What is the argument against "separate but equal" civil unions?

[tonyfop]

I can’t believe that I am going to do this, but I am actually going to take up IMfez’s question in a different way, to try to clarify how the argument can be raised in a non-bigotted way. I will preface my remarks by saying that I am a white, hetero man who identifies with the Catholic tradition of my family, although I haven’t been to church in years. I am part of an inter-racial marriage, and I wholeheartedly agree with the SSM movement equating their fight with the whole anti-misogenation(sp?) movement. I wholeheartedly agree that the 14th amendment is the basis by which same sex couples should be given the same rights as “traditionally” married couples. The thing is, my wife is not Catholic, and was not willing to marry in a Catholic church, so we got married by a Justice of the Peace. Many religious people in my family do not recognize this as a “real” marriage because it did not happen in a church. For the religious crowd, be they Fundamentalist or Catholic, that is the important part. Marriage, or more formally Holy Matrimony, is one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic religion. The legal statuses that the state grants the members of that marriage were glommed on later, because it was convenient. The core of marriage is the religious aspect. The fear that has been going through the Fundy churches is that in granting marriage equality, it would force the churches to perform same-sex marriage, because that is the most important aspect of marriage to them. Finally, it is dawning on them that this is not going to happen. I am at work with a very slow internet connection, so I can’t find the link, but I read within the last week that opposition to SSM was starting to erode in the Fundy community because they are realizing that they would not be forced to perform these marriages. One quote from them said that a state issued marriage license was just a legal document, no more important than a car registration. I know that a vast majority of couples in same sex relationships don’t give a rat’s ass if a church recognizes their marriage. If this is true, have they achieved true equality? The Fundy’s can claim a victory, however spurious, with their constituency, because when people’s opinion that marriage is a church function, and all of the legal rights are secondary to that church function, then what gays/lesbians have in the 33 SSM states is not equal to what they have.

So the question, from the Fundy point of view, becomes: “Why do you want to call this thing you have marriage? You do not have the religious aspect, which for us is the most important part.”

What would be the argument against the states issuing Civil Union Licenses to all couples, regardless of the genders involved? Marriages are performed by churches, according to their tradition and history. There are even some Churches which will perform SSM, but most do not. Marriages can also be performed by Justices of the Peace, if that is what the couple wants to call it. It is the state Civil Union that confers the legal rights, and the ceremony used to join the people is irrelevant. It can be called a marriage if you wish, but marriage should be a subset of Civil Union, not an alternative state. This would also be used by the polyamory community as well. Your Church can marry you to as many people as your heart desires, but the rights can only be given to one person, by law.

In the example above about the lesbian couple with children wanting to marry to protect the non-biological mother’s rights to the children in case something ever happened to the biological mother, that motivation for marriage is very different from a religious person’s motivation for marriage. The lesbian couple does not need a church’s blessing to live together and raise their children in a loving and nurturing environment. They are already doing that. They need the state’s protection of their rights. A Fundy or Catholic couple gets married in a Church to receive God’s blessing on their marriage, and to follow their tradition. The legal rights that follow are secondary.

And just to repeat, I only present these items as a topic of debate. I personally am happy that SSM is being implemented in more and more states on virtually a weekly basis.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@DrFidelius

It’s not even as if we ban marriages to washing machines. We do not recognize the legitimacy of *any *contracts entered into with appliances.

Let’s table this ridiculous “argument” until after the inevitable robot uprising.

I concur. Any further discussion of the ‘washing machine’ analogy is now forbidden. Jtgain, it has been explained multiple times why it is invalid. Do not invoke it again.

[Telemark]

@tonyfop

So the question, from the Fundy point of view, becomes: “Why do you want to call this thing you have marriage? You do not have the religious aspect, which for us is the most important part.”

The obvious counter to that argument is that there are plenty of religions that do recognize same-sex marriages and couples would want to celebrate their marriages within the same religious structures.

[DrFidelius]

@tonyfop

. . .
So the question, from the Fundy point of view, becomes: “Why do you want to call this thing you have marriage? You do not have the religious aspect, which for us is the most important part.”
. . .

Why would the religious feel the need to restrict the secular term “marriage” to the sacrament of Matrimony? We no longer use the church records of Baptism when we need a Birth Certificate.

Marriage is what happens when you fill out the right forms and have them registered regardless of what (if any) ceremony accompanies the signing of the documents.

[andros]

@Telemark

The obvious counter to that argument is that there are plenty of religions that do recognize same-sex marriages and couples would want to celebrate their marriages within the same religious structures.

Not to mention that as a nation we have established marriage as a secular institution. There is no religious aspect to marriage except in specific religious venues, and they each get to define it for themselves as they choose within those venues.
.

