Gay marriage: "Separate but equal" is unacceptable

[MSchreader]

I've been following a lot of the discussion here on DU about the question of gay marriage. What I seem to be seeing more and more is a view that finds it perfectly acceptable for gays and lesbians to be denied the right to marry, but be given "civil unions" instead. This strikes me as little more than acceptance of a "separate but equal" arrangement, and I find it completely unacceptable and quite reactionary.

Section 1 of the XIV Amendement says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens, and are entitled to all the same rights and privileges. In my book, that includes the right (or privilege) to get married.

Some people, including some long-time DUers, try to hide their homophobic stance by saying that marriage is a religious institution, and it should be between the church and individuals. I find this to be a false and utterly bankrupt argument. While marriages are generally performed in a religious setting, marriage licenses are issued and authorized by the state. That is, while marriage wears religious garb, its physiology is completely secular and defined by the state.

Thus, in my view, Section 1 of the XIV Amendment fully applies.

Those DUers, and those people in general, who are willing to accept the "separate but equal" position of "civil unions" are accepting a de facto undermining of the Constitution. They are backing a 21st century Plessy v. Ferguson for the sake of convenience (or "ABB", whichever excuse they prefer).

Democratic rights are non-negotiable ... or, at least, they should be. We've already seen the rights of Black voters "negotiated" away in 2000 (and 2004, if you support the view of the Detroit NAACP). Let's not see a repeat in 2004. We've already lost too much to the fascist Republicans and their paymasters.

Martin

[jsw_81]

1. Here's the current political reality:

According to Gallup, the vast majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage. Even among Democrats, something like forty percent are against it. These are facts. Most Americans are, on the other hand, supportive of -- or at least open to the the idea of -- civil unions, something that would have politically unthinkable only a few years ago, even in liberal states like Vermont and Hawaii. Letting gays and lesbians -- I'm gay myself -- have civil unions, is, in my view, a reasonable compromise that most Americans can live with.

I don't agree that it's akin to separate but equal; I have spent years thinking about this issue since it affects me so personally, and I've concluded that the civil unions vs. marriage debate is mostly about semantics and that, like I said earlier, civil unions will be an acceptable compromise that me and most other Americans can live with.

To play "all or nothing" and risk everything on marriage and end up with a homophobic amendment tacked onto our Constitution, increased Republican majorities in the Congress, and four more years of Bush would be an unspeakable tragedy. We'll see legalized gay marriage eventually (assuming the American Taliban doesn't take total control), but in 2004 I believe that the best course of action is to support civil unions.

[foreigncorrespondent]

7. All the stats show is...

...exactly how many people are truly against their own countries constitution.

And the FMA will never pass. If it some how manages to get through Congress it will die in the Senate.

Don't let the fear of what the right is doing, scare you into anything that is less than equal.

[Grave Expectations]

14. I disagree...

I think it'll have a far easier time passing Senate than it does Congress.

There are many safe Congressional districts for progressives, but there are few safe Senate seats.

[foreigncorrespondent]

44. Then you obviously haven't seen...

...Bleachers thread yet. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1163292

[djg21]

13. Nicely Put

I strongly suggest that, to the extent those engaging in this debate have not yet read the decision of the Mass Supreme Ct., they do so. Any less is irresponsible. The decision is published at:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/maglmarriage20304.html

I specifically direct your attention to the dissent of Justice Sossman, an excerpt of which appears below:

There is, from the amici on one side, an implacable determination to retain some distinction, however trivial, between the institution created for same-sex couples and the institution that is available to opposite-sex couples. And, from the amici on the other side, there is an equally implacable determination that no distinction, no matter how meaningless, be tolerated. As a result, we have a pitched battle over who gets to use the "m" word.

This does not strike me a dispute of any constitutional dimension whatsoever, and today's response from the Justices -- unsurprisingly -- cites to no precedent suggesting that the choice of differing titles for various statutory programs has ever posed an issue of constitutional dimension, here or anywhere else. And, rather than engage in any constitutional analysis of the claimed statutory naming rights, today's answer to the Senate's question merely repeats the impassioned rhetoric that has been submitted to us as if it were constitutional law, opining that any difference in names represents an "attempt to circumvent" the court's decision in Goodridge.

I do not understand why elements of the democratic party are so hell-bent on "marriage" as opposed to "civil unions." All this can do is alienate independent and centrist voters, and result in further republican control of our government. There is, however, significant support for "civil unions" that confer the same benefits. The battle of semantics is silly, devisive, and irresponsible! Those on the left pushing this purely rehetorical fight are just as culpable as the Bush administration, if not more so, for creating this "wedge issue."

The "M-- word" should simply not be that important so long as the rights an benefits afforded through a "civil union" are identical in all respects to those afforded through "civil marriage."

[MSchreader]

15. How about separate water fountains, too?

Or separate bathrooms? Or separate waiting rooms? You want gays to ride in the back of the bus?

The slope you're standing on is quite a slippery one. One step in the wrong direction and...

Martin

[kayell]

20. Why is it so hard for DUers of all people to understand

that separate is NEVER equal? How can supposedly liberal, educated people not understand this simple concept? Were they not alive during the struggles of the '60s? So maybe they are young - how did this get missed in their education? Have they not read and reflected on the Constitution?

