In the debate over same-sex marriage, some see civil unions as a politically expedient compromise that would offer some protections for gay and lesbian couples and their families without ruffling quite so many feathers. Others use even the possibility of civil unions as a means to justify withholding from gay and lesbian couples the true protections of marriage. Of course once they achieve that purpose, their tone about civil unions shifts a bit (pdf). When he was pushing to pass Measure 36, a constitutional amendment prohibiting the marriage of same-sex couples, Tim Nashif of the Oregon Family Council was quoted in the Bend Bulletin as saying:
Same-sex couples should seek marriage-like rights through another avenue such as civil unions. --8/20/04
Today, when Oregon is considering a civil unions bill, the Oregon Family Council is leading the fight against it and Nashif tells the Bend Bulletin:
We would be against any measure that takes all the benefits of marriage and then calls it something else. We don't think Oregonians had that in mind when they passed Measure 36. --4/15/2005
Others try to use other's legitimate criticisms of civil unions as a sign of some form of hypocrisy. We are accused of not really wanting same-sex couples to have the protections of marriage or else we would jump at civil unions. And when we applaud Connecticut for at least doing something--although not enough--to protect these families that too is questioned, as Elizabeth Marquardt asks
Help me understand how something you passionately and loudly label as “insulting” and “discriminatory” can also be – when you realize it’s all your going to get for now – “a step” towards what you want? If it is truly discriminates against you, you should never tolerate it under any circumstances, isn’t that right?
Well, one could imagine a situation where some citizens were not allowed to ride on public buses. Then, as many people point out the gross injustice of the situation and demand equal rights this is forestalled by a move to graciously let them ride certain local buses provided they sit in the back. People would be right to label such a move as "insulting" and "discriminatory" while conceding that it was at least "a step" toward gaining what others take for granted. This policy truly discriminates against them, but wouldn't there be circumstances--say the need to get to a job to provide for one's family--that would cause some to bear the insult and ride the buses while continuing to push for full equality?
One can learn a great deal from the actual alternatives people support once marriage is taken off the table. In Oregon the Governor and the Senate are supporting a civil unions bill (SB 1073 pdf) along the lines of what's been passed in Vermont and Connecticut. Republicans who control the House are pushing a reciprocal beneficiary bill (HB 3476 pdf) that would give a few important, but quite limited, protections to same-sex couples and to close relatives that cannot marry.
The RB bill itself repeatedly emphasizes that it is not for same-sex couples in particular, but rather more generally for the many couples who are prohibited from marriage. As the bill states:
(1) The Legislative Assembly finds that the people of Oregon have chosen to preserve the tradition of marriage as a unique social institution between one man and one woman. As such, marriages are subject to restrictions, such as the prohibition of a marriage under ORS 106.020 between parties who are first cousins or any nearer of kin to each other.
(2) However, the Legislative Assembly acknowledges that many individuals have significant personal, emotional and economic relationships with other individuals, but are prohibited by law from marrying each other. Examples of such individuals include two individuals who are related to each other, such as a widowed mother and her unmarried son, or two unrelated adults of the same gender.
(3) The Legislative Assembly finds that certain rights and obligations should be extended to couples composed of two adults who are legally prohibited from marrying each other.
Yes, there is nothing particularly remarkable about the situation of gays and lesbians who are being denied the protections of marriage. Many individuals are in a similar situation. For example, there are all those couples who cannot marry because they are too closely related and there's also the example of a widowed mother and her unmarried son. OK that last one was actually a particular case of the first, and there actually is no other situation of a couple that would fall under this bill other than (a) individuals who are too closely related to marry and (b) same-sex couples. Still it seemed quite important to the bill's authors to make it clear that someone else was in the "same situation" as gay and lesbian couples. It nicely frames their attempts to link gay marriage to incestuous marriage and their attempts to claim gays and lesbians are asking for "special" rights.
Supporters of the civil unions bill point out (pdf) that:
The relationships between committed, same-sex couples who want to form a family and, potentially, raise children are fundamentally different from the relationships between two cousins or two elderly aunts who may rely on one another for a limited time. Furthermore, cousins; elderly aunts; and parents and adult children already enjoy a legal relationship to one another that allows them the limited protections afforded by HB 3476. Using the law to treat same-sex couples like elderly aunts is demeaning and ignores the seriousness of these commitments and the needs of these families.
Then again, opponents of the civil union bill might make similar claims about treating homosexual relationships like heterosexual relationships. Let us put aside for the moment the question of whether a lesbian woman seeking to marry her soulmate is more like a straight woman in that situation or more like a widow moving in with her son. Instead we can use this opportunity to compare the bills and see the details of how each group, the civil union supporters and opponents, would have the state treat the gay couple differently than the close relatives and the straight couple respectively.
Let us start by looking at perhaps the most significant difference, how the relationship is dissolved. A reciprocal beneficiary is terminated either by one member simply signing and notarizing a form, or it terminates automatically when one member marries. Can you imagine if someone proposed changing the marriage laws so that you could end one marriage simply by marrying someone else? The need to go through and complete comprehensive divorce proceedings before marrying another is a vital protection of marriage, and it's not because of a child's need for his married mother and father (a person could be leaving a marriage with no children to marry the child's other parent, and yet we would still properly require divorce proceedings). This way of terminating the reciprocal beneficiary may be appropriate for the widow and her son. They knew they were going to be the primary adults in each other lives for a limited time and either one might find someone to marry at any point. If one of them finds that person he or she should be able to marry. The son doesn't need to end his relationship with his mother, but the new spouse will naturally take primacy in regards to medical decisions and issues of survivorship. But opponents of the civil union bill feel that dissolution proceedings would be inappropriate for gay and lesbian couples. They should be able to leave one another at the drop of a hat. Hardly a recipe for commitment and stability, but then it seems that's not what they want for gay and lesbian couples. I believe they are hopeful that the relationships will end and wouldn't want anything to prevent one or both of them from "seeing the light" and marrying someone of the opposite sex.
