Civil Unions in the United States

[Farnhamia]

You still need a state-issued marriage license. The state has to have some paperwork to know you are married, so when you file your taxes they'll know you aren't just making it up.

I know... but in Germany it's not just plain paperwork. You have to show up, both of you, with witnesses, it's quite a little ceremony.
In Ireland, as far as I know, you can get married by a priest, who will then issue you with a legal paper. All you need to do to get the marriage legally registered is send it in to the registry office. Is that similar to the US?
I think the fact that there HAS to be this very official, ceremonial signing of papers in front of a government official in Germany has helped establish marriage as a state institution in people's minds...

I don't know how ceremonious it is over here, but you do have to appear in person, present ID, promise that you really are who you say you are and hand over the ten dollars. Doesn't matter if Benedict XVI is going to perform the ceremony, you still have to have that license, and that makes all marriages "civil unions" to begin with.

[Muravyets]

In Germany, for example, you can get married in any church you like, of course, but unless you also show up in front of a registrar and go through the legal ceremony, your marriage won't be recognised.

It works basically the same way in the US. It's just that religious conservatives love confusing people into thinking of civil marriage as a religious institution, so that they can portray marriage equality as an insidious attempt to deny them the vital freedom to religiously discriminate against gay people.

I'm not too sure about this, but I always thought that a chruch wedding performed by an authorised priest would be recognised legally in the US? Am I wrong there? Or is that just in some states, maybe?
In Germany, you can't just get a license to preform marriages, it needs to be done by a full-time state official. And last thing I know, it has to happen in the registry office, it cannot be anywhere else. So most couples will have the civil ceremony first, and then a couple of days or weeks (sometimes years) later the church ceremony. I think this has led to a clear separation in people's minds between the legal marriage, and the religious aspect of it. And I also think that this may be why there is relatively few opposition to include same-sex marriages on the civil/legal side of it.

That's just plain guessing, though, and doesn't really have all that much to do with the original topic. So I'll stop it here.

That is the big difference between the US and Germany. In the US, the civil authority to officiate marriages by conducting weddings is farmed out to various kinds of people who are not actual employees of the state.

Among such people are clergy, ship captains when at sea, and judges, for example. In fact, there is a broad and varied spectrum of people who can apply to states for the authority to officiate weddings.

But even a clergyman -- priest, pastor, rabbi, etc. -- could not officiate at weddings and have them legally recognized by the state and federal governments unless the church and/or the individual cleric have been granted said authority by the state. It is not automatic.

Furthermore, even if your wedding is officiated by an authorized person, you still have to get (and pay a small fee for) a marriage license issued and recorded into state records by the clerk of your county, an officer of the state. Without that, in most instances, you ain't married, no matter what the priest said. And you have to get the license before you can do anything else.

But if you DO get the marriage license, then all you have to do is swear the required oath that you understand what the marriage agreement is and are entering into the marriage agreement freely and of your own free will and are legally free to do so. And you can do that with ANY authorized officiant, religious or otherwise.

[Farnhamia]

In Germany, for example, you can get married in any church you like, of course, but unless you also show up in front of a registrar and go through the legal ceremony, your marriage won't be recognised.

It works basically the same way in the US. It's just that religious conservatives love confusing people into thinking of civil marriage as a religious institution, so that they can portray marriage equality as an insidious attempt to deny them the vital freedom to religiously discriminate against gay people.

I'm not too sure about this, but I always thought that a chruch wedding performed by an authorised priest would be recognised legally in the US? Am I wrong there? Or is that just in some states, maybe?
In Germany, you can't just get a license to preform marriages, it needs to be done by a full-time state official. And last thing I know, it has to happen in the registry office, it cannot be anywhere else. So most couples will have the civil ceremony first, and then a couple of days or weeks (sometimes years) later the church ceremony. I think this has led to a clear separation in people's minds between the legal marriage, and the religious aspect of it. And I also think that this may be why there is relatively few opposition to include same-sex marriages on the civil/legal side of it.

That's just plain guessing, though, and doesn't really have all that much to do with the original topic. So I'll stop it here.

