Are we fighting for Semantics?

[marutidas]

One issue I have been contemplating over the last few days, is whether is important to fight over a Word. The word I am talking about is marriage.

The fundi's want to keep their word fine let the have it, Just make Civil Unions as good as marriage and you have yourself a deal has been my view for a long time. What is Marriage and I am not talking the religious ramifications, but the federal tax breaks and other rights we want , Hospital visitaion, inheritence, and "citizenship status" and the 1000 or so rights we are denied. Would it be seen as surrender or a change in tactics.

Even in South Africa,(at least I think its South Africa) Same sex marrige is allowed and if a church doesn't want to participate, they don't have too. So why can't we do the same thing, If a church doesn't like it, they don't have to participate, Just leave us alone so we can make our own choices.


What do you think?

~~~Maruti Das:flower:

[Daniel]

In my view, anything less than marriage is just that, less. We have already seen that gay people in NJ are frustrated with that state's legislation of civil unions. CT is experiencing the same problem. Simply put, civil unions are not the same as marriage. No matter how one slices and dices them, they offer less rights that those accorded by marriage. They also insulate state government from the federal goverment, that is, there is no IRS recognition of these unions.

The point here is that straight people believe themselves to be entitled to a class of rights that GLBQ persons are not.

But separate is not equal. This cannot be said enough.

[novaseeker]

I agree that under the current scenario "unions" are not equal to "marriage" in terms of legal rights, particularly on the level of federal law (even leaving aside the issue of the DOMA, discussed below).

However, I can easily imagine the federal Supreme Court holding essentially what NJ did, albeit on a national/federal level: namely, that the federal constitution prohibits making the rights and privileges of marriage (whether under federal or state law) available only to opposite-sex couples, but that it doesn't require that the word "marriage" be used to apply to same-sex couples. In other words, I can see the Supreme Court taking the view that as long as whatever the same-sex coupling is called has the same basket of rights, duties, protections and so forth as "marriage" does, there is no constitutional reason why it has to be called the same thing.

The main counterargument to that is that "separate is not equal", but if the Supreme Court says that the rights have to be the same, regardless of what it is called, then I think that the "separate is not equal" argument loses most of its force. I can see a Supreme Court adopting such a stance to make a pro-gay-marriage decision more palatable, by allowing straight people to retain the word "marriage" while giving LGBT people access to the same basket of rights.

The key is that it has to be the US Supreme Court who says this. Having state courts take this position, while a step in the right direction, is very different because when they decide that their state constitutions require equally-befitted (but perhaps differently named) same-sex couplings, they cannot reach federal law, and hence the federal benefits relating to marriage still remain unavailable to same-sex couplings. In reality, it's also less of a nomenclature issue than a legal one, thanks to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, which says that even if a state allows same-sex marriage (like MA currently does), the federal government does not recognize that. So under current law, married gay and lesbian couples are in the same boat under federal law as their civilly united counterparts, thanks to the DOMA. That's why the critical decisions will have to come at the federal level, I think, once we have a better lineup of Supremes and a case with particularly egregious facts.

[Steven E. Webster]

The issue is equality and not merely semantics.

"Marriage" is a word that has universal meaning no matter what political borders one crosses. What does "Civil Union" mean? If you have a Civil Union in Vermont, is it the same as having a "Civil Union" in New Jersey? Will New Jersey recognize your Vermont Civil Union? Does it mean anything at all if one moves to Canada, or do you have to get legally married there? Seems like all this just leads to impossible legal complexities. The simplest thing is just to let us marry.

What is the purpose of allowing us only "Civil Union" and forbidding "Marriage"? Isn't it simply to say LGBT people aren't good enough for "the real thing." Isn't it to say we and our relationships are deficient and defective?

Having been married in Canada, I can tell you that it does make a difference, even back home in Wisconsin. The people I know, gay and straight, treat us much differently and show us a certain sort of respect that they probably would not accord to some ceremony called something else than "Marriage."