The two bills also differ significantly on obligations. Well actually there are no obligations in the reciprocal beneficiary bill. That may work as far as the widow and son are concerned. Some obligations may be inappropriate for them. For example, if the son had a minor child, the grandmother would probably care for her grandchild, but why should she be any more legally obligated for the child's educational expenses than any other grandmother? Oregon, however, recognizes that a married person is responsible for his or her family.
109.053 Responsibility of stepparent for expenses of stepchild. The expenses of the family and the education of minor children, including stepchildren, are chargeable upon the property of both husband and wife, or either of them.
It's unclear to me why this obligation should be any different if the stepparent is a woman instead of a man. I guess opponents of the civil unions bill don't want to even consider the possibility of a same-sex stepparent. For one thing, stepparent adoption is generally easier than a second-parent adoption and they don't want to do anything to make it easier for same-sex couples to parent, nor anything that would further the idea that a child could have two mothers or two fathers. The grandparent relationship and the stepaprent relationship are already described in Oregon law. Some people would do all they could to avoid reference to the relationships between same-sex couples and their children, though.
I have no problem with the reciprocal beneficiary bill for relatives who support one another. Vermont passed a very similar bill (pdf) at the same time they passed civil unions. I don't know how necessary it is. I have heard reports that nobody has signed up for reciprocal beneficiary status in Vermont in the five years they've had it. Still, I don't see how it hurts and perhaps in Oregon there will be some demand for it. The idea that such a law is appropriate for same-sex couples demonstrates a view that such relationships should be transient and same-sex couples should not be too dependent on one another for support. It shows absolutely no consideration for the children of same-sex couples and does little to promote the stability and security which would benefit those couples, their children, and the welfare of Oregon.
Yes, there is nothing particularly remarkable about the situation of gays and lesbians who are being denied the protections of marriage.
So because it is not just for "gays and lesbians" RB is just too inclusive for you? That makes no sense. Allowing reciprocal beneficiaries for related couples does not take it away from "gays and lesbians." You must think relatives taking care of each other and their children is worthless, but thankfully most are not as closed minded as you are.
The relationships between committed, same-sex couples who want to form a family and, potentially, raise children are fundamentally different from the relationships between two cousins or two elderly aunts who may rely on one another for a limited time.
That is a statement motivated by pure animus toward family groups you do not approve of. Two cousins love their children every bit as much as any other same-sex couple, and its not fair to punish the children simply because you disapprove of the relationship between the parents!
Your hypocrisy was already covered in this post and the how SB1073 (then SB1000) contradicts the recently passed constitutional ammendment in Oregon is covered here. Good to see you are finally getting around to addressing this.
Posted by: op-ed | June 09, 2005 at 10:04 AM
some see civil unions as a politically expedient compromise that would offer some protections for gay and lesbian couples
Why is it politically expedient?
Sorry folks, civil unions was something I was for as a comprimise a while back. Nowadays I see it for what it is, a zwischenzug. Actually the muslims have a word that might even be closer, it means a comprimise/cease fire but not for the purposes of peace. Their comprimise/cease fire is for the purposes of preparing and re-arming for more battle.
Think I'm kidding, read what the marriage impersonators *really* think of civil unions. Just as with early white-men came stealing indian land with a series of mis-placed comprimises and treaties, the marriage impersonators are learning their lesson from history -- it works.
The real problem with Civil Unions is twofold, (1) they try to extend benefits to one set of people based on the capacities of another class of people, (2) they extend government's arm to governing romance.
Posted by: On Lawn | June 09, 2005 at 10:22 AM
Op-Ed
Mindey McCready sings, "when the shoe is on the other foot, you know thats when it hits the fan."
It never ceases to amaze me just how intollerant and bigoted people can be in the same breath as importuning the populace for more priveledges.
Amazing how true things you say can be. I said the following about how the same-sex impersonation of marriage agenda was throwing the handicapped under the bus, but it applies every bit as much to what you pointed out...
And now RB is too inclusive it would seem.
Posted by: On Lawn | June 09, 2005 at 10:50 AM
So because it is not just for "gays and lesbians" RB is just too inclusive for you? That makes no sense. Allowing reciprocal beneficiaries for related couples does not take it away from "gays and lesbians".
I agree it makes no sense. I said I support RB's, but that they do not provide an appropriate structure to protect same-sex couples and their families. For example, I noted that the ability to terminate the relationship with a notarized signature or not even that much if one marries another is a terrible idea when applied to gay and lesbian couples and works against the goals of providing stability and security for Oregon families.
At least you agree that it makes no sense to exclude gay and lesbian couples from marriage on account of it being too inclusive or taking away something from heterosexual couples. There must instead be some aspects of marriage that you wish to exclude from gay and lesbian couples. What are these? Apparently one aspect is the laws governing dissolution. Why is that a man should need to obtain a divorce before remarrying if he is leaving his wife, but should just be able to walk out on his family if he was in a gay relationship?
You must think relatives taking care of each other and their children is worthless, but thankfully most are not as closed minded as you are.
I don't think that, and I never claimed that. If a grandmother is helping her son to raise her child, she is still the child's grandmother and should not the relationship should be governed as such and not be governed under the laws of stepparents. I value the grandparent-grandchild relationship immensely and take offense at you claiming otherwise. If you feel that RB's are sufficient for same-sex couples and their families, though, you must feel that the relationship between stepparent and child should depend on the gender of the stepparent relative to his or her spouse.
That is a statement motivated by pure animus toward family groups you do not approve of.
Well it was not my statement, so I cannot say what motivated it. And actually I think first cousins should be able to marry. Certainly I believe if first cousins are allowed to jointly adopt a child they should be allowed to marry. The statement you quote, though, wasn't even referring to the situation you then mention. It talked about two cousins or two aunts who rely on each other for a limited time. That is the need the RB bill sought to address. The bill is designed for limited term commitments that could end at whim and says absolutely nothing about children. So the complaint of the RB bill is that it does not address the needs of same-sex couples and their families. I don't know what motivates that, but the way the bill is promoted not on its own merits, but rather as an alernative to SB1073 demonstrates either a lack of concern or a lack of understanding of the needs of same-sex couples and their families.
Your hypocrisy was already covered in this post and the how SB1073 (then SB1000) contradicts the recently passed constitutional ammendment in Oregon is covered here.