That is the big difference between the US and Germany. In the US, the civil authority to officiate marriages by conducting weddings is farmed out to various kinds of people who are not actual employees of the state.

Among such people are clergy, ship captains when at sea, and judges, for example. In fact, there is a broad and varied spectrum of people who can apply to states for the authority to officiate weddings.

But even a clergyman -- priest, pastor, rabbi, etc. -- could not officiate at weddings and have them legally recognized by the state and federal governments unless the church and/or the individual cleric have been granted said authority by the state. It is not automatic.

Furthermore, even if your wedding is officiated by an authorized person, you still have to get (and pay a small fee for) a marriage license issued and recorded into state records by the clerk of your county, an officer of the state. Without that, in most instances, you ain't married, no matter what the priest said. And you have to get the license before you can do anything else.

But if you DO get the marriage license, then all you have to do is swear the required oath that you understand what the marriage agreement is and are entering into the marriage agreement freely and of your own free will and are legally free to do so. And you can do that with ANY authorized officiant, religious or otherwise.

Thank you, Mury, very well set out. Given the State's central role in all this, it ought to be clear all "civil union" compromisers that marriages in the US already are "civil unions." Why not just call them all marriages and get on with more important stuff, like Donald Trump's "hair" and the Yankees' prospects for a World Series win this year?

[Neo Art]

It depends on the state, there are essentially two ways:

1) you need a marriage license signed by a state official. In that circumstance you are legally married once the license is signed. The ceremony is merely...ceremonial

2) the state empowers certain people (priests, naval captains, judges) to legally marry people, and their signature on the license is binding.

[Tekania]

I'm not too sure about this, but I always thought that a chruch wedding performed by an authorised priest would be recognised legally in the US? Am I wrong there? Or is that just in some states, maybe?
In Germany, you can't just get a license to preform marriages, it needs to be done by a full-time state official. And last thing I know, it has to happen in the registry office, it cannot be anywhere else. So most couples will have the civil ceremony first, and then a couple of days or weeks (sometimes years) later the church ceremony. I think this has led to a clear separation in people's minds between the legal marriage, and the religious aspect of it. And I also think that this may be why there is relatively few opposition to include same-sex marriages on the civil/legal side of it.

That's just plain guessing, though, and doesn't really have all that much to do with the original topic. So I'll stop it here.

Well, somewhat right...

1. People have to get a legal document form from their local government offices (usually the clerks office)
2. This form may be signed and witnessed in the presence of anyone authorized by the state government in question... This authorization varies by state; but in my state can include Officers of the Court, Magistrates and any person with an Ordination from a religious organization... Some states also recognize the authorization presented from other states to do marriages in their borders (some do not)... There is no requirement upon the authorized ministers to actually preside over a marriage (its purely voluntary)... And there is no legal difference between a marriage presided over by an authorized ordained religious minister, and that of a Court Officer/Magistrate...
3. This form then is submitted (in some cases by the marital partners, in others by the authorized agent; depends on state laws/regulations) back to the Clerks office or equivalent for record... At which point a form is sent to the marital parties as proof of their legal recognition...

So, our Religious and Civil unions may be, but not-necessarily occur; at the same time...

EDIT: Also there are various other restrictions... Some states have restricted minimal/maximum time between license issue and final submission, other do not... Some have residency requirements, some do not... And age restrictions all very state to state...

[Muravyets]

It depends on the state, there are essentially two ways:

1) you need a marriage license signed by a state official. In that circumstance you are legally married once the license is signed. The ceremony is merely...ceremonial

2) the state empowers certain people (priests, naval captains, judges) to legally marry people, and their signature on the license is binding.

In both instances, it is the license that matters, not the ceremony, and the power to issue the license is granted by the state, not by any other authority.

[Tekania]

It depends on the state, there are essentially two ways:

1) you need a marriage license signed by a state official. In that circumstance you are legally married once the license is signed. The ceremony is merely...ceremonial

2) the state empowers certain people (priests, naval captains, judges) to legally marry people, and their signature on the license is binding.

In both instances, it is the license that matters, not the ceremony, and the power to issue the license is granted by the state, not by any other authority.

