Kalhoun said, “At the end of the day, we all have civil unions as far as the government is concerned. As long as gays **are ** given exactly what the rest of us are, both legally and socially, we will not be equal.”
Now you KNOW I meant “aren’t”. I hate when that happens.
And I presented my counterarguments:[ol][li]One of our provinces has opposite-sex civil unions. Quebec brought these in a few years ago, along with same-sex civil unions, but you can also still get a marriage in Quebec. My point is, no other country has altered its comity laws to recognize Quebec heterosexual civil unions, not even in our closest neighbour and greatest trading partner to the south.[/li][li]I doubt any country too homophobic to recognize same-sex marriage will recognize a same-sex civil union. It would be nice to have something that was portable to the gay-positive countries, however.[/ol][/li]
As for the other thread, I became more involved in the train wreck when that one poster announced that he thought I should be thrown in jail for being gay. Sorry if I forgot the thread of intelligent conversation after that.
I was talking about “civil unions for everyone,” and even in spite of your conclusion that it’s not a compromise, I still feel it is. It hinges on the portability question, for me. You don’t believe that’s as serious an issue as I feel it is, but it will only take time and legal precident to determine which of us is right. If we are giving up portability to end the debate on same-sex marriage, and letting religious conservatives define the word marriage as wholly or partially religious, then I feel a sacrifice has been made, and “compromise” is the right term.
You still might want to save that apology, however. Scroll up and look at the date of the post you’re responding to. This thread has been up for awhile 
I don’t quite understand the “portability” issue. The only time it will come into play is if someone dies. In that case, the civil union will behave more like a will. I just called my dad, and when my mom died, he didn’t have to come up with a marriage certificate for anything…including taking possession of stock that was solely in my mom’s name. No one asked for it.
Think about it…when was the last time you were asked for your marriage certificate? I didn’t take my husband’s name when we married. When we refinanced his house to include me, they didn’t ask for a marriage certificate (although they did ask if we were married, but only because of the different names thing). We weren’t married in Illinois, so I don’t know how they would have tracked that information down on their own. Have any of you been asked to produce a marriage certificate? If so, why?
Now don’t take this as an anti-gay marriage statement. I think there should be one term for all couples (or groups, for that matter) that want to enter into a loving commitment. That commitment should afford everyone exactly the same rights and benefits as everyone else. Whatever differences you have with your church’s take on it is a separate issue. The issue is equality.
Sorry for the rambling on my previous post. My point is that everyone should have exactly the same rights, and all unions should go by the same name. If they want to reserve “marriage” for religious unions, that’s fine. But if you can call my “civil union” a marriage, you should allow the same for gay couples.
(I’m still interested in knowing if anyone was ever asked to produce a marriage certifiate.)
[QUOTE=Hamish]
And I presented my counterarguments:[ol][li]One of our provinces has opposite-sex civil unions. Quebec brought these in a few years ago, along with same-sex civil unions, but you can also still get a marriage in Quebec. My point is, no other country has altered its comity laws to recognize Quebec heterosexual civil unions, not even in our closest neighbour and greatest trading partner to the south.[/li][/QUOTE]
The situations aren’t analogous. Straights in Quebec can obtain exactly the same rights through a marriage certificate, so nobody but nobody is hurt by a lack of comity agreements related to opposite-sex unions. Further, you’ve not shown that Quebec has asked for comity. Further, you’ve not even shown that any straight couples have gotten a civil union and then moved to the US. I can’t say what would happen in any of these cases, but this counterargument doesn’t even register.
[li]I doubt any country too homophobic to recognize same-sex marriage will recognize a same-sex civil union. It would be nice to have something that was portable to the gay-positive countries, however.[/ol][/li]
Again, your doubt isn’t significant until we get some hard data. And again, if civil unions were the only coupling system available through US law, you can bet that they’d get comity agreements posthaste with other countries, including gay-positive countries. The gay-positive countries aren’t an issue under either system; the only question is what would happen in gay-unfriendly countries. And I think (speculation, every bit as valid as yours) that gay-unfriendly countries would be more apt to recognize SS civil unions than SS marriage, since the former would basically be a wholly foreign concept devoid of religious underpinnings.
