I thought that must be it.
You told us the two sets.
In one set, you’re 18 and have a license and you’re allowed to drive at night. In another set, you’re 17 and have a license, and you’re not allowed to drive at night. Separate situations, funneled in separate directions, all based on a difference of a year’s age. The law treats these two groups differently.
Sure, the second group can jump through an additional hoop–taking a driver’s ed course–in order to gain equal treatment. But all things being equal, the two sets are treated differently.
And that’s fine, because there are some specific, relevant differences between 18-year-olds and 17-year-olds. Discrimination isn’t always bad. But it’s incumbent on you to show why it’s appropriate in a particular case.
Now I addressed your challenge, I’d appreciate you to address mine: what do you see as the core values of marriage that make it special? Is your marriage mostly about which genitalia you and your spouse have, or is it mostly about something else?
Edit: to clarify, when the phrase “separate but equal” is used, it’s nearly always in a pejorative sense, implying that “equal” is anything but. So my analysis above doesn’t point out that the law treats the two groups unequally, since that’s implied sarcastically by the phrase.
No, you haven’t addressed my challenge. You’ve not identified two different sets of laws. Even your latest post you use language that shows that there is just the one set of laws:
“The law” is, you’ll notice, singular. That is correct. And you then correctly identify that two groups are being effected. And they are, but they are not being effected dissimilarly. Both groups are still subject yo the same one (1) set of traffic laws.
Remember what is meant by SbE. It had to do with segregation. One side argued that blacks and whites didn’t need to integrate because blacks and whites could go to schools that were “separate, but equal”. One could go to Westside High, the other Eastside High—two different schools. That is not what I’ve been talking about. I’ve been talking about ONE set of traffic laws.
One set of laws could have same sex couples marry too.
This dodge is especially worthless. Separate but equal is what you’re advocating. Flailing around about the number of laws, is simply a distraction.
You are saying X and then saying you are not saying X. I think it’s safe to say that exactly zero people are fooled by this.
Can we get a sound off? Does anyone think the arguments being made by Magellan are anything but noise? Anyone?
This is rich. I had no idea you were so insecure in your position that you needed a crowd to be part of. Yet one more difference between you and me, I guess.
Now, if you think what I’m advocating is SbE, prove it. Show me those two sets of laws. Of course this is impossible as I am advocating one set. But hey, knock yourself out. And feel free to call all your friend over your house to help you, too.
::shaking head and snickering:: Unbelievable.
The “marriage” laws for straights, and the “THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT MARRIAGE” laws for gays? Jim Crow was “one set of laws” too. The laws of Mississippi were one code that said what white people could do and what black people could do. This is exactly the same. The fact that the laws can all be written in one book is beyond irrelevant. Who is fooled by this?
What? “The law” is a phrase that means “the entire body of law applicable within the jurisdiction.” I meant that sentence in the same way I might say that “the law treated black and white people differently in Jim Crow South.”
In any case, I don’t consider this point to be relevant. Clearly you’re suggesting that in one key respect the law treats gay and straight people differently: the law calls SSM “civil union,” whereas it calls OSM “marriage.” Surely that’s part of the law you propose, and surely you see that in this respect if no other, the law is treating the two differently?
Edit: maybe this is the problem after all. When you suggest that separate but equal doesn’t apply, perhaps you think that phrase means there’s two sets of law? It’s not what it means: it means that one set of law treats different people differently.
He’s very careful to keep saying “one set of laws” (emphasis added). Of course, a venue’s entire legal code could be considered “one set of laws”, too, even if Section XI, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph (a) started: “All darkies must be out of town by sunset…”
It’s not bigotry, it’s ONE SET OF LAWS. Obviously.
I was hoping that you’d realize that if literally dozens of people are telling you that you’re wrong on a basic, simple concept that is unambiguous and without subtlety, that you’d accept you might be off base.
Look, I can’t make you think. But I can try to show you that you’re caught up in a mental spin and aren’t seeing this correctly.
You are advocating* separate but equal* because you are saying that different groups have separate marriage laws, but you want them to be equal.
One set of laws could be, “Any two people who are over 16 (or whatever) can get married as long as neither one is currently married to anyone else.” There, one law! Having one law treat two sets of people differently is just as possible. Why are you holding up the number of discrete laws as some sort of talisman that protects you from charges of bigotry? It makes no sense.
The number of laws doesn’t matter. The way the government treats its people matter. Look, I know it sucks to be openly wrong. But doubling down doesn’t make it better. If you are actually able to see that you’re off base, admit it and it will end.
Yeah, is he thinking that it can’t be bigotry if it’s in the same sentence or something?
Or the same paragraph? Same section? Aarrgh!111
Easy. One set of laws says “You must be 18 to have the standard laws apply to you.” The other set says “If you are under 18, you must pass additional tests to qualify for the standard laws.”
The category test itself is part of the set of laws affecting the group it pertains to, therefore two categories equals two sets of laws.
In exactly the same way as the school laws and standards were ostensibly the same for blacks and whites, except for the single differentiation of the physical location to which those laws pertained.
You are advocating two separate labels, with two separate qualifiers. The fact that in your initial proposal those two labels are both pointers to the same body of rules does not change either of the following two facts:
-
having two separate labels with tests to discriminate who is permitted to use one vs. the other amounts to two separate legal structures, with different points of access. The fact that a Chrysler 300 and a Dodge Charger both are built on the Chrysler LX platform with two different body styles doesn’t make them the same car, even if they’re so similar they share a single Technical Bulletin and Recall notification list.
