(no subject)

[desh]

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...)

Comments

[metalphoenix.livejournal.com]

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.

[desh]

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.