desh | (no subject)

(no subject)

Can anyone offer a compelling argument as to why same-sex marriage should be legal everywhere in the US? Specifically, why that would be superior, in the long run, to "marriage" being removed as a legal term for everyone, and replaced by civil unions for any two un-unioned consenting adults (of whatever sex/gender)? Because I definitely prefer the latter, but I'm not sure if there are good reasons I haven't thought of as to why same-sex marriage is actually better.

(Leaving aside the question of multiple partners for now, since it raises a different set of issues...)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I have no preference, personally . . . as either option seems to provide equal status.

My own thinking along these lines is some sort of European-inspired system, with the civil union + religious wedding for those that want it.

Since the fundamental argument against "marriage" seems to be religious in foundation, then create a system of civil unions for ALL and marriage remaining in the church (but having nothing to do with legal status). In fact, as I think about it, this would have the added benefit of creating an added layer of separation between church and state.

Yeah, that's basically my thought process.

Me too. I've been saying this for years - get rid of marriage. But it's not going to happen, for many of the reasons mentioned two threads below me. But in theory I agree - the US/state government shouldn't be in the marriage business.

I'm all for calling any legally binding contract of that sort a "civil union" or "civil partnership," and then only calling it a "marriage" if it's consecrated by a religious house of worthip.

Hell, I'm happy with it being "butt buddies," so long as everybody has the same rights.

I think in part, we have a strong tradition and legal precedent for marriage that we'd have to carry over to civil unions (and you know my opinions on law, bureaucracy, etc). For another part, as you just might have heard, there's already yahoos in California staging protests over the fact that their legal documents didn't say bride and groom. Imagine if it didn't say they were getting married. Basically, I think any attempt to turn the government aspect of "marriage" into something less loaded as a civil contract will get all the opposition that recognizing "gay marriage" does, and possibly then some.

By the same token, I'm not sure it would be satisfactory for many gay couples either, because it still gives unnecessary weight to the "well, you're not really married" bullshit, even if "marriage" is a religious rather than secular idea. If you want to get married, you want to get married, you don't want to get "civilly unionized" or whatever ugly verb-form we can come up with (another stumbling block, getting the language to stick), and you don't want to lend weight to the annoying argument that "the gays are trying to take this away from us." Attempting to entirely remove "marriage" as a government institution would throw rocket fuel on that fire. Then it would merit an actual, literal "defense of marriage" framing, instead of a spurious and poorly justified one.

Now, that's not to say I don't think it has a lot of merit on paper. It does simplify the debate if we can move the model away from the loaded word to a less loaded one. It further limits governmental power over private life. I'm just not sure it's a practical solution.

Even absent the political battles, I'm torn. On the one hand, I think removing legal recognition of "marriage" as such is a good idea, as outlined above. On the other, the "conservative" (hehehe) side of me says "Look, marriage is an institution we know, it has precedent, it has a weight. Why screw around with inventing a replacement for something that we already know how to deal with when we can instead simply broaden the definition to a logical conclusion?"

On still another hand, the side of me that realizes it's 1am thinks I'm babbling and not adding anything useful to the discussion anymore. So that's enough of that.

TL;DR: LOL, I DUNNO.

Edited 2008-11-19 05:45 (UTC)

I don't know if you're asking why it should be nationwide vs. state-mandated, but when it's called a civil union and the states are allowed to determine the guidelines themselves, there is no guarantee of unified benefits. Some states may omit things "marriage" at a federal level would mandate.

Also, even if they end up having identical benefits in either marriage or civil unions, the connotation means something to a lot of people. If they're supposed to be the same thing, then why can't they be the same word? While I don't personally agree (I think what matters is the rights, not the name given to those rights), I can understand why this is an issue. In as sense, that idea would be very similar to separate but equal. Yeah, you can be "equal" to us, but you have to call it something else. For many people, that is just as big of a battle. You can win the rights you're seeking, but it ends up feeling like a compromise; and when it comes to equal rights, a compromise isn't really the goal.

As for why this is superior to calling everything a civil union, I think it's primarily because you're not going to get people willing to give up what "marriage" has come to mean, even if it's essentially the same thing.

My personal opinion is that, like many other things, religion and government can have different definitions for the same word. As of now, there are religious institutions that won't marry people not of that faith and that's their right as a religious institution. That doesn't prevent these people from getting LEGALLY married. So a church may not recognize the marriage of two atheists because by their standard, they haven't fulfilled the requirements for it. Religiously, they're not married. Legally, they are. Why should gay marriage be any different?