What you feel is, frankly, irrevelant. Perhaps it’d be a compromise for YOU to support civil unions, but for me, it wouldn’t be: for me, it’s a happy melding of three different issues all of which I support. The most important one – equal rights for all citizens – is one we share in common; the less important ones – getting the government out of my love life, and getting the government not to take sides in sticky religious/cultural battles – are just icing on the cake. This point is undebatable, unless you’d care to redefine the word “compromise.”
:smack: D’oh! Yep, I apologize; I thought you were making an oblique reference to me in the other thread. My fault.
Daniel
I’m not sure that that’s true. The concepts of monogamy and marriage have been pretty closely linked to one another for a long time according to what I’ve read. The tradtion that’s been handed down to Americans certainly embraces that idea. Regardless, even if history is rife with examples of different kinds of matrimonial arrangements, that doesn’t mean that I should change my feelings about what the crucial element of marriage is. Were we to blindly accept historical precedent as the only allowable guide to what is good and what is bad then we never would have made it out of the dark ages.
All right, let’s start a new conversation about this. How do people define marriage?
Wrenchslinger said
You should never change your feelings about what a marriage is as far as YOUR marriage goes. But there have been tons of marriages, historically important marriages, that had nothing to do with love or monogamy. There are marriages of convenience, marriages for money, marriages for pity, shotgun weddings, marriages for the sake of the children, big marriages between big money families, royalty, and on and on. And they should all count.
MY marriage has to have love and commitment. And a willingness to take care of each other. I don’t expect the rest of the world to feel the same way.
My point is that we don’t know what would happen. It’s why we should err on the side of caution.
IMHO, moving everyone over to civil unions is, from a legal perspective, far more radical a move than extending the definition of marriage. The existence of marriage is often a matter of constitutional and international law, to say nothing of the precedents set around marriage. Only time and court cases can tell the effect that changing over to “civil unions” would have, and I think it’s a very risky proposition to be betting on.
Also, I suspect the work ahead of you if you push for these changes would be monumental. It’s going to involve getting every married heterosexual couple in the country to give up the word “marriage,” and a lot of them are going to fight you for it. Then begin the debates and the constitutional amendments. Amending constitutions is no easy task, and you have fifty states and a federal government who are going to have to do this. And take it from someone whose country has had a lot of constitutional wrangling over the last two decades, constitutional amendments of any kind are divisive and embittering to a society.
That assumes that your country’s internal policies are a high priority for the rest of the world.
I suspect my own country probably would immediately. But I also suspect that, say, France or Germany have more pressing issues. In the meantime, some people are going to fall into the loophole.
They are. The gay-positive countries would be happy to recognize a marriage, but wouldn’t recognize a civil union unless they specifically changed their own laws. Not that I think the Netherlands or Belgium would be opposed to civil unions from the US, I just don’t think changing their laws to accomodate them is high on their list of priorities.
Exactly. A foreign concept. If laws aren’t passed to recognize civil union (which would assume that gay-unfriendly countries place a high enough importance on American internal policies that they are prepared to change their laws to recognize a form of union that they, themselves, do not support), then this form of union would have no weight there, either.
No, I realize that for you, you don’t see it as a compromise because you wholeheartedly believe that civil unions would have precisely the same legal weight as marriage.
I do not share your optimism. This is why I think of it as a compromise. The fact that under your plan, heterosexuals would also run the same risks is not, IMO, a great selling point.
Apology accepted. I was more referring to be people I’ve had conversations with in real life.
Hamish, I think you’re overestimating the difficulty of getting this change in comity laws to pass. First, even if it’s not a high priority for other countries, it’s also not a difficult change either for gay-friendly countries: it’d involve little more than getting a secretary to do a find-replace operation on an existing copy of comity laws, replacing “marriage” with “civil union.” Second, although I generally decry my country’s 700-pound-gorilla attitude toward international relationships, sometimes it’s a good thing. 
