This is untrue, at least in NJ. The NJ high court first said that if the legislature could make a civil union law that was equal, that would work. The legislature passed a law. The NJ high court took a look and said, no, that’s not equal, and NJ got SSM, especially after the Windsor decision.
So, at least for NJ, your statement is false.
Contented crowing? A little dickish in the general sense, sure, but I don’t know that I’d consider my enemies boasting of their victory to add anything to my loss, intended or actual. The opposite, if anything, but even then not by much.
Actually it does include ‘the union of one man and one woman’. But it also would include ‘the union of two men or two women’.
I honestly don’t care what you think or how you talk. I care about what the law says and how my relationship is treated under it. If you want to think or say that I’m in a civil union, domestic partnership, call us roommates like my mom does. Or one of my personal favorites from some right wing types - Sodomy based union.
It’s not so much that “my enemies have to lose” as it is, “there’s no reason for compromise.” Folks who want SSM in the US are on the verge of getting 100% of what they want in this regard, despite decades of vicious, dishonest, bigoted opposition to them.
The time for bigots to ask for a truce and a compromise would have been before they got walloped in court. If afterwards they complain about the gloating of folks who are allowed to get married, I can’t say I’ll cry too many tears for them.
My enemies can go pound sand. I don’t much care what they do any more, because they have lost all their power. If they want to hold a victory parade for themselves, that’s awesome. What they can’t do is they can’t stop my friends from getting married in order to protect their children from bigoted grandparents, and that’s basically what I care about.
A marriage is the same for a gay couple as a marriage is for a straight one. Exactly the same legal status, same rights, everything the same right down the line. But that’s not good enough for folks who want to tell other people what to think and how to talk: they want one of those to be “a civil union”, and the other “a marriage”.
The whole point of pushing civil unions is to create a second class. It’s like a country club that only allows whites.
“This is a good club. It doesn’t let *them *in. They can have their *own *club.”
They feel like letting them into their club damages it, because they are lesser beings. And lesser folk should not be seen as equals in the club.
It’s amazing seeing otherwise rational people simmering in rage against two bros glazing each others moustaches in matrimony.
Would you support unions between blacks and whites being called “mixed-unions”?
Can you describe to me how that’s different?
Y’know, the “marriage has always been between one man and one woman” argument is kind of weak, if you ever read the Bible. Yes, we modern people don’t recognize polygamy, but when Jacob married Leah, the Bible doesn’t use a different word than “married” when he married Rachel. It says right there that he married her, not that he civil-unioned her.
“Marriage” does NOT mean the union of one man and one woman, otherwise we wouldn’t understand what it meant when Jacob married Rachel despite still being married to Leah. It would be nonsensical, comparable to saying that Jacob married a washing machine.
But according to the Bible, Jacob really did marry Rachel, and God blessed their marriage. He wasn’t condemned as an adulterer who was just pretending to marry a second woman, which would be ontologically impossible since a marriage can only mean the union of one man and one woman.
Anyway, the real reason nobody who supports same-sex marriage is willing to support civil unions in 2014 is that we’ve pretty much already won. If, in 1994, for-real civil union laws had been proposed that really truly were marriage in all but name, it would have been accepted gratefully. But that didn’t happen, many states rushed to pass laws banning civil unions for gays, and not because they were language mavens concerned about changing definitions of words.
Now that SSM is legal in more than half the country, it seems pretty disingenuous to suddenly offer civil unions as an alternative, just when SSM is within a few years of being legal throughout the country. And of course, it’s only here on the internet that such offers are proposed. No state legislatures are actually in real life proposing civil union legislation. Even if SSM-supporters would or could bindingly agree to civil unions, nobody who is anti-SSM would actually propose such a thing. The set of people who don’t want gay marriage is pretty firmly overlapping with the set of people who don’t want gay civil unions either. Oh, there are a few, and I’m willing to take anyone who professes to be anti-SSM but pro civil unions at their word (I’m generous that way). The problem is that there are not enough of such people to form a constituency powerful enough to actually enact civil unions throughout the country.
Yes, there are people who are pro-SSM but would be willing to settle for civil unions if it was clear that SSM nationwide was impossible. But it doesn’t seem like that’s going to happen, right now in 2014 it looks like within a few years SSM could be legal nationally. So what’s the incentive to advocate for compromise civil unions now, in 2014? I understand why anti-SSM people might look around and suddenly discover that they were in favor of civil unions all along, but it’s not going to happen, even if they were serious, which they generally aren’t.
“It says here that Solomon had hundreds of DOES NOT COMPUTE! ERROR! ERROR!”
It’s a moot point. The same people who fought same-sex marriage also went out of their way to ban same-sex civil unions - so now, with actual same-sex marriage close to being a done deal, why bother? The opponents of same-sex marriage have lost both rooks and their queen (heh), it’s a little late to offer remis.
Leave this sort of comment out of Great Debates. Take it to The BBQ Pit if you feel it necessary.
[ /Moderating ]
Sounds like a good deal. It’s just that it’s not the deal offered.
Nebraska, Georgia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisdonsin, Idaho, North Carlina, Arizona and Texas - there may be more - all took great care to stamp out same-sex civil unions as well as same-sex marriage.
It’s rather disingenuous to act as if the offer of civil unions was denied, when in fact it wasn’t even extended.
The people fighting same-sex marriage dramatically overestimated their power. It’s too late to pretend there was any desire on their part to compromise.
When you enemy wants to curtail your civil rights, or occupy the Sudetenland, or some such, then, yes, the proper response is to see to it that you win and they lose.
Among a certain number of SSM proponents there very likely is an attitude of “my enemies have to lose.”. This is unfortunate. However, given the rather vicious attacks and tactics employed by some opponents of SSM, it is certainly understandable.
To Spiny Norman’s list of states where opponents of SSM worked to prevent Civil Unions we should add Ohio where the law was deliberaely written to prevent " loopholes" in a way that even elderly siblings were denied any potential benefits. (When that was pointed out before the vote, the response was that it was necessary to prevent anything resembling a Civil Union from sneaking into the state.)
I guess that phrase–“my enemies have to lose”–is ambiguous. It can mean either that my enemies must be humiliated, or it can mean that to the extent that someone opposes me on this issue, I want them to lose.
If it means the former, then yeah, maybe that’s unfortunate, although I think it a very trivial misfortune. If it’s the latter, it’s a wholly unremarkable thought, one that is true for almost everyone on almost every subject. Of course if someone opposes me on something I want them not to prevail; that’s kind of what it means to oppose me on something.
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that two men can only exist in a “Civil Union.”
In his blog, one of them refers to it as a marriage, and speaks of his “husband.”
How, exactly, do you propose to “force him not to?”
I don’t agree that the former is necessarily unfortunate. If someone is doing wrong, having that person publicly humiliated as well as defeated serves the salutary purpose of deterring others.
I realize that a lot of people on both sides of the issue prefer, emotionally, to view the opposition as “doing wrong.” meh It is possible to view one’s opponents, even on very divisive issues, as mistaken or as simply coming from a different frame of reference without demonizing them and portraying them as evil. It is not popular since it does not lend itself to self-righteous back patting or to whipping up the troops, but it is possible.
It’s the former.
Nonsense - anyone who wants to call it a civil union with all the same rights as traditional marriage is a bigot/a Nazi/an enemy/blah blah.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, sure, just as anyone who wants to do something similar for interracial marriage. I’ve said many times that this issue is different from lots of others. Someone who disagrees with me on tax policy is not a bigot, but on this issue? Yep. And Tom, it’s not all about back-patting, not even when people declare how superior they are for not demonizing opponents. It’s simply about using accurate terminology.