Your first post about the hypocrisy is based on falsed premises. I support the benefit for HB 3476 for families and do not object to it as being "too inclusive". I object to it not doing enough to protect same-sex couples and their families. SB 1073 would provide more protection, but still not enough. One could have both reciprocal beneficiaries and civil unions as Vermont does. I would not want SB 1073 to apply to two aunts for the same reason I would not want marriage to apply, because many of the laws (like the dissolution requirement) are I believe inappropriate for what they need. If SB 1073 is passed I would be hesitant to have HB 3476 apply to same-sex couples for the same reason I would be hesitant about it applying to opposite-sex couples who can marry, a fear that it would encourage couples that should be taking on the obligations of marriage to forego those obligations in lieu of reciprocal benefits.
As for SB1073 being a legislative run-around, that argument is a favorite among the hyprocrites in Oregon. When they were pushing to have the amendment passed they argued that the needs of same-sex couples should be addressed legislatively through civil unions, not through the courts and marriage. Using such arguments they were able to get the measure passed. Now that they have denied same-sex couples access to marriage they turn around and use the passage of the measure as evidence that the voters of Oregon don't want the legislature to pursue civil unions. That's simply not true. Funny enough, the hypocrites don't want to comment on their brazen flip-flop....
From the Bend Bulletin:
From the Register-Guard
Posted by: Galois | June 09, 2005 at 11:29 AM
Why is it politically expedient?
It's politically expedient because many people support civil unions while opposing allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. I know many such people and you admit that you were once in that camp. I believe that civil unions, while an improvement over the current situation, are no substitute for marriage. You believe that they are a bad idea for different reasons. That doesn't change the fact that many support it. Therefore some politicians support civil unions because they view as the correct means of addressing the needs of same-sex couples and benefiting society. Aome support it because they believe it is all that can be accomplished for now. Some support it because they believe it will help lead to permitting same-sex couples to marry. And some support it becaue they think it will look bad if they don't do something to address the needs of same-sex couples, their families, and society. That is why for a variety of reasons, a variety of people view civil unions as politically expedient.
Posted by: Galois | June 09, 2005 at 11:43 AM
It's politically expedient because many people support civil unions while opposing allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.
Civil Unions, at least as I understood them, was a way to accomplish a social experiment without having to rip out and replace the moorings of society. The political expedience of them, I felt, was their ability to let us see how well the homosexual model of union worked. That can only happen if they are truely independant of marriage.
Unfortunately the betrayal of that promise comes from Oregon and Connecticut. The zwischenzug of threatening marriage to afford a dishonest political maneuver like Civil Unions is very telling.
As Op-Ed said, The contradicition is clear from the math. In the popular refurendums from Oregon to Kansas to North Caroline people do not support conflating civil unions with marriage, yet as shown in Oregon and Connecticut that is what they are getting.
Why the need for such deception? Indeed this political struggle is very telling to many people who observe the procedings. The commentary in "Civil Libertarian Wedding Bells" was lifted off of Captains Quarters, and is an analysis of the goal of Civil Unions in Connecticut,
In short, and you will agree, people who are supporting Civil Unions in comprimise like I used to are being sold something different than they are getting.
As an aside, the current state of C-38 in Canada supports that commentator's view of the agenda. You'll note how Paul Martin decided to not only decieve the voters, but the legislaters themselves. The following is from Phantom Observer:
The deception itself shows just how egregious the push for impersonating marriage to becom the standard of marriage is. The sticking point is over legislation that pays too much lip service to the idea that religions should be free to make their own moral judgements...
Whether by Civil Unions or any other same-sex impersonation of marriage the outcome is the same. The move is not to be "married" but to be like the hostage taker, stick close enough to the innocent so that their guilt won't be procecuted.
Again the problem with Civil Unions is two-fold, "(1) they try to extend benefits to one set of people based on the capacities of another class of people, (2) they extend government's arm to governing romance." Reciprocal Beneficiaries solves both of those problems, but unfortunately to marriage impersonators, those aren't problems, they are features.
Posted by: On Lawn | June 09, 2005 at 01:07 PM
>Well, one could imagine a situation where some citizens were not allowed to ride on public buses.
Hold on, G, that's not analogous at all. Are "some citizens" not allowed to get married? I think not, and it's deceitful and misleading, as well as cruel and harmful, to suggest it.
Posted by: Mr. John Howard | June 09, 2005 at 01:17 PM
As Op-Ed said, The contradicition is clear from the math. In the popular refurendums from Oregon to Kansas to North Caroline people do not support conflating civil unions with marriage, yet as shown in Oregon and Connecticut that is what they are getting.
You are wrong. Many voters in Oregon wanted same-sex couples to have the same protections of marriage, but wanted to reserve the term marriage for an opposite-sex union. Now I don't believe civil unions can offer the same protections, but many voters disagree with me. They thus viewed civil unions as a way of offering equal protection to same-sex couples while preserving the notion and definition of the word "marriage". Basic Rights Oregon informs us that
I don't have a direct source for the poll, but I can certainly believe it. Other polls have shown the same thing. Many people in this country, especially in states like Oregon and Connecticut, support civil unions but not marriage rights. This is not so unbelievable. You said you once took this position yourself. It is why Connecticut was able to pass civil unions, but not a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry. To take the vote in Oregon as a sign that voters disapprove of giving same-sex couples the same obligations as marriage is disingenuous. The measure's supporters knew that most Oregonians support civil unions which is why they emphasized that the measure would not ban them (and even now admit that the measure does prohibit them). Looking to Kansas for support of how Oregonians view this issue is ridiculous.
Why the need for such deception?
Exactly. I would guess that is because they knew that the measure would never pass if people believed that it would forestall civil unions.
Rep. Michael Lawlor, sponsor of the bill in the state house, was transparent about his desire to legislate even private attitudes.
Wait. Was he transparent or deceptive? I used to live in Connecticut and had the opportunity to speak with Rep. Lawlor on a number of occasions. He supports full marriage rights for same-sex couples and has been quite clear about that. Yet he observed that about a third of the legislature supported marriage, about a third supported civil unions but not marriage, and about a third supported neither. Thus civil unions was all that could be passed in the last legislative session.