US citizens assume their relationships will be recognized around the world, and powerful married couples will raise a huge stink if their relationships AREN’T recognized in another country. The US could easily force this issue without throwing much of its weight around at all.
As for forcing millions of married couples to give up their marriage, I’ll just refer you to my plan. That’s plainly false. I’d appreciate you addressing the proposal I raise and not a straw man.
As for the amount of work getting it passed, it’d be no more than getting SSM to pass – significantly less, if conservatives on the Straight Dope are any indication. You’ve yet to show any conservative that objects to my proposal MORE than they object to a SSM proposal, yet I’ve shown several conservatives on and off the boards that agree with my proposal even while rejecting SSM proposals.
Daniel
Firstly, there’s other issues, too, such as immigration, visiting a sick partner in the hospital, company spousal benefits, etc. As for death, there are some places in the world where the family has automatic rights over property and burial, unless the partner of the deceased is a legal spouse.
Secondly, it may be true that most people never ask to see a marriage certificate. But imagine this scenario: one half of a married gay couple gets in a car accident, and is dying in a hospital. His partner goes to the hospital to see him. Homophobic administrator asks to see the partner’s marriage certificate – which they have a right to do – because he wants to exclude him. Meanwhile, a husband is let into see his wife, without the same proof being asked.
That’s the sort of thing we’re afraid of: a double standard in practice, even when we are, in theory, equal.
I agree, for the car accident scenarios and such, it would be the only answer. But as far as whole-world situations, there are a whole lot of people other than Americans that will have to be turned around. I don’t see them honoring it even if it is legal in the U.S.
The only “right” response is to give all citizens the same rights. Plain and simple. And it doesn’t look like this administration will ever see the light.
Sure, in western Christian tradition. There are traditions in American society that are not based on Christianity, however, and the law really should respect that.
The simple fact is that our current institution of civil marriage is an artifact of Christian influence on English law. But we are not a Christian nation, and our laws should reflect our foundational belief in multiculturalism and in freedom, not adherence to the religiously motivated moral codes of Europe that we sought to break away from when we staged our little tempest in the 1770s. Arguing that marriage has to be monogamous because “it’s traditional” is like arguing that marriages have to be between persons of the same race because “it’s traditional”. Or between a man and a woman.
“Tradition” is not a reason for continuing to do something when it’s been shown that doing it that way causes harm, and further is contrary to the founding beliefs of our society. Restricting marriage to opposite-sex partners and mandating monogamy within marriage are not American traditions. They are European traditions that Americans carelessly imported without considering whether they comported with American founding principles. We now know that that importation was in error, and that the traditions should be jettisoned, but there are those who wish to cling to their irrational prejudices resist doing that.
Again, it comes down to optimism versus pessimism. I simply don’t believe things’ll be as easy as you expect.
I said “give up the word ‘marriage’.” That is not a straw man. That is what you are suggesting. People have an emotional investmnt in that word, and yes, feel the need to have a “marriage certificate” rather than a “civil union certificate” from the government. In the previous thread, Lilairen, who is married, made this point, and you’re going to hear it a lot if you make this proposal off this board.
Ah, but we’ve been working on this for decades. Besides, while the existence of marriage is frequently constitutional, its specifics – including the sex of the participants – frequently is not.
Besides, I’m not convinced that conservatives on the Straight Dope are a representative sample.
No, it’s not. I’d hoped you would refer to what I’d suggested earlier when I told you you were misrepresenting my proposal; since you clearly didn’t, I’ll remind you. One of the key features of my proposal is that all current marriage licenses are grandfathered into the system, and that marriage licenses are issued for twelve months from the start of the proposal. Again, please argue against what I’m suggesting, not against a bad variant thereof.
