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

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

Let's also not forget that a mere half century ago it was mostly illegal for mixed races to marry in the South. Do we really want to go back to that?

[amberite.livejournal.com]

Dude. Your Prisoner userpic is da bomb.

(The actual thoughtful comment I was going to make here, regarding lesser-evils and that sort of thing, evaporated in a puff of sleep-dep.)

[mrlogic.livejournal.com]

Agree with your point. It's noxious and certainly hearkens back to aspects of the Bad Old Days.

Here is a not-quite-"however" Question:
if it were to come down to two choices:
(1) no recognition of gay unions whatever
(2) recognition of "civil unions"

would you not choose choice (2) over choice (1), even if you'd really prefer choice (3) (not listed as an option)?

I agree that it would be entirely repugnant for choice (3) not to be there -- but in the event that the only way to get rid of choice (1) is to espouse choice (2), I can see taking that route and I would not tar those who do so out of necessity.

It's nice to be idealistic, but sometimes it's necessary to compromise if you don't want to get trampled entirely. Think about your argument for not voting for Nader: people might want to vote for Nader because he's more like what they want than the Democratic candidate. But it's not the best course of action for success: voting for Nader will lead directly to a second term for Bush. I believe this situation is precisely analogous. Clinging to the term "marriage" for righteous reasons, when so many ideologically oppose it, will tend to reduce the chances of any sort of state-recognized union -- at least in the current political climate.

The word "marriage" is so entirely invested with religious dogma that dislodging it from that association will probably take a considerable amount of time. I'm hoping people will finally have come to terms with it by the time my children are old enough to vote (3-5 years), but even that may be a little optimistic.

On the positive side, Georgia decided it was OK to call it evolution "evolution" in their curriculum, so maybe there's some hope...

-----------

Rereading your post, it may be that you are calling out specifically those who state that they prefer the establishment of "civil unions", as opposed to those who merely support this course as the lesser of two evils. If that's the case, I'm solidly in your camp, and this entire post is superfluous.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Not an original opinion, I know, but nevertheless:

I fully support the term "civil union" for all same-sex legalized relationships provided that all heterosexual legalized relationships are also so designated.

If the term "marriage" is relegated to relationships sanctified within the religion of choice of the couple, that's fine. But if the government chooses to designate licensed heterosexual couplings with the word "marriage", then it ought, as I see it, to be required to apply the word equally, without discrimination, across all licensed relationships. After all, it is one of the tenets of our government that it does not discriminate unless the public good is threatened. Or so it likes to claim.

It follows as the knight follows the wench, then (at least, in 95% of cases ;-), that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation ought to require proof of social harm, none of which has yet been offered.

Off to play in Photoshop a bit, connected with this -- and maybe to wonder at the number of people in the world who are willing to equate the special case with the general case, and wonder why there are things they can't explain.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Plessy was a massive improvement on prior conditions. We may have to live with civil unions/domestic partnership before we can convince people, one more time, that separate is inherently unequal. I don't support it, but I don't assume that we *have* grown any since 1955, either.