Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Simpliest Solution to the SSM Debate (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Simpliest Solution to the SSM Debate
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since no one seems to be arguing against civil unions anymore, and no one wants to deny gays in civil unions any of the rights or responsibilites of marriage, the only bone of contention left is the word "marriage" itself. I think I have a simple, straightforward solution to the dilemma.

Define civil unions as marriages.

A simple statement, such as "civil unions will have all the [applicable] rights and responsibilities of marriage" should suffice. (Maybe even leaving out the "applicable" word, since the courts would toss out any unapplicable statues to a particular couple anyway, just as they would with any married couple.)

Perhaps with a small line that states that those in civil unions can fill in forms as being "married" (to prevent everyone from having to reprint all their forms).

Civil unions will be defined as unions between consenting adults of the same sex. Marriage will continue to be defined as unions between consenting adults of the opposite sex.

Gay couples can then, legitimately, refer to themselves as "married," since for all legal extents and purposes, they are.

Traditionalists can still refer to gay couples as having "civil unions, not marriage," since technically they are still called by different names.

There will be no "seperate but equal," because all laws would the same. There would still be a linguistic difference between the two. But it would be so slight, it could be legitimatley ignored at the speaker's discretion.

It seems to me that this would resolve just about all the controversy left in this debate.

Am I wrong? [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Am I wrong?
Well, we sure would find out in a hurry if this plan actually came to fruition.
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
It seems to me that this would resolve just about all the controversy left in this debate.

I think much of the debate on Ornery IS over the linguistic difference between marriage and civil union and what the removal of that difference entails.

EDIT: Maybe not so much the linguistic difference itself but the removal of the linguistic difference between what some view as distinct concepts (though a linguistic difference would still exist even if ssm were granted).

[ November 21, 2008, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: threads ]

Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think this will be agreeable to those who are opposed to SSM for linguistic reasons.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NSCutler
Member
Member # 1403

 - posted      Profile for NSCutler   Email NSCutler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This universal support of Civil Unions only seems to happen in states where SSM is a real possibility. On Wednesday, activist Valerie Mills of Citizens for Families testified against before a Utah state senate committee that allowing gay couples probate rights was a bad idea because it would promote childhood anxiety and obesity.
Posts: 789 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NSCutler:
This universal support of Civil Unions only seems to happen in states where SSM is a real possibility. On Wednesday, activist Valerie Mills of Citizens for Families testified against before a Utah state senate committee that allowing gay couples probate rights was a bad idea because it would promote childhood anxiety and obesity.

Straw man, since no one claimed "universal support" for SSUs anywhere. And several courts have warned that SSUs would simply be a stepping stone to SSM, which is kills moderate support for ssm. What we need is a federal amendment that requires ssu recognition in the states, AND protects the distinction of the word marriage.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Am I wrong?
Yes. You are apparently under the impression that the SSM movement is concerned exclusively with acquiring concrete rights and benefits. This is not true.

Arguably, one of the most significant goals of the SSM movement is to normalize same sex relatioships in the public eye, in effect, to cause other people to acknowledge the legitimacy and inherent worthiness of same sex relationships. It is a question of hearts and minds, not legal rights.

Jimskater's lengthy post in the other thread is illustrative of why any solution but full and total recognition of committed same sex couples as being actually marriage (not merely equivalent to married) will be unacceptable to them:

quote:
You're right it is about the word or, rather, the meaning behind the word. There is something so deeply and profoundly meaningful about the word marriage that gay couples have been striving towards if for years.

It's not just societal or cultural acceptance , or legal recognition, nor is it merely the status of being married. The legitimization included in the institution of marriage includes all of those things and more. Steve & I have considered ourselves "married" for most of the past 20 plus years. Having our status in those quotes for all of our time together has meant one thing: we weren't fully a part of all that is important to us. Our families. Our society. Our culture.

It's the same culture and society every citizen and resident of this country lives in. I'm from a Chicago Catholic family (as evidenced by my 6 siblings) transplanted to Northern California. Steve's family background is Pentecostal & upstate Pennsylvania German. We have the idiot brother-in-law, the troubled sister back east, the niece we treasure. We pay our bills, vote, pay our property taxes. But society still considered our relationship as something less than other committed relationships.

