Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, September 25, 2012
Gay Marriage / 2012 / LGBTQITSLFA John Corvino: "Why Marriage? Why Not Civil Unions?"
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:30 AM
John Corvino's new series of YouTube videos is a godsend for supporters of marriage equality all over the country—but they're going to be particularly helpful for supporters of marriage equality in Washington state, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota, all states where marriage is on the ballot this November. John Corvino's entire series of Marriage Equality videos is here. For more info about John go to his website.
1
All of the benefits John claims for marriage can easily be granted through Civil Union.
Or even through laws granting EVERYONE the rights John wants to carve out for himself and his ‘husband’.
All people need and deserve the protections and benefits he describes.
Why should someone;
gay or straight;
have to get Married
just to be able to pass their property to whom they want
or to have someone to watch out for their interests when they are sick
or visit them in the hospital
or to get access to decent health care?
Or even through laws granting EVERYONE the rights John wants to carve out for himself and his ‘husband’.
All people need and deserve the protections and benefits he describes.
Why should someone;
gay or straight;
have to get Married
just to be able to pass their property to whom they want
or to have someone to watch out for their interests when they are sick
or visit them in the hospital
or to get access to decent health care?
2
Oh yuck! A hodgepodge.......
So John wants to force his (religious ) definition of marriage on everyone in the world?
Because letting the people of the various states and countries decide for themselves creates a messy hodgepodge....
Oh Yuck!
Why does HIS point of view have to become the Universal Standard?
Why can’t the good people of Alabama (eeeehaw!),
83% of whom voted to define marriage as one man/one woman,
have THEIR definition of marriage forced on everyone else?
After all, Alabamans hate hodgepodge too.....
Oh yuck! A hodgepodge.......
So John wants to force his (religious ) definition of marriage on everyone in the world?
Because letting the people of the various states and countries decide for themselves creates a messy hodgepodge....
Oh Yuck!
Why does HIS point of view have to become the Universal Standard?
Why can’t the good people of Alabama (eeeehaw!),
83% of whom voted to define marriage as one man/one woman,
have THEIR definition of marriage forced on everyone else?
After all, Alabamans hate hodgepodge too.....
3
@1 - Then perhaps the state should only offer civil unions to anyone. So long as the state recognizes marriage, however, the offering of a civil union to any particular kind of arrangement is to create an inherently separate institution . . . and there's no such thing as separate-but-equal.
As to whether everyone should have such rights without marriage, civil unions, or the wallet-busting services of an attorney, you may have a point . . . but that point isn't really relevant to the topic at hand.
As to whether everyone should have such rights without marriage, civil unions, or the wallet-busting services of an attorney, you may have a point . . . but that point isn't really relevant to the topic at hand.
4
@2 - The thing is, John's definition includes and exceeds the definition preferred by those who oppose same-sex marriage; that definition doesn't actually stop the good and simple folks of Arkansas from engaging in marriage precisely the same way they'd like to see others engage in marriage.
I should have thought that would be obvious.
The fact is, even with broad recognition of same-sex marriage across the country, you'll still have a hodgepodge of variations from region to region, state to state, and, indeed, marriage to marriage. I doubt you're married (just a hunch), but if you are, I can state with near certainty that while both of our marriages likely conform with set marital law in every state, they are almost nothing like one another. That variation, however, does not in any way keep either of us from having the marriage that best suits us (one hopes).
I should have thought that would be obvious.
The fact is, even with broad recognition of same-sex marriage across the country, you'll still have a hodgepodge of variations from region to region, state to state, and, indeed, marriage to marriage. I doubt you're married (just a hunch), but if you are, I can state with near certainty that while both of our marriages likely conform with set marital law in every state, they are almost nothing like one another. That variation, however, does not in any way keep either of us from having the marriage that best suits us (one hopes).
5
@2: "So John wants to force his (religious ) definition of marriage on everyone in the world?"
