But what would actually happen, since that’s the point of civil unions:
Bob marries Susan - they and everyone else calls it a marriage.
Jeff marries Steve - it’s a civil union. They call it a marriage. The government doesn’t, they are not legally treated like a married couple, and are sneered at for their ingratitude if they complain about this. Over the years, the gap between civil unions and marriage grows larger and larger, with CUs becoming ever worse in comparison.
You can’t logically expect anything done to placate bigots to be anything but bigoted in effect.
Why even bother with the term “civil union”? It was invented entirely as a sop to the bigots. It’s not like it has any legal value or emotional weight behind it.
I’m really confused. It’s like I’m typing one language, but people are reading another.
What you describe is not what I hope for in the slightest. And I’m starting to resent being accused of it. I’m feeling some friggin’ hostility in this thread.
I am simply saying that I think heterosexual couples and gay couples should have all the same stuff, marriage, partnership, next-of-kin, whatever … everything. And I don’t care what you call it. Marriage - Civil Union - Domestic Partnership - Ball and Fucking Chain. I don’t care.
Marriage is a perfectly valid word for a state-sanctioned union between two consenting adults (of opposite or the same sexes), and I see no reason why secular citizens should have to give it up. It’s not uniquely religious in origin–“marriage” come from the verb “to marry”, which in turn is from the Latin maritus and seems to have prehistoric roots–and is used all the time in non-Christian and non-Judeo-Christian contexts. (“Julius Caesar married the daughter of Lucius Cornelius Cinna in 84 BCE”; “Genghis Khan–then still known by his boyhood name Temujin–married Börte of the Onggirat tribe”.) It’s not like the DMV calling taking your driving test and getting your license “being baptized as a driver” or the electoral commission talking about “the civil eucharist” for the act of voting. (“And then this little slip of paper is miraculously transformed into the very body of the President of the United States!”)
Then you should realize that “civil unions” were invented to create a “second class” version of marriage.
Yes, ultimately it doesn’t matter what we call things. But everyone already calls the union of a man and a women “marriage” whether the church is involved or not. Introduce civil unions into the mix and now you’ve created one form of union for straights and a different form of union for gays. You may say that’s not your intent, but that is what will happen in practice. “Separate but equal” doesn’t work.
You say you don’t care about what term people use. Then just call it “marriage”. That’s the quickest route to equal rights for all.
This is pretty funny. Marriage has been understood to be a union of a man and a women (well, at least one) for time immemorial. Certainly for the entire history of the Uited States and most of Western cultural history. Then sprouts a desire to expand the definition in a fundamental way, and you cry that the term shouldn’t be changed? :eek:
Let me try this … I don’t mean to bring up “civil union” specifically to try to put it in anybody’s face, or something. I’m just trying to think of a generic term for “marriage.” It’s not an agenda, it’s just a matter of not having a thesaurus hard-wired into my brain.
Jack Batty, my heart goes out to you. Trust me, if they sense you might deviate from the scripture a scintilla of an iota, you get attacked. And their frothing blinds them from seeing that you are, in fact, in agreement with them. Funny to see as an observer, but I do know how frustrating it can be when one is in the position you’re in now.
But I must ask you about this statement of yours:
Why is it that you think gays should embrace civil unions?
But “marriage” already is the generic term. Christian marriage, Jewish marriage, godless atheistic Communistic Soviet marriage, Shinto marriage, arranged marriage, polygamous marriage, polygynous marriage, polyandrous marriage, open marriage, traditional marriage, loving marriage, loveless marriage, marriage of convenience, morganatic marriage, and now same-sex marriage.
I didn’t get the sense Jack Batty is in agreement with me. Rather, that he’s stalled on a surprisingly tiny stumbling block that any reasonable person should be able to bypass with a shrug.
Well, you’re being unnecessarily coy about it, suggesting some little unshakable reservation, but… fine, whatever.
Will you be okay with saying “Robin and Pat are married”, without having to inquire about the genders of Robin and Pat? Do you care if some government official does so, also indifferent to gender?
Can a gay-married couple be just a married couple, or is the qualifier necessary?