One of the motivations for brown vs. board of education was that seperate but equal did alot of psychological damage to the excluded group, and it was in violation of the 14th amendment since it denied equality. If civil unions were legalized nationwide (as opposed to gay marriages) would this result in another seperate but equal lawsuit and be another cultural turning point similiar to brown? I don’t know if this has been debated before, but I wouldn’t know how to search for it anyway.
Then again public education is necessary and state sponsored and personal marriage is another, so that would probably change factors alot. And brown was about children while this would be about adults.
No, because Brown struck down ALL segregated public facilities, not just schools.
And marriage IS a state matter, what with taxes and all.
Liberal would argue your first point, I think – not that education is not important, but that it must of necessity be provided by the state. (It might be worth noting that free public schools were a reform of late pre-Civil-War days and after, not a time-immemorial mandate.
Second, the issue is not whether something is provided by the state, but rather whether the state, in regulating personal affairs, may provide for two different institutions (white vs. black schools, marriage vs. civil unions) based on some arbitrary category for discrimination between them.
I’m not totally sure why the children/adults distinction in your last sentence was made – except perhaps that it is simply another point where you don’t see the two as on all fours with each other. Care to expand on your thinking?
I’m pretty sure Brown just struck down segregated schools. Segregated public facilities weren’t made illegal until the Civil Rights Act.
Really? I thought it basically ended the whole “separate, but equal”, ruling it unConstitutional.
From the decision, bolding mine:
Even so, one might contest that the supreme court decision in Brown influenced strongly legislation and other court decisions that would eventually lead to complete desegregation.
Can someone, anyone, explain to me some meaningful difference between a marriage and a civil union, insofar as the government is concerned? Can you point out one real, practical distinction as it relates to the rights or obligations either status confers?
Put another way: Can someone dispel my notion that no marriage is anything other than a civil union, nothing more or less, as far as the government has an interest in it? This includes my marriage, my parents’ marriage–everyone’s. They are all civil unions and nothing more from the government’s perspective.
If equal protection applied to marriage, why would civil unions make any difference legally? A system where marriage is not allowed for homosexuals would seem to be no more legally permissible on those grounds than a system where they’re “sort of” married.
Well, in Cloud-Cuckoo Land, there may actually be no difference. But here in the U.S.A., we have one state in which civil unions are a reality, and the function of such unions was to fulfill a court requirement that a legally recognized state be offered to same-sex couples that gives the same rights and privileges as marriage, insofar as state law can do so.
And guess what? Vermont civil unions are not “portable” – a grand total of one other state recognizes them (New York – though it’s probable to the point of virtual certainty that Massachusetts will also do so, after a test case). The Federal government does not recognize them. The I.R.S. will not accept them as “equivalent of marriage” for Federal tax purposes.
Ergo, while insofar as the government is concerned, marriages are unions which are civilly joined (as opposed to divinely instituted states of life, sacraments, etc.), they do not equal “civil unions” in the law of this land, for the main part.
Maybe they ought to. But in reality, they don’t.
OMG lies. How is that possible when we’ve always started the school day with the pledge of allegiance under god since the time of the founders???
As a child I refused to state the pledge. I never believed in god. I just stood mute. Surprsingy an effective strategy.
Since the current status of gays in regards to marriage is Seperate-Without-even-paying-lip-service-to-an-idea-of-equality I don’t think civil unions would create any more problems that are already there.
From what I dimly remember about con law, the question revolves around what are called suspect classes, and one looks at laws that discriminate against such classes. Unless they pass a very strict test (Which only the Japanese Internment-to SCOTUS everlasting disgrace-actually passed) any law which singles out a suspect class and denies it due process is presumptively unconstitutional. Over time the idea of “due process” has been considerably enlarged, occaisionaly enraging strict constructionists and conservatives, and it is not unthinkable that it would be stretched to cover the legal status and benefits of marriage. Then the question would be whether gay people formed a suspect class.
Of course I could be completely wrong. Perhaps a more legally knowledgable poster like Bricker will correct me. But in any event I can’t see civil unions causing this kind of constitutional scrutiny. In fact, if civil unions grant gays all the marital rights of heterosexuals, it might dodge the constitutional issue altogether.
Let me clarify. I am reacting to the notion (perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I don’t think so) that even if gay civil unions became the law of the land, recognized in every state in the manner that marriages are, they would still be deemed as an inequality. It’s the “I support civil unions for gays, but not gay marriage” nonsense that politicians spout that I am reacting to. It is a distinction without a difference, it seems to me.
So, your response doesn’t answer my question. Apologies if I posed it clumsily.