On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Doug Henwood wrote:
>> Why would anyone want identical legal protections going under two
>> different names, one for heterosexual couples and one for homosexual
>> couples? What benefit could one possibly derive from this circumstance?
>
> The point is to make one lesser than the other. Bill can't seem to accept
> that.
It's true that the point is to make one lesser than the other. But what Bill's right about is that this isn't finally about rights. Civil Unions would be less than Gay Marriage even in a hypothetical situation when a civil union contract offered substantially more rights.
The word marriage has several traditional magic powers that go beyond any legal bounds, but the most important is the power of bestowing legitimacy on a relationship. If gays can marry, it will make being gay normal. And no other word will.
That's the crux that both sides dilly-dally away from in public debate (gays because they feel "rights" are a firmer ground when you're talking about law and just demands, and anti-gays because "saving the institution of marriage" focus groups better). This is why gays feel a civil union is nowhere near their goal no matter how many rights it gives them. And this is why anti-gays feel that allowing gays to marry will affect everyone in the world and not just those who are getting married. They are both right.
And this is why it will be such a hugely great thing when it eventually happens. No matter how ho-hum or even anti the institution of marriage you might be personally.
Michael