What is it about "Marriage."

Free Republic | 12/4/03 | ArGee

[ArGee]

Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional (in that state) to deny marriage to homosexual partners there is a lot of noise about how politicians are reacting. Most of the nine dwarves have declared that they oppose homosexual "marriage" but support "civil unions" that look exactly the same on paper. (President Bush has stated that he supports a maintaining our traditional understanding of marriage without giving us any specifics.)

Does anybody remember the duck test? Civil unions are marriage. This is a semantic shell game. Now, don't get me wrong. I understand Democrats and their semantic shell games. They're caught because most Americans don't support homosexual marriage. But many, if not most, Americans support some kind of civil unions.

If I understand this, Americans are against homosexual marriage, but they are in favor of homosexuals being married in everything but name. Therefore the politicians have to follow the people they want to lead, and come out against homosexual marriage.

Can any FReeper help me understand what's in that name? What is it with marriage that makes it impossible to call a relationship involving sex, shared property, joint custody of children, inheritance rights, and shared benefits marriage?

[ArGee]

This is a serious question and I really don't know what the answer is. In my mind you either suppot homosexual marriage or you don't support homosexual civil unions (my own position) since they are one and the same. I really don't understand how one can support civil unions while being against marriage.

What am I missing?

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Can any of you help here? Ping the usual group arguing both pro and con. I understand the Dims, but not the public in general.

Thanks!

Shalom.

[Political Junkie Too]

What is it with marriage that makes it impossible to call a relationship involving sex, shared property, joint custody of children, inheritance rights, and shared benefits marriage?

The intent to procreate, with the blessings of society.

-PJ

[ArGee]

The intent to procreate, with the blessings of society.

Thanks!

If society blesses "civil unions" won't that take away the second half of the objection? And since society doesn't have any problem blessing the marriage of people who have no intention of procreation - even intentionally sterile couples, doesn't that take away the first half of the objection?

I'm not trying to pick nits. Do you approve of civil unions but not marriage? Are you speaking for yourself?

Shalom.

[jwrogers]

Marriage has a definition already. The point that people who hold this belief are trying to make is that there is an argument to be made about whether or not a civil union is a good idea... but that argument has NOTHING to do with whether or not the term marriage should be randomly redefined to mean anything anyone wants it to mean.

So, let's set it aside. Let's say marriage has a meaning already and it's not going to change.

Now, let's come up with a new word for homosexual civil union, and have an open and honest debate about whether they should be legal or not.

[Jaysun]

In my view, the idea of civil unions has gained support based on the grounds that homosexuals are being discriminated against by not being able to enjoy the benefits of marriage (taxes, land, property). What everyone has lost sight of is this: Homosexuals have just as much access to those benefits as others do. All they have to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that they choose NOT to do this has nothing to do with the state, with discrimination, or with anything else - it's simply a choice. Remember, it isn't just homosexuals who are "discriminated against" when it comes to the privileges that marriage bring, it's also single people, minors, family members, polygamist, widows, priest (who can't marry), and so on. If someone wants the benefits that come with marriage they should get married. The fact that some don't WANT to marry a member of the opposite sex isn't the state's fault or responsibility to correct. The state encourages marriage (between one man and one woman) because they recognize the benefit that marriage brings to the people involved, their children, and society in general. I think that if people understood this, "civil unions" and homosexual marriage wouldn't even be a valid issue.

[ArGee]

Now, let's come up with a new word for homosexual civil union, and have an open and honest debate about whether they should be legal or not.

I still see that as playing word games with myself. And I'm not trying to attack you, just understand.

What I hear you saying is, we all know that dumping in the ocean is wrong. So let's come up with another word for ocean and then have an honest debate about whether we should dump in it.

Or, you could be saying they don't want to re-define the word "marriage" so they come up with another word that means exactly the same thing so we don't have an argument about whether we should re-define "marriage."

In either case, it sounds like someone is ignoring the fact that these civil unions are marriage.

And if you're against homosexual marriage, you should be against homosexual civil unions.

If you're in favor of homosexual civil unions you're in favor of homosexual marriage.

Again, no attack meant. I really am puzzled.

Shalom.

[larryjohnson]

In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled SJC Ruling Irks Local Conservitives, larryjohnson wrote:
In my opinion, marriage should never have been a government institution. The only regulation needed is to protect children and there gov has failed. To get married or otherwise seek approval of living together just for government benefits(tax,insurance,etc) only makes my point that these benefits should not exist(except for children).

[ArGee]

I think I agree with what you posted, but I don't think it addressed my question.

People being for or against homosexual marriage makes sense to me.

People being against homosexual marriage, but being for homosexual marriage when you call it "civil unions" does not make sense to me.

In both cases it is marriage. Why not admit it and move on?

Shalom.

[ArGee]

In my opinion, marriage should never have been a government institution.