It wasn't always overt, and was usually more subtle. It can be something as simple as saying to your employer, "I have to leave, my partner is in the hospital" and being questioned about it. Rather than simply being told "Go" like the woman in your office who came in and said "My husband just got taken to the hospital." Your commitment to your partner is being questioned, even if your employer doesn't realize it. Suddenly, you're second class, your relationship doesn't have the same value as another.

Or you can be in the emergency room. Your partner is outside the entry, you know he's there, but you can't have him next to you, because the nurse doesn't think it's important. Worse yet, it becomes clear she doesn't think same sex couples should be allowed in her emergency room. You're terrified and alone, and you let the nurse know that's your domestic partner, and by law he's entitled to be there, by your side. The law says so. And she doesn't care. It's another 20 or 40 minutes before he's by your side, let in by a different, more sympathetic nurse. And when you complain, you're told there's nothing that can be done. That your terror and pain are meaningless beside the prejudice of one woman, who should have known better. You don't even get an apology, not the first time it happens, or the second.

So when you're next in the hospital, you fill out the paperwork, the powers of attorney, the designation of your "partner" as your care-giver--that piece of paper that exists specifically for those who don't have family around, that would normally be allowed by your side 24/7 without having to say anything except, "That's my husband." or "That's my wife." And you realize the power and the societal depth of meaning behind the word "marriage."

You don't just want it, you need it. You realize deep in your gut that separate isn't equal.

You see how profound the institution is. It's the one word that opens doors, and, at the same time, precisely describes the commitment you have for your partner. He's your husband. No quotes. No snickers. He's the rock you've built your life upon. The one person who's happiness is essential to your own.

Jim's post should illustrate why even the common suggestion of many SSM supporters that the state "get out of the marriage busines" is one that would never satisfy the underlying goals of the SSM movement. Unless there is official recognition of same sex couples as being married, then society will never see them as such. If the government gets out of the marriage business, all that accomplishes is punt the responsibility back to churches and religious figures, who of course will never call two men or two women married in most circumstances.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Unless there is official recognition of same sex couples as being married, then society will never see them as such. If the government gets out of the marriage business, all that accomplishes is punt the responsibility back to churches and religious figures, who of course will never call two men or two women married in most circumstances.
That's only if you believe that churches have "responsibility" for the word "marriage." Since I couldn't possibly care less what any given church chooses to call a marriage, getting government out of marriage doesn't suddenly mean that churches are now in charge of the term.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
case in point: We Mormons call it "sealing"
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You are apparently under the impression that the SSM movement is concerned exclusively with acquiring concrete rights and benefits.
Not quite. By making SSU explicitly equivalent to marriage, it would in effect be marriage. There would be no legal difference between the two; only one of nomenclature. So when a gay couple would say "we're married," that would be true.

Also adding the line that gay couples could fill out forms stating they are "married" would also provide recognition of their status.

Anyone who would say they weren't married would be quibbling, unless they were making the distinction that married only means a union between a man and a woman. But in every other way, it would be exactly the same.

No quotes. No snickers. Same institution.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lobo
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Lobo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
sealing is NOT the same as marriage...
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
uh, in what way?

we're talking about names of covenants, here. In most churches, the "wedding" covenant is called, "marriage" but in the Mormon church it is called "sealing" for short or ... the long name... the new and everlasting covenant.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward Son, I have been saying the same thing for some time. If gays want to have same-sex unions, let them do so, and they can have all the legal rights of marriage. My only stipulation would be that it not be officially called marriage, which implies a union in the sight of God, with His full approval.

Now, if in fact the real motive of the push for same sex marriage is to force Bible-believers to approve of the homosexual lifestyle, then those pushing for SSM will not be satisfied with the reasonable compromise you suggested. If this is true, then it means the real intent behind the push for SSM is to mount an attack on religion. Is this not what we are seeing with the crowds demonstrating near Catholic, Mormon, and other churches?

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's only if you believe that churches have "responsibility" for the word "marriage." Since I couldn't possibly care less what any given church chooses to call a marriage, getting government out of marriage doesn't suddenly mean that churches are now in charge of the term.
Government may or may not be in charge of the meaning of the word marriage.

But one thing is for certain, if government is not in charge, then the only one left with an interest in the word are religious leaders.