Yep... As long as the state requirements are met, regardless if it is presided over by a civil or religious figure, it is legal... A religion may themselves declare someone "married"; but if it is not done so under the civil license it has no power in civil law...

This is why I don't understand the debate... There is absolutely no contention over defining what religions must (themselves) recognize or not recognize within their religious realm of authority...

[JuNii]

Poll after poll shows that strong majorities of Americans support civil unions. Where are you?

I am neither against, or for same sex marriage. same with Civil Unions.

[Dempublicents1]

In Germany, for example, you can get married in any church you like, of course, but unless you also show up in front of a registrar and go through the legal ceremony, your marriage won't be recognised.

It works basically the same way in the US. It's just that religious conservatives love confusing people into thinking of civil marriage as a religious institution, so that they can portray marriage equality as an insidious attempt to deny them the vital freedom to religiously discriminate against gay people.

I'm not too sure about this, but I always thought that a chruch wedding performed by an authorised priest would be recognised legally in the US? Am I wrong there? Or is that just in some states, maybe?

No, you still have to sign a thing from the government before you're legally married. I think, and I may be wrong, that priests are authorized to give you the papers to sign. But again, I may be, and probably am, wrong.

You get the paperwork from the government (usually at a county courthouse). What religious leaders can do is sign off on the paperwork saying, "There was a ceremony and the marriage should officially start on this day."

It sounds like, in Germany, the religious leaders have nothing whatsoever to do with the paperwork and those who wish to have a religious ceremony must also have a separate legal ceremony. Personally, I don't know why there needs to be a ceremony for the legal part at all. It seems like it should just involve signing the paperwork.

[Dempublicents1]

As for the civil union "compromise", I can see doing it on the way to full equality, but I don't think having a separate legal institution will ever be truly equal. There will always be loopholes and things that were "forgotten", not to mention the fact that many will take the separate name as license to treat them differently.

[Mando-ade]

"Civil Union" is an equal protections issue... Opponents to same-sex unions know that by implementing a "civil union" for such partnerships, while maintaining "marriage" for heterosexual partnerships that they can then discriminate (given they are two separate legal institutions)...

That's the only reason they want the separation... So it appears they are making a "fair compromise", while really being the same discriminatory bastards they've always been.

Separate is not only not equal... Separate is NEVER equal... Because the only reason you would WANT something separate is so it can be MADE unequal within our law...

Men and women are separate, are they not equal?

[Dempublicents1]

"Civil Union" is an equal protections issue... Opponents to same-sex unions know that by implementing a "civil union" for such partnerships, while maintaining "marriage" for heterosexual partnerships that they can then discriminate (given they are two separate legal institutions)...

That's the only reason they want the separation... So it appears they are making a "fair compromise", while really being the same discriminatory bastards they've always been.

Separate is not only not equal... Separate is NEVER equal... Because the only reason you would WANT something separate is so it can be MADE unequal within our law...

Men and women are separate, are they not equal?

You really need to talk about something that is legally separated, rather than something that is biologically separated for your comparison to make sense.

While it isn't legally mandated, separate bathrooms for men and women are legal, so let's use them as an example. Are they equal? The answer is....maybe. Men and women generally have equal access to them (they're usually right next to each other). They generally both have handicap access. They both contain places to use the bathroom and sinks to wash one's hands. They are theoretically equally well-stocked with paper towels and toilet paper.

But are they truly equal? In my experience working at places and actually cleaning them, my experience was that women's bathrooms were generally better maintained as far as cleanliness goes. In some places, the women's bathroom has a changing table, while the men's does not. Men are more likely to have to expose themselves to others in order to use the bathroom, which is probably part of the reason that women can bring their young sons into the bathroom with no problem, but men generally cannot do so with young daughters. And so on....

If everyone just used the same facilities, none of these possible inequalities would exist. In the end, any time you have separate facilities, institutions, etc., for different groups of people, there is a very high likelihood that they will be unequal - whether intentional or not. The question then becomes whether or not there is justification for the separation that outweighs such differences.

[Tekania]

Men and women are separate, are they not equal?