Our adversaries are also quite clear--they want to make sure that we don't get equality and so here in Wisconsin and many other states they have banned "marriage" or anything "substantially similar."

It's not just about semantics, it's about equality. As already has been said: "separate but equal" is not equal.

As I've written elsewhere here, being married, and having my employer offer me "domestic partner benefits" was actually insulting--because it treated us as though our Marriage was absolutely nothing, forcing us to sign an affidavit denying that we are married.

Steven Webster

[BenL]

What is the purpose of allowing us only "Civil Union" and forbidding "Marriage"? Isn't it simply to say LGBT people aren't good enough for "the real thing." Isn't it to say we and our relationships are deficient and defective?

This paragraph encapsulates for me why marriage is so important. Yes, I want all the legal rights ... and more. I want society to recognize that my love for my partner and his for me is substantially the same as the love two married people anywhere have for each other. I recognize that there are many loveless marriages out there. But when two people are committed to each other to the degree Charley and I are, they are married.

There is a lot of confusion, I think, between marriage relationships and legal rights. Marriage started out in the western world as a codification of property and inheritance rights. Political alliances were cemented by marriage, with women treated as property or chattel. From the mid-19th century on, it came to be more about love and romance. Sex and offspring are considered licit or illicit according to the marriage status of the participants.

Well, our sex is illicit in the minds of the majority, no matter that it has been decriminalized. By granting us marriage, society is saying that how we express our love for each other -- what we do in bed -- is OK. That, in my opinion, is why most people bridle at same-sex marriage.

BenL

[Emproph]

I agree that under the current scenario "unions" are not equal to "marriage" in terms of legal rights...

However, I can easily imagine the federal Supreme Court holding essentially what NJ did, albeit on a national/federal level: namely, that the federal constitution prohibits making the rights and privileges of marriage (whether under federal or state law) available only to opposite-sex couples, but that it doesn't require that the word "marriage" be used to apply to same-sex couples.

The main counterargument to that is that "separate is not equal", but if the Supreme Court says that the rights have to be the same, regardless of what it is called, then I think that the "separate is not equal" argument loses most of its force.
I guess I never heard the details of the NJ decision elucidated so succinctly. The way you put it, it seems that they're renaming the definition of marriage, as opposed to us "redefining" (the name 'Marriage').

At which point the question for me is expressed below, shouldn't, or at least wouldn't it follow then to just call it marriage if it's the same basket of rights? Why make the expensive effort of creating a universal 'separate but equal' institution, when you can accomplish the same by doing nothing?

The issue is equality and not merely semantics.

"Marriage" is a word that has universal meaning no matter what political borders one crosses... The simplest thing is just to let us marry.

Having been married in Canada, I can tell you that it does make a difference, even back home in Wisconsin. The people I know, gay and straight, treat us much differently and show us a certain sort of respect that they probably would not accord to some ceremony called something else than "Marriage."

Steven Webster

I want society to recognize that my love for my partner and his for me is substantially the same as the love two married people anywhere have for each other... when two people are committed to each other to the degree Charley and I are, they are married.

Well, our sex is illicit in the minds of the majority, no matter that it has been decriminalized. By granting us marriage, society is saying that how we express our love for each other -- what we do in bed -- is OK. That, in my opinion, is why most people bridle at same-sex marriage.

BenL (And as long as marriage is off limits our sex will be considered "illicit," and thus unworthy of sanctifying in marriage. :rolleyes:)
~~
I guess I'm thinking, would the US, if it got to the point of renaming the definition of marriage as consisting of the rights it confers, be so audacious as to institute what will clearly be seen globally as a "separate but equal" policy?

To do so would imply a global mandate, or at least legitimization of a 'separate but equal' marriage policy would it not? Impractical in that we're already well behind on that front.

[Emproph]

In theory, and all things being equal – ie no unfounded prejudice, I don’t see a problem with this arrangement. I agree that things aren’t perfect and this would not be acceptable to our adversaries who demand legal inferiority, but in theory and for the sake of argument, what do you guys think about this proposal?


