What if, and this is just spitballing here, “marriage” remains exclusive to heterosexuals while civil unions by law have all the same privileges as marriage plus an extra 15% benefit on all tax-related issues? Just to address the issue of civil unions having inferior status, of course.
Or will that just accelerate the loss of specialness of marriage with some hetero couples deciding a civil union that saves them a few grand a year is preferable to marriage?
That won’t work, for the same reasons "separate but equal’ in general doesn’t work. Making them legally separate means that civil unions will be inferior to marriages, and that they will become more inferior over time since they can be made worse without affecting marriage. That benefit will be stripped away pretty soon, and you’ll see more and more rights and privileges stripped away until it becomes a joke or outright worse than nothing at all.
The whole point of civil unions is to be inferior to marriage, to be ghetto marriages. They are supposed to be used to punish and humiliate homosexuals. You aren’t going to get much good out of something like that.
The Lovelock Correctional Facility, Arizona, until at least 2016.
Well, I’ve heard that marriage is like a prison sentence…
My view of Brown v. Board of Education is correct. From the SCOTUS ruling:
(emphasis mine)
The separate educational facilities were authorized by a single “set of laws” analogous to a set of laws that would apply to both marriages and same sex civil unions. You are suggesting that they weren’t. They were.
No, you’re not following the analogy. Look at my last post. The two things the court said could not be “separate but equal” were the educational facilities. It’s right there in the ruling. “Two sets of laws” has nothing to do with the case.
“Two sets of laws” is part of the discussion here only because people incorrectly charge that my idea runs afoul of the sense of the Brown ruling. It comes up in every thread. For the charge to be correct, I would want the two groups (SS couples and OS couples) to have access to two different sets of “separate but equal” laws, which is what would analogous to some in Brown wanting the two groups (White students and Black students) to have access to different sets of “separate but equal” educational facilities.
So, the comparison of my position to the position to the Board of Education in Brown is inapt.
To All,
It is of course fine to disagree with my position. It is similarly fine to argue that my solution is not the best, or that it draws unnecessary lines, or that it may have negative consequences, either intended or unintended . But that does not mean that it is not a valid option. It does not mean it would not work.
The fact remains that if—IF—my idea were to be instituted, SS couples would enjoy ALL the legal benefits and privileges enjoyed by OS couples. If there is one legal benefit or privilege that OS couples get that SS couples don’t, then it is NOT my plan.
The only difference between what I propose and I think all of you want is that I want to also preserve the traditional meaning of the word “marriage”. It being such an important foundational principle of our society, I think it is wise to protect its meaning. I think that not doing so, down the road, will lead to young OS couples (those unions that will always be the primary mechanism in which future generations are raised) not being as eager to getting married. Currently, when a young couple talks about marriage and they each say “yes” to each other, in essence they are saying that “Yes, I want to live me life with you. I want to devote myself to you. I want the children I have to be half me and half you.” This is an immensely powerful proposition. And I see value in keeping it intact, namely that it make marriage a more attractive option for young people.
No, there is not a one-to-one correlation between marriage and child bearing. But couples that cannot or chose not to have children do not challenge the notion, the symbolism, of marriage as being the beginning of a relationship that is recognized to be the ideal situation for the raising of children. SSM does challenge and alter that symbolism. And I view that as a detrimental thing for society in the long run.
Yes, I may be wrong about this. Just as you may be wrong about this. The fact is that policies very often have negative unintended consequences that we lament decades later when we can see what happened with the benefit of hindsight. My proposal makes sense to me because it gives SS couples and OS couples the exact same legal benefits and privileges, while at the same time avoiding what I foresee as being a very negative unintended consequence.
I think I’ll just leave it there for now. While I fully know and accept that I’m not going to be changing the minds of those participating in the thread, having my position continually mischaracterized is tiresome.
I’d just ask you to imagine The United State of Magellan. In it, SS and OS couples all go about their days identically. They are all treated identically under the law. In fact, the law mandates that they all laws apply equally to both groups. The only difference is that one group has a Certificate of Marriage and the other has a Certificate of, e.g., Civil Union. Is that a bad place to live, for either gay or straight? I’m not asking if it might be as good in your mind as the country you would craft, but is it a bad place? It it a place you would characterize as bigoted? Homophobic?
And does the mere suggestion and discussion of such a place, which I would state unequivocally is lightyears more embracing than the country we live in today, merit ridicule, vitriol and bottled-up hate?
You know what I think would be very interesting? If one of you in the is thread would start a new GD thread entitled something along the lines of “Fact: SSM is out, SS Civil Unions are in. Accepting that, how can we craft the best, fairest society for all?” It can’t come from me, as I am “tainted”. But I’d be curious to see how good a society you all could craft.
That would be very interesting. Too bad it’ll never be done. Because, well, you know, it’s just beyond the pale!!! ::shrug::
It’s not the same situation as segregated schools, no - it’s *worse *than that, friend. Black and white schools were both still called schools. They even had exactly the same laws governing them.
Your two different versions of marriage would not have the same name. You propose a law that only OS couples could “access”, regarding the name that entails social equality. That’s not only separate, it’s inequal by definition, and no interpretation needs to be read into it that separate *means *unequal. You wish to go beyond the school segregationists and actually *codify *segregation.
Wow. This alone demonstrates that you cannot follow an analogy. The rest of your post reinforces that unfortunate fact.
I can’t speak for the rest of the “all”, but I’m disagreeing with a position that hinges on drawing a distinction in contravention to the spirit (and increasingly these days, the letter) of equal treatment under the law, based on a demonstrated ignorance of social and linguistic history.
That it happens to be YOUR position is incidental.
Not the one allowing them to use the name “married”. No, it is *not *a fact, despite what you repeatedly claim.
