Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Even if Civil Unions and Marriage are exactly the same under the law calling them different things allows private companies to discriminate (example: treating them differently under insurance policies).  You could add extra laws to prevent that but that would be difficult to enforce and unnecessary.

[rarborman]

The problem lay in the fact that people use the term 'gay mariage' as if it were something different than a 'straight mariage', as long as this is happening it'll ever be right; while I'm here bitching why do we let difference matter?
Its silly and wrong.

[Aequor]

Civil unions may not grant the same set of legal allowances as marriage does.

I know this is generally how it works now, but I'm saying if all the legal allowances and status were equal, as they are covered under the same law, only what the arrangement was called was different depending on the who is getting married.

Er, yes, because if you're calling it different things based on that, it's not equal. There is no reason to call it "civil unions" instead of "marriage" except to vaguely stigmatize it. The fact that you even call it a "compromise" makes it clear that you think there is a difference. If there were no difference, it would not be a compromise.

Ok, I'd say it's a compromise because obviously people take their labels very seriously. If conservatives want to say "marriage is a man and a woman" then why not let them keep their legal label, while the exact same set of laws covering traditional marriage applies to all other nontraditional marriages, only nontraditional marriages have some other nomenclature to refer to them? This is basically the model

We are already making a distinction between traditional and nontraditional unions anyways, by calling it "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" or whatever else. It's just a label, all things equal I don't see why the label is non-negotiable. Is it really just because calling it something besides marriage somehow makes it a stigma or less equal then the same law using different names for different civil arrangements?

Or say, the government stops using the term 'marriage' altogether and all types of unions of the sort are referred to by a generic, neutral legalese term like 'civil union' then people can freely give themselves whatever label they like. This would be my preferred handling of it, as well as abolishing joint-filing and the rest of the tangible legal benefits of marriage currently enables and enabling any two consenting adults to have the same status as married couples.

Firstly, marriage is a term that has a history behind it, and lots of emotions that come with it. You ask someone to marry you, you don't ask them to 'civil union' you. I don't know, a civil union to me sounds more like some kind of business deal rather than the co-joining of two loving people. So for a lot of people, that term does matter. And secondly, there's a lot of talk about 'why don't same-sex couples just accept civil unions?' well the whole point is, you're still separating them. You're still saying, 'no, you're not quite the same as Bob and Susan, you don't deserve the term 'marriage''. Can you believe the outcry there would be if we decided that all inter-race couples wouldn't be having marriages, but 'civil unions' now? What about if all Christians were told that they couldn't have marriages and could only have civil unions? There's no basis for separating them, and by separating them you are still insisting there is something wrong about them.

It's like when you say 'my friends, and Bob'. Sure, Bob may be your friend, but you've singled him out and made him seem like he's something else. It's the same thing with marriages and civil unions, you're singling a group out for no reason other than 'some people don't quite like you'. A civil union may be equal to a marriage in all ways, but you're still separating same-sex couples out like they're somehow not good enough to be called marriages.

[Heron TSG]

Separate but equal is not equal.

Really, I'd think calling it that for same-sex marriages might stigmatize heterosexuals of the same sex that want to have the same benefits as marriage, but would perhaps rather not refer to it as such.

No, no it doesn't. Pretty much everywhere you can apply for domestic partnership. Two people (most states require male/female) that live together and get partial benefits, but don't have the legal bindings of marriage.

[Frumple]

Problem with the "marriage has a history and emotion and yaddayadda*, let's not make it a business deal" is that right now (and forever into the past, more or less), it already is a business deal. It's never stopped being a business deal, especially since it was made a legal entity. It's only become even nominally not one since people stopped being married more by their parents than themselves (Note: This is really damn recent and still happens in many places, including the states.), but the business deal aspect has never changed, just been become likely to be ignored by people too enraptured by their partner's genitalia to actually know what they're getting into.

Incidentally, that's one of the reasons marriage screws many families and relationships straight to hell -- people thinking they're doing something full of love and commitment or whatnot when there is a whole hell of a lot more riding on the coattails of it. And then the divorce comes, of course, and *kaboom*.

