Governor and Senator have different functions. An airplane and a helicopter are completely different beasts (one has a fixed wing, the other is rotary) and both fly by different means. Likewise they serve different functions.
How is a marriage between a man and his husband functionally different from a man and his wife?
And do you recall how the top brass fought? Do you think they would have changed without the arm twisting?
Not to junior mod, but has the policy of not putting words in other’s mouths gone out the window?
But you boss can still tell you what bumper sticker you can have or not on your car, under the duress of firing you. Because, you know, that’s not coersive.
Hang on a sec here. Where is it stated that a state must honor marriages issued by other states? What’s to prevent Massachusetts from passing a law that says that “marriage shall be defined as being between a man and a woman as long as they aren’t named Smith”. Joe Smith and his wife Jane move from Florida to Mass. Are they married?
Alright. I plan on marrying next year. For expediency’s sake, let’s use that as our hypothetical. Let us say California approves civil unions, and we obtain a civil union. There is a very real possibility that I may at some point be relocated by my company to a different state. If that state does not recognize civil unions, several benefits we take for granted as a “civil union couple” (almost slipped and said married, that would have been disastrous) are suddenly no longer applicable. Were anything to happen to me, it would not be if6was9 that is informed of my hospitalization, it would be my son, or possibly my mother. I do not believe ERISA recognizes domestic partners; my health care coverage would be affected. Were I to die, my partner would not be able to apply for Medicare benefits, death benefits, collect life insurance.
The reasons for uniformity are fairly obvious. Being married is not a right one can give and take away. It is accepted and ratified at the federal level. There is no interpretation or level of rights afforded married people from one state to the next.
Thanks for keeping up. That’s what needs to change. It does infringe on the civil rights of this country’s citizens to say that one group of the population is allowed to marry but another group is not. Protection offered that group (heterosexuals) under the law is not offered to homosexual citizens, even though they are citizens in every possible definition of the word.
Bricker: I have two primary objections to your positions. One is that I think it’s, for want of a better word, kind of silly. The other is that I think it’s just plain wrong. I’ll express them in order:
(1) So, if you were king of the world, and could set things up exactly as you liked, there would be something like this in Bricker’s Big Book of Laws:
"Section 12: Marriage. Marriage is a familial union between two people of the opposite sex. It brings with it the following collection of benefits and responsibilities… (followed by 12 pages of details.)
Section 13: Civil Unions. Civil unions are a familial union between any two people, regardless of sex. They bring with them the following collection of benefits and responsibilities… (followed by the exact same 12 pages of details, with “marriage” copied and replaced by “civil union”)"
Doesn’t that strike you as, bluntly, a bit silly?
What if you had:
"Section 17: Murder. Murder is a crime in which a male individual kills someone in the following types of circumstances… (followed by 12 pages of detail)
Section 18: BadDeath. BadDeath is a crime in which a female individual kills someone in the following types of circumstances… (followed by precisely the same 12 pages of detail)"
Doesn’t that seem kind of silly? And how is it different?
(2) You claim that reserving the word “marriage” for opposite-sex unions does not in any way make same-sex unions less, it just makes them different. You argue for this using various analogies concerning senators and governors. There are two problems with this. First of all, your analogy is faulty, because in Bricker’s Big Book of Laws, you would have section 3 that covered senators, and section 4 that covered governors, and the text in those two sections would NOT just be copied and pasted. More importantly, though, the word “marriage” is an extraordinarily powerful one, which has thousands of years of historical weight and solemnity behind it. If a gay couple wants to be married, what they’re saying is that they want their share of that recognition and weight. It’s just not possible for them to be separate-but-equal if what they have is a civil union instead of a marriage.
To propose yet another analogy, compare adopting a child to raising one’s natural-born child. One of those two options is clearly the more “natural” and “normal”. It’s the one that our biological bits and pieces were clearly designed by nature to support. It has thousands of years of cultural support and tradition behind it.
So, one might argue, the words “child” and “parent” really shouldn’t be used when there’s been an adoption. In fact, we have perfectly serviceable words already, “ward” and “guardian”. Now, I’m a liberal and progressive guy and non-bigoted guy, so I support laws stating that all of the benefits and legal statuses of a parent and child also accrue to a ward and guardian, but damn it, you may NOT use the word “child” to describe your ward, despite the fact that you’ve loved and raised him/her since his/her infancy. You have a perfectly good word. You have full legal status. So why do you insist on stubbornly wanting to be called a “parent”?
If you can imagine wondering why an adoptive parent might be unhappy not being referred to as a “parent”, what with all of the cultural significance of that word, then you should also be able to see why a same-sex couple might prefer to be “married” instead of “civil unioned”, and why in fact they would feel that their relationship was not equally recognized if it didn’t get to use the same word.
The bucket of rancid sputum you posted reveals you to be at least as full of bigoted hate as the demographic you are trying to criticize, and
You have taken the position that civil unions are not an acceptable alternative to gay marriage, and that the people in Louisiana were wrong for passing a bill to prevent a court-ordered imposition of gay marriage. So what you seem to be demanding is that a community be forced to recognize the legitimacy and desirability of gay marriage in and of itself, independent of the monetary aspects, even though that community has already, for whatever reason, expressed its disapproval of gay marriage. This is a ridiculous position, because marriage is inherently and fundamentally a recognition of societal approval. You want to impose beliefs on people.
