable, but clear English) which any reader in 1900 or 1950 would construe to be describing actual marriages in other times and places which refer to social structures outside the socially-accepted, legally-mandated one man/one woman system of the time.
Now, the parallel thread is using Loving to address the idea that Equal Protection says that a marriage across racial lines was equally a valid marriage as one within the same race – contrary to the statute law of numerous states. The assertion being made by many people here is that, despite legal definitions delimiting marriage to opposite-sex couples and inferences in various legal codes referring to “the husband” and “the wife,” the Equal Protection Clause, in a precise parallel, requires that a more modern concept, legally recognized same-sex marriages, be recognized as equal to traditional opposite-sex marriages.
Freedom of speech, copyright laws, libel and slander, all expanded to incorporate broadcast media, the Internet, etc., because the principles on which they were founded were “extendable” to recognize a new mode of expression. No “redefinition” in statute was called for in some cases (in others, the differences in medium required it); the principles were the same. Likewise, Joe and Tom’s right to contract marriage is equally protected with Bob and Jane’s.