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

[Northern_Piper]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

[QUOTE=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).
[/QUOTE]

If you’re referring to Henry VIII, then you’re labouring under a misapprehension. Henry was not seeking a divorce; he was seeking an annullment, which was at that time part of Roman Catholic canon law, and continues to be so to this day.

The grounds on which he sought the annullment was that he had married his dead brother’s wife: Katherine of Aragon had previously been married to Henry’s older brother, Arthur, who died young. Not wanting to lose the Spanish alliance that the marriage had sealed, Henry VII had young Prince Henry marry the widowed Katherine.

By some interpretations of some biblical passages, that marriage was a breach of canon law. If so, then Henry’s marriage to Katherine was void from the start, and could be so declared by the Catholic church under its canon law relating to annullment.

Unfortunately for Henry, the Pope at the time was in a precarious position: the Holy Roman Emperor had occupied Rome with his armies. Since the Holy Roman Emperor was Katherine’s nephew, he put considerable pressure on the Pope not to grant the annullment. That decision by the Pope contributed to Henry’s decision to split the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church.

Henry subsequently obtained the annullment from the Church of England. However, the canon law used by the Church of England was essentially the same as the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church relating to annullments. It was not a divorce.

[Cyros]

@overcaffeinatedandqueer

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.

Hell, even the acts are not really different. Straight people take part in the exact same actions as gay people. The only real difference is the sex of your partner.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@overcaffeinatedandqueer

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.

That sounds largely like a transition issue. Something that would work its way out of the system in a few years. Its pretty thin grounds to overturn the democratic process.

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.

Thats a difference right, there! You still have sex with each other.

But seriously, the importance of those differences depend on where you end up after the line drawing exercise. My marriage resembles traditional marriage in ways taht yours does not. I know that some of this stuff sounds very last century but that is where most of us spent most of our lives.

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.

This is largely semantics and line drawing. I had one foot in the separate but equal camp until the “don’t ask don’t tell” hearings when it became clear that these guys didn’t want separate but equal; they wanted separate so that they could avoid equal, maybe not now or tomorrow but one day they would start making legal distinctions between the two.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Northern_Piper

If you’re referring to Henry VIII, then you’re labouring under a misapprehension. …

Hey, you’re not the only one who read Wolf Hall, you know :).

Keep in mind what I said. The only way you’re correct is if it’s a misapprehension that
“The Church of England actually had entirely the same rules about marriage as the Catholic Church” but “applied those rules differently” in the case of Henry VIII.

[overcaffeinatedandqueer]

Is anyone familiar with Jefferson’s “tyranny of the majority” theory?

Basically, this says that sometimes, the democratic process is not the best vehicle for deciding things. It’s not best where the majority would tend to use their votes to oppress a minority that, due to its small numbers, can’t protect its own interests through that process.

Gay and bisexual people make up (this is a high estimate and incl. bi people who enter into heterosexual marriages), 10% of the population or so. Definitely not a majority. Since it’s such a percentage, we’re incapable, on our own, of protecting our own interests through voting.

Instead, the straight “majority” decides (at least in some states) what rights we can have. There were no votes to decide what rights slaves, black people, etc. should have, because the courts and presidents recognized that the people who do not need those rights have no stake in deciding them or not- and anyway, at the time, the “majority,” esp. in the South, would have prevented those persons from having their rights if decided by vote.

Imagine an analogy. Let’s say that everyone in the US agreed that violin noises are really annoying (and they can be!) To stop this problem, the US votes to cut off the hands of people who play them. Since violinists are a minority, they would not be able to assemble and vote against this measure and win on their own. The vote might pass. Thus, we, the non-playing majority, would have used the majority to violate the rights of a minority. Which is why voting and majority-rule don’t always work.

Also, note that the Equal Protection clause states that each person is entitled to “equal protection under the law.” Brown v. Board stated that “separate but equal,” even if actually equal, is NOT equal due to the “badge of inferiority” that segregation into different schools/institutions causes.

The last time I checked, I was a person, not a frog or something, and so I am entitled to equal protection, which does not include “segregating” me to another social institution.

[Northern_Piper]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Keep in mind what I said. The only way you’re correct is if it’s a misapprehension that
“The Church of England actually had entirely the same rules about marriage as the Catholic Church” but “applied those rules differently” in the case of Henry VIII.

You said that the Church of England applied its canon law relating to divorce differently with Henry VIII. Since Henry did not get a divorce from the C of E, I would say it applied the same canon law as the Roman Catholic Church did. It was not a “doozy” of an exception, as you suggested.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Northern_Piper

You said that the Church of England applied its canon law relating to divorce differently with Henry VIII. Since Henry did not get a divorce from the C of E, I would say it applied the same canon law as the Roman Catholic Church did. It was not a “doozy” of an exception, as you suggested.

I’m pretty sure I said no such thing, since I didn’t use the word divorce and nor did any of the nested quotes I was responding to. You’re being pedantic, and you’re wrong in your pedantry.

[Irishman]

@Northern_Piper

If you’re referring to Henry VIII, then you’re labouring under a misapprehension. Henry was not seeking a divorce; he was seeking an annullment, which was at that time part of Roman Catholic canon law, and continues to be so to this day.

I’m the one that was laboring under a misapprehension. Thank you for the lesson.

To be fair, I can’t be the only one that was taught it was a divorce in school. Or else somebody didn’t make it clear and “divorce” is what was remembered.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Is there a practical difference? He wanted to not be married to her any more.

[tomndebb]

@Bryan_Ekers

Is there a practical difference? He wanted to not be married to her any more.

The practical difference involves the politics in which people who agreed and disagreed with the decisions of Henry and Pope Clement could line up on opposite sides and go to war against each other or persecute others who disagreed with their views.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Conveniently, it turns out (most of) the people who oppose gay marriage aren’t willing to go to war over it.