posted
The thing that really amuses me about this whole gay marriage debate is the fact that it appears that the conservative side is prepared to offer all the benefits of marriage, just as long as the term "marriage" itself is not used for gay marriage? Is this correct? And yet it seems like the liberal side of the argument is unwilling to accept this compromise. Right?
If that is the case then this argument hinges on little more than the definition of a term. Yet, both sides seem to think it's the end of the world if their definition does not become the accepted one. It's as if liberals think homosexuals are being terribly, horribly oppressed if they can't call their living situation a "marriage", as if this were on the level of having to sit in the back of the bus or something. And it's as if conservatives think society is going to collapse if we use "marriage" to refer to the wrong thing - as if by calling gay relationships "marriages" we will somehow provoke people to become gay. This is the power of words, or percieved power at least.
I, for one, feel cheated. On multiple occassions I've been accused of making purely semantical argument, and have been told semantics are irrelevant. Well - is this not proof to the contrary?
posted
"Is this correct? And yet it seems like the liberal side of the argument is unwilling to accept this compromise. Right?"
No. Wrong. Because every conservative I've seen who's okay with "civil unions" is unwilling to extend to a couple in a "civil union" the exact same rights -- pertaining, for example, to adoption -- that couples in a marriage would have.
I have so far not seen ANY conservative say that they would accept this compromise.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Not in my case at least. I didn't post in the Cousin Hobbes thread because I was busy at the time.
But personally, I have no problem with civil unions being allowed for homosexual couples. These unions would be (and are, for heterosexual couples) marriages, in terms of what marriage means today in a non-religous sense.
In terms of San Francisco, that is what is happening.
I have always said that I do not think churches should be forced to marry homosexual couples. Sure, I'd like it if they did. The church I most closely identify with (Anglican) has elements that would like to. But I know other religions (such as LDS) would never recognise homosexual unions and I would never ask them to.
But there are two things to keep in mind:
1) A common law partnership is NOT the same as a civil law union, or marriage. Not in legal effect, and not in symbolic effect. So where some anti-homosexual-marriage people argue that common law recgonition will suffice, this is not the case.
2) It depends what you mean when you say "all the benefits of marriage". If you mean the legalistic side without the symbolic side then no, that's not enough. It doesn't have to be marriage before a religous institution: and in any case, the Government cannot legislate for that. But the term 'marriage' does carry a lot of symbolic content. If what you are proposing encompasses that symbolism in terms of life partnership and social acceptance, then I have no problem with leaving the word 'marriage' behind.
However, I'm not homosexual. I don't know whether homosexual couples themselves would be happy to leave the word behind. After all, it does, as a word, carry a lot of power. That's why the anti-homosexual-marriage lobby wish to exclude it from homosexual use. That may be also why homosexual couples wish to use it. But I can't say either way.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And thirdly - yeah, what Tom said. Not only the symbolic issue, but the legal rights would have to be the same for a (hetrosexual) marriage and a (homosexual) civil union.
As a question, Tresopax: what about those church branches that *do* agree with homosexual marriage?
There is a powerful branch of the Anglican church in Australia arguing just that: does that lend credence to the idea of keeping the term marriage?
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you should look at what we do : it's not perfect, but our PACS does work. It opens a lot of rights you have by marrying a person, except for adoption, and you have to wait a little for some (for exemple to pay taxes together you have to be pacsed since 3 years, if I remember well). That makes religious persons happy because of the sacred semantic question, and homosexuals couples have the rights they asked for.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me ask you this then, Tom: If such a compromise were offered would you be in favor of it? If conservatives agreed to give all the legal benefits of marrige to civil unions, other than the name, would that be okay?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because every conservative I've seen who's okay with "civil unions" is unwilling to extend to a couple in a "civil union" the exact same rights -- pertaining, for example, to adoption -- that couples in a marriage would have.
I have so far not seen ANY conservative say that they would accept this compromise.
