Wondering About Same-Sex Marriage in Illinois

[Materialist]

Pardon me if this doesn't come out right, my brain is hurting from trying to figure out the statutes.

Okay, the civil union act and the marriage act are identical save in two ways: the civil union act has the word "civil union" wherever the marriage act has the word "marriage" in it, and the legal age for civil union is 18, while that for marriage is 16.

So, same-sex marriage would already exist if civil unions were simply legally labeled that way. What is the point of making the distinction between a civil union and a marriage if they confer the same benefits?

The marriage law defines a legal marriage as one between persons of the opposite sex, so, why is there a constitutional amendment in the wings that would define marriage in that way  when it already is? If conservatives want to prohibit same-sex marriage then they need to re-illegalize civil unions.

It just seems so stupid to me. Human rights activists want to make same-sex marriage legal, but I think that what needs to be done is pass a bill called "Stop Pretending Civil Unions Aren't Same-Sex Marriages Act."

Hopefully someone can help me sort this out.

[Sophia C]

What is the point of making the distinction between a civil union and a marriage if they confer the same benefits?

Segregation is not usually considered a good thing.

We have civil partnerships in the UK (I am in one). Just because it's a 'marriage in all but name' does not get rid of the problem that it is a marriage in all but name. Same-sex* couples deserve access to the institution of marriage if they (we) want it.

My wife and I are so excited about getting our 'upgrade' to marriage that we're going to have one hell of a party when we do.

*I dislike this term, and all its implications, but it's the legal phrase currently being used in Parliament and in the Act that's being passed on this subject. The law began with a positive name, as the 'Equal Marriage Act', and then people protested. Meh.

[Chabas]

Pardon me if this doesn't come out right, my brain is hurting from trying to figure out the statutes.

Okay, the civil union act and the marriage act are identical save in two ways: the civil union act has the word "civil union" wherever the marriage act has the word "marriage" in it, and the legal age for civil union is 18, while that for marriage is 16.

So, same-sex marriage would already exist if civil unions were simply legally labeled that way. What is the point of making the distinction between a civil union and a marriage if they confer the same benefits?

Well, to make the explicit point that this cannot possibly be a *real* marriage of course, thus keeping the concept of marriage clean for all of us "real", heterosexual couples. It's a propaganda thing.

The marriage law defines a legal marriage as one between persons of the opposite sex, so, why is there a constitutional amendment in the wings that would define marriage in that way  when it already is? If conservatives want to prohibit same-sex marriage then they need to re-illegalize civil unions.

Because constitutions are harder to change - even with the needed super majorities, it generally takes years - so they can keep the nasty defilers of marriage out longer on a technicality.

--Chabas

[Chabas]

*I dislike this term, and all its implications, but it's the legal phrase currently being used in Parliament and in the Act that's being passed on this subject. The law began with a positive name, as the 'Equal Marriage Act', and then people protested. Meh.

What term would you prefer? While I'd be fine with just calling marriage marriage regardless of sex and gender of the participants, as long as we're still having to argue for marriage equality, the discussions involved will require some sort of terminology for... yeah. Whatever you want to refer to the distinction as. Maybe "bigot accepted" vs "bigot unaccepted"? Though that actually makes me want to call off my wedding just to piss the bigots off.

--Chabas

[Sophia C]

What term would you prefer? While I'd be fine with just calling marriage marriage regardless of sex and gender of the participants, as long as we're still having to argue for marriage equality, the discussions involved will require some sort of terminology for... yeah. Whatever you want to refer to the distinction as. Maybe "bigot accepted" vs "bigot unaccepted"? Though that actually makes me want to call off my wedding just to piss the bigots off.

--Chabas

 
I like the term 'equal marriage'. It says what the issue is actually about (in my opinion), rather than pretending that we're demanding special rights. This is about equality.

[Chabas]

I like the term 'equal marriage'. It says what the issue is actually about (in my opinion), rather than pretending that we're demanding special rights. This is about equality.

 
Oh, as a name for the entire concept, I totally agree. Just not sure when term to use when I'm trying to distinguish between "marriage that is currently allowed, between people of different genders" and "marriage that is not currently allowed, between people of the same gender". I absolutely agree that one shouldn't have to make the distinction, but as long as we're having to argue with people about this, there's a practical need to do so.

--Chabas

[Sophia C]

Oh, as a name for the entire concept, I totally agree. Just not sure when term to use when I'm trying to distinguish between "marriage that is currently allowed, between people of different genders" and "marriage that is not currently allowed, between people of the same gender". I absolutely agree that one shouldn't have to make the distinction, but as long as we're having to argue with people about this, there's a practical need to do so.

--Chabas

 
In which case, I rather like your 'bigot accepted' vs 'bigot unaccepted' terminology... :

[Darkhawk]

So, same-sex marriage would already exist if civil unions were simply legally labeled that way. What is the point of making the distinction between a civil union and a marriage if they confer the same benefits?

To make sure that same-sex couples are quite clear that they're not good enough to just participate in the same basic human institution as everyone else.

"Civil union" means "We made this thing up because we can't stand treating you like people".

[Materialist]

To make sure that same-sex couples are quite clear that they're not good enough to just participate in the same basic human institution as everyone else.

Well, dang, that's messed up. Whenever that amendment I mentioned is up for the vote I'll be sure to tell the senate where to stick it.