Unions v. Marriage

[GypsySorcerer]

First-off: I don't want this thread to turn into a flame-fest.


I am just confused about these "terms" civil union and gay marriage. What exactly is the difference? Either you support gay couples' rights to commit themselves to each other and receive the legal benefits that heterosexual marriage couples do, or you don't.

I have always supported civil unions, but I recently asked myself what is the difference between that and marriage? I can't come up with anything, so I conclude if you support one you support both.

I don't see how John Kerry can oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts court ruling, but repeatedly state he supports unions.

So can anyone tell me what they think the difference is? I am beginning to think that politicians are getting hung up on this terminology in an effert to appear moderate on the issue. That way, for the religious right, they can say, "I oppose gay marriage," but say "I support civil unions" to appease some liberals.

[strandinthewind]

It is all about politics and semantics. Putting gay people in a separate category is good politics because polls show a majority of America does not care about gay people.

A good analogy would be the history of black people in the U.S. First, the vast majority were slaves. Then, the slaves were freed after the war between the states and the Const. Amendment. So, the black americans started to assert rights (voting, sitting together with white people, schooling, marriage to white people, etc.). In 1896, the U.S. Sup. Ct. considered a case where:

On June 7, 1892, a 30-year-old colored shoemaker named Homer Plessy was jailed for sitting in the "White" car of the East Louisiana Railroad. Plessy was only one-eighths black and seven-eighths white, but under Louisiana law, he was considered black and therefore required to sit in the "Colored" car. Plessy went to court and argued, in Homer Adolph Plessy v. The State of Louisiana, that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The judge at the trial was John Howard Ferguson, a lawyer from Massachusetts who had previously declared the Separate Car Act "unconstitutional on trains that traveled through several states." In Plessy's case, however, he decided that the state could choose to regulate railroad companies that operated only within Louisiana. He found Plessy guilty of refusing to leave the white car. Plessy appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which upheld Ferguson's decision. In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States heard Plessy's case and found him guilty once again. Speaking for a seven-person majority, Justice Henry Brown wrote:

"That [the Separate Car Act] does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery...is too clear for argument...A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races -- a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color -- has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races...The object of the [Fourteenth A]mendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either." (footnote omitted)

This separate but equal rationale quickly spread into all areas and a wide majority of Americans thought black people sould not have the same rights as white people.

Then, on May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Sup. Ct. read the decision of the unanimous Court in Brown v. Board of Education:

"We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. [12]
The Supreme Court struck down the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy for public education, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and required the desegregation of schools across America.

The Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision did not abolish segregation in other public areas, such as restaurants and restrooms, nor did it require desegregation of public schools by a specific time. It did, however, declare the permissive or mandatory segregation that existed in 21 states unconstitutional. [13] It was a giant step towards complete desegregation of public schools. Even partial desegregation of these schools, however, was still very far away, as would soon become apparent.

_________________________________________________

The rest of the story is that the U.S. Govt. passed the Civil Rights Act in, I think, 1964 and black people have the deserved equal rights to white people.

The civil unions v. marriage is similar in that it creates the separate but equal atmosphere that Plessy v. Ferguson established. In other words, the term civil unions will create a second class marriage like the second class busing, school systems, etc., accorded to black people under this same ssytem.

____________________________________________________

Sorry for the length. I hope that helped.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
,

Sorry for the length. I hope that helped.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I never thought of it as a "separate, but equal" issue. I am taking a Constitutional History course this semster so I hope we dig deeper into these issues.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I never thought of it as a "separate, but equal" issue. I am taking a Constitutional History course this semster so I hope we dig deeper into these issues.

You are welcome. Also, I think you will find Con Law fascinating - I certainly did. In the end, I concluded the Court is the conscious of America - regardless of whether it was supposed to be

Also, the sep. but equal thing was clearly worse for black people than it ever has been for gay people in that gay people do not ride in the back of the bus, have sep. water fountains, and they were never enslaved. But the general gist is there IMO

[dissention]

I think that Kerry does support gay marriage (as reflected in his voting record), but he just says "civil unions" to get on the liberals side, while saying "no gay marriage" to get the votes of those who oppose it. You hit that right on the head. It's purely politics.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
I think that Kerry does support gay marriage (as reflected in his voting record), but he just says "civil unions" to get on the liberals side, while saying "no gay marriage" to get the votes of those who oppose it. You hit that right on the head. It's purely politics.

