Adding Fuel to the Fire

[khaosworks]

To those who don't understand why I find the position of people who support the word "civil unions" for same-sex couples almost as intolerable as those who say that marriage for the same should be banned, or for those who require some clarification or understanding to why the naming is important even if the benefits are the same.

Here's three words.

Plessy v. Ferguson.

Doesn't right a bell? Three more words.

Separate but equal.

We like to think we've grown somewhat beyond that since 1955.

Comments

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not naive - I know Kerry's position is the only politically viable one. But it's still an appalling point of view.

The way you suggest he uses marriage would make sense only if he made it clear that he considers all marriages "civil unions" in law. But that's not at all clear from the context, and implicitly is otherwise, since the debate has been framed specifically around the issuing of marriage licenses to same sex couples.

But it doesn't make sense anyway to divide the two, since even if you split it down the middle and call, in law, all marriages - same sex or opposite - "civil unions" and leave the term "marriage" to refer to religion, what happens at a gay-friendly church (and there are those) or religion who perform those ceremonies? Are they then precluded from calling themselves married? Orthodox churches wouldn't, but they can't do anything to stop them.

So in the end, in boils down to the same thing - marriage is a civil union is a marriage. If they have the same benefits, the same meanings, religious or otherwise, then calling it by different names is an artificial and discriminatory (in all senses of the word) distinction that one cannot defend rationally.

Not that rationality has anything to do with it, of course.

[(Anonymous)]

Don't think anyone, least of all me, would ever think you were politically naive! Even if Kerry was using the terms in the discriminatory way you suggest (ie, "marriage" for "us", "civil unions" for "them"), I guess it would only be appalling (to me, anyway) if Kerry *really* believed in that position. If you think (as I do) that that's merely the position he *had* to take, so as not to completely alienate both opposing camps (and ends of the electorate), then the thing is just a cop-out, and at the most he's a (cowardly) realist. (Of course, some might feel the strong position taken by your Shrub is more morally defensible simply because it's honest...)

Re: dividing the two - you know my views on the necessary separation of church and state. I have no problems with the state recognising and enforcing legal rights and obligations in *all* civil unions between spouses of whatever gender - rights to property, maintenance, children (and even consortium! okay, maybe not that).

But I don't have a problem with the state saying that it isn't going to comment on whether that union is considered a "marriage" for religious purposes (and there are separate *religious* rights and obligations, for instance husband's spiritually responsibility for wife, baptism of children etc). That should be left to the church. The gay-friendly church, say, of New Hampshire (?), would certainly regard a same-sex union as a marriage, for their purposes, and be happy to recognise/enforce the rights etc of one, and all members of that church would no doubt take that view. But an orthodox church wouldn't. And I think there isn't anything particularly contradictory for a politician (or anyone else, for that matter), who was part of an orthodox church to say, from a religious point of view, I don't consider this union to be a marriage, while at the same time supporting the establishment of the legal estate of civil union. But that's just me, of course.

And, that does presuppose it's what Kerry meant, which might not be the case at all - not that I've followed the man's record or anything, but I vaguely recall he'd previously been a supporter of gay marriage? Which brings me back to, "Cop out".

Separately, is it just me, or is your LJ rather "happening", these days? Aren't you supposed to be *working*?

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

As far as I can tell, Kerry's position has always been that he opposes gay marriage but is in favor of equal protection and benefits for same-sex civil unions. He also opposes any legislation that will enshrine a "one man-one woman" definition of marriage or discriminate against homosexuality.

As for happening... well, I've not been commenting on politics for a long time. Several people have said they miss my ranting. :-) I stopped because I just couldn't get up the energy to get pissed off anymore about stuff.

But I figure, with the run-up to the election, it's time to start ranting again. Even though I can't vote, I can sure as hell try to exhort people to get the Shrub out of power, for the sake of both America and the rest of the world.

And part of it is to stave off boredom while I am working...

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

P.S. One of the points I've been trying to make clear is that naming is important. It certainly is to the religious right - they claim that calling same sex unions "marriages" is to remove the dignity from opposite sex unions.

Well, then, to call opposite sex unions "marriages" but then call same sex unions "civil unions" would remove the dignity from same sex unions. Ideally, either the government calls all unions "marriages" or it calls all unions "civil unions". That would be non-discriminatory.

Of course, again, if wishes were horses... let's see how it plays out.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, now that your ranting is accompanied by a relevant pundit photo, it's even more entertaining. Your "Gropenfuhrer!" photo caused some consternation in the T. household the other day - spouse was surprised by it when sitting down at computer to do some work. He came running into the bedroom: "Is that *Terence*? What, is he on drugs or something??" Yeah, that's why everyone in Georgia is so happy all the time.

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

*laugh* Well, tell Han Li I'm still sane. A friend of mine, mrdankelly, who's a Chicago-based writer, has his pundit photo too, so I was just being a copycat.