Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
The tide of marriage for same-sex couples has ebbed and flowed over the last decade with no end in sight. Because marriage sits squarely at the intersection of religion, law and society, the discussion around same-sex couples’ inclusion into the institution of marriage has been one of the most complex and hotly contested topics in America.
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
If only that were true.
OK But
Why couldn't a Civil union have the same benefits? Just don't call it marriage and it will keep the anti Gay Marriage crowd happy. Regardless, you have to take what you can get one step at a time. If you do that you will get less resistance from the anti Gay Marriage crowd. I think the Gay Rights movement's all or nothing militant attitude does more harm than good and will make the reality of a true equitable Civil Union take longer and more difficult to achieve. Stealth achieves more than Brute Force. As a non Gay among other non Gays I can probably see that better than a Gay person can. I'm on your side. I just think you are using the wrong tactics.
- tbcass
January 26, 2009 1:04PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Illusion of Satisfcation
There's no dispute that a civil union could have the same benefits. The question, however, lies in the wording.
"Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do." (from the same source cited earlier)
Is it such a long stretch to see "civil union" become a derogatory term?
Starting out with "civil union" may bring the illusion of satisfaction. In this hypothetical situation, once lawmakers confer the same provisions that come with marriages, they could argue that civil unions are "good enough", failing to fully realize how a mere word can invite discrimination.
Same-sex marriages were already allowed in parts of the world before the 21st century*. Why do we have to fight for the exact same rights again?
*See: Virginia Law Review vol. 79 no. 7, 1993, A History of Same-Sex Marriage by William N. Eskridge, Jr.
- QuinceyQuick
January 26, 2009 1:11PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Simple
Refer to all Civil Unions as such and let Churches use the term marriage. The only discrimination would come from churches and that's going to happen no matter what you call it. I simply don't agree with your objections.
- tbcass
January 26, 2009 1:23PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
...Maybe if you said that earlier...
...I would have agreed with you. Forgive me for not having read your entire argument, then.
- QuinceyQuick
January 26, 2009 1:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.