I am deeply troubled for the future of this country when so many people who seem to think they are liberal or progressive can believe that creating separate laws for different classes of people is ok.

[MSchreader]

26. Institutional heterosexism

It exists. It flourishes in the American culture. You find it in schools, churches and the government. It is on television, radio and in print. Every commercial for a home product, every advertisement for a car, a sporting event or a beer perpetuates it. It is pervasive and invasive. It is, to be blunt, a product of our society.

That is why even some of the best "liberals" here have such a hard time with it. It was drilled into their heads since near-birth. It is only when one makes a decisive, fundamental break with the dominant ideologies promoted in society that it is possible to step back and see things for what they are.

That's why it sometimes takes a revolutionary democratic socialist like me to come here and state the obvious.

Martin

[djg21]

42. A spurious argument!

There simply are differences between a same-sex union and a heterosexual union, and it is perfectly proper for a linguistic distinction to be made between the two, just as its proper for our language(s) to distinguish between african-americans and caucasions or males and females. Making a linguistic distinction is simply not the same as discriminating from a legal or Constitutional sense, and it is not the same as "separate but equal."

This is not about "separate water fountains" or "riding in the back of the bus" It's about insuring that committed gay couples have the same rights to drink from very same fountains and sit in the very same bus seats that are available to "married" heterosexual couples. (Hopefully, on that point, we can all agree).

The fact is that a "civil marriage" is, and should be, nothing more or less than a civil union. So long as same-sex couples can drink from the same fountains and sit in the same bus seats, any purely rhetorical distinction between the two should be legally and constitutionally insignificant. Who cares if the only difference between the two is that the licenses, which are identical in all other respects, say either "civil union" or "marriage."

This is simply not Brown v. Board of Education! And IMO, it is not very wise to insist on the right to "marry" when (i) precisely the same benefits can be afforded and obtained through civil unions, (ii) the end result of your efforts may result in a Constitutional Amendment and legislation that can only set back the gay rights movement by years, if not decades. and (iii) your insistence may very well drive centrist voters away from the democratic party, and potentially restore Bush to the Whitehouse.

[MSchreader]

46. A shameful argument

I will not waste bandwidth making the same argument I have in response to other DUers who have expressed similar views in this and the "Boston Globe" thread in GD2004. But, there are a few things here worth a reply.

1. "Making a linguistic distinction is simply not the same as discriminating from a legal or Constitutional sense, and it is not the same as 'separate but equal'." It is the same, when it is not merely a "linguistic distinction", but a legal one. And, facts are facts: a "civil union" is distinct (read: separate) from a marriage. The state issues marriage licenses. If the state were to also issue a "civil union" license, which is what some DUers -- and their candidates -- have proposed, then there is no guarantee, either implied or explicit, that they will be recognized in the same way. For example, a marriage license issued in Michigan is honored in all 50 states and U.S. possessions. A "civil union" certificate would not necessarily be; some states would have the right to not recognize such "unions". That makes it a legal distinction.

2. "This is not about 'separate water fountains' or 'riding in the back of the bus' It's about insuring that committed gay couples have the same rights to drink from very same fountains and sit in the very same bus seats that are available to 'married' heterosexual couples". If a "civil union" was about "insuring that committed gay couples have the same rights", then why establish a separate legal category for them? I can understand the good intentions of those who support "civil unions", but you know what road is paved with good intentions, right?

3. "The fact is that a 'civil marriage' is, and should be, nothing more or less than a civil union." "Should be", but ain't. Marriage licenses are issued by the state. Regardless of the ceremony, which is where religion enters into the picture, ALL marriages are state-sanctioned. Adding a "civil union" category for gay couples is, again, a legal distinction. If you want real equality, then either call for all marriage licenses to be eliminated in favor of "civil union" licenses -- available to all couples -- or allow gay couples to purchase a marriage license from the state.

4. "This is simply not Brown v. Board of Education!" No, it's not. It is, however, Plessy v. Ferguson.

5a. "IMO, it is not very wise to insist on the right to "marry" when (i) precisely the same benefits can be afforded and obtained through civil unions." There is no guarantee of that. Quite the opposite. There is a guarantee that many states will refuse to recognize "civil unions". Thus, it is a second-class legal category.

5b. "(ii) the end result of your efforts may result in a Constitutional Amendment and legislation that can only set back the gay rights movement by years, if not decades." Fear-mongering, and, for that matter, there is no evidence suggesting this is the outcome. On the other hand, the end result of "civil unions" becoming the standard will be the codification of a second-class citizenship status for gays and lesbians. And that will set back the struggle for equality for years, if not decades.

5c. "(iii) your insistence may very well drive centrist voters away from the democratic party, and potentially restore Bush to the Whitehouse." More fear-mongering. So, what are my choices? One candidate says, "stay in the closet". The other candidate says, "stay in a separate closet". That's a choice?! Thanks, but no thanks.

I am utterly amazed by the ease of which so-called "Democrats" disgrace the meaning of their name by jettisoning basic democratic rights ... all in the name of winning office. But now I can see more clearly why so few Democrats stood up to defend Black voters in Florida in 2000. Truly pathetic.

