because the laws (both statute and case law) will not be updated instantly,
That is true. I've heard the suggestion that such a law would work only if it a) were federal, and b) included the condition that all laws referring to "marriage" were retroactively changed to mean "civil union."
non-legal language will continue to use "marriage" even when it should say "civil union",
Yeah. Which wouldn't interfere with people's legal rights, but could be a pain in the ass. Would also be a clear way of people subtly showing their politics, too.
and besides, the anti-equality folks will just change their argument because it's not about the "magic word" anyway.
True. The question I was raising was whether "civil unions for all" would please the moderate majority enough more than "marriage for all" that it would be worth pursuing. I have no expectation of pleasing those whose religions forbid homosexuality, and whose politics are focused on their religion.
Overton Window
? *googles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)* Ah! That makes a lot of sense. By all means, let us shoot for the stars, and so not accidentally hit ourselves in the foot. Good point!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-06 06:29 pm (UTC)That is true. I've heard the suggestion that such a law would work only if it a) were federal, and b) included the condition that all laws referring to "marriage" were retroactively changed to mean "civil union."
non-legal language will continue to use "marriage" even when it should say "civil union",
Yeah. Which wouldn't interfere with people's legal rights, but could be a pain in the ass. Would also be a clear way of people subtly showing their politics, too.
and besides, the anti-equality folks will just change their argument because it's not about the "magic word" anyway.
True. The question I was raising was whether "civil unions for all" would please the moderate majority enough more than "marriage for all" that it would be worth pursuing. I have no expectation of pleasing those whose religions forbid homosexuality, and whose politics are focused on their religion.
Overton Window
? *googles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)* Ah! That makes a lot of sense. By all means, let us shoot for the stars, and so not accidentally hit ourselves in the foot. Good point!