In any case, the full realization of civil union rights wouldn't somehow entail current marriage candidates lose their status. There's no way in hell you'd be able to push through something that said marriage is only for white heterosexual couples.

*Not that the yaddayadda isn't important or anything, of course.

--

Anyway, the ideal is to abolish marriage as a legal entity. That doesn't prevent marriage, it just makes it a strictly personal/religious thing (as it should be, really). It would actually makes marriage more of an important emotional/historical/religious step, because suddenly it wouldn't be a business deal -- you wouldn't be making the choice with that taint of legal coercion behind it. It'd be getting the courts out of your bedroom.

But. The trick is getting there. The easiest way to do that (and one of the reasons the bigot bastards are fighting equal-right civil unions, beyond the obvious) is get civil unions across the board entailing full-out the exact legal repercussions as marriage. After that, the argument becomes a lot easier (especially from a legal standpoint, from what I understand) for either naming it all marriage or abolishing marriage (again, strictly as the name for a legal entity) entirely.

It's also a lot more likely to happen if you can get it past the initial bigot bastard gauntlet, because most people don't know or care enough on the subject to actually realize what any of it entails. That's pretty obvious when you consider stuff like Florida's amendment two a few years back, coached as a 'marriage protection' (i.e. anti-gay marriage) law that's only real impact -- gay marriage already being banned by at least two other statutes -- was stripping some rights from unmarried heterosexual couples.

[palsch]

It's worth noting what's going on in the UK regarding gay marriage.

Civil partnerships are (nearly*) identical to marriage in law, but are explicitly for same sex couples. Say I wanted to get a civil partnership with a woman because I want the legal status of marriage without the cultural baggage that comes with it. That would be just as illegal as me marrying another man.

The Equal Love campaign is challenging this on both sides. They had eight couples - four straight, four gay - all apply for the marriage/partnership licenses that they are not allowed. Those eight are filing a joint lawsuit challenging the separation.


* The actual differences pretty much boil down to a ban on religion being at all involved in civil partnerships. No ministers or priests may conduct civil partnerships and no religious content can be included in the official ceremony. This is similar to a civil marriage ceremony, but there is no option at all for a religious same-sex partnership. This seems like a religious freedom question to me; at least three religions in the UK (Quakers, Unitarians and the Liberal Judaism) want to recognise and conduct conduct gay marriages and/or civil partnerships. They are blocked from doing so because the CofE wanted to ring-fence the term marriage on religious grounds.

[Montague]

Right, so my point is that I think the legal statuses associated with marriage be 'divorced' from the cultural/emotional status of marriage. The latter, the government frankly has no business dealing with. The former, only the government can do, because marriage as it stands now is in fact a legally binding contract and the government's job is to enforce contracts. It's job isn't to validate or pass judgment on a relationship. Having the cultural/emotional aspect tied into law is as "we are husband and wife" is basically as silly as the government legally affirming "we are best buddies forever" for two straight guys. (Better submit the proper paperwork to the court clerk if they decide to unfriend each other later.)

People, regardless of sexual orientation or anything else, should be able to create legally binding arrangements like marriage provides, preferably flexible enough to accommodate everybody's intent. They don't need to call it marriage. Leave it up to the couple to call it a marriage or not, because all the government should concern itself with is the legal aspect of it.

Of course in practical terms, this probably won't happen soon, nothing is really going to change with the DOMA still in effect, but when you view it as a legal contract, I don't see why people feel the government needs to get involved to validate or use terms like 'marriage' to define a relationship. Well, I do, but I still think it's silly, both marriage proponents and conservatives refuse to budge on the definition and legal use of the word, when it seems like a good faith compromise could be reached if they could just negotiate the use of the label.

Also, the UK law forbidding a religious marriage ceremony for same sex couples is bizarre. I have no idea how they can even legally enforce that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Also, the UK law forbidding a religious marriage ceremony for same sex couples is bizarre. I have no idea how they can even legally enforce that.

It makes more sense when you consider that, technically, the UK is still a monarchy endorsed by God Himself with an official state religion that has permanent members in the House of Lords. Even though in reality that isn't anywhere near as horrifying as it sounds, it still provides a pathway for things like this.

