I had started a long comment on my iPod, but it's a pain to type much there so I figured I'd wait and use the computer...and alaria_lyon beat me to part of what I was going to say!
The major problems I see with the "civil unions for everyone" concept is that it makes all the civil marriages not performed or recognized by a church (and there are plenty of them) instantly "separate and unequal"...because the laws (both statute and case law) will not be updated instantly, non-legal language will continue to use "marriage" even when it should say "civil union", etc...and besides, the anti-equality folks will just change their argument because it's not about the "magic word" anyway. (I've seen plenty of photos from the MA protests with signs that said "NO TO GAY MARRIAGE - NO TO GAY CIVIL UNIONS"... nice professionally printed signs, too.)
If a "compromise" is only accepted by one side it's not a compromise, it's a capitulation (though only a partial one); given the concept of the Overton Window, I reject partial capitulation as being extremely counterproductive.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-04 01:40 am (UTC)The major problems I see with the "civil unions for everyone" concept is that it makes all the civil marriages not performed or recognized by a church (and there are plenty of them) instantly "separate and unequal"...because the laws (both statute and case law) will not be updated instantly, non-legal language will continue to use "marriage" even when it should say "civil union", etc...and besides, the anti-equality folks will just change their argument because it's not about the "magic word" anyway. (I've seen plenty of photos from the MA protests with signs that said "NO TO GAY MARRIAGE - NO TO GAY CIVIL UNIONS"... nice professionally printed signs, too.)
If a "compromise" is only accepted by one side it's not a compromise, it's a capitulation (though only a partial one); given the concept of the Overton Window, I reject partial capitulation as being extremely counterproductive.