As I recall, he wasn't trying to force a (religious) definition of marriage on everyone in the world. He barely mentioned religion at all.
And guess what? Marriage is not, at its core, a religious institution. People who repeatedly claim that it is are either (1) confusing the wedding itself with the institution of marriage, (2) ignorant, or (3) dishonest.
Couple A gets married in St. Patrick's Cathedral, and the officiant is the Archbishop. Couple B gets married in a synagogue by a Rabbi. Couple C gets married in a civil ceremony by a judge in City Hall. Couple D gets married in their back yard by a Justice of the Peace. And Couple E gets married by an Elvis Impersonator in Vegas.
Socially and culturally, there are a lot of differences between the weddings that couples A,B,C,D and E have. But do you know what? Once the ceremonies are over, legally speaking, those marriages are absolutely indistinguishable from each other. None of the people in any of those marriages have any more rights than the people in the others. None of the people in any of those marriages have any fewer responsibilities than the people in the others. And that's how it should be.
Don't want a church wedding? Don't have one. Don't want a civil wedding? Don't have one.
Don't want a gay wedding? Don't have one.
But don't force your choices on anybody else.
As I recall, he wasn't trying to force a (religious) definition of marriage on everyone in the world. He barely mentioned religion at all.
And guess what? Marriage is not, at its core, a religious institution. People who repeatedly claim that it is are either (1) confusing the wedding itself with the institution of marriage, (2) ignorant, or (3) dishonest.
Couple A gets married in St. Patrick's Cathedral, and the officiant is the Archbishop. Couple B gets married in a synagogue by a Rabbi. Couple C gets married in a civil ceremony by a judge in City Hall. Couple D gets married in their back yard by a Justice of the Peace. And Couple E gets married by an Elvis Impersonator in Vegas.
Socially and culturally, there are a lot of differences between the weddings that couples A,B,C,D and E have. But do you know what? Once the ceremonies are over, legally speaking, those marriages are absolutely indistinguishable from each other. None of the people in any of those marriages have any more rights than the people in the others. None of the people in any of those marriages have any fewer responsibilities than the people in the others. And that's how it should be.
Don't want a church wedding? Don't have one. Don't want a civil wedding? Don't have one.
Don't want a gay wedding? Don't have one.
But don't force your choices on anybody else.
6
@1 I agree with @3.
It doesn't fall onto the shoulders of gay marriage supporters to take on converting the entire legal structure of our society. That's too much to ask and just a side-track discussion.
If and when society is ready to do that it will be everybody's problem, not just gays and supporters.
Society has decided that two citizens can enter a marriage contract and be granted certain protections and benefits. Gay marriage only has to make the argument that it is just and fair for them to have the same access.
It doesn't fall onto the shoulders of gay marriage supporters to take on converting the entire legal structure of our society. That's too much to ask and just a side-track discussion.
If and when society is ready to do that it will be everybody's problem, not just gays and supporters.
Society has decided that two citizens can enter a marriage contract and be granted certain protections and benefits. Gay marriage only has to make the argument that it is just and fair for them to have the same access.
7
5
Secular Humanists want to change marriage laws to reflect their beliefs about what marriage is.
The Constitution grants Americans the right not to be forced to embrace Secular Humanist doctrine.
Secular Humanists want to change marriage laws to reflect their beliefs about what marriage is.
The Constitution grants Americans the right not to be forced to embrace Secular Humanist doctrine.
9
3
homosexual 'marriage' is not a 'separate but equal'.
it is a totally different institution.
what part of Traditional HETEROSEXUAL Marriage confuses you?
.
The Point is totally relevant.
Homosexuals claim there is a problem
and claim perverting marriage is the only cure.
it is not the only or even close to the best solution.
homosexual 'marriage' is not a 'separate but equal'.
it is a totally different institution.
what part of Traditional HETEROSEXUAL Marriage confuses you?
.
The Point is totally relevant.