So whether or not you believe that government controls what people think about the meaning of marriage, if government withdraws itself from the arena completely, then there is no doubt that religious institutions will be the only official or quasi official voice left who will have a say.

quote:
Not quite. By making SSU explicitly equivalent to marriage, it would in effect be marriage. There would be no legal difference between the two; only one of nomenclature .
Are you kidding me? The whole point is that it's about nomenclature. If it weren't for the nomenclature, there would be no issue. You're not the first person to make this suggestion Wayward. And gay people have rejected it, for good reason.

quote:
So when a gay couple would say "we're married," that would be true.
Well yes and no. You said it yourself: it would be equivalent to marraige. But it wouldn't be marriage. If it were marriage, then the suggestion of equivalency would be redundant. By virtue of the fact that you must use the language of equivalency , we know with certainty that "marriage" and the legal construct you describe are NOT one and the same.

quote:
Also adding the line that gay couples could fill out forms stating they are "married" would also provide recognition of their status.
Well wait a second. You're saying that they'd be equivalent to married, but the state would actually call them married? How is that going to satisfy the anti-ssm side, who have said all along that they do not want gay people being officially referred to as married ? Or is it your intention to devise a solution that is equally unacceptable to both sides? [Smile]

Or are you simply suggesting that gay people would be able to fill out unofficial voluntary "forms" that said that they were married? Is that like one of those "certificates of authenticity" that they give you for Obama commemorative coins? Or maybe it's like one of those PHD certificates you get in the mail after sending in your $100 "tuition" cheque! Yeah, I'm sure gay people are gonna love your solution [DOH]

quote:
Anyone who would say they weren't married would be quibbling, unless they were making the distinction that married only means a union between a man and a woman. But in every other way, it would be exactly the same.

No quotes. No snickers. Same institution.

LOL! Wayward, I actually have to admire the kind of chutzpah it takes to make an argument like the one you've said. So let me get this straight: the rest of society is going to stop snickering at Adam and Steve because the government invented a category of relationship equivalent to marriage, but not called marriage, but one that's really marriage! And the anti-ssm side is going to be happy too, because it won't be marriage, even if it's equivalent to marriage, and it's called marriage. Do I get you?

[ November 21, 2008, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lobo
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Lobo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sealing is a more general term. Children are sealed to parents for example. A couple that is already married can be sealed. They are not re-married. If someone is married in the temple, it is generally refered to as a "temple marriage" or "celestial marriage" not a sealing.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So let me get this straight: the rest of society is going to stop snickering at Adam and Steve because the government invented a category of relationship equivalent to marriage, but not called marriage, but one that's really marriage!
Exactly. [Big Grin]

Because it is not really equivalent to marriage. It has the exact same definition as marriage, in all rights and responsibilities, as marriage. It has only one difference: "marriage" is only between a man and a woman. "Civil unions" are between the same sex.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there's nothing to stop someone from calling it a duck. Officially it may be a "mallard," but to everyone else it will be a "duck."

Officially it would be a "civil union," but since no one could show any legal difference between it and a marriage, it could also be called a "marriage."

And for forms that do not make any distinction, but only have "married," it would be legally correct to treat it as such.

For those who still need to quibble, it would still not be a "marriage." But practically and morally, it would be.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I regularly mention my "life partner" when referring to my wife, just to make others uncomfortable. See, it cuts both ways.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Exactly.

Because it is not really equivalent to marriage. It has the exact same definition as marriage, in all rights and responsibilities, as marriage. It has only one difference: "marriage" is only between a man and a woman. "Civil unions" are between the same sex.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there's nothing to stop someone from calling it a duck. Officially it may be a "mallard," but to everyone else it will be a "duck."

Officially it would be a "civil union," but since no one could show any legal difference between it and a marriage, it could also be called a "marriage."

And for forms that do not make any distinction, but only have "married," it would be legally correct to treat it as such.

For those who still need to quibble, it would still not be a "marriage." But practically and morally, it would be.

Oyyy vey. I'll give you props for trying anyway [Smile]
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, jasonr, I've heard from several sources that one reason SSM isn't needed is because all the rights have all ready been given to SS couples, primarily through civil unions. So it doesn't need to be called "marriage."

I've also heard that there are some differences.

So, since "marriage" advocates say there is no difference, then legally, completely eliminate all of them. Then we know they are right.

Of course, if there is no legal difference between civil unions and marriage, they can administratively been treated the same. So, practically, they will be the same.

And if someone wants to call two things that are practically the same by the same name, who's to stop them? Officially, they will still have different names.