But whatever, I'm not sure I even answered your question and I'm just rambling now. Basically though, I think it's all about connotation.

Yeah, my point wasn't about federal vs. states rights. (This stuff should probably be kept on the state level, I think, but I don't care much.) And I absolutely, totally believe that whatever we call this union thing, marriage or otherwise, it should be the same term (and same benefits) for everyone regardless of sex/gender. I'm just trying to figure out what I want it to be called.

Is it not the right of every sane adult human in your country to enter into a legally binding contract with any other of their own free will? And is it not explicitly outlined that it is against the founding principles of your country to determine what is or is not within the law by an argument founded on religious ground? Is is not also against the founding principles to declare one group of humans privy to rights not allowed another?

The concept of marriage as used by law to determine rights and privileges is not a religious one, it is a legal contract. Most people in our society refer to the legal contract when they speak of marriage. It should be removed from the auspices of the church and returned to the state. Marriage is commonly used to refer to a specific contract and, I think, should be kept as marriage; it's part of our idiom, it's part of our language, and we should not give it up to the churches because they are making a fuss when they have no standing. However, if we have to use another word, no matter. Union, familial contract, contract of foundation, call it what you want. To do this, however, does open up the idea that unions may be open to more than two people. (Which I think they should be, but I think it's just fine to keep the old word of marriage.) Language has power. Why give it up?

The consecration of a marriage by a representative of a religion is another matter irrelevant to the court. It is as relevant as shaking holy water over a mortgage.

The simplest argument would be there would be less to change. If you remove marriage from law then you have to make civil union mean the same thing--a process that sounds simple but probably is ridiculously difficult. We could simply add an addendum to existing marriage laws stating that the term "civil union" is to be used in all same sex legal procedures that would be called "marriage" between a man and woman.

Of course, that would probably be more annoying than any of us could imagine as well... is there no easy answer?!

i prefer the idea of marriage being opened to all (or at least to most, in reflection to the fine print... that's a whole nother issue to deal with elsewhen) rather than replacing it with civil unions. this is mostly based on thinking about cross-cultural similarities. part of me thinks it would just be odd and uncomfortable to say something like "we're civilly united" rather than "we're married." i just think that marriage, and the word "marriage" have been so deeply integrated into our world, the global world, that it can't just be removed and replaced at this point. maybe if we changed it now, in a hundred years it would seem normal to be "civilly united" but until then, i think losing the concept of marriage would do more harm than good...

i'm not sure if that actually explained any of my thinking... but i'm just throwing it out there.

A rose by any other name? I think it should be obvious that marriage as recognized by the State isn't the same as marriage recognized by [whoever's church]. I would not be surprised if this is more obvious to members of minority religions than to, say, US Protestants. If calling civil marriage civil union helps persuade people that seperation of church and state is a good idea, I'm all for it.

Or were you suggesting decoupling some of the benefits married couples currently enjoy? At the moment, the fact that marriage nominally applies anywhere in the Union is one of the key benefits. I hear it's not so awesome to be married in MA but not in NY.

No, I meant a change in name only, basically. I haven't looked at an itemized list, but I have no reason to think that any given civil marriage benefit is or would be problematic for me. Least of all portability (and by the way I still don't get how DOMA doesn't violate full faith and credit...).

On the other hand, when we start getting into multiple partners, then I think some of the benefits would have to be decoupled. That's why I didn't want to go there just yet.

Edited 2008-11-20 04:31 (UTC)

Though NY doesn't have same-sex marriage (yet - now that the State Senate is flipping Democratic, we can hope), it explicitly recognizes same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

Yeah, I know; I was very pleased when that came through. I probably should have picked some other state, and devoted a separate sentence to pointing out that NY's policy makes MA marriage distinctly different from VT civil union. (I presume MA would recognize a VT same-sex marriage; I haven't actually heard how VT treats MA marriages.)

Can you offer a compelling argument why they shouldn't be? An argument that isn't based on any religion...

Sam: In 1787, there was a sizable block of delegates who were initially opposed to the Bill of Rights. This is what a member of the Georgia delegation had to say by way of opposition; 'If we list a set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no others.' So the Framers knew...
Harrison: Were you just calling me a fool, Mr. Seaborn?
Sam: I wasn't calling you a fool, sir. The brand new state of Georgia was.
-The Best Show Ever

I don't know. I think the idea of getting rid of a loaded word and replacing it with a less-loaded one might have merit all on its own, regardless of why it's loaded.

That was the best show ever, for real. And when are we hanging out?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only