Martin

[Cronus Protagonist]

58. I think you touched on the only possible outcome of this

The State stops issuing "Marriage" licences and only issues "Civil Union" licences. It's the only possible result I can see, given the unyielding positions of people on each side of the issue.

Certainly, this would also "diminish" the institution of marriage for some diehard Phelpian types, so it is not a perfect solution, but it is, as far as I can tell the only one available that would be workable.

I think most marrried people would actually come to appreciate that they do have something more "special" than what the state issues. They would be to be able to say they're "Married", in their church, in sight of their God as well as having a Civil Union. It would bring the religious significance back to marriage, and remove the tarnish of a civil legal function, so I think, overall, this could also ultimately be considered the best solution as well as the only one.

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[LeahMira]

71. Stand strong for what is RIGHT!

... it is not very wise to insist on the right to "marry" when (i) precisely the same benefits can be afforded and obtained through civil unions, (ii) the end result of your efforts may result in a Constitutional Amendment and legislation that can only set back the gay rights movement by years, if not decades. and (iii) your insistence may very well drive centrist voters away from the democratic party, and potentially restore Bush to the Whitehouse.

Linguistic distinctions? Which part of "citizen" do you not understand?

I don't think that decisions should be made on the basis of whether they have the potential to set back gay rights, or whether they have the potential to drive centrist voters away from the Democratic party, or any other argument you might come up with that doesn't go to the heart of the matter.

The heart of the matter, IMO, is that all men (and women) are equal and have the absolute, unalienable right to equal treatment under the law.

People who are homosexual did not pick the timing for this debate. True, they are gaining rights in two states and one city, but it is George W. Bush who has chosen to make same sex marriages a national issue.

How many issues are Democrats going to give on out of the fear that Bush might get re-selected? I truly do wish that people would stop prioritizing political considerations here and just stand up for what is right and just and fair.

[foreigncorrespondent]

45. That's right...

...the "M" word shouldn't be that important, so what gives the religious people rights to a word? Do they have copyright on it?

[lapislzi]

39. I'm sure if you polled people in the 1930s

...you would have found similar results regarding the "separate but equal" status of black Americans.

To deny a group of Americans any or all fundamental constitutional or human rights, is, quite simply, unacceptable.

Right on, MSchraeder!

[BR_Parkway]

2. I think the argument is more correctly framed about the wording

and what is the most direct route to getting equal recognition for our rights. There are NO laws (current or proposed) banning me from marrying my choice or threatening my arrest should I do so. And I think that some of the discussion here at DU is about rightly moving the government out of the marriage business all together, they should be issuing licenses for civil unions to all, regardless of the genders involved in the couple.

I think that marriage has a foundation in religion and the majority of Americans view it as such. That's the explanation for the huge gap in those who feel gays should be treated equally under the law and those who think gays should have the right to legal marriage. As a homosexual, I would rather spend my time fighting to move government to civil (government) unions for all vs trying to wrest a particular word away from the entrenched religions - with all of the divorce in this country, all the adultery and other abuses associated with "marriage" I want this to be a new beginning, without the previous baggage. I don't want separate but equal. I want an equal foundation provided to everyone, that no religious group can continually attempt to hijack and I want the removal of marriage from our laws because it's been used to force certain religions into our laws for far too long.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=400189&mesg_id=400253&page=

The rights of black voters in 2000 weren't negotiated away, they were stolen and if we ever get out from under the boot of the ReThug controlled trifecta, perhaps there would be some charges and justice. As it stands today, there is only smirky laughter as to what has been accomplished and an arrogant disdain for how much more they can get away with.

When it comes to any group properly having their civil rights recognized in this country, don't forget that every other minority has had a vocal and public opposition to the status quo to be changed for almost a century before the laws were set right (and the ERA still hasn't passed). Gay rights issues have already come a considerable distance in a relatively short period of time. But without a broad public acceptance saying "the way it's been isn't right", we are still in danger of losing all that we've gained.

[kayell]

3. Excellent post

thank you

[tobius]

4. exactly right. Either you support the 14th amend. or you don't.

Look at what happens when the word marriage is tied to religion, you already have a reply calling for taking away marriage for heterosexuals and having everyone be joined instead in civil unions.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

5. Jim Crow gets married?..& "states rights".

You are right on the money on this.

There is a real taste of "Jim Crow" to this "civil unions" approach.

Also, I wonder what people think of the "leave it up to the states" argument?

It seems the track record of the states, when it comes to civil rights and equal protection, isn't that strong. Would a "leave it up to the states" argument say the USSC ruling voiding the various state sodomy statutes was inappropriate?

[Maeve]

10. The "leave it to the states" argument is one of the camel's nose

"If you let the camel get it's nose into the tent, the rest of the camel will soon follow"

Leave it up to the states and SOME will legalize. And if SOME do, the rest will be pulled along in time. Some feel that is the most pragmatic way to achieve the desired end without offending the "pulled along" too much.

Not advocating, just explaining.

[MSchreader]

16. "Jim Crow gets married"

I really like that. Can I use it?