It's a win-win situation for all the stated goals and positions of the controversy. And if there's something missing, either side can articulate it--if they dare. [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And if someone wants to call two things that are practically the same by the same name, who's to stop them?
Aaargh! You're completely missing the point.

The problem gay people face now is NOT that the state forbids people from calling their relationships marriage, the problem is that society does not consider their relationships marriage.

The point of SSM is to make society change its view by having the government taking the lead. Society has no choice but to call it marriage if legally, the government makes it official.

Having the government grant gay relationships rights equivalent to marriage accomplishes ZERO. It will not make people more likely to consider their relationships marriage. It will not coerce them into calling them marriages. Far from it, the fact that the state refuses to call it marriage will REINFORCE the notion that it isn't the same as marriage. Why make an official distinction if there isn't one?

The blatantly false premise you are labouring under is that somehow marriage is the sum of its legal rights. You are wrong.

After reading Jimskater's post, I find it shocking that you still think this issue can be resolved by tweaking the legal rights available to same sex couples.

[ November 21, 2008, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
You are apparently under the impression that the SSM movement is concerned exclusively with acquiring concrete rights and benefits.
Not quite. By making SSU explicitly equivalent to marriage, it would in effect be marriage. There would be no legal difference between the two; only one of nomenclature. So when a gay couple would say "we're married," that would be true.

Also adding the line that gay couples could fill out forms stating they are "married" would also provide recognition of their status.

Anyone who would say they weren't married would be quibbling, unless they were making the distinction that married only means a union between a man and a woman. But in every other way, it would be exactly the same.

No quotes. No snickers. Same institution.

"Snicker. Snicker."
Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To clarify: Your solution to the ssm debate is to offer up something that is "in effect marriage." In other words, you offer something that isn't marriage, but can be called marriage, if the participants so desire, but it really won't legally be marriage, unless they choose to call it that, but only amongst themselves.

And then you refer to it as being "married" not once, but twice.

"Snicker. Snicker."

You earned the quotes & the snickers with that one.

[ November 22, 2008, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: jimskater ]

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
The blatantly false premise you are labouring under is that somehow marriage is the sum of its legal rights. You are wrong.

At least one person got the point of my post. The societal and cultural respect and import held within and by the institution of marriage is not and can not be matched by an "equivalency."

That's only one of the reasons the CSC overturned Prop 22.

Here's another: In the State of California, a marriage ceremony can be performed by a chaplain, a priest, a minister, an elected official, or anyone deputized by an authorized agency of the state. For that marriage ceremony to be legally recognized, however, it must be licensed by the State. Under the CA constitution, the state must provide equal access to and equal protection under the laws of the state, unless the State can demonstrate a compelling interest to deny such access/protection. Which is why, for example, a convicted murderer or armed robber can't own or possess a firearm. In the eyes of court, the argument "that's how we've always done it" does not rise to the level of a compelling State interest to deny ss couples access to marriage.

Maybe I should buy myself a fiddle, grow a beard, and think up a musical. I bet those of us of a certain age can guess the first song I'd write. But hey, it's been done. And traditions change. [Wink]

[ November 22, 2008, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: jimskater ]

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Having the government grant gay relationships rights equivalent to marriage accomplishes ZERO. It will not make people more likely to consider their relationships marriage. It will not coerce them into calling them marriages.

Just to be clear, you're supportive of efforts to have government shape peoples' opinions through coercive alteration of their vocabulary?
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Well, jasonr, I've heard from several sources that one reason SSM isn't needed is because all the rights have all ready been given to SS couples, primarily through civil unions. So it doesn't need to be called "marriage."

I've also heard that there are some differences.

So, since "marriage" advocates say there is no difference, then legally, completely eliminate all of them.

Why, when gays aren't even asking for those specific rules to be applied to them? Why the hell should married couples have their rules changed, just because some obsessive compulsive wants irrational symmetry?

"It seems to me that this would resolve just about all the controversy left in this debate."

You seem to assume that the debate is only about the debate. You seem to forget that real human beings and their interests are involved.

[ November 22, 2008, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Just to be clear, you're supportive of efforts to have government shape peoples' opinions through coercive alteration of their vocabulary?
I object to courts mangling the law to achieve gay marriage. But if it's done properly, through legitimate means, no I wouldn't object to it. It's hard for me to see a change in the government's definition of a word to be "coercive". Influential maybe. Not coercive. I know that's the word I used before, but that was imprecise of me.

