John's Blog: Marriage vs. Civil Union
Everyone and his dog has a 'blog these days, right? So why not me? If you are interested in anything I'm saying, great! Let's talk about it! (Leave comments.) If not, try one of my other links. Better yet, why are you wasting your time staring at your computer screen, go do something real!
Let me know if you'd like to be to be updated whenever I post a new article. It won't happen every day!
Marriage vs. Civil Union
In my other post on the gay marriage topic, I explained why I support it, and what I think the limits are to the governments role in the debate. In this essay, I want to investigate more fully the differences in meaning between the terms "marriage" and "civil union". Among other reasons for thinking about this, it is an area in which I would like John Kerry to be a lot clearer on.
Let me lay out an example to illustrate this. Suppose, in Kerry's ideal world, that I (a straight man) take a trip to my local courthouse, with my fiance "Stacey" (all names but mine are made up), and our two friends "Amy" and "Jenn", a lesbian couple. Stacey and I obtain a marriage license, and Amy and Jenn obtain a civil union license. We then proceed down the hall to the Justice of the Peace, who "solemnizes" (I think that is the legal term?) my and Stacey's marriage, with Amy and Jenn as our witnesses. The JP then solemnizes Amy and Jenn's union, with Stacy and I as their witnesses. No religious institution involved anywhere.
At the end of the day, so to speak, what rights and benefits do we all have with our respective partners? Are Amy and Jenn's benefits identical to Stacey's and mine, or are they fewer, greater, or just different?
If identical, why make the distinction? Not only is it a legally useless one, but it is fiscally senseless to maintain two different systems that do the same thing. On the other hand, if it will satisfy people who are "against gay marriage but tolerable of civil unions", then okay, whatever.
However, I don't imagine that that's what most people who say that have in mind. And if not, then won't this amount to a two-class, "separate but 'equal'" system? Will this stand up in court? Is "sexual orientation", as a group designation, qualitatively different (not including from a religious viewpoint) from "race", on which basis "separate but equal" has already been found unconstitutional? (Which is probably why the MA Supreme Court said essentially the same thing.)
So my specific questions for Kerry (and others who make this distinction) are:
- When he says civil unions, does he mean with all the same rights and benefits as civil marriage, just a different name? Or a separate set?
- When he refers to "marriage", does he mean a civil status which will (presumably) have more civil rights and privileges than civil unions, or is he referring only the cultural and religious meanings of the word? If the latter, he needs to clarify that, to avoid people getting the mistaken impression that the government has any say in those definitions. He is entitled to his religious conviction, but if he's bringing it into the political debate, it needs to be more clearly labelled as such.
Labels: politics
0 comments
0 Comments:
Blog Index