In short, and you will agree, people who are supporting Civil Unions in comprimise like I used to are being sold something different than they are getting.
Actually I disagree. If somebody said that if you pass civil unions then there won't be a demand for marriage and you believed him or her, then you could complain about what you were sold. I have been clear that civil unions will not be enough to equally protect same-sex couples and their families, and will not benefit society as much as permitting gay and lesbian couples to marry will. I think most, if not all, same-sex marriage advocates have been equally clear on this issue. Certainly the bill's sponsors in CT were clear. If you were supporting civil unions because you thought it would keep same-sex couples from marrying, then you were doing so for the wrong reasons. Don't blame someone else.
I'm not too familiar with the Canadian bill. Certainly if you are Canadian and think there are improvements that could be made to it, you should contact your MP.
Reciprocal Beneficiaries solves both of those problems, but unfortunately to marriage impersonators, those aren't problems, they are features.
I've explained a few of the problems I have with the RB bill as a means of providing security and stability. You ignore those concerns entirely. I take it that you do not want to see stable and secure same-sex relationships.
Posted by: Galois | June 09, 2005 at 02:37 PM
It is not hypocritical to support the legislative process, and the democratic capacity of gay activists to propose a status such as civil union, and at the same time to oppose the particular proposal that materializes.
Posted by: Chairm | June 09, 2005 at 02:50 PM
Hold on, G, that's not analogous at all.
It doesn't need to be. I was answering Elizabeth Marquardt's question about
I believe the example does illustrate that one could passionately and loudly label something as insulting and discriminatory, and yet also realize that it could be a step towards what one wants. One doesn't need to find civil unions to be insulting or discriminatory in order to understand that if someone did, they still might tolerate it under the circumstances.
The hypothetical I gave was meant to illustrate this point and I believe it did it quite well. If you are complaining because you thought I was asserting that some citizens could not marry, rest assured I make no such claim. Even if the state selected our spouse for us, we could all still marry. The issue here is that same-sex couples are not allowed to marry. It does no good to say that individually, each of them could marry someone else instead. That option, though, does nothing to protect their family or provide stability and security. If one selects a spouse of the correct gender, the state will protect your family. If you select a spouse of the wrong gender, it won't.
Posted by: Galois | June 09, 2005 at 03:01 PM
It is not hypocritical to support the legislative process, and the democratic capacity of gay activists to propose a status such as civil union, and at the same time to oppose the particular proposal that materializes.
Absolutely. I agree. That's not what was hypocritical. It was hypocritical to use the vote on the measure as a sign that voters oppose the particular proposal that materializes, after getting people to vote for it with assurances that they could still support civil unions through the legislature.
Posted by: Galois | June 09, 2005 at 03:07 PM
Please be careful when using an analogy that you use an accurate analogy. Don't take the opportunity to slip in a hurtful insinuation that some people do not have the basic civil right to, yes, CHOOSE a partner to marry and actually marry them, just like everybody else does. It reinforces a second class status on vulnerable people, people who need to be reassured that they have full civil rights.
>If you select a spouse of the wrong gender, it won't.
Nor should it. Just like if you select the wrong career, say bank robbery, the state won't protect your family. It routinely sends criminal fathers to jail despite the harm this causes their family. Protecting families is not particularly high on the state's priority list.
Posted by: Mr. John Howard | June 09, 2005 at 03:25 PM
Many voters in Oregon wanted same-sex couples to have the same protections of marriage
But that does not support your charge, "You [as in me] are wrong" when I said, "In the popular refurendums from Oregon to Kansas to North Caroline people do not support conflating civil unions with marriage."
I'm sorry but the gross deception you attempted here is mind boggling. You tried to say that because some people voted against a measure that these referendums didn't pass? In Oregon alone it passed by a near 2/3 majority. That majority was larger than the one predicted by the placated kool-aid drinkers who, like yourself, pretend to have more popular support than you have. Just how that shell game deception is accomplished was already discussed.
Now I don't believe civil unions can offer the same protections, but many voters disagree with me.
Where and how? Measures that I reference seem to show the vast majority of voters agree with you, if you really are saying civil unions can't[/shouldn't] offer the same protections.
I don't have a direct source for the poll, but I can certainly believe it. Other polls have shown the same thing.
The source of the poll mentioned by BRO is Washington, D.C.-based Lake Snell Perry Mermin/Decision Research. The poll was commissioned by none other than BRO themselves.
Anyone who wishes to discuss this poll at a depth Galois is unwilling to go may wish to check out the discussion of Op-Ed's analysis on Opine. The shell game is exposed over there, long before Galois brough the programming here.
You said you once took this position yourself.
Thank you for allowing me to repeat once again my position:
Apparently independance from marriage is a stipulation you not only endorse in the BRO poll, but actively wish to push away from my words also.
I don't appreciate being made a strawman, Galois. No one does.
So when are you going to start taking the voters seriously? These states found the stipulation that civil unions should not be conflated with marriage very seriously. When are you going to start taking marriage seriously? No endorsement of gender discrimination that robs children of either a mother or father is healthy for any marriage or any of those who wish to impersonate it.
>>Rep. Michael Lawlor, sponsor of the bill in the state house, was transparent about his desire to legislate even private attitudes.
Wait. Was he transparent or deceptive?
Do you always ask questions that were already answered? The appeal to remove basic liberties from the populace was transparent. The deception comes, and you will agree, people who are supporting Civil Unions in comprimise like I used to are being sold something different than they are getting.
I am getting used to your (as Trey puts it) obtuse and flippant dismissals. But why Trey so asymentrically applies his judgement is beyond me.
Thus civil unions was all that could be passed in the last legislative session.
To triangulate positions we often use two different reference points. Here we have Civil Unions and Marriage. That he tries to accompish the same thing with both is very much the point the commentator made, and one that I echo...
somebody said that if you pass civil unions then there won't be a demand for marriage and you believed him or her
Is that what happened? Honestly, I can understand people trying to re-write history for their own purpose. But re-writing recent history? My own history?