[tonyfop]

@tonyfop

So the question, from the Fundy point of view, becomes: “Why do you want to call this thing you have marriage? You do not have the religious aspect, which for us is the most important part.”

What would be the argument against the states issuing Civil Union Licenses to all couples, regardless of the genders involved? Marriages are performed by churches, according to their tradition and history. There are even some Churches which will perform SSM, but most do not.

@Telemark

The obvious counter to that argument is that there are plenty of religions that do recognize same-sex marriages and couples would want to celebrate their marriages within the same religious structures.

So obvious, that I conceded the point two sentences later…

@DrFidelius

Why would the religious feel the need to restrict the secular term “marriage” to the sacrament of Matrimony? We no longer use the church records of Baptism when we need a Birth Certificate.

Marriage is what happens when you fill out the right forms and have them registered regardless of what (if any) ceremony accompanies the signing of the documents.

I looked up “marriage” in the online etymology dictionary: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=marriage&searchmode=none and I found this:

marriage (n.)
c.1300, “action of marrying, entry into wedlock;” also “state or condition of being husband and wife, matrimony, wedlock;” from Old French mariage “marriage; dowry” (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *maritaticum (11c.), from Latin maritatus, past participle of maritatre “to wed, marry, give in marriage”

So “Marriage” and “Matrimony” are derived from the same Latin root. It is not surprising that the Catholic Church uses a word closer to the original Latin, as they have only gotten away from Latin in the last 50 years.

And I like your Baptism analogy, because it shows that by using Baptism records we were excluding many people in this country who never get baptized, or don’t get baptized as infants. So we created a new, secular record, and gave it a new name to show that it was a different thing, to record a secular event, rather than a religious event. It would have been dumb to continue to call a baptismal record if that was not what it was.

@andros

Not to mention that as a nation we have established marriage as a secular institution. There is no religious aspect to marriage except in specific religious venues, and they each get to define it for themselves as they choose within those venues.
.

The thing is, originally, the set of all religiously married couples and the set of secularly married people was the same set. When they set up JP’s to marry some people, the set of people eligible were still people who were eligible for religious marriage, and religious people accepted this, grudgingly. Now a group of people wants to use the term who are not eligible for the original definition of religious marriage, why not call this larger set something else(incluing all religious married people also), since secular marriage has grown much larger than the original definition?

Once again, I am arguing from the Fundy point of view, but I am more of a lapsed Catholic, who is only married in the secular sense, since I never had a church wedding, but I don’t consider it any less of a marriage.

[wonky]

@tonyfop

So the question, from the Fundy point of view, becomes: “Why do you want to call this thing you have marriage? You do not have the religious aspect, which for us is the most important part.”

I love my husband and want to spend the rest of my life with him. I have chosen him as my next of kin. We have a home together and a life together and we support and cherish one another, even when one of us–okay ME–is being a punk ass motherfucker. That is the most important part of marriage to me. Strangely, I’m not trying to say that anyone who disagrees with me can no longer get married. I just wouldn’t let them get married to me.

Second, as you point out in your intro, miscegenation is the perfect comparison. In the forties (I think California, where we live, got rid of its anti-miscegenation laws in the forties*), I wouldn’t have been able to marry my husband. And there was lots of religious argument about why that was necessary, and how it wouldn’t infringe my rights because I could still marry a white man and he could still marry a black woman. No rights being infringed here! Today, most religious people and organizations wouldn’t make that argument. Can we really say that religion is an unchanging monolith? Can we really identify whose finger is on that pulse?

Third, lots of LGBTQ people are religious. I’m straight and atheist. I lack the religious aspect to my marriage, but I’m allowed to use the term? Somehow, I don’t think “lack the religious aspect” is really the argument.

Fourth, the ship has completely sailed on the use of the word “marriage” for more than something religious. Religions have come and gone. Secular marriage? Not so much. Heck, I can’t think of a single word that is only used in a religious sense. Wait, transubstantiation. Okay, I can think of a single word that is only used in a religious sense. The rest? They’ve traveled out into the word and we atheists have touched them and made them grubby with our secular paws. Don’t want your sacred words defiled? Keep them to yourself.

Fifth, no one is taking my marriage from me except my husband should the punk ass motherfuckerness get too much for him.
*I think California’s law was directed at Asians and whites, but I don’t feel like looking it up. It’s really not important to the larger point. Which I totally have.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@tonyfop

And I like your Baptism analogy, because it shows that by using Baptism records we were excluding many people in this country who never get baptized, or don’t get baptized as infants. So we created a new, secular record, and gave it a new name to show that it was a different thing, to record a secular event, rather than a religious event. It would have been dumb to continue to call a baptismal record if that was not what it was.

Baptists get baptized, right? Do Catholics? Do Lutherans? Do Jews? Do Hindus? Do atheists? three thousand years ago, did a significant percentage of the world population get baptized?