Martin

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

23. Sure!

can i be best man?

[MSchreader]

27. No, but...

I'll mention you in the article. I want to use this as the headline for an piece I'm writing for the next issue of the Michigan Socialist.

Martin

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

31. cool.

sure..go ahead and use it.

Ive done some studying of the history of the postbellum South, so that states rights/Jim Crow analogy lept right to mind after hearing about Kerrys position.

This could have been an opportunity for some real leadership and a principled stand by the frontrunner. Oh well.

[patricia92243]

6. Better to crawl befor you walk than never to walk at all. In other words -

civil unions can be a START - then marriage after people get used to the idea.

It may not be the perect choice - but it is better than nothing. And that is exactly what will happen if your not very careful.

[Spentastic]

9. Hmm

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees?

[MSchreader]

18. It took 60 years (after Plessy) and a phalanx of federal troops

Before Southerners "got used to the idea" of integration. And the fact is that some of them still haven't "got used to the idea" that Black and white are equal.

It's time to break with that pragmatism you seem to hold so dear.

Martin

[kayell]

25. I'm not CRAWLING for anyone

What a nice, helpful suggestion. :eyes: What would your advice have been to Rosa Parks?

[MSchreader]

28. "What would your advice have been to Rosa Parks?"

Probably something like: "Just move two rows back." :puke:

Martin

[JanMichael]

8. Stop it! "They" aren't ready for it yet. Incrementalism is the key.

Prudence over passion and all that...

[MSchreader]

21. I've never been one for incrementalism

And I don't think that first "P" word is even in my active vocabulary. :evilgrin:

And, personally, I don't really care if "they" are ready or not. It's like Debs put it: In dealing with great issues, the majority are usually wrong.

Martin

[Lars39]

11. All right. This is what I posted twice yesterday,

trying to feel my way thru the landmine of possible solutions.

Here's what I posted:
This touches on something I've been wrestling with today.


I think the whole civil unions, justice of the peace, marriage ceremony maze ought to be overhauled, not just because of the need to recognize the right for gays to be married, but to also protect anyone who would not or could not be married in a church. It's possible that somewhere down the line the repub-puritans would try to not recognize ANY ceremony unless it is done in a church. It's not too far-fetched, considering the attitude towards the unchurched.

Would it be acceptable for civil unions to be the only legally recognized contract(?) for everyone? Let church weddings be a very personal add-on option. I'm not talking about a 2-tier system of priviledges, though. I mean everyone would have to do the courthouse routine and everyone's legal rights would be the same.