Lets look at these side by side...
And here is what you said happened:
-- Note: And you should appreciate this as a mathemetician, an "If-Then" statement denotes a logical branch of consequence. However it is clear that your "if-then" statement allowed no such branching. The "then" is used in that statement seems to sequentially order of events rather than show consequence. --
In short, the difference between what your statement presumes I believed and what I really believed is evident. While you say you dissagree, you are willing to show just how much you do agree by perseverance in keeping the disparity between the comments.
Is there anything more needed to show just how much you will go through to not have to acknowledge a difference that is so important to 2/3's of Oregon's voters? If you don't see it in your own words, you are simply being dishonest to yourself. As Op-Ed pointed out yesterday, cheating is only cheating yourself.
I've explained a few of the problems I have with the RB bill as a means of providing security and stability. You ignore those concerns entirely.
So while you are ready to practice such ignorance, you are also willing to deride it also. Never-the-less it is misplaced.
Your concerns were:
Ummm, thats it that I saw. Any more please feel free to list.
Without any word from you just how the ease of termination is a disservice I can only turn to the Oregonian editorial for support of why that is a bad thing...
This was discussed in my post, btw. Here it is for the scrolling-wheel impaired...
Truely demanding accolades for a homosexual relationship is like me demanding legislated accolades for my record 50-yard dash time. Worse, it brings government into regulating romance which is in no wise a good thing.
Again without stipulation I am left to find other sources that might tell me what you are talking about with children...
That is from BRO's document, "Why Reciprocal Benefits (HB 3476) Aren’t Good Enough ..."
Why is this a bad thing? Parents already have a legal relationship with their children. That isn't even dependant on marriage.
Why such stipulation remains a bad thing was addressed previously...
Only this one falls under #1. They can't have children, but they want the government to have us all pretend they can? That sets a very bad precident in not only marriage but handicapped priveledges and civil rights.
I'm still waiting for your comments on the problematic use of the handicapped in your commentary ...
Homosexuality is not a Handicap
Homosexuality is not a Handicap (part 2)
Posted by: On Lawn | June 09, 2005 at 04:03 PM
Please be careful when using an analogy that you use an accurate analogy.
It was not an analogy, it was a hypothetical and it was perfectly accurate. I illustrated an example of how someone could passionately label a policy as "insulting" and "discriminatory" and yet which the same person make tolerate as a "step" in the right direction. Do you disagree that the example I gave could be labeled as "insulting" and "discriminatory"? Do you not understand how someone could still tolerate the move as a "step" forward? That was the issue I was addressing in a direct response to a question and it was perfectly legitimate.
Now you raise a different issue of whether civil unions are actually insulting and discriminatory. I believe they are when the purpose is to deny same-sex couples marriage. What is more even more insulting is the analogy you provide. You compare selecting a spouse of the same gender to robbing a bank. That is both inaccurate and cruel. (I don't know that is terribly deceitful or misleading since most people can see that it is a ridiculous analogy).
Selecting someone of the same gender to settle down with and raise a family is not harmful and it is certainly not criminal. Furthermore, in the case of marriage, the state would have protected the family upon the selection of spouse if he or she had been a different gender. A proper analogy would have the determination of whether the career was "correct" depend on the gender of one choosing that career. That is certainly discriminatory and it is a denial of one's civil right to equal protection of the laws on the basis of sex.
Protecting families is not particularly high on the state's priority list.
Actually it's quite high on the priority list when the family is headed by a heterosexual couple. They just refuse to offer families headed by same-sex couples the same protection.
Posted by: Galois | June 09, 2005 at 04:03 PM
It was hypocritical to use the vote on the measure as a sign that voters oppose the particular proposal that materializes, after getting people to vote for it with assurances that they could still support civil unions through the legislature.
But that does not support your charge either. You claimed that I was "wrong" when I said, "In the popular refurendums from Oregon to Kansas to North Caroline people do not support conflating civil unions with marriage." But you are replying as if I said, "In popular refurendums ... people do not support civil unions." As I said before, no one likes being made a straw-man out of, though I wonder just how much milage you planned to get with such deception.
That civil unions are extablished is not the problem, that in equating it to marriage it flies in the face of wording on the ballot is the problem.
See for yourself.
Posted by: On Lawn | June 09, 2005 at 04:16 PM
>Actually it's quite high on the priority list when the family is headed by a heterosexual couple. They just refuse to offer families headed by same-sex couples the same protection.
But it's not very high at all, as I illustrated with the criminal father thing. Some judges might show some leniancy if the criminal pleads for his family's welfare, but that would work just as well if the criminal was unmarried.
The benefits and protections are conferred on a marriage regardless of whether or not there are children, and the obligations and responsibilities are imposed regardless as well. And obligations to children are likewise imposed regardless of marriage, and independent of marriage. It's clear the protections of marriage are for the marriage itself, and are based entirely on the responsibilities that people that have the exclusive right to procreate with one another have to each other. People, regardless of their genders or numbers, who are raising children together but have not legally and exclusively given their procreative rights to each other do not get marriage protections.
Posted by: Mr. John Howard | June 09, 2005 at 04:28 PM
>> Galois: "after getting people to vote for it with assurances that they could still support civil unions through the legislature."
The ratification of the amendment was not a blank cheque for the losing side.
Posted by: Chairm | June 09, 2005 at 05:13 PM
It's been quite a day here. Mr. John Howard accuses me of making cruel and inaccurate analogies in a post in which he compares taking a spouse of the same sex to undertaking a career in robbing banks. Then On Lawn after accusing me of attacking straw men goes on at some length criticizing positions I have never claimed. It is a day filled with ironies.