I think the answer to all those questions except the first three is “no.” It therefore doesn’t make much sense to call “baptism” the record of birth.

Baptists get married, right? Do Catholics? Do Lutherans? Do Jews? Do Hindus? Do atheists? three thousand years ago, did a significant percentage of the world population get married?

The answer to all these questions is “yes.” It therefore makes sense to look to a source other than religion for the legal definition of “marriage.”

[andros]

@tonyfop

The thing is, originally, the set of all religiously married couples and the set of secularly married people was the same set.

I’m not certain that’s the case…IIRC there was a long tradition of common-law marriage in Europe before various religious crackdowns.

[Dr.Drake]

@jsgoddess

Heck, I can’t think of a single word that is only used in a religious sense. Wait, transubstantiation. Okay, I can think of a single word that is only used in a religious sense.

Peter Bacon Hales uses it in a secular context on p. 301 of Atomic Spaces: Living on the Manhattan Project.

[wonky]

@Dr.Drake

Peter Bacon Hales uses it in a secular context on p. 301 of Atomic Spaces: Living on the Manhattan Project.

Son of a bitch! This just goes to show that you can’t trust secularists.

[Ambrosio_Spinola]

The best argument against civil unions is still how the states have behaved and continued to behave about recognition of same-sex relationships. For instance, Kansas has been ordered by a court to issue same-sex marriage licenses, but is now preventing newly married couples from changing their names on their driver’s licenses or filing joint tax returns. If the states won’t even accept legal marriages as legal marriages without litigating every single issue, what is the point in negotiating for less?

[tonyfop]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Baptists get baptized, right? Do Catholics? Do Lutherans? Do Jews? Do Hindus? Do atheists? three thousand years ago, did a significant percentage of the world population get baptized?

I think the answer to all those questions except the first three is “no.” It therefore doesn’t make much sense to call “baptism” the record of birth.

Prior to 1853, government agencies did not record the birth of citizens. In the West, churches recorded this information, and that church record doubled as a secular document.

Baptists get married, right? Do Catholics? Do Lutherans? Do Jews? Do Hindus? Do atheists? three thousand years ago, did a significant percentage of the world population get married?

The answer to all these questions is “yes.” It therefore makes sense to look to a source other than religion for the legal definition of “marriage.”

I was only debating the term “marriage” and its etymology in the English langauge. The word historically was linked to a precise Christian ceremony. That everyone got “married” 3000 years ago is not relevent, since I doubt that Jews and Hindus 3000 years ago used the word “marriage” to describe it.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@tonyfop

I was only debating the term “marriage” and its etymology in the English langauge. The word historically was linked to a precise Christian ceremony. That everyone got “married” 3000 years ago is not relevent, since I doubt that Jews and Hindus 3000 years ago used the word “marriage” to describe it.

They didn’t, use it to describe their own marriages–nor did they use it to describe Christian marriages. English speakers used it to describe both Christian and non-Christian marriages; the links between the word and the Christian ceremony are tenuous.

[tonyfop]

BTW, I’m done now. I’ve stretched my ability to debate a topic that I don’t actually agree with to it’s limit, and I won’t post in this thread anymore.

[andros]

@tonyfop

BTW, I’m done now. I’ve stretched my ability to debate a topic that I don’t actually agree with to it’s limit, and I won’t post in this thread anymore.

Being advocatus diaboli is a bitch. Thanks for the effort, though.

[Dr.Drake]

@tonyfop

I was only debating the term “marriage” and its etymology in the English langauge. The word historically was linked to a precise Christian ceremony.

And the Christians got their word from the Romans, who were not Christians. So if the word is important, we should look at Ancient Roman attitudes toward marriage.

If you argue that 2000 years is too far, I counter-argue that 200 years is too far: marriage is secular in the USA.

I don’t see a logical argument based on the history of the word that cherry-picks which part of history it is pulling from.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Dr.Drake

And the Christians got their word from the Romans, who were not Christians. So if the word is important, we should look at Ancient Roman attitudes toward marriage.

If you argue that 2000 years is too far, I counter-argue that 200 years is too far: marriage is secular in the USA.

I don’t see a logical argument based on the history of the word that cherry-picks which part of history it is pulling from.

I know he’s done, but this is a particularly weird way of approaching the debate, inasmuch as it suggests the objections to SSM in the US are fundamentally different from the objections in Mexico.

[Canadjun]

@Dr.Drake

Peter Bacon Hales uses it in a secular context on p. 301 of Atomic Spaces: Living on the Manhattan Project.

@jsgoddess

Son of a bitch! This just goes to show that you can’t trust secularists.

OK - how about consubstantiation?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

I think cissubstantiation is the preferred term.