This solution might rout the repub-puritans from their possibly next goal of targetting the unbelievers. I'd like to think that this would preserve everyone's rights, but I'm no legal scholar. Are there any downsides to this? Would the GLBT community consider this?

~~~~~~~~~~~

Is my post what you are labelling as a long-time poster's "homophobic stance"?
Is calling for everyone to be treated the same with civil unions homophobic? You're stating it is if the states are in charge of the licenses. What if the federal government was the one issueing the licenses?

[MSchreader]

19. I was not responding to you

In fact, I did not know you wrote something on this issue until now. I was responding to some particularly rabid Kerry supporters and their views on the issue.

If the state were to no longer have any role in marriage, and stuck only to civil unions, then that would be another issue. But they will not do that. So, the solution is to make marriage licenses available to any couple that wants one.

And, really, the issue of whether the states or the federal governmnent issue the licenses is besides the point. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, and should be treated as such.

Martin

[Lars39]

29. Is this not the time then for the federal government to step in

and force the states to do what is right to abide by the Constitution?
I don't know all the legalalities, but I'm trying. :)

I was sincerely afraid I had offended and that no one would tell me.

[MSchreader]

34. Yes, it is

Eisenhower sent in troops to desegregate the Little Rock schools. Personally, I think that was the right decision. If it takes sending in soldiers to county courthouses to enforce the XIV Amendment, then so be it.

Martin

[Solomon]

37. Don't mean to rain on your parade, but I find your attempt to

use the Plessy v. Ferguson decision inappropriate. Personally, I don't care if gays get to use the word marriage, but it's a false argument to say to do otherwise is separate and UNequal. Plessy v. Ferguson said that when it comes to education, the concept of separate but equal doesn't work. Why? Because the white schools had money and the black schools didn't. The white schools had better books, better teachers, etc.

In the case of marriage vs. civil unions however, if you gave the same rights and privileges to civil unions as you do to marriages, there is no UNequal component to the situation. It's not analagous at all. And here you're talking about send out the Federal troops and all this nonsense.

I'm sick and tired of these kinds of arguments. Water fountains, back of the bus, etc. It's just not applicable. The best arguments for marriage are when people say that years ago blacks and whites couldn't intermarry. Now that's a good analogy. But please stop with the back of bus stuff and the separate water fountains bullshit.
It's not right.

[MSchreader]

40. Say what you will

But we disagree. This is a Civil Rights issue. If you have studied the history of the debates that took place around the Plessy decision, you would know that a lot of the same arguments you're making now were made then -- e.g., "Negro schools will receive the same funding as white schools", etc.

It took 60 years for white folks, especially those in government, to realize that it was "unequal". You are now asking gays and lesbians to accept the same treatment, based on the same old and discredited argument.

It does not wash.

So, yes, I will continue to make the analogies. The implications of accepting a "second-class" status for gay couples can already be seen.

Martin

[Vernunft II]

51. I wouldn´t be caught dead in a church

so I don´t see what´s "second class" about a civil union.

[roughsatori]

12. I'm shocked at how many supporters of Gay Jim Crow Laws we have at DU

I read their posts, and their rationalizations, and I consider them not only to be enemies of the constitution--but enemies of mine.

One might even rewrite that old saying about many of our separate but equal, state's-rights bigots of convenience:

"With Democratic friends like these who needs Republican enemies."

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

24. ..they are trying to be pragmatic.

....but there comes a time & place where you have to draw the line.

[Lars39]

30. No.

One-sided pragmatism and "drawing the line" is bigotry.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

32. you need to explain that.

I don't see whats so bigoted about saying I want civil marriage the way straight couples have. Thats an just a simple issue of equality.

Otherwise you still have that distinciton: " We can get a marriage liscense. You cannot."

[Lars39]

38. Sorry.

Need more coffee. I thought you meant the *seperate but equal* folks were drawing the line. Well, in a way they are. We've just got to figure out a way around them or thru them.

A version of ,"We can get a marriage liscense. You cannot." can often be heard whispered by the blue-haired ladies, "You know they didn't have a Church wedding, didn't you?". :eyes: :silly:

I wish the progress that is needed to fully recognize GLBT rights were as easy as getting past the little blue-haired ladies.

[emulatorloo]

17. IMHO this issue is going to be driven by civil disobedience and courts

not politicians. People getting married, courts making decisions like in MA, then eventually politicians will come around.

OTOH I also would rather have civil unions recognized and put in to law under a Dem than GWB banning marriage *and* civil unions.

It is going to be easier to get to marriage in an atmosphere where civil unions are accepted. It is going to be really easy to argue that it is just a dumb semantic difference, so lets just have marriage and be done with it.

With GWB plan, we are absolutely no where.

[buddhamama]

22. well stated, Martin

i agree 100%.

[terryg11]

33. Talk to your democratic pres. candidates

they don't agree with you on a personal level

[MSchreader]

35. To be honest

They're not "my" candidates at all. I don't have a candidate.

Martin

[Vernunft II]

36. Correct me if I´m wrong BUT

as far as I know "marriage" is something that´s held in a church, thus depending on your respective faith while civil union is something that´s provided by the state. The government can´t order the churches to marry people if the churchs don´t want it, it´s not within a governments power. The only thing it can do is provide a ceremony that provides the same rights.

[MSchreader]

41. Marriage licenses are issued by the state

That makes marriage a civil, secular institution. It may usually dress up in religious garb, but it is still, at its root, a state institution.

This is what so many seem to forget (or ignore). But, by doing so, you cede the political ground to the Right. Until the state ceases to issue marriage licenses, regulate marriages, etc., it is necessary to defend equal access and equal protection, as provided by the XIV Amendment.

Martin

[djg21]

43. Actually, it may be both.

All states require some sort of service to impress upon the participants the seriousness of the marriage contract. The service may be religious or civil. Marriage thus may be both a civil contract or commitment and religious rite as well. Hence, the difficulties before us.

[MSchreader]

47. Form and content