Let us start with how I supposedly made him a straw man. I noted that many people support civil unions, while opposing allowing same-sex couples to marry. I said that he took this position himself. Apparently I misunderstood what he meant by civil union. I misunderstood his position, but this is not a straw man because I did not criticize this position or attack it as wrong. I was merely trying to point to examples of people who might support civil unions, like those in Vermont, while opposing same-sex marriage. It seems he was not an example of such a person. Fine. I will point to different examples. Consider Elizabeth Marquardt who writes at FamilyScholars.org. She has been clear that she opposes same-sex marriage and I'm fairly certain would vote in favor of an ammendment like Measure 36. But it is also clear that she supports civil unions as she applauded the passage of the Connecticut civil union bill and said it was a good thing. We can also turn to an example from Oregon itself. Senator Ben Westlund, one of the sponsors of the civil union bill, voted for Measure 36 because he opposes same-sex marriage. So support for Measure 36 does not mean opposition to civil unions like they have in Vermont, will have in Connecticut, and are proposing in Oregon.
Before I continue I should note that I have and will continue to use civil unions to refer to the type of arrangement they have in Vermont, will have in Connecticut, and are being proposed in Oregon. It seems like a few people might view civil unions as something different and I understand this might create some confusion--which is a problem with civil unions--but seeing as every state in which civil unions have been proposed has treated it this way it seems reasonable and I get tired of saying "like they have in Vermont". I think it is notable that the house bill does not use the term "civil union". This term seems to be reserved for a status like Vermont, Connecticut, or Oregon's Senate proposal.
Now let us proceed to some of the straw men he sets up in his post...
You tried to say that because some people voted against a measure that these referendums didn't pass?
I never claimed the referendum didn't pass. Straw man. I claimed it did not imply an opposition to civil unions. When he says "people do not suppport conflating civil unions with marriage" this does not follow from the vote in Oregon at least. That amendment said absolutely nothing about civil unions. It was strictly about marriage and its proponents and chief petitioners made this quite clear. That is why even today, as they oppose the civil union bill they don't dare say that the bill is precluded by the measure. They go no further than saying it is an indication that the voters would not want the civil union bill, which is itself a disingenuous conclusion.
...like yourself, pretend to have more popular support than you have.
I never said how much popular support I have or even how much popular support certain policies have. That varies from state to state. But speaking of pretending to have more popular support than one has, he claims in Oregon the measure "passed by a near 2/3 majority". The measure actually passed with 57 percent of the vote. I could see someone calling this near 3/5, but 2/3? It's closer to 1/2. It would be better to say that the voters were nearly evenly split on the measure than to say near 2/3. Later on he even gives up the qualifier "near" and simply refers to 2/3 of Oregon's voters. Of course this isn't as bad as the time he pretended to have the support of 17 out of 18 Harvard Law professors who were in favor of same-sex marriage.
So, though, the state cannot compel clergy to perfrom civil unoin ceremonies, nor dictate what is taught during formal worship services, the freedom of conscience of religious people has been constrained. This is about disallowing moral judgment; nothing else
This is setting up a straw man of Rep. Lawlor's position, but I'll respond to it. Lawlor never claimed he sought to disallow moral judgment or constrain anyone's religious conscience. I have no textual context for the quote the commenter gives, but it seems Lawlor was probably referring to his opposition to a proposed amednment that would allow religious organizations to be exempt from recognizing the civil unions. For example, Connecticut has state family medical leave laws that would apply under the civil union bill. The amendment would have allowed religious employers to ignore those laws. Lawlor rightfully opposed this. One's religious views does not grant one an exemption from following laws of general applicability. My rabbis will not perform an interfaith marriage, still they must recognize and respect such marriages when it comes to state and federal law. That does not constrain our religious conscience and it certainly does not disallow our moral judgment.
Without any word form you just how the ease of termination is a disservice I can only turn ot the Oregonian editorial...
Here he justifies attacking arguments that aren't mine, by claiming I didn't state my position. I did indeed note the problems with the ease of disservice. I said it was "hardly a recipe for stability" and noted it "does little to promote the stability and security which would benefit those couples, their children, and the welfare of Oregon". If this wasn't clear enough, I said again:
So that is why the ease of termination is a bad idea. Why does he believe it is a good idea?
Again without stipulation I am left to find other sources that might tell me what you are talking about with children...
How more explicit could I have been? I even referred to a specific statute in the body of my post.
Parents already have a legal relationship with their children. That isn't even dependant on marrage
Another straw man. In the post I referred to the relationship of stepparent and stepchild and this is indeed very dependant on marriage. I could continue with how the marital relationship can make the establishment of the parental relationship easier, quicker, and more secure, but we should at least first deal with the issues I presented.
I'll conclude with a few more issues he raised. The post at Opine indeed mentions one of the two polls referred to by BRO, but it doesn't question the findings or validity of the poll.
Both "If-Then" statements I used were validly structured statements. I think he was referring to the statement "If you pass civil unions, then there won't be a demand for marriage." This a false statement, but there is no problem in the structure. The "then" indeed deals with consequence. The (false) claim is that "if" one passes civil unions, "then" the consequence of that passage would be no demand for marriage. (Consequence here is logical consequence and not necessarily cause-effect, but in this case the statement probably alludes to cause and effect as well).
His posts concerning the handicapped are an attack on positions I never took and with which I disagree, so I thought there was no need to address them. I humored him by responding to his straw men attacks in this post, but I'm not going to make a habit of it. I have never supported fertility tests and do not wish to exclude the handicapped from marriage. It is offensive for him to suggest otherwise. I point to infertile couples as an example of how the stability and security of marriage can be a great benefit even if one cannot procreate. If I think that marriage is still very important even in such situations, it should be clear to anyone that I do not want to prohibit them. I have banned one commenter for villifying me for taking a position that is completely at odds with what I believe and what I have stated.
Posted by: Galois | June 09, 2005 at 08:42 PM
Mr. John Howard:
But it's not very high at all, as I illustrated with the criminal father thing.
Well we disagree on how high a priority protecting families are. In this case of sending a criminal to jail I'd say that need to protect society and prevent anarchy outweighs the need of the family in this case, but I don't think that illustrates that protecting families are not a very high priority.
And obligations to children are likewise imposed regardless of marriage, and independent of marriage.
That's not true as I noted in this very post. The obligaton of a stepparent toward a stepchild is completely dependent on marriage.
It's clear the protections of marriage are for the marriage itself, and are based entirely on the responsibilities that people that have the exclusive right to procreate with one another have to each other.