There is no legal separation between "men" and "women"... Each have the same civil rights as the other, before the law...

With the exception of marriage of course... Because, unlike a woman, a man is not free to marry a man; and a woman, unlike a man, is not free to marry a woman.

[Soheran]

Well, come on, seriously, what do you really think will happen if that bluff is called?

As I said before, if all I can get is a slight increase in political honesty, that is good enough for me.

That said, I think there might be more potential here than you imply. The position is conceptually coherent ("Same-sex relationships are not equivalent to opposite-sex ones, and the law should recognize that, but they should not be subject to substantively discriminatory treatment either") and both polling data and anecdotal experience suggests that it resonates with at least some people. We are fortunate enough to have a political culture that prides itself on being essentially fair: that is partly why marriage equality will win in the end, but it is also a foundation on which some progress might be able to be made right now.

But aside from that, history shows that all the major advancements in civil rights in the US, and arguably elsewhere in the world, have come as a result of dramatic action to push through sweeping changes.

Really? The enslavement of Blacks began in the seventeenth century; have we overcome racism in 2009? But we have made progress.

Women got the vote in 1920, as part of a long-term gradual effort to expand their legal rights--and in 2009 we still have no Equal Rights Amendment, and our society persists in wage discrimination, glass ceilings, sexist stereotypes... Was the fight for suffrage pointless incrementalism?

But increments and sneaky word games were not what ended slavery, or reformed immigration multiple times, or got women the vote, or ended racial segregation, etc., even though on every single one of those issues, there were those arguing for the kind of approach you are talking about.

With the single exception of slavery--which, considering that it brought about a long and bloody civil war, is a pretty clear outlier--every one of those cases actually happened incrementally.

Immigration reform has always been a matter of compromise: do you think our policy now represents the ultimate triumph of progressive values? Women's suffrage was one legal right of many, some of which were won beforehand, some afterward--not altogether as one decisive victory (and suffrage itself happened gradually at the state level first). Desegregation took years of legal and political struggle after Brown v. Board, and our education system is still pretty segregated, though not de jure anymore (you could make a case that that's an excellent example of "sneaky word games"...)

Edit: Actually, I take back what I said about slavery. It was an incremental political objective--blocking its expansion into the West--that brought about the Civil War in the first place, allowing for its nationwide abolition. And it was incremental political objectives--abolishing it state-by-state--that laid the groundwork for a slave-free society in the first place.

And one might further add that freeing the slaves was itself merely incremental progress, because after the end of Reconstruction Blacks were deprived of political and civil rights anyway, and many were stuck in conditions of economic dependence that in some cases had a rather close resemblance to slavery...

[Muravyets]

Well, come on, seriously, what do you really think will happen if that bluff is called?

As I said before, if all I can get is a slight increase in political honesty, that is good enough for me.

That said, I think there might be more potential here than you imply. The position is conceptually coherent ("Same-sex relationships are not equivalent to opposite-sex ones, and the law should recognize that, but they should not be subject to substantively discriminatory treatment either") and both polling data and anecdotal experience suggests that it resonates with at least some people. We are fortunate enough to have a political culture that prides itself on being essentially fair: that is partly why marriage equality will win in the end, but it is also a foundation on which some progress might be able to be made right now.

But aside from that, history shows that all the major advancements in civil rights in the US, and arguably elsewhere in the world, have come as a result of dramatic action to push through sweeping changes.

Really? The enslavement of Blacks began in the seventeenth century; have we overcome racism in 2009? But we have made progress.

Women got the vote in 1920, as part of a long-term gradual effort to expand their legal rights--and in 2009 we still have no Equal Rights Amendment, and our society persists in wage discrimination, glass ceilings, sexist stereotypes... Was the fight for suffrage pointless incrementalism?

But increments and sneaky word games were not what ended slavery, or reformed immigration multiple times, or got women the vote, or ended racial segregation, etc., even though on every single one of those issues, there were those arguing for the kind of approach you are talking about.

With the single exception of slavery--which, considering that it brought about a long and bloody civil war, is a pretty clear outlier--every one of those cases actually happened incrementally.