I’m being no more pessimistic than you, of course – I’m merely optimistic about different things. Whereas you’re optimistic that you can convince the law of the US to ignore religious interests, I’m optimistic that the US has some weight to throw around in the international arena. I’ll let observers conclude which of our optimisms is more grounded it current reality.
Daniel
It’s not a paradox.
You were all about the definitions earlier; why don’t you look them up?
Monogamy is defined (from memory, but I checked this yesterday) as the practice of having one marriage. Colloquially in modern usage it means having a single relationship and no others.
Polygamy is defined (also from memory) as the practice of having more than one marriage.
Both involve marriages, according to the definitions. Therefore, “marriage” cannot be restricted to “monogamy”.
Childfree too, huh?
Of course. I am. Since December 2000.
As the same-sex marriage debate continues to heat up, there seems to be more evidence it’s evolving into an economic, as opposed to civil rights argument. The ‘back of the bus’ arguments don’t seem to be cutting it. The ‘it’s really about economic interests’ argument is often touted by the rightwing in their opposition to same-sex marriage, but unless I’m painting too rosy a scenario, they unfortunately do have a point.
For starters, to the best of my knowledge, since the SCOTUS decision overturned Texas’ sodomy law, there are no legal prohibitions to two adults of either sex; living together, having a commitment ceremony, donning a wedding band, doing whatever they care to do in their bedroom or calling each other husband or wife.
Furthermore, when it comes to legal status, I’m operating under the impression a same-sex couple can; own property together, write one another into their will as well as grant power of attorney privileges with regards to medical decisions and the like.
With the exception of adoption, which is legal in some states and prohibited in Florida, same-sex couples can become a traditional family unit and adopt / raise children.
Divorce? I don’t see how anyone would want the legal right to divorce in court. It’s a messy process that’s best handled between the two estranged parties.
Leaving the private sector out of the equation with regards to pension & insurance perks, both of which can be corrected through legislation - What’s basically left are issues regarding jointly-filed income tax returns, social security pensions & health care benefits; all, pretty much individual economic concerns.
When you boil it down to dollars and cents, you don’t have to look to far to find hundreds of instances where unfair and unequal treatment in written into the law. The progressive, bracketed income tax code that takes higher percentages of the money people earn based on the size of their paycheck is just one aberration that people from Americans for Tax Reform and the anarchist Posse Comitatus rail against.
This is where it all breaks down into irreconsible differences, I guess. I define monogamy and polygamy types of relationships, either one with one or one with many. To me, these terms are not applicable as description of types of marriages. One can be monogamous and not be married. Defining monogamy as the state of having one husband or wife for life is archaic.
If these are your definitions, then you are correct. I would remind you, however, that fusing marriage into both of these terms is reflective of more archaic uses of them.
Mazel-tov!
I did say that colloquially in modern usage it refers to having one relationship at a time, yes? I see the Merriam-Webster actually reflects that usage; I’d forgotten that. (And I didn’t say “for life” at all, so I don’t see why it’s relevant; if you wanted a close paraphrase of what I said, I’d point at definitions 2 or 3; 2 definitely refers to marriage without falling prey to archaicism.)
The Merriam-Webster seems to be your preferred dictionary; check out its definition of polygamy. (I’m actually very fond of the M-W’s “polygamy” definition, as it doesn’t fall into the popular error of mistaking it for “polygyny”.) I don’t believe that it supports your claim that those uses are archaic.
“Monogamy” has loosened up enough to refer to closed dyadic relationships in general; “polygamy”, in my experience, has not, partly (I believe) because words and phrases such as “polyamory”, “dating around”, “open relationship”, and such cover specific examples of consensual multiple-partner arrangements that are not specifically referring to multiple spouses, and partly because it has, in some circles, developed pejorative connotations through a belief that it only refers to patriarchal polygyny.
“Monogamy” is now meaningless. There are otherwise intelligent people who think that “serial monogomy” can exist. This is a completely meaningless phrase. What exists is Serial POLYGAMY.