These two are getting mixed up here. Yes, many -- if not most -- marriage ceremonies are performed in churches. But that is merely a form of the ceremony. There is no requirement demanding that such a ceremony be performed by a religious representative. On the other hand, all marriage licenses are issued by the state, and that is the content that must be discussed.

As long as a marriage license is issued by the state, and marriage itself is regulated by the state, then the question of equal access and equal protection is paramount.

The "difficulties" are the proverbial mote in peoples' eyes. They are a mystifying factor, meant to confuse and confound. But, once you strip away the forms, and concentrate on the content, the matter becomes clear.

Martin

[Vernunft II]

48. So what´s the fuzz then ?

You´ll never get churches who taught for 2000 years that homosexual people will go to Hell (and who made Hell on Earth for them for the vast part of those 2000 years) to conduct a church wedding of a homosexual couple. Not for another 500 years anyways. And there´s no way to force a church to do so, that would be a fundamental cut in their rights to religious freedom.

So why are there so many complaining about civil unions when the civil union is a legally binding ceremony that gives them all the benefits they want ? I mean, that´s the only thing even the most liberal government COULD provide.

I think this point needs to be broadcasted here on DU loud and clear so we can move on and not tear us to pieces over an issue that doesn´t even exist.

[Sufi Marmot]

49. Marriage vs. civil unions: semantics?

As some other posts have pointed out, aren't the equal civil rights/benefits regarding partners that are conferred by the state by "civil unions" the same as those conferred by the state by "marriage". What if you got a "civil union lisence" issued and authorized by the state with the exact same wording as a "marriage license"? Does this really violate Plessy v. Ferguson. I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea whether P v. F pertains only to physical entities. If there's absolutely no legal difference (i.e. exact same wording), does the distinction matter?

In other words, as far as the state is concerned, isn't marriage just a heterosexual civil union? I personally think the semantic distinction between the two is stupid, but if that's what it takes to get people to support it, is it acceptable? I'm straight, and am unlikely to marry anytime soon, so the issue doesn't affect me personally, other than I'd like everyone to have the same set of rights.

Actually, a really great solution to this problem is for states to issue "civil union licenses" to EVERYONE, thus negating the distinction - let "marriage" become a purely religious term. Then there would be no question of "separate but equal".

Is the semantic difference ridiculous? Yes, of course it is, but unfortunately most Americans don't seem to have thought very hard about the issue yet. If you can get the exact same rights/benefits without a messy fight, is it worth it?

Cordially, -SM

[Vernunft II]

50. I´m married and we married in the town house

I wouldn´t be caught dead in a church and my wife feels the same.

[Sufi Marmot]

52. Exactly, and you can call it whatever you want...

Your point is well taken. I think I was being too restrictive when I said "marriage" should be a relgious term. To clarify, it should be defined as the essence of the union that is outside legal sanction by the state. So this definition would vary from couple to couple. Church wedding - marriage. Courthouse wedding - marriage. Tacky Las Vegas wedding chapel wedding with stranger you met in a bar last night - marriage. If a couple, for instance a gay couple didn't want to consider themselves "married", but only in a "civil union", fine and dandy. If a particular church doesn't want to recognize or sanction a "marriage" between two gay people, that's unfortunate but it's not a legal issue, it's a religious one. If some people still choose to define marriage as between "a man and a woman", that's unfortunate, but as long as all couples, heterosexual or homosexual have the same legal benefits, it shouldn't matter.

-SM

[Vernunft II]

53. EXACTLY

And shouldn´t this end all discussions on this matter right then and here ?

[Sufi Marmot]

54. Works for me...

And shouldn´t this end all discussions on this matter right then and here?

That's the solution then. States should say, "We're granting civil union licenses to every couple who wants one, and you can call it whatever you want."

That was simple. Bring on the next controversial issue...

-SM

[Vernunft II]

55. Aye, now our fellow posters need to see the light :-)

All this dissention over basically nothing really should stop.

[MSchreader]

56. If you are proposing to eliminate marriage licenses in favor of

"Civil union licenses", which would be available to all, then fine. That's little more than a change in wording on the actual document. However, that is effectively the same as recognizing the right of gay couples to obtain a marriage license today.

What I object to is creating a separate legal category, "civil union", alongside the currently existing legal category, "marriage" (as defined by the possession of a marriage license).

Martin

[Sufi Marmot]

60. I think I understand your distinction...

If you are proposing to eliminate marriage licenses in favor of
"Civil union licenses", which would be available to all, then fine. That's little more than a change in wording on the actual document. However, that is effectively the same as recognizing the right of gay couples to obtain a marriage license today. Yes, that's my ideal solution - it's a way around the semantic nonsense. "Marriage" apparently has deep emotional resonance for many Americans which will likely inhibit the sanctioning of "gay marriage" as explicitly termed. Sad and stupid, but reality. Universal "Civil Union Licenses" is one way to circumvent this, because it forces people to divorce, in their minds, the legal aspects/benefits of being married, from the social and/or religious aspects. We should be lobbying for this, but in the meantime...

What I object to is creating a separate legal category, "civil union", alongside the currently existing legal category, "marriage" (as defined by the possession of a marriage license). I don't like this either, but what if that category explicitly gave the exact same rights to gay couples as a marriage license did to straight ones. Essentially taking a marriage license and crossing out "marriage" and replacing it with "civil union". I completely appreciate where you're coming from on the "separate but equal" argument. But if the legal categories are functionally indistinguishable, isn't that preferable to no rights?

In my mind, having two labels for the exact same set of rights/benefits, as long as they are enforced equally, is different than, say, segregated schools or public facilities. Maybe it's because the rights/benefits are more abstract, they aren't corporeal other than their effects. They don't require human intervention to sustain them (unlikes schools which need supplies, cleaning, repair, etc.), other than equal application for all parties.

Per your understanding, what would be the legal differences between "marriage" and "civil unions"?

Cordially, -SM

[MSchreader]

63. My main concern