Immigration reform has always been a matter of compromise: do you think our policy now represents the ultimate triumph of progressive values? Women's suffrage was one legal right of many, some of which were won beforehand, some afterward--not altogether as one decisive victory (and suffrage itself happened gradually at the state level first). Desegregation took years of legal and political struggle after Brown v. Board, and our education system is still pretty segregated, though not de jure anymore (you could make a case that that's an excellent example of "sneaky word games"...)

Edit: Actually, I take back what I said about slavery. It was an incremental political objective--blocking its expansion into the West--that brought about the Civil War in the first place, allowing for its nationwide abolition. And it was incremental political objectives--abolishing it state-by-state--that laid the groundwork for a slave-free society in the first place.

And one might further add that freeing the slaves was itself merely incremental progress, because after the end of Reconstruction Blacks were deprived of political and civil rights anyway, and many were stuck in conditions of economic dependence that in some cases had a rather close resemblance to slavery...

[Begin Annoyed Mode]

You really should try reading ALL of what I say in these debates if you are going to have a discussion with me, not just cherrypick out the bits you wish to argue. That way you won't waste time trying to counter me with points I have already made and included in my posts, as if you are making them instead of me. For example, if you had not chosen to ignore significant segments of my posts, you would not have attempted to lecture me about the long history of civil rights advancements after I had stated clearly that change comes from bold and sweeping action FOLLOWED by long periods of incremental work, but not from incremental work without bold sweeping action.

Since you chose to ignore the real substance of my argument, thus misrepresenting it, your counter-argument is not relevant to what I said because it misses and thus fails to counter the point I was making.

Furthermore, since in order to push your argument about incremental approaches, you choose to ignore the facts of history that show clearly the role of radical, even forced change in driving and directing more incremental later advancements -- example: The Emancipation Proclamation -- I reject your argument as factually incorrect due to cherrypicking.

[End Annoyed Mode]

[Tekania]

Desegregation took years of legal and political struggle after Brown v. Board, and our education system is still pretty segregated, though not de jure anymore (you could make a case that that's an excellent example of "sneaky word games"...)

Educational segregation is by class now, as opposed to race... Mostly because in too many districts, of course, one district is "wealthier" than another... And while "equal representation" seems so important in legislatures, it's ignored in public schools under the "he who pays more taxes gets better service" mentality [effectively turning public schools into private schools]... in fact funneling tax funds into the schools located in the wealthier districts...

Something which pisses me off to NO end, mind you... My wife teaches in a county where it seemed perfectly logical to funnel money out of an overcrowded decaying "poor area" public school, to build a new Athletic center in one of the "richer area" schools.

[Soheran]

You really should try reading ALL of what I say in these debates if you are going to have a discussion with me, not just cherrypick out the bits you wish to argue.

I read the whole thing. I quoted the parts that seemed most pertinent to my reply. It would be pretty hard to "cherrypick" if I hadn't read the whole thing first...

For example, if you had not chosen to ignore significant segments of my posts, you would not have attempted to lecture me about the long history of civil rights advancements after I had stated clearly that change comes from bold and sweeping action FOLLOWED by long periods of incremental work,

Well, I guess it depends on what you meant by "adjusting and refining legislation and social systems to implement the changes more effectively"... I read this as referring to basically administrative tinkering, e.g. we might switch from one method of anti-discrimination protection to another method of anti-discrimination protection.

But as I said, even with your qualification this is a fundamentally incorrect way of understanding what actually happened during the Civil Rights Movement: the reason progress was gradual and incremental was because opposition was intense, not because there was quibbling over the efficacy of ways and means. Not everything could be won at once; legal rights was itself a narrower goal than full equality, and even it was won in bits and pieces.

One might point also to woman's suffrage: the analogous argument to yours would have been to say, "Screw this suffrage business, let's get an Equal Rights Amendment--and leave the incrementalism to the legal disputes over what precisely 'equality of rights' means." In 1920, obviously, this would have been politically hopeless.

If you think all of this is irrelevant to your argument, you're going to have to specify what your argument is a little better--and explain more clearly how exactly it's relevant to the civil unions case. Legal rights short of full equality, after all, were productively achieved in the very examples you cited.