It wouldn't bother me to live in a society that truly accepted gay marriage. As far as I am aware, there is no such society in existence thus far, and there may never be. But gay people are welcome to try to make it happen, within the law.

Since it wouldn't affect my life or limit my choices, why would I arbitrarily object to someone like Jimskater achieving what will make him happy?

[ November 22, 2008, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why, when gays aren't even asking for those specific rules to be applied to them? Why the hell should married couples have their rules changed, just because some obsessive compulsive wants irrational symmetry?

Pete, to address one of your specific rules: when I can impregnate my husband, paternity laws will directly apply. Otherwise, it's just some obsessive compulsive wanting irrational symmetry.

quote:
You seem to assume that the debate is only about the debate.
That's funny, I thought the debate was about the issue.
quote:
You seem to forget that real human beings and their interests are involved.
And when my husband can impregnate me, maybe you'll recognize the irony in that statement. [Wink]

[ November 22, 2008, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: jimskater ]

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems like an even simpler solution would be to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Give us a legal construct that contains all of the legal rights and obligations that marriage currently confers and do away with any governmental involvement in marriage.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coldwarkiddo
Member
Member # 6354

 - posted      Profile for coldwarkiddo   Email coldwarkiddo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anyone in a civil union can already colloquially refer to themselves as married!

It seems to me the issue is about activists wanting to preempt a word solely for the purpose of meeting the emotional need to feel mainstream and perceived as the norm.

And it is an activist situation: when Elton John doesn't see the need to describe himself as married, you know it's the fringe working the legal system.

It gets tiresome when the leftist illuminati respond to activists as Dr. Spock parents respond to screaming children in the supermarket. "Use your words," "why do you feel upset, do you want to talk about it?" "No, I want some candy!"

To grant civil unions is the only thing the government is responsible to do. To bear the weight of the emotional turbulence of a bunch of people who have to constantly be in the spotlight is a waste of government time and money.

Posts: 5 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Welcome to ornery, Coldwarkiddo. You are wrong.

"And it is an activist situation: when Elton John doesn't see the need to describe himself as married, you know it's the fringe working the legal system."

Elton john is not the mainstream. He IS the fringe. On the other hand, people like jimskater are mainstream. He's the guy sitting next to you at work. And he definetely sees the need to describe himself as married.

"To grant civil unions is the only thing the government is responsible to do."

The government has a constitutional responsibility to treat all citizens the same. EIther everyone gets access to civil unions, or everyone gets access to marriage. But you can't have one for one group of people, and the other for a different group of people.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anyone in a civil union can already colloquially refer to themselves as married!

It seems to me the issue is about activists wanting to preempt a word solely for the purpose of meeting the emotional need to feel mainstream and perceived as the norm.

1) Civil unions aren't available everywhere.
2) If people in a civil union are calling themselves "married," and those civil unions are legally indistinguishable from marriage, what harm is done by legally calling those unions "marriage?"

[ November 22, 2008, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward

Your solution is identical to mine, and I think it would work.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, we're down to government of the people, by the people and for the people, but only if they agree with red & wayward. [Roll Eyes]

The problem with your solution is that it isn't a solution. Per the CSC, it doesn't meet the equal protection / equal access provisions of the CA constitution. To say nothing of the societal & cultural heft of the institution; which, as I've stated before, doesn't and won't exist in the case of CU/DPRs, so long as they are a separate class of "marriage".

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The societal and cultural respect and import held within and by the institution of marriage is not and can not be matched by an "equivalency."
Except that my proposed solution is not "equivalency." It is to define civil unions as marriage.

Civil unions would have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage by definition. If there are a change to marriage laws, it would apply to civil unions. (And vice versa, I would propose.) It would be the same institution, only with a different name. The only distinction would be the name.

Same institution; two different names.

quote:
Why the hell should married couples have their rules changed, just because some obsessive compulsive wants irrational symmetry?
Because the rules for married people wouldn't change. Heck, they wouldn't change even if single-sex couples were allowed to marry. Heterosexual couples would still be "married," and would still have all the rights and responsibilities they enjoy now.

And because two different institutions are inherently unequal. Marriage can easily incorporate the "special needs" of single-sex couples. I don't think there is an issue that hasn't been addressed for infertile couples all ready. But if there is a seperate institution, the issues will have to be decided all over again. And doubtlessly some will be decided differently, just because different judges would establish different precidents due to simple differences in outlooks. And those differences would make one better and/or worse than the other.