Marriage licenses are recognized in all 50 states, U.S. possessions and other countries. There is no guarantee that such recognition will exist for "civil unions" if they are separate from marriage. Quite the opposite. I expect that many states would pass laws that mandate refusal of recognition. Thus, "civil unions" themselves will be a second-class category, regardless of whether they are hetero "civil unions" or gay "civil unions".

In this sense, the degradation of equality in such a "separate but equal" arrangement would follow a similar path that came as a result of the Plessy decision. The separate Black and white schools set up in the 1890s as a result of that decision did not start out grossly underfunded, ill-equipped and poorly staffed. The same people who helped establish historically Black colleges like Howard, Morehouse and the like also helped set up the elementary and secondary schools in the South. It took time -- not long, but some -- for the "savage inequality" to be rampant.

I can see "civil unions", if they are established as a separate category, going down the same path.

Martin

[Vernunft II]

61. I agree, 2 different documents is a bad idea

Same licence for every couple, whatever the composition.

[Lexingtonian]

57. First, let's get onto the bus at all.

I agree entirely that creating a false distinction of the kind is wrong.

But the reality is this: there are two separable problems. One is the enfranchisement of gay couples with the set of rights. The second is the achieving of the label "marriage" for it. We are silly to deny that our opposition has in fact achieved this split.

I'm not sure that accepting the situation as entailing two successive problems is fatal or different. It will take longer, but realistically even if a state legislature solves both the way we would like it at the same time it would still take a decade for people who enter in gay marriages to be fully treated as equal by all employers, state agency workers, court judges, and the like. There will be enforcement problems, label right or wrong, for years to come.

But there is opportunity in the failed enforcement or, worse, state legislative designs to decrease/delimit the rights of (gay) people in civil unions relative to those (straight) who have marriages in the eyes of the state. That's where flagrant things happen and then the argument can be made about 'separate but equal' with a clearcut grievance and proofs of injust discriminatory behavior and an invoking of the 14th and Plessy and Brown v. Board.

I'm not suggesting that civil-unions-not-gay-marriage laws (and some states will implement them) should be accepted with docility. Each one of them should be met with a "We thank the courageous legislators who did all they could to give us the best and most just possible standing in the eyes in the law in this state, a standing largely befitting the condition we represent and the contribution to society that we make. We are grateful for all the rights that now enable us to do so better- our lives and those of the people who depend on us have been changed for the better by this enfranchisement. Nonetheless, we believe that it is right and just that there be no distinction made or maintained by the state whatsoever between so-called civil unions and marriage, including any labels, and our task now is clear: to move on toward that full equality in practice and in the laws."

[MSchreader]

59. So, what you're saying is

That it's OK for gay couples to be forced to sit in the back of the proverbial bus, just as long as we are all on the same bus?!

Thanks, but no thanks. I thought we all had learned from the experience of the Civil Rights movement. I guess not.

Martin

[Lexingtonian]

62. No

I'm saying that there's no hijacking the bus. In some states at least, the first seats made available at all will be in the back, and we should have some compassion for those gay couples who find that they need the rights offered in a hurry (e.g. one of the partners is dying and there is a child) and don't have the time to hold out for the full entitlements.

Of course I don't recommend c.u.'s over marriage if the latter is possible. Maybe there will be a time window during which marriage laws all over the country vary widely and the federal DoMA is not quite stricken down or repealed yet. Then I'd recommend gay couples get c.u. certificates in their restrictive home state and marry in a permissive state; let's see how the courts handle (or refuse to handle) that.

[MSchreader]

64. Who's "hijacking the bus"?!

By asking for equal protection, all gay couples are asking for is the right to sit down wherever there is a seat available -- front, back, whatever. "Civil unions" mandate a separate seating arrangement. Discrimination is discrimination, even if it is tolerated for the sake of expediency, and should be unacceptable to anyone who believes in democratic rights for all.

Martin

[Lexingtonian]

65. Of course I agree with you in principles

but (1) I started talking about how to implement them into practice given the imperfect legislators and such that have to be dealt with at this point in time, and (2) you keep on emphasizing principles that rest on assumptions on your part that your opponents do not consider sufficiently warranted to agree with.

The brute fact is that most people whose opinion matters in swinging this debate- voters, politicians, the petitioners- don't think that gay marriage is quite the same as the other kind. For one thing, many simply haven't ever known any well adjusted gay people, so the benefit of the doubt in their minds goes against gay people. For them, gay folk can seem to be autistic crossdressers, also to be suspected of pedophile and other aberrant tendencies. And there is a small subclass of gay folk who actualize a fair amount of that in public places, and a few immoralistic ones (who have despaired of homophobia and become mean in their lashing back at the world that fails them so badly) that get an awful lot of publicity.

Homophobia simply used to be worse, and it had its effects on the people who are still around from terrible times on both sides, and a certain amount of it has been passed down as misunderstandings and misinterpretations and normative to people who have no personal insights on the matter. It is still there in people.

It is necessary to admit that we live inside a continuum of history, that the past affects the present in all kinds of ways we wish it didn't, that people come with certain kinds of baggage. The principles involved are far less of a problem than the mental baggage of the past, really.

No one disagrees with you that a priori political discrimination is wrong. But the distinctions between many things are very real, and here we are in a position where certain highly obvious differences have to be argued to be insignificant or unimportant or irrelevant to people with often very narrow ranges of real experience of human diversity.

The hard work that needs doing is simply far below the level of 'gender discrimination is wrong'. It is really about demonstrating in some greater or lesser way that every possible legitimate (or illegitimate, yet desired) rationale proffered for discrimination, however pathetic or ugly or bizarre or dogmatic, is wrongful.

[kayell]

66. Why would you want to give up at this point? We are closer than you think

