# What is the argument against "separate but equal" civil unions? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2014, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764 "2014-11-16T13:37:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/241 "2014-11-22T13:16:08Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > It doesn’t, were you under the impression it did? The law can call lots of things ‘marriages’, which I don’t think are actually marriages. I’m content with accepting them as convenient legal fictions. Marriage as a legal construct and marriage as a metaphysical, moral reality are two different things. > > Likewise, an African immigrant polygamist and his four wives are going to consider what they have to be a ‘marriage’ in the real sense (i.e., in the eyes of God, and in terms of their personal ties to each other), even though the law doesn’t treat them as married. Cool. I am glad we are on the same page. Marriage as a "legal fiction " is the only thing legislation can be concerned with. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/242 "2014-11-23T12:08:27Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Well, obviously, if two parties have conflicting positions on something, one will win and one will lose when the argument is decided one way or the other. But, what is it that the opponents of SSM will actually lose? They will lose the argument, they may lose face, but what do they themselves lose? Sure, pro-SSM folks will win the argument and not lose face, but who cares? I know what _gay couples_ will win (new rights and responsibilities, acceptance, equal treatment, legal protections). > > So, other than losing the argument, what have opponents lost? I am not saying the positions are equal, or that the opponents are right or have any valid arguments. All I am saying is that **Little Nemo** ’s comment is incorrect. Both sides cannot win. Supporters of Gay Marriage do not want both sides to win. They want Gay Marriage to be allowed. That that victory does not take anything real away from the opponents does not mean the opponents didn’t lose. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I think **Lemur** was speaking hyperbolically–clearly there’s at least one person who doesn’t believe remarriage is possible in at least some sense (although your use of the term when you talk about how the Episcopalian Church allows remarriage shows you understand what it means and in another sense DO believe it is possible). The relevant point, however, is that this is far from a majority understanding of marriage, and when we’re trying to figure out what the word means, except as a term of art for highly orthodox Catholics, your definition is not especially relevant. That’s the problem when we call the thing that churches do and the thing that the government is concerned about the same thing. They have different rules. Though I suppose the current standard is reasonably sensible: the government is concerned about it’s rules, but allows religious officiants to be one set of parties that can fill out the paperwork to establish that contract. Those religious officiants are allowed to apply any arbitrary additional rules that do not violate the law (i.e. metaphysical meanings and whatnot). If you don’t like the restrictions of the Catholic Church, go found the Church of England. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/243 "2014-11-23T15:36:38Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > That’s the problem when we call the thing that churches do and the thing that the government is concerned about the same thing. They have different rules. Though I suppose the current standard is reasonably sensible: the government is concerned about it’s rules, but allows religious officiants to be one set of parties that can fill out the paperwork to establish that contract. Those religious officiants are allowed to apply any arbitrary additional rules that do not violate the law (i.e. metaphysical meanings and whatnot). If you don’t like the restrictions of the Catholic Church, go found the Church of England. The Church of England actually had entirely the same rules about marriage as the Catholic Church until the early 20th century (and didn’t really accept the legitimacy of divorce & remarriage until 2003). ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/244 "2014-11-23T16:15:34Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > The Church of England actually had entirely the same rules about marriage as the Catholic Church until the early 20th century (and didn’t really accept the legitimacy of divorce & remarriage until 2003). In theory, yes. Even in practice, I can only think of one case in which they applied those rules differently (but it was a doozy). ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/245 "2014-11-24T02:34:53Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > In theory, yes. Even in practice, I can only think of one case in which they applied those rules differently (but it was a doozy). The equilibrium that developed in the mid-20th century is that while the Church of England would not _marry_ you if you had a living (divorced) spouse, you could get a civil marriage, or go to a Methodist church or something, and then get ‘blessed’ in the Anglican church. This was kind of a split-the-difference halfway house that a lot of people thought was illogical and hypocritical, and that may be why the church changed its policy in 2003. I think it was a mistake- sometimes some measure of inconsistency isn’t a bad thing, and I think the pre-2003 policy had the right balance of tolerance/mercy towards violations of the moral law, while remaining clear that they are violations. Remarriage may sometimes be a kind of tolerable, forgivable adultery, it may even work out for the best for everyone involved, but it’s still, in the technical sense, adultery. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/246 "2014-11-24T03:59:03Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Remarriage may sometimes be a kind of tolerable, forgivable adultery, it may even work out for the best for everyone involved, but it’s still, in the technical sense, adultery. Well, keep in mind that you’re talking to a nonbeliever who tries to be a tolerant nonbeliever. I think all these religious beliefs are made up, and while I’m willing to accept that it’s “technically” adultery **in your system** , I’m unwilling to apply your system to other religious systems. Since 2003, it’s technically **not** adultery for Anglicans. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/247 "2014-11-24T06:28:01Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > The Church of England actually had entirely the same rules about marriage as the Catholic Church until the early 20th century (and didn’t really accept the legitimacy of divorce & remarriage until 2003). That was kind of a joke, but the point was Henry VIII wanted a divorce, and since the Pope wouldn’t grant him one, he founded his own church that let him have one. That’s the only difference he wanted, so that’s the one he created. A more generic answer would be find a church that has rules you agree with. > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Remarriage may sometimes be a kind of tolerable, forgivable adultery, it may even work out for the best for everyone involved, but it’s still, in the technical sense, adultery. Well, that’s your opinion, and your entitled to have it, but not everyone agrees with you. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/248 "2014-11-24T09:05:51Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Well, that’s your opinion, and your entitled to have it, but not everyone agrees with you. … Because it’s a stupid opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/249 "2014-11-24T19:38:12Z")
When I said “no actual human beings” I should have made more clear that I meant “actual human beings who have actually met my mom face to face, not random internet people”. Of course there are people who would be willing to say that my mom is still married to my dad, despite the fact that they’ve been divorced for 30 years. Just that none of those people would be willing to say that to my mom’s face. Or even think it, really. This is one of those beliefs that people hold only in the abstract, and it never seems to come up in the real world when they interact with their friends, family, neighbors or community. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/250 "2014-11-24T20:39:04Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > When I said “no actual human beings” I should have made more clear that I meant “actual human beings who have actually met my mom face to face, not random internet people”. > > Of course there are people who would be willing to say that my mom is still married to my dad, despite the fact that they’ve been divorced for 30 years. Just that none of those people would be willing to say that to my mom’s face. Or even think it, really. > > This is one of those beliefs that people hold only in the abstract, and it never seems to come up in the real world when they interact with their friends, family, neighbors or community. If you know any Christians, I’d suspect rather a lot of them think it. If they don’t, they need to reread the Gospel according to St. Mark. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/251 "2014-11-24T20:43:30Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > If you know any Christians, I’d suspect rather a lot of them think it. If they don’t, they need to reread the Gospel according to St. Mark. By “Christian”, you mean “Roman Catholic”, right? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/252 "2014-11-24T20:58:45Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > This is one of those beliefs that people hold only in the abstract, and it never seems to come up in the real world when they interact with their friends, family, neighbors or community. I remember when I was a kid, we were on our way home from mass and we were listening to the news. A story came on about some man getting married for the umpteenth time, making him the record holder. My father had to inform all of us in the car that the man had only been married ONCE and that there was no such thing as “EX-WIVES!” And yet, he never hesitated for an instant when he met divorced and remarried people. And had you said, “Dad, what’s so-and-so’s wife’s name?” he wouldn’t have given the name of the ex wife. In theory, there were no ex-wives. In reality, he accepted that there were. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/253 "2014-11-24T21:02:42Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > If you know any Christians, I’d suspect rather a lot of them think it. If they don’t, they need to reread the Gospel according to St. Mark. On the contrary, I think you need to reread your state laws surrounding marriage. If you really want to read the Gospel According to St. Mark, consider Mark 12:17. Romans 13 may also be instructive. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/254 "2014-11-24T21:24:16Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I remember when I was a kid, we were on our way home from mass and we were listening to the news. A story came on about some man getting married for the umpteenth time, making him the record holder. My father had to inform all of us in the car that the man had only been married ONCE and that there was no such thing as “EX-WIVES!” > > And yet, he never hesitated for an instant when he met divorced and remarried people. And had you said, “Dad, what’s so-and-so’s wife’s name?” he wouldn’t have given the name of the ex wife. In theory, there were no ex-wives. In reality, he accepted that there were. Exactly. If Hector knew my mom, and she mentioned her husband, he’d never think of my dad, he’d think of her husband. While there are a certain number of Catholics who in theory don’t believe divorce is possible, in practice they accept it without blinking. And in reality almost all actually existing Catholics don’t even bother to pretend to agree with official Catholic teachings on divorce. ---