There is no need for two different institutions. Make them the same, with two different names. Make it so the only difference is the name.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Civil unions would have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage by definition. If there are a change to marriage laws, it would apply to civil unions. (And vice versa, I would propose.) It would be the same institution, only with a different name. The only distinction would be the name.

Same institution; two different names.

If everything is the same except the name, you ask, then isn't it the same institution?

The gay person replies that if it is the same institution, then why is the name different?

You respond that the name is different merely as a symbolic gesture, with no substantive effect.

But then the gay person replies, if you are going out of your way to change the name, if you are proposing the name change as the "solution" to a problem, then priori , the effect must be substantive. If it was not substantive, then it wouldn't solve a problem.

We can go around in circles Wayward, but your proposition is non-starter, because it ignores the fundamental problem of what this is really about. This is not about securing rights. Rights are certainly part of it, they may even have been the reason it started in the first place, but it's way beyond that now. This is about an idea. And an idea can only be expressed in words. If the word is not the same, then the idea is not the same.

You will never ever placate gay people with anything other than full-on outright marriage .

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jimskater:
quote:
Why, when gays aren't even asking for those specific rules to be applied to them? Why the hell should married couples have their rules changed, just because some obsessive compulsive wants irrational symmetry?

Pete, to address one of your specific rules: when I can impregnate my husband, paternity laws will directly apply.
Jim, you've misunderstood. PoP kicks in and shows its fangs when someone OTHER than the husband impregnates the wife.

If you neuter the gender assumptions behind PoP, this could be interpreted as making you the father of your husband's illigitimate children (say, if your husband was secretly bi). This is probably no threat to you personally, but surely you know of some mm couples where one is bi.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Jim, you've misunderstood. PoP kicks in and shows its fangs when someone OTHER than the husband impregnates the wife.
I'll worry about that when:

1) I have a wife

or

2) Someone other than myself impregnates my husband

If my husband impregnates a woman, I'll deal with it via the options available to me. Just like Mrs. John Edwards. I can be tolerant of his failures. I can adopt the child, if the hypothesized "other woman" is willing to give up her parental rights. I can kick my husband's ass to the curb. Or I can use the already existing law to make his life an everlasting hell. Hell, I wouldn't have to use the law to do that. My husband has the same options, in reverse, if the situation is reversed, and I'm the one that has strayed outside the bounds of our marriage.

The putatively pregnant putana has much the same options, i.e. to use the laws already on the books to enforce her rights and the rights of the child.

(If you're going to hypothesize that my husband is going to cheat on me with a woman (a huge leap, given that he's, you know, gay), I'm going to going to call the hypothetical bitch a putana. Deal with it.)


My gender is irrelevant to the illegitimacy of the child in question. More generally, the gender of the wronged party in a paternity case, or the subsequent divorce case (if that's the reaction to the pregnancy) is irrelevant.


If you're detecting a tone of ridicule in my reply, you're right. Because your assumption that paternity laws would apply in a manner that differs from under current law is ridiculous. The underlying assumption that a gay man would cheat with a woman is only slightly less ridiculous, given that the gay man is roughly 100 to 1000 times more likely to cheat with another man.

[ November 23, 2008, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: jimskater ]

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you neuter the gender assumptions behind PoP, this could be interpreted as making you the father of your husband's illigitimate children (say, if your husband was secretly bi). This is probably no threat to you personally, but surely you know of some mm couples where one is bi.
In the heterosexual equivalent of this scenario, the law would have to assume that the wife of the married man was legally the mother of the mistress' child.

Which ain't gonna happen, whether I'm the wife or the husband of the cheating bastard husband.

[ November 23, 2008, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: jimskater ]

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Wayward Son, I have been saying the same thing for some time. If gays want to have same-sex unions, let them do so, and they can have all the legal rights of marriage. My only stipulation would be that it not be officially called marriage, which implies a union in the sight of God, with His full approval.

Even Hindu or Buddhist marriages? And what about same sex marriages conducted in Christian churches that do condone it, explicitly making it "a union in the sight of God, with His full approval"?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
It wouldn't bother me to live in a society that truly accepted gay marriage. As far as I am aware, there is no such society in existence thus far, and there may never be. But gay people are welcome to try to make it happen, within the law.

Using the courts to rule on existing law that should already provide for it, is, in fact, acting completely within the bounds of the law.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1