Here’s the logical solution. Give homosexuals all the rights of marriage but call them civil unions or whatnot. But still have civil marriage for heterosexuals. Everybody wins except for those obssessed with semantics or those who wish to illegalize homosexuality.
First, at best that’s a deliberate insult to same sex couples; it’s a way of saying to them “We’ll let mass murderers get married, but we won’t let subhuman filth like you get married.”
Second, there’s no way it would or could be implemented honestly; you’d be creating two separate institutions that would be highly unlikely to even be created equal, much less remain equal. An attempt at a separate but equal solution, as is historically normal in such matters will fail due to the fact that one side not remotely well meaning, and is in fact motivated by hatred. You’d be creating a fake, inferior version of marriage, a ghetto marriage, regardless of any speeches about creating a civil union that’s identical to marriage. Just as the segregationist separate but equal “solution” to race relations wasn’t even remotely equal.
Third, it’s wastefully complex; and a needless, destructive kowtowing to the bigots. Such people should never be compromised with, their opinions should never be given even the slightest appearance of respect. They are wrong, they are immoral, they are evil. Just as the segregationists were.
So; it is insulting, it won’t work, and it is morally unacceptable in any case.
How about this, then? Have civil marriage for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Again, everybody wins except for those obsessed with semantics and those who wish to illegalize homosexuality.
The position of “they should have all the rights of marriage, except call it something else” basically boils down to “They shouldn’t care that it’s not called marriage, because it’s just a word, it’s not like it’s important, but I absolutely would care if it were called marriage, because that word has a meaning, and words are very important”. You can’t have it both ways: If the word is so significant that you can’t bear any shift at all in its meaning, then it’s also significant enough that you’re affronting homosexuals by denying them the use of that word.
I’ve already stated in this thread that this solution isn’t feasible, not because it isn’t logical, but because people like you would be royally pissed at anyone changing the name of their precious “marriage.” My point was that this outrage is completely baseless and emotional. Your response makes no sense, other than to make my point, since you’re essentially saying, “Since changing the name creates no unfavorable impact, then there’s no reason to change it.”
Changing the name of ALL marriages to “civil unions” doesn’t duck the issue of gay marriage, it goes right to the heart of it–i.e., all heterosexual marriages are (as far as the government is concerned) currently nothing more than civil unions, and that’s all that SSM can ever be as well (again, as far as the government is concerned). But we can’t seem to move this forward because of an enormous affection for the word “marriage” held by both heterosexuals and gays.
The fact that there are a majority of Americans who believe that gays should be permitted to form civil unions with all the benefits of “marriage,” but we can’t call it marriage, is so profoundly stupid a circumstance to me that I’m at a loss for words. Permitting civil unions with all the rights of marriage is not acceptable to a sizable group who support SSM, not if we don’t call it marriage (otherwise they’d be okay with it). Permitting civil unions with all the rights of marriage is not acceptable to a sizable group who oppose SSM, not if we call it marriage (otherwise they’d be okay with it). But a majority in both camps support permitting civil unions with all the rights of marriage for gays, but only if we refer to it a certain way. Again, words fail me.
What do you mean “back to the churches”? Marriage was a civil contract rendered unto Caesar long before it was a holy sacrament. Why don’t we just make everyone have a brief civil wedding before a government official to enter into a “civil marriage” and then couples that want to enter “holy matrimony” as well can have a seperate church service just like in France.
I guess my confusion is what most same-sex couples want is the legal rights available to married couples.
I kind of feel like arguing over what it’s called is semantics. I’m unclear as to why people want to prevent others from consensually committing their lives to each other. I’m unclear why people demand it be called this or that. I think there are bigger problems facing our society.
I fail to see how it greatly affects a heterosexual couples marriage if a homosexual couple gets the same legal rights they do.
Plus, I know it’s trite, but it’s hard to take the “sacrament of marriage” seriously when half of them end up in divorce.
If it makes you feel any better I don’t think anyone in this thread has argued that homosexuals shouldn’t be able to commit to one another.
Odesio
I’m saying that changing the name doesn’t make a favorable impact. I do no believe you will solve the problem by changing marriages into civil unions. I do not believe that a significant number of those who are against gay marriage will suddenly say “Okay, fine, they can have civil unions and we’ll have marriages.” I especially don’t think a lot of people against gay marriage would suddenly be happy with everyone having a civil union instead of a marriage even if it’s the same thing.
No, we can’t move forward because there are a lot of bigots who don’t want to see homosexuals with the same rights as heterosexuals.
Odesio
In New Zealand, you can get married or you can have a civil union. It seems to work pretty well, as far as I’m aware.
Really, they have two separate licenses? In the United States all marriages are civil unions.
Okay, so marriage and civil unions in Kiwi land aren’t exactly the same thing.
Israel tried turning marriage over to the religious authorities. It doesn’t seem to work all that well, at least not to me. A significant number of Israelis end up traveling to Cyprus to get married, because their religious authorities say they can’t get married for some reason. The foreign marriage is then recognized in Israel.
What happens if a Kiwi and an American get a civil union in New Zealand, and then the Kiwi wants to immigrate to the US? Is s/he allowed to immigrate as the spouse of an American, or not?
That’s a very good question and one I don’t have the answer to, but I’m sure someone will come along soon and answer it.
At the time that my husband and I married, we considered doing a civil union but it was uncertaintly around this kind of thing (we knew that we wanted to travel around the world throughout our lives) that made us go the more traditional, tested route.
I’m with Odesio - if changing the name is necessary because it makes a difference, then that difference will be a bone of contention. And if it makes no difference, it isn’t necessary.
The sincerity of a portion of those people who say they just don’t want gay people to use the word “marriage” is called into question by laws like the Virginia one that prevents any contract that even emulates the rights of marriage between same-sex couples, and of the bitter fight against the recent referendum in Washington to confirm the law establishing domestic partnerships. (Referendum 71)
Well, if it’s a same-sex couple then the union would not be recognized at all. An opposite-sex couple and things get interesting. Would US courts conclude that a “civil union” between a man and a woman is in fact a marriage under federal law>
Straight couples can choose between getting married or having a civil union. Gay couples are not allowed to marry and must settle for a civil union.
I think the bottom line here is that if opponents of SSM announced that they supported civil unions with all the rights of marriages, it would pass in a second - even over the objections of some who would still want real marriage. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be better.
Don’t hold your breath, though.
You Kiwis have universal health coverage, right? If not, can you get your partner in a civil union on your health insurance?
If a church says it’s OK for a 15-year-old to get married, would we let them do it? If a church supports polygamy, do we let them do that? Incest? Marrying your dog or cat, possibly to each other?
Would we let anybody who wants to perform a marriage declare themselves a “church”, or would there be restrictions?
I don’t think so, because I think that they’d be lying. Was segregation progress towards full equal rights? No; it was a step back from them; it was writing prejudice into law. Civil unions would just be a ghetto version of marriage; it just means that proponents would have to fight the same battles they are fighting now, AND have to fight all the people saying “but you already have civil unions!”