**Author:** ![Gedd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gedd/32/4938_2.png) [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/255 "2014-11-24T21:35:19Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > On the contrary, I think you need to reread your state laws surrounding marriage. If you really want to read the Gospel According to St. Mark, consider Mark 12:17. Romans 13 may also be instructive. Gotta love that Biblical concept of marriage some people talk about. In the Old Testament you can rape your way into a marriage and stone your way out of it. Is that what they were referencing? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/256 "2014-11-24T22:04:47Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > By “Christian”, you mean “Roman Catholic”, right? I grew up in s heavily Roman Catholic community and I don’t know a single Roman Catholic peer of mine who has such a view of divorce. Among American Catholics it’s an out-of-date concept. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2014, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/257 "2014-11-25T13:15:49Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > If you know any Christians, I’d suspect rather a lot of them think it. If they don’t, they need to reread the Gospel according to St. Mark. I think you need to be a bit more specific. I’m no biblical scholar, but a quick internet search at the Bible Gateway gives this as the discussion on marriage, from [Mark 12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12&version=NIV): > [@](#): > > 18 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection[c] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?” > > 24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[d]? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” What that says to me is that all marriages are canceled, and no longer valid in heaven. Or the afterlife, or the Resurrection on Earth. It’s all a little fuzzy. It sounds like Jesus is talking about the dead arising on Earth. Or perhaps you meant [1 Corinthians 7](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207%20&version=NIV)? > [@](#): > > Concerning Married Life > 7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. In other words, it would be better to not get married, but if you must have that dirty sex stuff, I guess you can get married. > [@](#): > > 8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. Ditto. > [@](#): > > 10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. This seems directly on point. The Lord giving a command not to divorce. Amusing that the wife can’t get a divorce, she can only separate. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/258 "2014-11-30T16:05:02Z")
Sounds like God’s living in the past. ---
**Author:** ![overcaffeinatedandqueer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e19b73/32.png) [@overcaffeinatedandqueer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/overcaffeinatedandqueer)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/259 "2014-12-09T07:44:26Z")
Hi, I’m gay and married (legally!!!eleventy!!!) The main problem is that at first, people won’t know what a “civil union” is if implemented. It gives the same rights, but would be a new thing, with a new name. It would not have been done before. This leads to confusion in really important areas, like administration of an estate or (more immediately) emergencies where one partner would be taken to the hospital and the other wants to see them or make decisions. Where time is of the essence, you don’t want to have personnel asking “but what’s a civil union?” and “what rights does this give you?” and “Can I see the paperwork?” Whereas, if that same couple could say “We’re married!” everyone knows what that is, is familiar with what that entails, and since the arrangement is socially recognized and historical, will bend over backwards to make sure they can see and decide things for each other. The other argument is philosophical. I believe my marriage is equal to your (real or hypothetical) marriage, and that they are actually very similar. I bet the married posters here also have stupid arguments, go on “date nights”, nag about the same things, want to raise a family together and be good parents, and spend their days in a similar fashion as we do. I mean, how many of you have debated “The toilet paper roll end goes under!” “No, over!” or said “Why don’t you pick up after yourself?” or said “I love you,” after a long day? The only appreciable difference, I think, is the exact mechanisms by which we have sex. And that doesn’t define my marriage, so the kind of sex I have shouldn’t be allowed to affect what it’s called, either. Calling it “marriage” also lets us “join” with society in a new way. It gives a certain integration and social status that a civil union just wouldn’t, since it’s not such a long tradition like marriage is. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/260 "2014-12-09T12:53:58Z")
Well said. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764.md?page=14)