The point of the analogy is that even if the accommodations were equal, which theyw ere not, the mere fact of the seperation was intended to express the idea that Blacks were degraded and unworthy to ride with whites, that they were less deserving of considation and respect that whites merely because of the color of their skin.
With two classes of "unions" -- real marriages and qaht we can call Woj civil unions, which create all the legal righst of marriage but aren't -- the point is the same. The only raeson have two different sorts of unions is to express a social contempt, hatred, and loathing for homosexuality, and to express it in public policy, in law. That is not a construction gays and lesbians put on the proposal, it is the intent of the proposal. If those attitudes did not exist, there would be no thought of having two kinds of unions, any more than there would hace been seperate but equal without racism.
That's why it matters -- because seperate is, as the Brown court said, inherently unequal.
Besides, Woj unions are a fantasy. Civil unions do not convey the rights of marriage. Just to make the point clear, the Ohio legislature, bless its reactionary heart, jsut passeda law making sure taht the state govt won't give domestic partner benefits to gays.
jks
--- Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> > wanted the legal benefits associated with
> marriage. And what did they
> > get? Something inferior, when they got anything
> at all.
>
> Sometimes I wonder why otherwise intelligent people
> have problems with
> simple reading comprehension.
>
> I said, I do not care how the thing is called as
> long as same sex unions
> have the same LEGAL rights as heterosexual unions,
> and I do not give two
> shits about the moral or semantic aspect of it. I
> did NOT argue for a
> legal status that carries fewer rights than that
> involving heterosexual
> couples.
>
> To make it even clearer: When I get, say, a junior
> driver license, this
> is "something inferior" to the regular driver
> license, because it has
> certain restrictions (e.g. I cannot drive past 11PM,
> or carry minors, I
> can lose it on my parent's request, etc.) that the
> ordinary driver
> license does not. If, otoh, some state decides to
> give me something
> called a "motor vehicle operator privilege" (which
> is what the driver
> license in fact is) that gives me comparable rights
> as something called
> a "driver license" in another state - neither of
> these two licenses are
> inferior to one another.
>
> Now, explain it to me how the legally sanctioned
> union of same sex
> people that has the same legal rights as a
> heterosexual union is
> inferior to the heterosexual union if it is not
> called "marriage" by
> listing specific legal rights that one has and the
> other one does not.
>
> If that is not semantic quibbling, I do not know
> what is.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html