89809 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.patrickkphillips.com%2F2009%2F12%2F02%2Fwant-to-protect-marriage-ban-divorce%2FWant+to+Protect+Marriage%3F+Ban+Divorce%212009-12-02+10%3A27%3A57Patrickhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.patrickkphillips.com%2F%3Fp%3D8980 »

Chris M said:
Very good points – on your last one, I think it’s that so many want the ‘all or nothing’ sort of thing. Well, they’ll likely get nothing, at least in the interim.
# 2 December 2009 at 6:38 am

Patrick (author) said:
Agreed, Chris.
I know some very religious people who’d likely be willing to vote for “civil unions” despite their feelings against homosexuality just because it doesn’t carry the name “marriage.”
It seems to me that taking baby steps would be more appealing than taking none at all.
# 2 December 2009 at 7:23 am

Mika said:
I apologize in advance for this wall of text….
As I see it, the problem with the “civil union” concept is not with the legal rights associated with it – the issue is with its perception.
They started doing civil unions for same-sex couples in my native country in Europe a decade or so ago. Essentially the rights were exactly the same as those acquired by a legally wedded straight couple, but there was no church wedding (despite the fact that openly gay priests were everywhere, go figure).
Furthermore, while I had no objection whatsoever to these civil unions, I did not consider them “marriages.” In Finland, heterosexual people also occasionally get married through a “civil union” process, typically if a church wedding is not an option for them. A church wedding is invalidated as an option if one or both of the individuals seeking marriage have resigned from the church, or have not completed Confirmation at all.
A civil union therefore in my mind became just a legal term for a legally – if not socially or culturally – recognized marriage.
Now, granted, in America it’s not the same, as you don’t necessarily have to belong to a church in order to have a church wedding, as I understand it. However I do suggest that while homosexual couples base their claim for equality on legal status, it isn’t really so much about those legal rights as it is about social acceptance. As social acceptance is an abstract concept and hard to gauge, people offer legal standing as the backbone of their appeal.
After all, you can’t legislate public perception. Congress cannot pass a law mandating that all individuals embrace homosexual marriage or lifestyle. A law can be passed, however, to legalize it, so they’re going for what they can get.
It’s just that they don’t want “civil union.”
When women or blacks got the right to vote, what if we had decided to call that something else? What if we decided that to allow a black man to vote was threatening the sanctity of the legislative process – a crazy notion, but bear with me – and that the black vote or the women’s vote should be called “participation” instead.
White men vote. Blacks and women “participate,” or “cast their participation.”
We could argue that essentially it would be the same thing. You get to cast your participation, so what are you complaining about?
But in the eyes of public perception, it would never be a vote. That is discriminatory.
I truly believe that this whole same-sex marriage business is about seeking something that the legislation itself will not provide. That alone, of course, is no reason to deny it, though.
If I may, I’d like to add one more thing, and this is regarding this ban on divorce thing: I don’t agree with the concept. To me it is just as illogical as Proposition 8, and just as illogical as teaching abstinence instead of proper sex education.
There is a significant difference between the legal definition of marriage, and the religious definition of it. Just look at polygamy if you need proof of that. Catholics believe that divorce is a great sin. I personally believe that while it is not immoral, it is certainly an affront to the whole basic concept of marriage.
Many people don’t really place enough stock in marital vows. Certainly, if you are swearing to God in court to tell the truth, then swearing to God to join with another for life should carry the same weight. Yet while we avoid committing perjury at the risk of being found in contempt of court, we habitually ignore the wedding vows as something frivolous and procedural.
The trouble is, the legal definition of marriage is a contract. While infidelity may be illegal, when was the last time anyone was prosecuted for it – and no, Bill Clinton doesn’t count; that wasn’t the charge.
Legally, no one can be forced to marry anyone. Neither should anyone be legally forced to stay married to anyone. (Mind you, I have not read the specifics of the ban on divorce proposal so that may not apply here specifically.)
In a perfect world – one we should aspire toward – the state would not legislate morality. I have no problem with the church disapproving of divorce or strongly recommending against it. In fact, I quite agree.
However, I do not believe for a second that the church has any business using its influence to use the state to regulate its own moral agenda.
It is a tricky definition, because obviously some laws have to exist based not so much on logic as basic human decency; take animal abuse laws for example.
Here is what it comes down to: person X does not approve of homosexuality. Person X’s religion condemns homosexuality. Person X is not a homosexual. Person X’s relationship with God is between him and God. Whether Person Y is a homosexual or married to another homosexual has no bearing on X’s own life. Yet, because Person X believes homosexuality is “bad” in general, he wants the law to make Person Y’s lifestyle illegal. He wants Person Y to become a Person X.
I strongly disagree with it. People have the right to believe in whatever moral values they choose to believe in, but they should not be allowed to use the law to persecute others for not sharing the same values. I think we’re all better off if we push legislators to draft legislation which directly affects our own lives and our own rights, instead of using them to make moral decisions for other people.
# 2 December 2009 at 9:43 am