Now that I think about it, the UK is kind of like a hypothetical non-evil version of Saudi Arabia.

[GlyphGryph]

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/789519/sick:_young,_undercover_cops_flirted_with_students_to_trick_them_into_selling_pot/

This secret police drug busting is seriously getting out of hand.

Reminds me of the undercover cops that infiltrated those environmental groups and had kids and stuff to cement their cover. It's all just terribly sick.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's entrapment, plain and simple. It'll never hold up in court, and if it does, definitely not on appeal.

[Pnx]

Also, the UK law forbidding a religious marriage ceremony for same sex couples is bizarre. I have no idea how they can even legally enforce that.

It makes more sense when you consider that, technically, the UK is still a monarchy endorsed by God Himself with an official state religion that has permanent members in the House of Lords. Even though in reality that isn't anywhere near as horrifying as it sounds, it still provides a pathway for things like this.

Now that I think about it, the UK is kind of like a hypothetical non-evil version of Saudi Arabia.

Yes but the UK is the most is actually the most atheistic country in the world. Nobody takes the state religion thing seriously, and the Church of England's stance on homosexuality can generally be summarized with:
Homosexual: "I'm gay."
Vicar: "That's nice, would you like a cup of tea?"

They don't exactly accept homosexuality, but on the whole they're not very quick to rally against it, and some of the church actually does accept homosexuality.

[palsch]

Also, the UK law forbidding a religious marriage ceremony for same sex couples is bizarre. I have no idea how they can even legally enforce that.

You can have a religious ceremony, informally, but not be married during one. You couldn't read a prayer or sing a hymn during the official ceremony at the registry office or wherever you decide to hold the actual knot tying.

Honestly, the whole line between civil marriages and religious ones is a bit odd and doesn't really fit anymore. Just scrapping the whole thing at the same time as legalising gay marriage makes more sense to me.

And yeah, the UK has no strict freedom of religion (beyond anything brought in by the ECHR, which is such a young branch of European law it's hard to say how far that can be taken). But it's more a sense of no Right Thinking Briton would want to restrict someone's right to worship, or not, as they wish.

One of the blogs I recently started following (a British CofE priest who happens to be a goth) recently posted this speech from the Queen, the official head of Church and State, containing this passage;

It certainly provides an identity and spiritual dimension for its own many adherents. But also, gently and assuredly, the Church of England has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely. Woven into the fabric of this country, the Church has helped to build a better society – more and more in active co-operation for the common good with those of other faiths.

It's a fairly interesting contrast with the US, which has the legal guarantees, but where the all-too common perception is that such a Separation is evil and wrong and a lie. Here the idea of even needing such legal protections just seems like something has gone wrong. When I confess to being a US citizen I often get asked about religion and try to talk about things legally, but people are more obsessed with why people can't just see that it's inherently wrong to impose religion on others.

Reminds me of the undercover cops that infiltrated those environmental groups and had kids and stuff to cement their cover. It's all just terribly sick.

First thing I thought of as well. Just for those who haven't seen that story. Bob Lambert was (until this came out) still active coordinating with moderate (for various definitions of moderate) Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, trading denouncing terror and other such statements for political credibility. It's arguable how sensible or successful this work was, but this has really hurt his (and it's) credibility. Mostly by showing him to be an absolute bastard.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yes but the UK is the most is actually the most atheistic country in the world

I'm pretty sure that title would be better applied to Sweden or Estonia.

[Pnx]

Yes but the UK is the most is actually the most atheistic country in the world

I'm pretty sure that title would be better applied to Sweden or Estonia.

You're right actually. I was going by a study I saw a while back that said that the UK attended church the least of any country in the world.

[Montague]

Yes but the UK is the most is actually the most atheistic country in the world

I'm pretty sure that title would be better applied to Sweden or Estonia.

You're right actually. I was going by a study I saw a while back that said that the UK attended church the least of any country in the world.

I think it would nominally be North Korea, because of their policy of State Atheism and the fact nobody is allowed to suggest they are anything otherwise, so their government is always going to report the typical totalitarian dead-giveaway figure of "99%".