Settling for civil unions would play into their hands at this point. The FMA is overplaying their hand - the immediate reaction shows that. Having a list of senators already long enough to sink this thing is a very good sign.

If we keep up the pressure, wording the issues effectively, you can expect more people to gradually understand the injustice of not permitting gays to marry and come on our side. More than half of Americans already do not want the FMA, no matter how they feel about gay marriage. That indicates they to some extent already recognize the injustice.

There will be a case reach the Supreme Court sometime in the next few years. The wingers would not be pushing for the FMA unless they KNEW that the case is bound to be decided in our favor. I cannot see any legal basis the court could possibly use to bar equal access to marriage.

Pushing for civil unions now would just be plain foolish, since it appears likely we could win everything. Remember that you would have to get civil unions through all the states that don't already have them. Never going to happen. States would have differnet rules for civil unions, some almost equal to marriage right, some much less, some would bar it outright, some would not recognize other states unions.

So you may say, push for federal civil union rights. And what would be your basis for that? Would you actually want to be the lawyer in front of even this SCOTUS arguing for separate but equal? Remember that the same people who don't want gay marriage, hate civil unions too.

The next arguement for civil unions rather than marriage would surely be fear based. If we push too hard for marriage, there will be a horrible backlash. There will be violence, there will be repression, we may push the US towards a theocracy!

Guess what. There is already going to be violence, just as there has been in the past. Matthew Shephard didn't die because of his stand on gay marriage. Most of the black men lynched in the south didn't die because of their stand on civil rights. They died because of who they were.

We may see more violence from a-holes encouraged by calls like that from the religious nut writer in Alabama. Do we have less courage to stand up to this than did the Freedom Riders, the lunch counter sitters? What is the price of freedom and equality?

Could our wanting gay marriage move the country closer to theocracy? I don't know. I do know that our country is already perilously close to going down that road. I doubt that pushing for civil unions will put it off. On the other hand, well argued, well publicized pushes for gay marriage may just turn the tide in the right direction, rather than the wrong. I think enough Americans are sick of being pushed around by hard core religious right nuts that they would rebel against that possibility. I think they are already starting to realize the dangers.

Part of our difference may come from where we think we are historically in this struggle. I think you see us in the '20s, just barely struggling for survival, looking for the right to exist. I see us in the '60s. We have already achieved considerable recognition. Will & Grace, Queer Eye are popular mainstream shows. People have now seen dozens or more photos have joyous just married gay couples. The wing nuts are starting to sound to many like George Wallace.

We are farther along than you think. Now is the time to keep pushing forward, not to accept a artificial second class status. Once again, separate is not equal, and NEVER will I settle for that. Nor will I sit patiently in the back of the bus, waiting for someone to feel like "gifting" me my RIGHTS. My hero is Rosa Parks, not Uncle Tom.

[kayell]

67. Take a look at the statistics/polls in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1169180#1169215

[MICHAEL_LAPERE]

68. What the constitution was intended for

I am excited to see the courts stepping in and taking a serious look at these issues of civil rights. It may be true that the majority of Americans do not support gay marriage, but their argument is a moral, religious debate rather than anything of substance. They are very well entitled to their opinion, but it is an opinion not the law of the land. If your church doesn't perscribe to gay marriage, then don't marry gay & lesbian couples. The boy scouts don't allow gay members, so your congregation will just turn into another private club.

I am excited to see gay & lesbians making tremendous progress in the courts. The judicial system must step in when the majority of the American people get it wrong. That is the beauty of our constitution. Just like there are checks & balances between the legislative & executitve branch, there are checks & balances to ensure the will of the people at no time flys in the face of our very constition.

It is great to see conservatives reacting as they are. The sudden outrage over Janet Jackson says it all. They are scared of the changing culture in our country, it makes them uncomfortable.
Just an oberservation!

[kayell]

69. Welcome to DU!

Agreed, the courts involvement is what scares the wingnuts. They know they don't have a decent legal leg to stand on. We will see the same process happening as happened with civil rights cases in the '50s and '60s. And the very same people are scared to death of little old me this time. Not to mention the terrifying couple in my avatar. ROFL

[LeahMira]

70. Separate religion out of the state's business?

I've been following a lot of the discussion here on DU about the question of gay marriage. What I seem to be seeing more and more is a view that finds it perfectly acceptable for gays and lesbians to be denied the right to marry, but be given "civil unions" instead. This strikes me as little more than acceptance of a "separate but equal" arrangement, and I find it completely unacceptable and quite reactionary.

I agree. But why is the word such a sticking point? If we were to redefine the marriages between heterosexual individuals who go to the justice of the peace and do not have any religious ceremony, would there be a fuss? Some have suggested that we call these marriages "civil unions" and reserve the word "marriage" for the religious ceremonies. In fact, religious people see their union as sacramental, somehow blessed in a way that perhaps unions before a justice of the peace are not. If they do, why not permit religious individuals to claim their special status, which is important only to themselves really.

If we were to say that a civIl unIon in front of a justice of the peace were required for all couples, and that a couple's subsequent ceremony in front of a priest, rabbi or minister had only religious standing, would the opponents of same sex marriages back off? IOW, if the priests, rabbis and ministers were relieved of their civil authority, would that make a difference?

Although I support calling same sex marriages "marriage" because I oppose even the appearance of a "separate but equal" status, I'm thinking now that since we separate church and state in every other area, why not separate them here?

Hire a few more justices of the peace to handle the additional traffic (job creation!) and leave the religions to do their own thing however they see fit.

Would this be something that homosexuals and heterosexuals could support, and if not, why?