Why Civil Unions aren't enough
A Buffalo Pundit.com blogger posted this comment, and it's worth replying here on the blog:
"Saw your post over at BP, and I wanted to ask you a question. If a civil union carries the same legal and civil ramifications as a marriage(communal property, hospital visits, inheritance, taxes etc), but differs only in name, is that such a big deal? When a hetero couple goes to the J o P, it really is just a civil union. A friend of mine from Germany was teling me about how they do it there. Essentially they have two independant ceremonie, one for the church and one for the state. Do you think such a model might work here?"
Thanks for a thoughtful question. I've attended lots of commitment ceremonies at churches and other venues. All that was missing was a marriage license.
Actually, you're right in your assertions: Civil unions should be the result of the issuance of a marriage license and the waving of the magic wand of either a judge or a member of clergy. The problem is that same-sex couples are denied licenses in New York State. There are only designations on the form for the Bride and Groom; subsequently, licenses are only given to a couple of consenting age, consisiting of one man and one woman who are not married to anyone else. (Doesn't matter how many times they have been previously married, etc., it's just the gender, single status, and age that count.)
People who argue that Civil Unions should be created (and enough) for same-sex couples want to create something expressly different from straight marriage: An entirely different form, a new layer of administration, etc., all to keep "the gays" away from "the rest of us." WHY? If you're familiar with Brown Vs. Board of Education, which helped shed light on the concept of "separate but equal," we all know there ain't such thing.
In the end, what we call "marriage" is indeed civil union. So we need to create a single form that says, "Spouse One" and "Spouse Two" or something like that, which can be used by all. Anything else is bound to have loopholes generated by the same right-wing legal eagles who are lobbying against this idea of same-sex marriage in the first place.
Hope this long-winded answer helps clarify my views. Take care, all, and remember, when one of us is denied their full civil rights, we all need to act! Amy
"Saw your post over at BP, and I wanted to ask you a question. If a civil union carries the same legal and civil ramifications as a marriage(communal property, hospital visits, inheritance, taxes etc), but differs only in name, is that such a big deal? When a hetero couple goes to the J o P, it really is just a civil union. A friend of mine from Germany was teling me about how they do it there. Essentially they have two independant ceremonie, one for the church and one for the state. Do you think such a model might work here?"
Thanks for a thoughtful question. I've attended lots of commitment ceremonies at churches and other venues. All that was missing was a marriage license.
Actually, you're right in your assertions: Civil unions should be the result of the issuance of a marriage license and the waving of the magic wand of either a judge or a member of clergy. The problem is that same-sex couples are denied licenses in New York State. There are only designations on the form for the Bride and Groom; subsequently, licenses are only given to a couple of consenting age, consisiting of one man and one woman who are not married to anyone else. (Doesn't matter how many times they have been previously married, etc., it's just the gender, single status, and age that count.)
People who argue that Civil Unions should be created (and enough) for same-sex couples want to create something expressly different from straight marriage: An entirely different form, a new layer of administration, etc., all to keep "the gays" away from "the rest of us." WHY? If you're familiar with Brown Vs. Board of Education, which helped shed light on the concept of "separate but equal," we all know there ain't such thing.
In the end, what we call "marriage" is indeed civil union. So we need to create a single form that says, "Spouse One" and "Spouse Two" or something like that, which can be used by all. Anything else is bound to have loopholes generated by the same right-wing legal eagles who are lobbying against this idea of same-sex marriage in the first place.
Hope this long-winded answer helps clarify my views. Take care, all, and remember, when one of us is denied their full civil rights, we all need to act! Amy
posted by Amy Barlow Liberatore @ 5:03 PM
5 Comments:
At 12:03 PM,
Pat said…
This is yet another facet of this issue that I can never get gay marriage foes to answer.
I have seen, on countless occasions and on countless message boards and blogs the following question: "Why can't gays just be happy with calling it a civil union? What does it matter what it's called?"
Well, my answer is right back at 'em. If WE shouldn't care what it's called, then why should those that oppose same-sex marriages and think the Knottsberry Farm solution is to just call it something different?
Heterosexual unions, regardless of what they are called, are legalized SOLELY by the state. There is no federal law governing heterosexual marriage. There is, however, a federal law that makes any STATE'S law regarding the union of same-sex couples invalid.
That said, Civil Unions, as they stand right now in Vermont and Connecticut, bestow only STATE recognition and benefits on the participants. Federal law prohibits the recognition of those unions outside of those two states, thereby depriving those same couples of hundreds of rights and responsibilities assumed by heterosexual married couples.
Separate is not equal.
At 2:29 PM,
Amy Barlow Liberatore said…
Amen, Pat. Most ironic to me is the number of African-American pastors - people I would hope understood the damage of the concept - are on board with "separate but equal."
Fact is, it's always someone WITH power talking about someone ELSE different from them, whose rights they refuse to acknowledge.
Amy
At 3:39 PM,
LC Scotty said…
Hi Amy,
I am the anonomous poster you reference here, but I only just realized I could give myself a name w/o a blogger account.
Thanks for the warm welcome.
I was not aware that there was a federal law (on the books, not a bill circulating congress) that expressly forbids states from recognizing other states same sex marriages/civil unions. That sounds, well, wrong? Is the law more along the lines that it does not force other states to recognize these unions? Not that that makes it ok, I'm just trying to understand the current law. I can't fathom congress passing a law that would forbid Vermont from recognizing Connecticut's unions. That doesn't pass the sniff test.
The more I think about it, the more I lean to the German model I discussed, with civil and religious ceremonies separated, and only the civil ceremony carrying any weight in the eyes of the law. This civil ceremony would be conducted without regard to the construction of the couple, provided they are both consenting, able-minded adults.
Pat, you called it a knotsberry farm solution, but I am unfamiliar with that turn of phrase. Would you please explain?
Regards,
Scott
At 8:20 AM,
lokokid said…
GOOD content thats what i like and just surfing around on blogs and finding good content is good feeling i am so glued to those blogs dont stop making good content keep it up i am not a pro on making pages but i see if you can visit my site maybe its something that you will like!!Ways to make money online
At 3:49 PM,
harvir said…
Veryyyyyyyyy nice blog i kinda like it coz it got alot of information that can be useful for me very informative you go guys and one thing more i got a site that i prefer to everybody maybe you will like it to go have a look in your free timeHome based business
Post a Comment
<< Home