Although I agree that Kerry proabably could care a less about gay marriage over civil untions, etc., Kerry's vote not to pass the Defense of Marriage Act is a tenuous connection to his supporting gay marriage. He said he did that solely because he thought the Defense of Marriage Act was sponsored by hate, which it mostly was. but, I agree, politics, etc.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by dissention
I think that Kerry does support gay marriage (as reflected in his voting record), but he just says "civil unions" to get on the liberals side, while saying "no gay marriage" to get the votes of those who oppose it. You hit that right on the head. It's purely politics.

And yet another reason why I can't vote for him.

It is semantics and politics. Two people love each other and want to consummate that love, I say let them. Not only let them, encourage them.

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
And yet another reason why I can't vote for him.

It is semantics and politics. Two people love each other and want to consummate that love, I say let them. Not only let them, encourage them.

Well, good luck getting a candidate that isn't all semantics and politics. Besides for Kucinich. I *love* Kucinich and his charts.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Well, good luck getting a candidate that isn't all semantics and politics. Besides for Kucinich. I *love* Kucinich and his charts.

And - like Sharpton, DK will probably stay in the race until the end because he is not spending any money (at least I think he is still in - did he drop out )

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
And - like Sharpton, DK will probably stay in the race until the end because he is not spending any money (at least I think he is still in - did he drop out )

Yup, they are both still in. I love both of them.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Yup, they are both still in. I love both of them.

For not spending any money at all, Al S got respectable numbers of Tues. I think he beat Dean one time, but could be wrong

[hayley]

I think in no way are the terms "marriage" and "civil union" interchangeable- and they shouldn't be used that way by anyone, let alone politicians.

I believe that "marriage" is an institution that should not be recognized by the government in any way whatsoever. Marriage is a religious institution historically, continuing today, describing the spiritual and physical union of a man and woman. Marriage ceremonies were designed to wed a man and a woman together in a religious ceremony, uniting the two as a couple with God...

Marriage is a religious institution, and shouldn't be considered a governmental one. As far as I'm concerned, a union between ANY two people, gay or straight, blue green or yellow- should be considered a civil union in the eyes of the government. A person should have the right to choose who they want to be united with in that manner, and the government should have no problem whatsoever with allowing any kind of civil union in that matter.

Separate church and state- a religious couple should be considered a civil union by the government, and are welcome to further their union by consecrating it as a marriage in the eyes of their religion.

[Johnny Stew]

Actually, you're completely right, Hayley... they should be regarded as two different entities, under the "separation of church & state" banner.
Which is exactly where our current President and his followers are muddying the lines, by denouncing gay unions/marriages as being wrong in the eyes of God, and making this whole debate a "religious thing."

To be honest, I think that had conservative groups not put up such immediate and fierce opposition, gay rights groups would be pushing more for civil unions, as opposed to "marriage."
In some aspects, I believe it's become a battle of wills.

All I know is that I want the same rights and benefits as everyone else. Nothing more and certainly nothing less... and I think that's only fair.
If they allowed gay unions to be recognized by law, I'd be satisfied, and you wouldn't hear another peep out of me on the matter.

[sparky]

I don't have much of a personal stake in the semantics of this brouhaha. Marriage, civil union...whatever. The point, I am certain, is attempting to legislate a "moral judgement" on gay people. The constant harping about gays among the usual suspects is annoying, questionable, and enough to write a book about. The main reason I want this, or a similar law, to go into effect is to not allow those people a victory over us. How dare they think they can decide I am a second class citizen ? They can legislate all they want - I'm still going to have a boyfriend. And the usual suspects - Santorum, Helms, Frist, Schlafly and the like - will still be obsessively picturing our sex lives and driving themselves into legislative and psychlogical frenzies. I think that's the more interesting issue here, really...why are these politicians and religious leaders fascinated by and fixated on the sex lives of homos ? Now THAT'S an entire book, that one.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by sparky
I think that's the more interesting issue here, really...why are these politicians and religious leaders fascinated by and fixated on the sex lives of homos ?

Closet-cases, perhaps?