|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/22/2013 2:54:43 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Marriage does include one benefit which civil unions do not, being called marriage. If you honestly don't think that's important then the solution is to advocate for your crowd to get civil unions and leave marriage to the rest of us who do care about it.
Holy shit. Now, you are whining.
Hmm. I read Steel's comment quite differently. If I'm understanding him correctly (a big if, since my mind is a bit fogged tonight by medical stuff), he's making a point that I've been trying to convey: The word "marriage" is important to all sorts and conditions of couples, for various reasons:
(a) "Marriage" is a rich and vivid term. Say "marriage," and all manner of images come to mind. A "civil union," on the other hand, sounds like paperwork. Kids dream of marriage; they don't of civil unions.
That's only because of the long-term use of the word. I'm sure you recall the days before the television remote. When you asked someone to "change the channel," it referred to an action quite different from what most would think of today. And, that's simply because it was new. When kids dream of marriage, do they dream of religious ceremonies? How many young girls and boys dream of going to the JoP, as opposed to a church wedding? Even in the typical opposite sex weddings, it's most likely going to be a church service in those dreams, and, thus, a marriage.
quote:
(b) It's not clear to me why, for the first time in history, the richness of "marriage" should become the privileged and private property of religion. Surely the nonreligious are entitled to the riches and joys of marriage too.
Marriage is a construct. Did I have to undergo a wedding ceremony to be married to my then fiancee? Not in my mind or heart. Even told her that. It was all about being able to share benefits. Entering into a civil union, would be the force behind those benefits, whether it was a religious service, or a civil service. There are states in the US that allow civil unions and confer the same benefits as enjoyed by those in a marriage.
quote:
(c) Those of us who've been marginalized--sometimes violently--cherish the word "marriage" because it symbolizes our hard-won recognition, at long last, as equal members of the community. I want a marriage, not the half-loaf of a civil union, because that's what my parents and theirs had, as did my straight siblings. Being married, as opposed to "unioned," connects us to the rest of humankind through time and space.
You despise the term "civil union." I get that. Don't you see that a "marriage" would only be a civil union performed by a religious service, as opposed to a civil service? Considering you've already mentioned that your church will perform same-sex weddings, you can have a marriage?
quote:
(d) The "elephant in the room" of the solution you propose is that you're essentially prescribing a radical shrinking of the meaning of one of the most complex and emotion-laden words in the language--solely to appease those who don't want a government "seal of approval" for same-sex couples. You're essentially holding all couples (except the churchgoers) hostage to the bigotry of an ever smaller group and asking gays and lesbians (again except the churchgoers) to remain in a linguistic closet lest a stranger's prejudices be affronted. If you'll forgive me an imperfect, late-night analogy, your approach is mildly akin to my demanding that my diner sell no desserts, since they tempt me to stray from my diet, regardless of whether other patrons might want them.quote:
IMO, you're putting too much emphasis on the word. Both sides are. If we called any union a marriage, would that actually reduce a stranger's prejudices? Sadly, I don't think they would. And, I think it will cause greater prejudice towards same-sex unions, in the near term.
quote:
(e) On a practical note, the GAO told Congress, "[A]s of December 31, 2003, our research identified a
total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which
marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges." As the report elaborates, those provisions are scattered throughout the code. Then there's the welter of different and dizzying laws at the state level. Amending all that to reflect "civil unions" instead of marriages will be no small project. And one has to wonder why we'd expend that kind of time and energy solely to appease who oppose same-sex marriage.
1,138 provisions relying on marital status? A civil union would be the marital status that would matter. I am going to use your argument against you even though we agree that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. If 1,138 provisions rely on marital status is a reason to not change to "civil unions," wouldn't DOMA have 1,138 provisions it impacts? Wouldn't this be an argument against repealing DOMA (and I support the full repeal of DOMA, don't forget)? And, considering that we know there are 1,138 statutory provisions relying on marital status, wouldn't it be not really all that difficult to write legislation to reword those provisions? Even if each provision-change required a full page, it would still be legislation smaller than the ACA.
Currently, you have those supporters of opposite sex unions not be called marriages (or opponents of opposite sex unions regardless of what they are called) dug in to prevent the bastardization (in their eyes) of the word "marriage." They are pit against those who support same sex unions being called "marriages," and those who support same sex unions, regardless of the name. Taking my proposal, you reduce the opposition, from both sides, to pitting only those who oppose same-sex unions against those who only oppose same-sex unions be called marriages (preserving the term "marriage" to mean a civil union performed in a religious service will greatly reduce the opposition to same-sex unions in this group), and supporters of same sex unions.
|
|
|
|