Furthermore, since in order to push your argument about incremental approaches, you choose to ignore the facts of history that show clearly the role of radical, even forced change in driving and directing more incremental later advancements -- example: The Emancipation Proclamation -- I reject your argument as factually incorrect due to cherrypicking.

Two points.

First, slavery was an outlier for reasons previously mentioned, but the political context of the Civil War still supports what I have said about incrementalism, as I explained in my edit to my last post.

Second, the Emancipation Proclamation is in fact a fine example of incrementalism. Slavery in the states loyal to the Union was left alone. No guarantor of equal protection was made. The only people targeted were slaves in regions in rebellion against the United States--slaves, in other words, that for the most part Lincoln could not actually free. "Bold and sweeping", perhaps--as the circumstances of the war let it be--but hardly as "bold and sweeping" as one might hope, and hardly evidence for your apparent view that there is no place for half-measures.

[Seculartopia]

I support them. Marriage/Civil Unions/Lifelong Partnership is a choice of the two partners. Its not sacred, it is simply their option and choice.

[Taeshan]

I support them. Marriage/Civil Unions/Lifelong Partnership is a choice of the two partners. Its not sacred, it is simply their option and choice.

Thats what i would think to see.

[Muravyets]

You really should try reading ALL of what I say in these debates if you are going to have a discussion with me, not just cherrypick out the bits you wish to argue.

I read the whole thing. I quoted the parts that seemed most pertinent to my reply. It would be pretty hard to "cherrypick" if I hadn't read the whole thing first...

<snip the remainder of an argument which I'm sure would have been fascinatingly informative if it had had anything to do with anything I said, but which is all moot since it is dependent on the cherrypicked original argument which I had already rejected since it did not address my argument, and still doesn't>

Thank you for acknowledging that you cherrypicked and, as I said, thus misrepresented my argument as well as ignoring key points.

And yes, my argument does in fact depend on what the words in it mean, but since you chose to ignore my words altogether, it hardly matters to your argument.

I still refuse to engage your argument because, as I told you, it is NOT a counter-argument to anything that I said. You do not get to pull bits and pieces out the context I put them in, or redefine my terms to suit your own ends, use that to make up some argument that would be something your post could be a counter to, and that put that cobbled together monster into my mouth. Or rather, you CAN do all that, but you CANNOT get me to play along.

I stated very clearly what my argument regarding incrementalism is. Nothing you have said changes my position because the only parts of your argument that are correct, actually agree with me. Readers who read the words I put in the thread, as I wrote them, should be able to see that for themselves.

[Soheran]

Thank you for acknowledging that you cherrypicked and, as I said, thus misrepresented my argument as well as ignoring key points.

I'm afraid that I can't be reciprocally gracious for this misconstrual of my statement.

I still refuse to engage your argument because, as I told you, it is NOT a counter-argument to anything that I said.

That's nice.

Maybe you could actually say what you really meant, then, and how it's relevant... like I asked you to. Instead of whining about straw men.

[Muravyets]

Thank you for acknowledging that you cherrypicked and, as I said, thus misrepresented my argument as well as ignoring key points.

I'm afraid that I can't be reciprocally gracious for this misconstrual of my statement.

I still refuse to engage your argument because, as I told you, it is NOT a counter-argument to anything that I said.

That's nice.

Maybe you could actually say what you really meant, then, and how it's relevant... like I asked you to. Instead of whining about straw men.

Or maybe you could just mutter "d'oh!" at your slip-up of acknowledging that you had cherrypicked from my argument, thus showing that my criticism of your response was correct, then move on to acknowledging that we are both supporters of marriage equality and gay rights (even if you can't bring yourself to address the arguments I post as I post them), end by acknowledging that therefore this pissing contest you want to have about whether slavery was an outlier or whatever the fuck you're on about is not relevant to the issue, and get back to the issue? Hm?

EDIT: By the way, I stated extremely specifically exactly what I really mean, and how it's relevant, in my very first post, followed by the second and third ones, and if you do not know that, then you are only proving further that you have not read your own thread, for crying out loud.