I happen to be married to someone of a different race. Not so long ago, it would have been impossible for us to marry in certain states. You know what my reaction to that would have been? I want a civil union, but if you won’t give me that, then society can eat my ass, we’re going to live together and raise a family. I don’t need society’s approval.
In the Pit? I didn’t see that sticky. Is it recent?
Except, Bricker, that a “Senator” never (well, play along, since we’re in the land of hypotheticals) ran for the office of “Governor”. Therefore to call a Senator a Governor would be wrong factually.
Similarly, an airplane has wings, elevators and a direct propulsion system. A helicopter, on the other hand, has blades that provide lift and propulsion. Again, calling an airplane a helicopter would be factually wrong.
Now, to follow the bouncing examples, a straight couple is not running for an office, nor determining their means of lift and forward thrust when they marry. They are simply marrying. Likewise, a gay couple is not doing any of those things, they simply desire to be married. Going along with your call for state recognized civil unions, you will have created a level or nine of bureacracy that is totally unneeded when states already have a bureaucracy that has as it’s job recognition of marriage. And you are being more than just a touch disengenuous when you act as if these civil unions stand a chance in hell of ever being instituted when voters have already made it clear that they do not wish to recognize marriages between the same sex. You know full well that if the civil unions that you advocate were to be instituted, they would be shot down in flames. Unless, that is, you don’t desire a referendum in this one instance?
And Mr. Moto: You call for a federally recognized civil union. As I pointed out to you once before, the backlash that you speak of now would be less than a fart from a newborn in comparison to what would happen if the federal government were to recognize civil unions. Besides which, you are advocating the creation of new levels of bureaucracy to attend to this state that is virtually identical to marriage. Except that it would apply primarily to homosexuals. And more bureaucracy rather than less seems to be the sort of thing that you would ordinarily be in favor of.
Once more, the answer is plainly obvious. You (both of you, I don’t play favorites) just refuse to accept it because it would mean applying a term (marriage) to people of the same gender. I don’t understand your desire to twist around repeatedly to create a mirror image status that comes with the same problems that would come from SSM.
Whatever. I’m not a Christian. I don’t have to turn the other cheek to those who assault me or my human dignity.
I would find civil unions acceptable IF (note that conditional…it’s important) they were completely equivalent in all but name, including portability. But how likely is that? So I consider the “offer” of civil unions to be a sleight-of-hand unless the offerer sets the conditions as being “identical” to marriage. I’d think it was silly to call them something else, but silliness never was something to fight over.
The problem is that fully equivalent civil unions are going to be as hard fought as marriage. And if we’re going to have to take every inch with blood, sweat and tears, why not just go for the gold?
Mojo, sorry for the flip answer. But this morphing of the Pit into Great Debates, Jr. makes my hair hurt. I wasn’t putting words in bricker’s mouth. I was explaining my impression of what was being said.
Hyperelastic, that’s you personally. But it’s a moot argument, because whether you want that right or not, you have it.
Not unless he owns the land your car is parked on. Or represents the person who does.
I think it’s only if you use the quote function. For example, if I were to say, :
actuaul quote:
And then, when I quoted him, I changed it, IN THE QUOTE, so it says:
Then I’d be in trouble.
If you’re merely paraphrasing what someone said, “I like pie and that’s that,” I don’t believe it counts.
It’s if you go to “quote” someone, and change what they said that’s against the rules.
So, you’re saying, “George Bush is a hottie, and he can count on my vote.”?
I don’t think additional bureaucracy would be in order. Existing bureaucracies could handle the change in law just fine.
It’s not as if we’d be setting up parallel Social Security administrations, IRS’s, and the like just to address the concerns of civil unions.
And again, you may notice that my arguments are predicated on what can pass in America right now. Gay marriage cannot. I’m sorry, but recent events have shown this to be a political impossibility.
Civil unions have an uphill climb, but have a much greater chance of passage.
Ah. Thanks, Guin. Mojo, neither Otto nor I attributed those quotes to anyone. And while I can’t speak for Otto, I personally could not see any other way to interpret what bricker said, and was totally floored that anyone could possibly be that self righteous and condescending and at the same time be able to look away from their mirror long enough to type a response.
Language is not set in stone though. A hundred years ago, if I said to a crowd of people that I had a computer to help me out, they’d probably think I hired an accountant to crunch numbers for me. They wouldn’t have imagined that I had an electronic device that did such a thing. But as our society advanced to new discoveries, we expanded the definition of “computer”. Why not expand the definition of marriage in a similar way?
Only if he owns the parking lot where my car is parked.
Then I think you’re livin’ in a fool’s paradise.
No, they don’t. Not if, as you say, they are to be identical to marriage in all but name. Because the same people who voted in legislative bigotry (the group that is currently causing the backlash) will bring their fury down with a righteousness as soon as the federal government says that civil unions are hunky dory. Not only that, but there’ll be a helluva lot of pissed off people who have been pushing for SSM recognition from the go. Your solution is lose-lose.