Then you haven't been paying attention. I've said this on this board MANY MANY MANY MANY times. In fact, I've argued that the law call all unions of couples "civil unions," and that "marriage" be reserved for the participants individual interpretation of the word.
In that resepct, we have gay marriages now, just not in most churches. We don't have equally available civil unions now. I think we should.
posted
A PACS is a contract between two persons, same sex or not, that opens a lot of rights and duties you have by marriage (as I said, the tax thing, the inheritance too, the facilities to buy a house with the two names, and the duty to help the other part of the couple... But not adoption. Still a hot point here.) A lot of homosexual couples do that, but, at our surprise, a lot of heterosexual couples who don't like the institution of marriage or thing they should have a "big marriage" later but still want to have rights as couples.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then you haven't been paying attention. I've said this on this board MANY MANY MANY MANY times. In fact, I've argued that the law call all unions of couples "civil unions," and that "marriage" be reserved for the participants individual interpretation of the word.
In that resepct, we have gay marriages now, just not in most churches. We don't have equally available civil unions now. I think we should.
In which case Dagonee, I agree with your stance completely.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"In fact, I've argued that the law call all unions of couples 'civil unions,' and that "marriage" be reserved for the participants individual interpretation of the word."
*nod* I've proposed eliminating legal marriage myself, often -- both here and on Ornery -- for exactly the same reason. Frankly, though, this is not a conservative position, and you'll find that most people calling themselves "conservatives" won't accept it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, in the interest of being complete, the adoption right I favor attaching to this is the adoption right which arises out of marriage now - the near-automatic right to adopt the spouse's children when the children's other parent has either died or somehow lost parental rights.
This does not extend a general right of adoption to homosexuals - I have not thought about that issue enough to have an informed opinion.
My gut feeling is that there are so many kids that need parents that denying these kids parents is not right. But I also have a gut feeling that, all else being equal, a heterosexual couple should get preference. Of course, all things are seldom equal and many homosexual couples will make better parents than many heterosexual couples. So I don't have a coherent policy choice here, especially since I consider adoption to be less a right for prospective parents and more a right for the children needing it.
Since we're being all agreeable here, I just didn't want to leave a false impression.
posted
Because your analogy gossly oversimplifies the situation and ignores most of the discussion that's already occurred in this thread and it's just getting tiresome explaining it over and over and over again. At least somehow acknowledge that someone has said something in the thread.
posted
Here's a question, if we DON'T change the civil laws regarding marriage to only recognize what people are now calling civil unions, won't you see a lot of social stigma attached to the Civil Union label? I mean, "oh that's for gays" whereas heterosexual couples get "married."
I recommend that the state simply stop the recognition of marriage and start recognizing "civil unions" for everyone. The result would be that everyone, in order to have the rights that accrue current to married people would instead be entered into the rolls as "united under civil law."
Then there would be no difference in the eyes of the law or in the terminology.
And those who want to be "married in the church" could do that too. Just as we do now, a marriage ceremony equates to a civil union for purposes of what the law recognizes. Just change the name from "marriage certificate" to "certificate of civil union."
posted
And please realize the headbanging has more to do with other threads than your post. I'll reply in detail when I get some dinner and boost my blood sugar back up. Sorry.
Yes. I've been advocating this here for a month now. I think I'm going to write an essay on why this meets the needs of all sides.
Dagonee P.S., Still working on my letter to Congress. I see it's becoming a little more urgent. I'll post that when I get it done, too. Although I'm quite swamped for a couple weeks.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew that people had said what I said, and more intelligently, too. Unfortunately, that is my talent (oversimplified analogies) and that's the 'conversation' I envisioned in my head when I read the first post.
I know my answer was basic. I just wondered why, particularly, you had banged your head(s).
posted
I have a compromise for you. How about the government treats all marriages as civil unions.
Privately, you can still call your union any damn thing you want. But on certificates, licenses, court documents, restraining orders, etc, we will refer to all marriages (gay or straight) as "civil unions."
edited to add: Sorry, I should've read the earlier posts.
[ February 24, 2004, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Edit because I posted this in the wrong thread. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