And I think I disagreed with you there. But that doesn't answer my fundamental question. People who believe the government should be involved do not want the government to sanction homosexual marriage. But they do want them to sanction homosexual marriage as long as you call it "civil unions."

And I just can't understand that.

[Jaysun]

Was it the state's fault that some people didn't WANT to marry a member of their own race?


Of course racial discrimination was/is wrong and it wasn't only limited to marriage. Interracial marriage was dealt with at the same time when many other racial issues were dealt with - during the civil rights movement. In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that a ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. I don't see how the two compare? The only difference between interracial marriages and other marriages is skin color. Surely you can see that there many more differences in the case of homosexual marriage or "civil unions" versus traditional marriage than that.

[CJ Wolf]

Here is something that peeves me. My company is 'progressive' and has this 'life partner/dependent' compensation but it only applies to those that a 'same-gender life partner'.

Thus, even though I may have shacked up with a chick and consider her a life partner unless I am 'married' I don't get to claim her as a dependent and thus I can not get all the goodies that a 'same gender' partner would. What kind of case do I have here, it seems discriminatory.

[ArGee]

The only difference between interracial marriages and other marriages is skin color.

If you find a corpse, you will be able to determine immediately whether it was white or black. You will not know whether it was gay or straight.

Unless and until that changes, there is no comparison between homosexual "civil rights" and true civil rights. Interracial marriage is a smokescreen.

That said, once interracial marriage was addressed, nobody tried to pretend it wasn't marriage. Nobody played word games.

Why is the homosexual situation different?

Shalom.

[jwrogers]

The civil unions are NOT marriage. Marriage has a definition already.

It's like you are looking at an object that is green and arguing that it's blue. No, it's not. Blue and green are already defined, just like "marriage" is already defined. No matter how many times you repeat yourself I won't agree.

Marriage has a meaning that is sacred and distinct.

[Gorjus]

ignoring the fact that these civil unions are marriage.

Actually, they're not. Marriage is an institution created by God (religious authority). Civil unions are an institution of the state (secular authority). The problem is that we have devalued marriage until it seems no more than a civil union. But the solution is not to devalue it further.

My suggestion is that we limit marriage to that of a union of a man and a woman blessed by God (and performed as a religious ceremony), and call all the secular 'things' civil unions. In essence, everyone who is 'married' (always one man and one woman) would also need a 'civil union' license to replace the current 'marriage' license (grandfathered in for those who already have a marriage license). Those who do not qualify for the religious institution of marriage could just get the 'civil union' license.

I think it devalues the marriage relationship to have any sexual relation outside of marriage - or even to lust after someone other than your spouse. That includes the James Bond type of heterosexual promiscuity, serial adultery of people who 'marry' and divorce repeatedly, cohabitation, and all the rest. Homosexuality is just another of those wrongs.

Yet, as a nation founded on the idea of religious freedom, I can't see why secular government 'benefits' should be limited based on a carry-over from a religious institution. If two (or more) consenting adults want to enter into a committed relationship, then I'd need to seem some secular harm before I'd preclude it. Casual marriage that drops kids on society from broken homes, or casual promiscuity that drops kids on society who never knew they fathers does at least as much secular harm. Of course, I don't think the secular government should be in the business of providing benefits for that sort of thing either. Benefits (tax, inheritance, whatever) should be focused on children, not on the adults. And the lack of a penalty (such as inheritance taxes) should be addressed by getting rid of that redundant taxation for everyone.

[ArGee]

It's like you are looking at an object that is green and arguing that it's blue.

From my perspective, it's like we're looking at an object and you're saying it's green and I'm saying, 'I don't support calling that green. Let's call it bloogey.'

If you want to stand by the 'separate and distinct' statement, tell me how they are separate and distinct?

Shalom.

[Jaysun]

I think I agree with what you posted, but I don't think it addressed my question......People being against homosexual marriage, but being for homosexual marriage when you call it "civil unions" does not make sense to me.


My point was that people are supportive of "civil unions" and not homosexual marriage because they are misinformed. The homosexuals have, once again, convinced many people that they are victims of discrimination. Nonsense. The homosexuals have simply made a decision. All decisions have benefits or consequences. The homosexuals have made a decision in which one of the consequences (one of the MANY consequences) is that they will not get all of the benefits that married people get. It's simple. The same holds true for single people and a host of others in this case. So - people are in support of "civil unions" and at the same time against homosexual marriage because they've been mislead. Coincidently, that's how the left wins most of their "victories" - by misleading people. :o)

[Scenic Sounds]

What am I missing?

I don't think that you're missing anything. If civil unions become the functional equivalent of marriage, then they will differ in name only.

But, politically, that difference can make all the difference in the world!

[Khepera]

Your argument is invalid and the reason is. Marriage does not mean you have to marry your own race. That may have been a state law but it is not part of the "Marriage" thing.