Marriage by Any Other Name

[torasama.livejournal.com]

While a rose may be a rose by any other name, the same does not hold true of marriage. Marriage is marriage. Civil unions are not equal to marriage, both in society's eyes and the law's - couples joined under a civil union do not have the same rights as a married couple. Denoting long-term, committed same-sex relations as 'lesser' opens a legal Pandora's box and provides a venue for continued discrimination, by applying a different set of rights to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

To deny a civil marriage to a same-sex couple is blatant discrimination per the 14th Amendment. Just as the anti-interracial marriage arguement that all races had the "same right" to marry others of their own race didn't work in Loving vs. Virginia, the arguement that homosexuals have the "same right" to marry people of the opposite sex doesn't work, either.

Comments

[torasama.livejournal.com]

Depends where you are. In California, they are explicitly defined to be equal under the law

Domestic Partnership (CA) - Differences from marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Differences_from_Marriage)

As for them being equal in society's eyes, there is nothing the law can do about that.

No, but the law can make them equal under the law.

Instead of complaining that some people aren't able to marry who they want (same gender person, dog, apple pie, whatever), the correct answer is to get government to not license any marriages, it can only create civil unions between any two persons.

Gay marriage =/= bestiality =/= marrying an object. For further elaboration, see this (http://uthinkimjoking.livejournal.com/2180.html).

Renaming all marriages as civil unions is not going to solve anything. This (http://open.salon.com/blog/dave_cullen/2008/11/06/the_fallacy_of_renaming_marriage--and_the_danger) explains it right well.

Excerpt:

"First, marriage is an idea, not just a word. The word is merely a label for a concept/idea/tradition/institution--all those things. You can rename it as many times as you want, that won't change anything. Or solve anything.

Anti-gay forces are fighting for the institution of marriage. Change the name and they will fight you every bit as hard. You won't have won anything."

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

First, marriage is an idea, not just a word.

Yes, but the gay marriage people are conflating two ideas. There is civil marriage, which is what the government does, and there is religious marriage, which is what churches do. The only reason to rename the government one is to get rid of the confusion and get rid of the religious opposition.

[torasama.livejournal.com]

That's... the entire point. Why should the government have to "get rid of the religious opposition"? What happened to seperation of church and state?

The original post was about giving gays a civil marriage.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Why should the government have to "get rid of the religious opposition"?

Not the government. The "pro-gay marriage" people. If they want the government to give them legal benefits, then they should want to remove the opposition.

What happened to seperation of church and state?

Doesn't exist and never has. Not respecting an institution of religion however is still in effect.

The original post was about giving gays a civil marriage.

And the easiest, quickest, and best way to accomplish this is to explicitly separate the ideas of civil marriage and religious marriage, and the easiest, quickest and best way to do that is to remove the word marriage from the law code.

[torasama.livejournal.com]

It isn't about being easy and quick. It's about being equal in the eyes of the law. The religious aspects of marriage should not have any bearing on the civil aspects. Without the religious arguement, there really is no good reason for denying gays the same right to marry.

Doesn't exist and never has. Not respecting an institution of religion however is still in effect.

Have to agree with you there.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Calling it marriage in the civil arena gives people a religious argument. Again, there's confusion between the two things. Separating them would allow you to get what you want in the civil arena and placate those who don't want any change seeping into the religious arena.

The religious aspects of marriage should not have any bearing on the civil aspects.

Which is what changing the civil name for it would accomplish.

[torasama.livejournal.com]

Right. That's the problem, the misinformation campaign. These things are already seperate.

I just think changing the name would do more harm than good - if you were married already, you would more than likely resent suddenly having it reduced to a "civil union."

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't be suddenly reduced to civil union, unless you had only gone to a JotP for your wedding, and those people probably don't care anyways.

[torasama.livejournal.com]

...You aren't making any sense. The point is that making ALL civil marriages into civil unions had this problem. It doesn't matter if it was Justice of the Peace or a priest, if you are legally married, your marriage is reduced to a civil union in the eyes of the law.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

And those married by a priest would still be married and have a civil union.