Homosexuals claim there is a problem
and claim perverting marriage is the only cure.
it is not the only or even close to the best solution.
10
Dan, it pains me that every time you talk about gay marriage in other countries you either implicitly or explicitly mention that Germany does not have gay marriage. Which is technically true and also embarrassing considering how many other countries have full marriage equality (Argentina for fuck's sake.) But I would ask you to be a bit more charitable. We have nearly full marriage equality through domestic partnerships. The big missing ones are the income tax brake and the joint adoption right. But our supreme court has ruled four consecutive times that domestic partnerships could not be discriminated against marriages. So it seems likely that full equality is on is way.
Also you should consider just calling it marriage instead of civil union is not in and of itself a quality criteria. The UK has full marriage equality they just don't call it marriage and while Portugal has gay marriage on paper although same sex couples are still not allowed to jointly adopt.
Also you should consider just calling it marriage instead of civil union is not in and of itself a quality criteria. The UK has full marriage equality they just don't call it marriage and while Portugal has gay marriage on paper although same sex couples are still not allowed to jointly adopt.
11
@9 - A same-sex union is functionally indistinguishable, in terms of its socio-economic effects and benefit/impact on society at large, from childless heterosexual marriages. Anything beyond socio-economic effects and benefit/impact is beyond the state's jurisdiction to recognize or regulate.
I have been in a "traditional" (or at least traditionally recognized) marriage for over 16 years. I seem to be pretty good at it. My own parents have provided me with a solid example, having been married for over 42 years. I have no evidence that you have known, or are likely to know, the touch of man or woman; you'll forgive me, I hope, if I imagine I'm less confused about traditional marriage than most, and certainly less so than you.
I have been in a "traditional" (or at least traditionally recognized) marriage for over 16 years. I seem to be pretty good at it. My own parents have provided me with a solid example, having been married for over 42 years. I have no evidence that you have known, or are likely to know, the touch of man or woman; you'll forgive me, I hope, if I imagine I'm less confused about traditional marriage than most, and certainly less so than you.
13
Secular Humanists want to change marriage laws to reflect their beliefs about what marriage is.I'm a Buddhist, myself, but I suppose that doesn't matter; I believe my moral and religious beliefs are necessarily separate from my political ones, so for your limited purposes and scope of understanding, I suppose I am a "secular humanist." As such, I would not prefer that marriage laws "reflect [my] beliefs," but rather, include and allow for them, and for other beliefs which I may not hold, provided that such allowances cannot be demonstrated to cause empirically demonstrable, material harm to any parties other than consenting participants.
The Constitution grants Americans the right not to be forced to embrace Secular Humanist doctrine.And no Americans would be required to embrace same-sex marriage, any more than I am required to embrace any of the many acts (many marriages, for that matter) which I happen to find distasteful, ill-advised, or even morally problematic.
16
@15 - As John Corvino says: why are you changing the subject?
Argue marriage equality (or not) on its own merits.
Argue marriage equality (or not) on its own merits.
19
@17 - That's fine. But you'll need to find your own organizations (and comment threads) to promote your cause. Current marriage equality efforts involve removing gender-based pronouns from marriage law but otherwise keeping everything the same: two equal, independent people marrying. Your marriage equality effort involves 3+ people, which might be legally possible (I doubt it) but it's outside the purview of every marriage equality effort in the country. Perhaps because it's so legally unfeasible. But most likely because the people that want to get married are couples (i.e. two).
Frankly, you should be rooting for marriage equality loud and clear. You're not going to get polygamy until people are comfortable with 2 people of the same gender in a relationship. But as I said, if you want polygamy, you're going to have to start your own organization and start raising awareness. You'll probably need a few lawyers to figure out how it could possibly work within our current marriage, divorce and child rearing laws. Good luck, but it's not relevant to anything going on in this country right now, politically, culturally or legally.