Also, seriously, Soheran, if you could not get me to change my mind about being opposed to incrementalism by hacking my posts up and pulling parts out of context and ignoring what I was really saying, what makes you think you'll accomplish it by asking me to repeat myself? Read the thread. It's only 2 pages long, for fuck's sake.

[Soheran]

Or maybe you could just mutter "d'oh!" at your slip-up of acknowledging that you had cherrypicked from my argument,

Yes, because clearly my meaning was that I intentionally misrepresented your argument... as opposed to, say, what I actually said, which was that I quoted the parts I thought were most pertinent to my point, and that it would be pretty hard to practice any kind of selective quotation (for whatever purpose) without actually having read the whole thing.

then move on to acknowledging that we are both supporters of marriage equality and gay rights (even if you can't bring yourself to address the arguments I post as I post them), end by acknowledging that therefore this pissing contest you want to have about whether slavery was an outlier or whatever the fuck you're on about is not relevant to the issue, and get back to the issue?

....What on Earth are you talking about? You brought up slavery, not me, as part of an argument you advanced about the inefficacy of incrementalism (except as a later perfecter of sweeping and decisive action) at achieving social change. Is it your insistence that no one but you discuss your examples?

I'm not trying to have any "pissing contest" of any sort. My only interest here is in defending the prospect of civil unions as a worthy intermediate goal. You have challenged this; I have responded. This seems to me to be both relevant to the thread (if not in the direction I hoped to take it) and generally worthy of attention, and I see no reason to stop talking about it.

Obviously, however, if you will neither respond to my counterarguments nor explain how they are irrelevant, you are quite right that this particular exchange has become pointless.

[Muravyets]

<snip>

Obviously, however, if you will neither respond to my counterarguments nor explain how they are irrelevant, you are quite right that this particular exchange has become pointless.

I already did both of those things, as I just finished telling you. Telling you anything is pointless if you refuse to read it. Cut it out.

[Soheran]

I already did both of those things, as I just finished telling you.

Well, sort of. It was in an edit after I had written my reply.

For what it's worth I just went back and re-read--yes, re-read, because I read them the first time too--your original posts. I'm pretty sure I understood them correctly at the time, and I'm pretty sure I understand them now: you deny that securing civil union legislation will represent actual equality for same-sex couples. I have said from the start that I agree with this.

Our discussion took a slightly different direction with your third post, however, after I pointed out that the point (from my side of the aisle, so to speak) is not so much to achieve equality as to provide concrete gains for same-sex couples. Here you made two arguments: (a) that my efforts at convincing marriage equality opponents to support civil unions would be futile, and (b) that incrementalism was not the method by which past major achievements in civil rights had been won. Your second point struck me as simply false, even with your qualifying mention of a role for incrementalism in perfecting reform: you have disputed my interpretation of it, but provided little explanation of the difference between your actual view and the view I have attributed to you. The furthest you have gone is in accusing me of simply ignoring the qualification, but I did not: in my very next post I explained why I thought it was not relevant to my point.

Because clearly we are getting nowhere, my point might be better characterized in the following way, distinct from the disputed interpretation of your post: historically, gains in legal rights short of full legal equality have been important steps in movements for equality. This is true both of the movement for gender equality and the movement for racial equality; moving away from the specific framework of equal legal rights, merely partial progress in favorable reform of the law has also been important for the labor movement and the development of government services for the poor. One might even say that Medicare and Medicaid were merely partial steps toward universal health insurance, but they still represented concrete and useful gains.

In this context, I see no reason to disparage the possibility of civil unions as a useful intermediate step toward full equality. To the contrary, I think such disparagement is potentially politically counterproductive: if there are significant political gains to be had in seeking equality through civil unions rather than marriage, if we can do "civil unions" but not marriage, there seems no reason to wait ten or fifteen years until we can do marriage when concrete progress can be made now. It is worth adding also that several states with civil unions/domestic partnerships have actually made the transition to marriage equality, and an additional one--New Jersey--is considering it. It is not as if civil unions legislation represents an ultimate closure of the issue.

I don't care about your original argument anymore. Do you object to what I have just said? Why?