June 4, 2006

Dear Editor of the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

I submit the following letter for publication. It presumes to be a comprehensive solution to all political problems surrounding marriage and gay unions.


Apropos the protection of marriage and looking for equality for all, and with the love for our children foremost, let us pass three amendments to our constitution.1. Civil unions are open to any two mentally healthy adults and they shall have the same rights and responsibilities as marriages.2. Marriages are between a man and a woman and they have the same rights and responsibilities with civil unions except no divorce shall be granted except for the three A's: abuse, addiction and adultery (mentioned by a essayist in this paper a few weeks ago).3. In the adoption of children, a marriage shall rank before a civil union, and a mixed-sex civil union shall rank before a one-sex civil union and that in turn before any individual. (This has nothing to do with the rights of any adult, but looks to the rights of children to be raised in an enduring home of both sexes as parents, i.e., the child needs an enduring relationship with the same two authoritative figures of both sexes in interaction.)In a word: a marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman but where divorce is impossible. This should satisfy all people who want to promote the sanctity of marriage. And civil unions are open to all to "give it a try" if they want to (the common understanding about marriage today anyway). And the churches can decide for themselves as to whether civil unions are "monasteries of two" (for want of a better term) and should be given a special blessing, or whether a legal inability to divorce be necessary for this blessing and recognition.

The gay community should have no objection because it is not excluded from adoption, and the reason for the preference of marriages in adoption is based not only on the impossibility of divorce but also on the right of children to exposure to both sexes. And so even if a gay union were not subject to divorce it would still fall behind marriages in terms of the exposure to both sexes, and obviously there is no remedy for this for the gay community. Again: it is not a right of adults to adopt as rather the rights of children to be adopted.

A sad note: since adultery, abuse and addiction are ways out of the no-divorce marriage, they have to be discouraged with hefty fines (going to the benefit of the state).

And so indeed let us have one final convention and present these three amendments to the voters and let us then trust in the intelligence and common decency of the people of Georgia and pray for the guidance of God. And oh, let the amendments be reciprocally tied, so that if one is rejected, then all are rejected. For together they make a whole.

Philip McPherson Rudisill

http://www.kantwesley.com/Letters/2006/Letter_060604.html

~~

It seems to cover all the bases, Biblical, societal and hypocritical.

[Steven E. Webster]

In theory, and all things being equal – ie no unfounded prejudice, I don’t see a problem with this arrangement. I agree that things aren’t perfect and this would not be acceptable to our adversaries who demand legal inferiority, but in theory and for the sake of argument, what do you guys think about this proposal?



It seems to cover all the bases, Biblical, societal [B]and hypocritical.

Emproph,

Are you serious? (I'm sometimes deficient in the irony-detection department).

The theory underlying this proposal is that same-gender parents aren't as good for children as mixed-gender parents. That theory is unproven and unacceptable. It is an unacceptable proposal to write discrimination and homophobia into the law.

About divorce--it's time to realize that Jesus' teachings on divorce have a historical context just like Leviticus' teaching on male-male sex. It simply may not apply in our time. Further, if we want to insist on going back to a literal and unhistorical interpretation of Jesus' teaching, then why allow divorce for abuse or addiction?

Is it really always better for children to be raised by two parents who do not love one another and who do not treat each other well then it is for those parents to divorce?

I suspect that this proposal, as it was written in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, assumes that we should write a particular religion's definition of marriage and family into the Constitution. If you have a religious objection to divorce, fine, don't have one! If you object to same-sex marriage for religious reasons, fine, don't have one! But what, exactly, is the reason for enforcing these religious preferences on the rest of society?

If we think society should take a more active role in directing how children shall be raised, then I propose we pass laws to rescue LGBT kids from being raised in Fundamentalist homes.

Steven Webster