Carly said:
Hi Patrick
I wrote about this subject as well. Sigh. I can’t believe anyone would think of such a thing. It is a dangerous thought, and if it picks up as much steam as Prop 8 did, it will mean a lot of trouble. There are many reasons folks divorce, and to mess with that is just plain wrong. Ask any beaten and abused woman, or man for that matter.
-Carly
# 9 December 2009 at 9:41 pm

Paul said:
Because, Patrick, “essentially equal” is not equal. If it were truly equal, you would not have to add the conditional, “essentially.” Homosexual people do not want to be sorta, kinda, almost equal to you and me, and quite frankly, why should they accept that? Think about it for a minute, and ask yourself this question: how would a black man react to you suggesting he is “essentially equal” to you?
# 17 December 2009 at 11:51 pm

Patrick (author) said:
I get that, Paul, but the problem is, there are too many people who are willing to go along with “civil union” but not “marriage.”
In some ways, we’ve come a long way towards tolerance, though there’s still a long way to go. But as a society, we’re nowhere near ready to accept the concept of same-sex marriage universally.
If you were gay and wanted to be able to wed your partner, why not be willing to accept “civil unions” for now as a prelude to “marriage?”
There was a time, to use your racial example, that interracial marriages were against the law. It took seeing them work out in areas where they were legal, and a lot of time, before those laws faded away. There was no overnight “all or nothing” change to make that happen.
# 18 December 2009 at 7:46 am

paul said:
Patrick, all marriages are already civil unions. It’s a necessary point of law to ensure people’s rights are protected. However, what we are talking about here is not the thing, but what we call the thing. It is purely a discussion about semantics, and as such, I find it tedious. When you can get heterosexual couples who got “married” at City Hall to stop calling their union a marriage, you can ask homosexuals to stop using the word, too. While you’re at it, why don’t you start telling all Muslim, Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, etc. couples that they aren’t really married either?
The reason I – were I a gay man – would not accept “civil union” but not “marriage,” is the same reason I – were I a black man – would not accept having to drink out of a different water fountain. Critics might say, “but you’re still getting a drink of water, what are you upset about?” But, it’s not really about the water, is it?
This discussion isn’t really about the union. It is about the continuing efforts of one segment of society to prevent another segment of society from enjoying true acceptance and equality.
# 23 December 2009 at 9:40 am

Patrick (author) said:
Paul, just so I’m clear here, I’m not advocating that gays should just accept “civil union” and STOP. I agree that this is about semantics. The problem is that there is a large section of the population who are completely unwilling to budge on the issue of “marriage” being between a man and a woman.
Until that point of view can change, which is more likely to happen when more people see that the guys who want to be “married” aren’t trying to somehow make marriage a laughingstock, why shouldn’t gay couples have SOMETHING? No battle over civil rights has EVER been won overnight. Take what you CAN get NOW, and keep fighting for equality tomorrow.
# 23 December 2009 at 11:11 am

factsarefacts said:
While may people believe the issue is about semantics – there are indeed practical differences between civil unions and marriages.
For example, if a gay person in a civil union who happens to work in the military tries to apply to get health insurance benefits for his partner or put his partner down as the beneficiary for military pension benefits, he will be outing himself and may, under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, be discharged.
Let’s say a gay person just starts a job and is filling out the forms for health insurance (or any other benefits that may be granted to “spouses”). The form only has a section for married couples and he explains that he is not married – but in a civil union (thereby outing himself). The employer happens to be homophobic and, after discovering the new employee’s sexuality, fires him. Even if he isn’t fired, the whole process requires him to “out himself” which can come with quite a bit of stress (in outing himself to people whom he doesn’t know, fearing he may be fired for being gay or facing harassment from fellow employees for being gay).
Then there is the issue of whether states will be required to recognize civil unions performed in other states. Several states have already ruled that they will not recognize them as they legal schematic doesn’t exist in their jurisdictions.
Even if a state permits or recognizes civil unions, the rights and responsibilities of civil unions may vary from state to state. It is also possible that the federal government (which currently does not recognize any civil union between same sex couples) may not recognize civil unions at all – so the same sex couples will be deprived of over 1000 federal rights that come with marriage (ranging from tax benefits, social security benefits and being able to sponsor an immigrant spouse).
I could go on with more scenarios, but feel this is sufficient.
I wonder if heterosexual married couples who are opposed to same sex marriage but amenable to “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” would be willing to let same sex partnered couples have the moniker “great marriage”. So if the heterosexual is asked if he is in a great marriage, he would have to respond (if he doesn’t want to lie): “No, I’m not in a great marriage.” This is just to make you think.
# 18 February 2010 at 2:58 am

Leave your response!