For no articulated reason that withstands even casual scrutiny.
A view which is based on nothing whatsoever that you can show us, despite having been invited to on multiple occasions.
Nothing that’s being said or done or proposed affects that.
Which is part of the reason that using that recently-invented rationalization as the basis for an argument is bogus.
So symbolism is important to you, you think it matters. But you don’t have a problem with the “symbolism” of refusing to permit gay couples to be called “married”. If you really understood the meaning of symbolism, you wouldn’t be denying that. And if you really thought there would be societal detriment, you would be able to point out what that might be, and what the evidence for it is. Since you fail to do so, you leave your motives open to doubt.
No, it does not.
“Very” now. Well, what?
The one doing the most mischaracterization of your position here is YOU, by your claim that legal codification of different treatment is “exactly the same”.
It’s not as good as it could be, no.
Yes.
No, the majority country we live in today is beyond that, with some states holding out until forced, granted. And what you’re seeing is mostly ridicule, not so much vitriol and hate.
Go right ahead. It isn’t *you *that’s the problem, no, it’s your views.
One without legally-forced discrimination.
I’m following it with great interest. For one thing, Brown is a bit of a professional interest of mine. More importantly, I would love to believe that I understood the nature of a genuine good faith objection to same sex marriage, which is why I asked you about it earlier.
I looked at your last post and responded to it. I don’t know why you put that phrase “two sets of laws” in quotes; it’s your construction, which you brought up to distinguish Brown (which you said involved two sets, originally) from your notion of civil unions (which you said involved one set). “Two sets,” you’re saying now, has nothing to do with Brown; OK, sure. But it has nothing to do with the analogy either. Brown was about whether or not it is acceptable to legally distinguish a minority group from the majority despite giving them access to the same legal benefits. The answer is that it is not acceptable. One “set of laws,” as you call it, governing what a school is; blacks and whites in separate categories but formally entitled to the same benefits within that framework. It is a direct parallel.
Tell us exactly which marriage traditions you wish to preserve, because there have been so many of them over the years, many of which have fallen by the wayside. What period of time does your version of traditional marriage span?
How would you protect couples from states that pass laws that only affect one group or the other? If they are both marriage, then states cannot pass laws that only affect SS couples or OS couples – any modifications to marriage rights would apply to both. But if SS couples are only ‘Civil Unions’, then ISTM that they are at the mercy of the states, which could change and reduce the benefits for them at any time.
I don’t see how allowing SS couples to marry affects the traditional meaning of the word – sure, it affects the modern meaning, but why would it affect any traditional meanings?
I fail to see how expanding marriage to include SS couples negatively affects this in any way. Why would an OS couple feel marriage is somehow less powerful, or less meaningful, because SS couples are included? In my opinion, it makes it far more powerful and meaningful – it could just as easily be argued that SS marriage will strengthen and make more attractive marriage for OS couples.
Why? We have allowed infertile couples to marry for as long as marriage has existed. Why does it change with these infertile couples?
Your proposal, ISTM, fails to protect SS couples from hostile state and local governments that may seek to reduce their rights and benefits. If Civil Unions are not marriage, then it just makes it that much easier for a state or locality to change the laws and definitions for Civil Unions.
It’s not a bad place, but it could be better. In my opinion, this society you describe is more bigoted and homophobic than a society that expands marriage to include SS couples. This society, as you describe it, at least, fails to protect SS couples from hostile local governments that may seek to revoke or reduce their rights, or even chase them out of town.
Perhaps a pretty good one – maybe those protections I’m worried about could be put in some other way. But they wouldn’t be as strong, and the society would not be as good as a society with full marriage rights for SS couples.
To the extent you are correct, it is the* institution of marriage* that is an important foundational principle of our society, not the word “marriage.” And, what you seem to be missing, is that expanding the definition of the word, and allowing more members of our society to be full participants in this foundational principle, makes the institution and society stronger.
I think the push back you are getting is due the the fact your arguments support our position, but you are stubbornly holding on to yours, despite all evidence. The “very negative unintended consequence” you base as the foundation of your argument, (straight people wanting no part of marriage if gays can have it to) makes no sense, is supported by no evidence, and seems, shall we say, “bigoted.”
I note that magellan01 hasn’t chimed in to endorse it, as he would if he were sincere in simply wanting to preserve his preferred semantic usage and willing to negotiate in good faith toward that goal.
You may not have noticed the dozens of times it’s been mentioned in this thread, but this is wrong. Brown has nothing to do with “access to two different sets of laws,” whatever precisely that means. That concept, to say nothing of those words, do not appear anywhere in the Court’s decision. SCOTUS made the basis of its decision very clear: schools segregated by race were inherently unequal, which violates the 14th Amendment.
The comparison here is between two types of schools and two types of relationships. You’re proposing couples be segregated into different types of recognized relationships based on their orientations, and you insist the two groups will be equal. That’s exactly what the court disallowed. And you’re insisting on yet another contradiction: that on the one hand it’s vital our society not call same-sex relationships marriage because that word is very important, and that there are no significant differences between the two types of relationships in your proposal. You can’t say that a distinction is really important and then say it doesn’t matter.
Look, there’s a reason you keep jumping from one analogy to another - from juices to drivers to Brown to whatever else - none of your the comparisons work at all. In some places I think your wording suggests that maybe you’re aware of this. Actually they make better arguments for SSM than against it. So perhaps it’s time to let this go.
How about if it is federally mandated? For me, once you don’t get hung up on it having two different names, the argument that it is a fundamental issue of civil rights is much stronger. If done, that would eliminate what I think are you prime objections, no?
what are you going to do to civil union gay people who go around telling people they’re “married?”
Because, that’s what would happen, and if you don’t put a stop to it, pretty soon the word “marriage” is going to get watered down.