On the other hand, if you're just pretending to promote polygamy to make a strained slippery slope argument, polygamy isn't on a slippery slope because it is so legally unfeasible. And it's not logically sound, either: marriage equality was passed in Washington by the legislature and signed by the governor. If we don't pass 74, marriage for same sex couples will be banned. What's to stop them from banning opposite sex marriage next! It's a slippery slope!!!
A logical, reasoned debate of each issue on its own merits provides the cleats we need to stand on the supposed slippery slope and face reality.
@18 - We're all anonymous on the internet where everything gets ratcheted up in flame wars.
More...
Frankly, you should be rooting for marriage equality loud and clear. You're not going to get polygamy until people are comfortable with 2 people of the same gender in a relationship. But as I said, if you want polygamy, you're going to have to start your own organization and start raising awareness. You'll probably need a few lawyers to figure out how it could possibly work within our current marriage, divorce and child rearing laws. Good luck, but it's not relevant to anything going on in this country right now, politically, culturally or legally.
On the other hand, if you're just pretending to promote polygamy to make a strained slippery slope argument, polygamy isn't on a slippery slope because it is so legally unfeasible. And it's not logically sound, either: marriage equality was passed in Washington by the legislature and signed by the governor. If we don't pass 74, marriage for same sex couples will be banned. What's to stop them from banning opposite sex marriage next! It's a slippery slope!!!
A logical, reasoned debate of each issue on its own merits provides the cleats we need to stand on the supposed slippery slope and face reality.
@18 - We're all anonymous on the internet where everything gets ratcheted up in flame wars.
21
19
A.Lincoln said "those who deny Marriage Equality to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, will fuck off and die".
so. there's that.
A.Lincoln said "those who deny Marriage Equality to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, will fuck off and die".
so. there's that.
22
@20/1 - Figuring out how to handle marriage, divorce, property and child rearing laws for 3+ people is your first step in legalizing polygamy. Prove it's feasible.
23
@15 - Yes. Absolutely. But that's not the subject at hand. If I were leading a campaign against, say, record labeling, I shouldn't be obligated to "include" a campaign against movie ratings, even if I find the latter just as arbitrary and nominally similar.
24
Also, @15 - Shinto practitioners are theists (polytheists, actually, but who's counting?). As a pantheist, I do not believe in [G/g]od(s) (that is to say, in deity or deities possessed of [arguably] anthropomorphic qualities like will or moral interest). What I perceive and deduce to be true fits just fine with Buddhism, less so with Shintoism.
26
Not sure why you're calling me to account for anyone's opinion but my own. However, if it makes you happy . . .
Dan, I support the legal recognition and suppose I believe you should, too, though I absolutely believe it's a separate issue, not only because it affects a different portion of the population, but because it is a separate, if related, mode of injustice (that is, it violates belief that the key component of marriage is consent to deny plural marriage, but it doesn't actually violate equal application of the law the way proscribing same-sex marriage does).
I'm also ambivalent about hate-crime laws. Not that this has anything to do with anything, but apparently I'm to account for any point on which I might disagree with my liberal brethren and/or my feelings any policy that might relate in any way to marriage, sexual orientation, or political social issues connected to either.
Sheesh.
Dan, I support the legal recognition and suppose I believe you should, too, though I absolutely believe it's a separate issue, not only because it affects a different portion of the population, but because it is a separate, if related, mode of injustice (that is, it violates belief that the key component of marriage is consent to deny plural marriage, but it doesn't actually violate equal application of the law the way proscribing same-sex marriage does).
I'm also ambivalent about hate-crime laws. Not that this has anything to do with anything, but apparently I'm to account for any point on which I might disagree with my liberal brethren and/or my feelings any policy that might relate in any way to marriage, sexual orientation, or political social issues connected to either.
Sheesh.
28
@21: "When you feel the need to 'doctor' quotes from famous people to support your point...you're probably an idiot."
--Ronald Reagan
--Ronald Reagan
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Puggle: Love It or Shove It by Grant Brissey
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (29) RSS