Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Craig234
While it's good that so much of the right - and I usually consider Keith far right - has arrived at the point of supporting gay unions, it's still wrong to dwar the line there.
What is your opposition to civil unions if they are equivalent to marriage under the law?
By "crusading" the point to redefine marriage, which is both deeply historical and religious in nature in this country, you only create enemies to civil unions that would grant parity. You are encouraging a group of people to go to the polls against civil unions who would otherwise likely just stay home and not vote on the issue of civil unions either way.
Here's my view. On the substantive issue, the dividing line is that the religious part of marriage is protected in the church. Catholics don't have to have gay marriages.
On the civil side of marriage, that's part of equality, and gays need full equality, period, and the politics of 'but bigots will concede some things if you compromise' is not enough.
The issue IMO is symbolic - it's the bigots recognizing they have no leg to stand on to defend denying civil union equal rights, but they really would like to keep something that says, however symbolically, that they're still better than gays, still superior to them, and that gays still don't get full equality with them, and that something is the word marriage.
I used to actually have the same opinion you express, that the important thing was the material equality, and that if we could get that for gays, who cares about a word - but I came to realize that's the point, if it's 'who cares about a word', then why deny the word to gays, and why shouldn't the opponents of gay marriage be the ones to have to say 'it's just a word' and not make an issue of it? I realized that it's nothing but a symbol of bigotry to deny the equality on the word marriage as well.
And so, I think that has to be done, too, not to have that linger as second-clas treatment.
A big part of what marriage 'means' in society is for couples to be publically recognized.
To make gays have a second-class relationship status is unjustified discrimination.
Now you tell me, why *shouldn't* gays get the word marriage for civil marriages, other than the threat of people to vote against even more justice if they can't block some?