The issue is whether same-sex couples should be able to take on these responsibilities as well. I have tried to explain why allowing them to do so would be a good thing for them, their children, and society. To say they don't deserve protections because they don't take on the responsibilities evades the issue.
Chairm:
The ratification of the amendment was not a blank cheque for the losing side.
Once again I agree. I am not arguing that the ratification of the amendment means same-sex marriage supporters should get whatever they want in terms of civil unions. I have simply objected to others using the ratification as evidence that Oregonians oppose civil unions, especially when to promote ratification they said civil unions were the appropriate avenue.
On Lawn:
But that does not support your charge either...But you are replying as if I said...
The reply was a direct response to Chairm as we were discussing whether the groups in Oregon were being hypocritical. It had nothing to do with "my charge" or anything you said. So perhaps this is another straw man, but I'll attribute it to a simple misunderstanding.
Posted by: Galois | June 09, 2005 at 08:57 PM
Galois, I think you are incorrect to infer that the Oregon amendment campaign was focussed on the label "marriage" and that there has ever been widespread support for civil union as proposed -- i.e. relationship status that is marriage in all but the label.
The choice was not SSM or civil union. Just as now it is not SSM or RB.
You make it sound like people had made some sort of deal on the campaign trail. They did not. Supporters of the amendment pointed out that the ratification did not prevent advocates from proposing some form of civil union. But it is fair to say that marriage under a different name would defeat the intent of that amendment.
RB need not be a substitute for civil union. Both could be passed or neither. Civil union probably does not have enough support in Oregon, while RB has plenty of support. If there is a choice between the two, it would be in prioritization of the legislative agenda. There probably is some political caclulus in which luke warm support for civil union might be drained away with the enactment of RB. But the SSM advocates are slamming RB as if it was an awful idea for Oregon. Its just not what SSM advocates hoped to get as a consolation prize. RB is not a consolation prize for those who'd be eligible.
In any case, all proposed laws need to gain direct support and not depend on weak inference.
Posted by: Chairm | June 10, 2005 at 01:52 AM
The choice was not SSM or civil union. Just as now it is not SSM or RB.
Once again I agree. I have agreed with just about everything you have said in the last few posts. You only seem to be disagreeing with positions I'm not taking. My point is that the measure said nothing one way or the other about civil unions. There is no telling how many supporters of the measure supported civil unions while opposing same-sex marriage. It was clear, though, that one could support civil unions and still support the measure. As you said, the choice was not SSM or civil union. I object to Nashif and others using that vote to oppose civil unions. If they have objections to civil unions and believe there are some laws that should not be applied to same-sex couples, they should voice their objections and encourage others to do the same, but their objection should not be that it thwarts the intentions of the voters.
Likewise the choice is not now civil union or reciprocal beneficiary. The legislature could pass both (although I believe they should probably amend the RB to prohibit couples who could enter into civil unions).
You make it sound like people had made some sort of deal on the campaign trail. They did not.
On the contrary, I agree with you that there was no deal on the campaign trail. It was clear by all that the measure dealt specifically with marriage and said absolutely nothing about civil unions. I thought I made it clear before, but I'll try one more time. I am not claiming civil unions should be passed because of some deal or compromise. I am claming they should be passed because, in light of the measure, that is the best protection Oregon can offer. The bill would provide great value in promoting stability and security and protecting same-sex couples and their families.
But it is fair to say that marriage under a different name would defeat the intent of that amendment.
This seems to be the sole area of genuine disagreement. The supporters of the amendment were insistent that they were not trying to deny same-sex couples the protections of marriage, but rather were tyring to preserve the institution of marriage as defined as a union of man and woman. That was done. Marriage in Oregon is the union of a a man and a woman. Now the question becomes what can be done to protect same-sex couples and their families. Many people, including some unknown number who supported the amendment, feel the best thing to do would be to offer same-sex couples civil unions like they have in Vermont and Connecticut. These would give, at the state level, these families all the protections of marriage except the word marriage. It would not redefine marriage and it would certainly not do it though the courts, which were the two issues the amendment sought to address. So I fail to see how civil unions would defeat the intent of the amendment unless the intent truly was to deny same-sex couples protections.
RB need not be a substitute for civil union. Both could be passed or neither. Civil union probably does not have enough support in Oregon, while RB has plenty of support.
Again I agree that RB is no substitute for civil unions and both could be passed. I'm not so sure civil unions do not have enough support. You say "probably", I'd go with "maybe". The House is controlled by Republicans who have tended to oppose the idea of civil unions, but not all Republicans do as the senate bill had two Republican cosponsors. With the support of the Governor and the Senate who knows what will happen in the House. If it is not passed this year I believe it will be passed in the next few years.
But the SSM advocates are slamming RB as if it was an awful idea for Oregon.
I'm a SSM advocate and I'm not slamming RB as an awful idea for Oregon. I just think it is awful to think that RB's provide adequate protection for same-sex couples and their families, nor does it do much to address the goals of providing stability and security. Given the lack of interest in RB's in Vermont I wonder how important it is, but I have no objection to the bill's passage. Vermont RB's may be unused, but I don't think they've done any harm. It would be harmful, though, if RB's were subsequently used to justify a vote against civil unions. As you and I agree, they are two separate things.
Its just not what SSM advocates hoped to get as a consolation prize. RB is not a consolation prize for those who'd be eligible.
I've never viewed civil unions as a consolation prize.
In any case, all proposed laws need to gain direct support and not depend on weak inference.
Again I agree wholeheartedly. I have been saying the same thing with regards to opposition to a proposed law. Opposition to a proposed law needs to be based on direct objections and not depend on weak inference. The civil unions bill needs to be debated on its own merits without reference to measure 36.
Posted by: Galois | June 10, 2005 at 02:36 AM
I said I support RB's, but that they do not provide an appropriate structure to protect same-sex couples and their families.
Oh, good enough for children being raised by aunts, but not good enough for same-sex couples? Why not? Other than because you disapprove of extended families working together to raise offspring. Government should not endorse your sort of bigotry.
I don't think that, and I never claimed that.
But you are saying they don't deserve the same protections as gays and lesbians. Isn't that the same thing?