-
having two separate labels makes it trivially legally easy to change one but not the other. “All instances of ‘marriage or civil union’ in US Code Blah are amended to read ‘marriage’, and add the following: ‘all people in civil unions are required to report to their local precinct office to have their genitals kicked in by a cop once a week’.”
If you don’t understand these concepts, it’s really hard to understand how this discussion can go anywhere, especially as this appears to be the only point you’re addressing.
The point is that for the SbE accusation to apply here, there would need to be sets two sets of laws (maybe “legal benefits” would be clearer).
Think about the segregation case again. There were two groups, blacks and whites. Segregationists argued that instead of having the schools integrated, black kids and white kids could get equal educations by going to “separate but equal” schools. This argument, as we know, was defeated, the thinking being that Westside High could provide black kids an equal education as white kids in Eastside High.
I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I’m suggesting ONE set of legal benefits that are reserved for two groups—hetero couples joined through marriage and SSM couples joined through a civil union (or whatever other name, other then “marriage”, one might come up with).
I hope using the term “legal benefits” helps. At least I think it helps people see that I’m not executing some dodge be trying to hide myriad sets of legal benefits inside one huge set of state or federal laws.
No. You’re completely wrong. That is NOT what I’m saying at all. I suggest you read more closely.
Yes, I can certainly see how you would know that.
Again, those two groups of kids were under the same sets of laws, merely in different physical buildings. Yet somehow they ended up in wildly different conditions, which we term “separate but equal”.
My foster son got his license a few days after his 17th birthday, having completed a driver’s education class. There was absolutely no indication that he fell into class 2 above, other than his age prior to turning 18. He did not have a junior operator’s license or driver’s-education-qualified operator’s license; it was a full-fledged normal operator’s (driver’s) license. It was in no way separate but equal.
Now, let me refresh your memory. In a pit thread of about six months ago, you emphasized this one set of laws point. Someone (Left Hand of Dorkness IIRC, but I may be mistaken) tried to make the point to you that such a set of laws is easily amended to make them no longer equal. With all due respect, it appeared to me you handwaved that point away (and I will admit my error if you did in fact substantively address it). To emphasize the point, let me set up a hypothetical:
Section one. Two persons of opposite sex from each other who are not presently married to another, not within the prohibited bounds of consanguinity, and who have attained the age of eighteen years, or have attained the age of sixteen years and received the consent of the parents of any partner younger than eighteen and of a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction, may contract marriage with each other as specified in [insert codified statute number here].
Section two. Two persons of the same sex as each other who otherwise meet the criteria set forth in section one may contract a civil union with each other, as specified in [insert codified statute number here].
Section three. All rights, privileges, duties, and prerogatives appertaining to married couples shall apply in equal measure to the partners in a civil union, including but not limited to those enumerated in Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto.
This is the sort of single set of laws you meant, right?
Because there is absolutely nothing stopping the legislature from, a month later or even the next day, amending the above to read:
Section three shall not be construed to mean that same-sex couples in a civil union are automatically each other’s next of kin, nor that they have the right to file joint tax returns with the state, nor may they own property as tenants by the entireties, nor may they adopt children.
See the problem now? Even with goodwill on the part of the legislative majority passing Sections one through three, they are not able to ensure that some of their number will not join with the minority to pass section four. And they are absolutely forbidden from binding the next legislative session from changing something they passed.
Yeah, Lobo, geez… He’s not saying the groups will have different marriage laws. He’s saying straight people will have marriage law and gays will have civil union law, making up ONE set of laws.
Of course, marriage law is identical to civil union law in all respects except the name. How do I know this? Because it’s ONE SET OF LAWS.
I mean, honestly… I can’t imagine how magellan could possibly explain it any simpler.
But I’m sure he’ll try.
Magellan, how are same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples going to get different types of legal union without there being laws differentiating between them? ‘Set of laws’ means ‘more than one law,’ so within that ‘set of laws’ there must be laws laying out which genders can have which unions. (Now I have semantic satiation on the word law.)
I’m not disparaging you by saying your argument is a separate-but-equal one, btw; I don’t think separate-but-equal is always a negative thing.
I just re-read the post again and I’m not sure what your challenge actually is - I don’t see any questions or challenges there. But I am tired and may be misreading you.
I don’t get the challenge, either. Under the rules described, 17 year-olds need an extra qualification, but once that is met, they get the same road access as 18+ year-olds. One could argue that the need for the qualification is unfair, I expect unsuccessfully given the prevailing social need for safer roads and the demonstrable evidence that younger drivers are in aggregate less skilled, but in the end the 17 year-old can drive anywhere the 18 year-old can.
However under magellan’s proposal, a gay couple does not get full access to the same “road” as the straight couple. The gay couple gets the legal status of “civil union”, while the straight couple gets the legal status of “married”, and his reassurance that these two statuses will be exactly equal in privileges and responsibilities is unconvincing, for reasons that I and numerous others have cited for the potential of later revision by legislators or abuse by officials, with the historical example of segregated schools that were “equal” on paper, but in practice suffered disparities in funding - not intentionally were the pleas of white school board administrators - it just happens that way.
I agree that you’re not trying a dodge; I believe you’re totally sincere in wanting the two sets of rights to be equal in every way. That’s not the point of disagreement.
Could you address my earlier question about what’s central to the concept of marriage? Again: what do you see as the core values of marriage that make it special? Is your marriage mostly about which genitalia you and your spouse have, or is it mostly about something else?