Well it was not my statement, so I cannot say what motivated it.
You can say what motivated you to include it. Hatred of children and extended families, it is clear.
And actually I think first cousins should be able to marry.
Well, I guess that "nicely frames [your] attempts to link gay marriage to incestuous marriage."
I object to it not doing enough to protect same-sex couples and their families.
Unless those same-sex couples happen to be related. Then you think it works great and you have said so. Why? How are their children any different? You keep insisting that same-sex couples and consanguine couples be treated differently but you fail to show why.
SB 1073 would provide more protection, but still not enough.
It provides all the "protection" of marriage, but apparently that's not good enough. It better be for some reason other than a quest for equality, because you have trashed every equality based argument you have ever made in insisting we throw Aunt Tilly and Aunt Milly under the bus.
If SB 1073 is passed I would be hesitant to have HB 3476 apply to same-sex couples...
Unbelievable. You want to push your discrimination even further into the law. First you show me why that is necessary. Not just expedient, but necessary. After all, you argue laws based on gender and sexual preference require strict scrutiny and that strict scrutiny demands you prove necessity.
HB3476 provides the most inclusion, and meets your goal of equality at any cost. SB1073 is discriminatory and hurts Oregon families. Extended families taking care of each other and raising children are beneficial to society, contrary to what you would have us believe, and therefore deserve the same protections as "gay and lesbian" couples.
As for SB1073 being a legislative run-around, that argument is a favorite among the hyprocrites in Oregon.
That is not a counter-argument, that is mere name-calling. Either show how the word game of calling a same-sex union a "civil union" and then equating it to marriage is different than equating it to marriage directly or admit you are wrong. Don't just stand there and call names.
Now that they have denied same-sex couples access to marriage...
Not according to you. According to you the voters in Oregon just wanted them to stop off and call themselves civil unions first and then they could have full access to marriage. According to you, the voters in Oregon didn't really want to do anything at all when they voted to amend their constitution. Perhaps you need to leave your ivory tower (where "two" equals "one," I might add) and get out and meet some real voters for a change. Then you wouldn't be so contemptuous. Voters are not as stupid as you would have us believe.
All throughout our long discussion I have advised you against adopting arguments based simply on the conclusions they allow you to reach. Well, now your chickens have come home to roost and you are left rejecting those self-same arguments based only on the fact they arrive at a different conclusion.
Posted by: op-ed | June 10, 2005 at 09:56 AM
I'd also say that the need to protect society and prevent anarchy outweighs the marginal needs of a small number of families, but I'd say that was true in all cases, and that SSM is anarchy and society needs to be protected from SSM.
>The obligaton of a stepparent toward a stepchild is completely dependent on marriage.
OK, that makes sense, but that's because the spouse takes on the obligations of the other parent to the children. All the children, step or not, are treated equally, mainly because the marriage binds the spouses to each other. Not to the children. Note that the obligation to step children ceases if the marriage dissolves. This is why many step parents go the extra step of adopting the step kid. You don't need to be married to the to the kid's parent to adopt, you just need the other adoptive parent to agree to give up parental rights. Note also that there is a limit of two parents. In what way does that limit serve to protect the kid?
And note this little number, and compare it to what I claimed in my post:
109.060 Legal status and legal relationships when parents not married. The legal status and legal relationships and the rights and obligations between a person and the descendants of the person, and between a person and parents of the person, their descendants and kindred, are the same for all persons, whether or not the parents have been married.
>The issue is whether same-sex couples should be able to take on these responsibilities as well.
I have tried to explain why allowing them to do so would be a good thing for them, their children, and society. To say they don't deserve protections because they don't take on the responsibilities evades the issue.
You mean because I'm not for letting them take on the responsibilities? Well, for one thing, they don't naturally take on the responsibilities, because naturally, they cannot. They know that they will not spontaneously create offspring. They also do not create equality by joining the two sexes together as one legal and spiritual entity. And it would be unethical to allow them to create offspring artificially, by combining their gametes, so no, I don't think they should be allowed to take on those responsibilities that way. And I don't want to be complicit in forcing a man to stay married to another man, unable to enter in a marriage that would allow him to legally exercise his basic civil right to procreate. A person should never be obligated to stay exclusive to a person of their same sex, it's barbaric, it denies the constitutional rights that the Lovings fought for. Weakening marriage's obligations to allow people to truly marry seems rather oxymoronic, no one can truly marry if we do that.
Posted by: Mr. John Howard | June 10, 2005 at 11:50 AM
Galios
The trouble with the original post in this thread is the same phenomena that trouble all of your posts. That is a willful ignorance and either self deception or outright propaganda as to the aims of your opposition.
The common thread you always seem to be looking for (and then pretend bafflement on not being able to find) is the protection of the traditional family.
This operates as a distinct concept and is well rooted in law. Courts that will be seeking to define “or other union for similar purpose” and all other language included in the various state amendments prohibiting civil unions and other marriage counterfeits will be forced to either acknowledge this will of the voters, or will seek to subvert it. (as you do)
Once again, none of this is terribly difficult (as an attorney I can attest) Any particular judge or court simply reads the amendment as written, and strikes down provisions that infringe on the distinctiveness of marriage in it gendered and procreative purpose.
Posted by: Fitz | June 10, 2005 at 01:03 PM
Galios
While reading the blog site of your adversaries I came across a old saying that perfectly describes the underhanded rhetorical tactics that you continuously evoke on your webpage.
That saying is
It is the proverbial – “swallowing camels while straining at gnats.”
Now you must be intelligent enough to realize this is what you are doing. Once this realization is made everything else you engage in is called “sophistry”
Main Entry: soph•ism
Pronunciation: 'sä-"fi-z&m
Function: noun
1 : an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive
2 : SOPHISTRY 1
Main Entry: soph•ist•ry
Pronunciation: 'sä-f&-strE
Function: noun
1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
2 : SOPHISM 1
This tactic is tired and boring; it is also (and more importantly) lacking in intellectually integrity and morally obtuse.
I suppose you know this already and realize that it is the only method by which your cause can triumph in the debate.
Posted by: Fitz | June 10, 2005 at 01:25 PM