Question:
OK. i just got off the phone with my mom and she was going off about prop 8 and signs being stolen, etc. i had her give me a run down of the day-to-day effects that prop 8 not passing would have. in other words, i see the principles involved, but if we're in favor of domestic partnerships having ALL the same rights and privileges as traditional marriages, then what difference does it make whether 8 passes?
the first thing she said was that churches could be sued for not marrying same sex couples. i asked zp about that and he said it was a red herring -- freedom of religion would prevent that from happening. my mom said she's read cases. i'm coming to you for the real scoop.
Answer:
Great question... and I have a long response :) - please feel free to pick it part
According to California law (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5) Registered Domestic Partners are given the same rights as married spouses. But although that code extends the privileges of spouses to domestic partners, it does not necessarily expand laws involving families or marriages to include domestic partnerships. For example, a requirement to teach children in public schools about marriage does not necessarily require that domestic partnerships be taught as well. That is one of the primary points that one of the more recent Yes on 8 ads makes and it is founded upon an experience by a couple in Massachusetts (where same-sex marriage is legal) - that opening this up will require that where marriage is used, it will need to include both heterosexul and well as homosexual marriages. So, while those against prop 8 argue that there is no impact to families, children, etc. of course that is not true.
Anywhere the term marriage is used in a law, then that law will clearly expand and change with this redefinition. This redefinition of marriage will affect existing laws referencing marriage and it will be a law that other laws will be founded upon. A precedent will be set and the interpretations that will follow may be quite far-reaching (as it will evolve over time and over generations). We can only speculate what its effects may be.
Now all of this, of course, means that there is indeed a legal distinction between the privileges of a marriage and those of a domestic partnership (as the Opposition truthfully states). Which then begs asking the following questions: Are the rights of domestic partnerships sufficient? Are the privileges of marriage a civil right? This is where the Yes on 8 would say yes - the domestic partnership is sufficient and no - the privileges of marriage are not a civil right. The No on 8 of course argues the opposite. I personally believe that some privileges (such as driving licenses and, yes, marriage licenses) are not rights, but are granted by the government according to standards in the community's best interest.
That is regarding the differences between the two. I have thoughts on freedom of religion, but I'll save that for later :)
kt
ps
The French National Assembly commissioned a study / report on this very issue and you can read the English abstract here:
http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf
Particularly interesting that a socially liberal European nation is more willing to thoughtfully study and research the issue before redefining social norms than the state of California is :) Instead we use judges and propositions to emotionally address social policy....
Showing posts with label q and a. Show all posts
Showing posts with label q and a. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Q&A: Prop 8
Question:
It bothered me last night when they said that civil unions already have the same civil rights as married couples because I don't believe that is true. I wanted to do some research on this and thought I would reach out to you to see if you know. It seems that, for example, you cannot jointly adopt if you are in a civil union (and you obviously can if you are married). I want to be sure on this point because while it won't change my stance, it does take away our credibility if we say things that aren't true. We are better off being honest about that. So, do you know about the difference in civil rights?
Answer:
So many laws include the word "marriage" - perhaps more than can possibly be collected in a summary list - which would of course not envelope civil unions. So, I would say that you are correct that civil unions are not technically the same as marriages in terms of legal benefits, etc. However, I believe that when it comes to civil rights (perhaps not civil benefits), it is not inaccurate to say that they are the same.
That being said, I agree with you in that I don't think that saying they are the same is an effective argument (since, technically it is not true). In terms of arguing this rationally, my recommendation is to challenge the opposition's current method of framing this as a civil rights issue, and instead perhaps discuss the concept of a license - and the concept of using legal and social policy to prohibit, permit, or promote behaviors. Since heterosexual married couples have consistently been identified as the ideal model for a family, it is sensible to retain it as the legal definition of marriage. It doesn't mean we prohibit or penalize other relationships, but we should promote the best (as outlined by social research, not necessarily religious beliefs, although in this case, they may be the same).
There is an excellent resource that the French National Assumbly published in line with this. France, a notably socially liberal country, has determined to maintain traditional marriage and civil unions (rather than promoting same-sex marriage) due to social research findings. It is worth re-emphasizing in discussions that this is a very emotional issue, but that as we look at other nation's examples, it is worth looking at research before hastily shaking up the social norms that have evolved through common law for perhaps good reason. I also often follow up a 1:1 discussion with my personal religious doctrinal beliefs about gender and marriage. I find most people respect them and do not disagree (even if they do not fully agree) with them.
News article on the French Report:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06021601.html
English Translation of the French Report:
http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf
I hope this is helpful,
kt
It bothered me last night when they said that civil unions already have the same civil rights as married couples because I don't believe that is true. I wanted to do some research on this and thought I would reach out to you to see if you know. It seems that, for example, you cannot jointly adopt if you are in a civil union (and you obviously can if you are married). I want to be sure on this point because while it won't change my stance, it does take away our credibility if we say things that aren't true. We are better off being honest about that. So, do you know about the difference in civil rights?
Answer:
So many laws include the word "marriage" - perhaps more than can possibly be collected in a summary list - which would of course not envelope civil unions. So, I would say that you are correct that civil unions are not technically the same as marriages in terms of legal benefits, etc. However, I believe that when it comes to civil rights (perhaps not civil benefits), it is not inaccurate to say that they are the same.
That being said, I agree with you in that I don't think that saying they are the same is an effective argument (since, technically it is not true). In terms of arguing this rationally, my recommendation is to challenge the opposition's current method of framing this as a civil rights issue, and instead perhaps discuss the concept of a license - and the concept of using legal and social policy to prohibit, permit, or promote behaviors. Since heterosexual married couples have consistently been identified as the ideal model for a family, it is sensible to retain it as the legal definition of marriage. It doesn't mean we prohibit or penalize other relationships, but we should promote the best (as outlined by social research, not necessarily religious beliefs, although in this case, they may be the same).
There is an excellent resource that the French National Assumbly published in line with this. France, a notably socially liberal country, has determined to maintain traditional marriage and civil unions (rather than promoting same-sex marriage) due to social research findings. It is worth re-emphasizing in discussions that this is a very emotional issue, but that as we look at other nation's examples, it is worth looking at research before hastily shaking up the social norms that have evolved through common law for perhaps good reason. I also often follow up a 1:1 discussion with my personal religious doctrinal beliefs about gender and marriage. I find most people respect them and do not disagree (even if they do not fully agree) with them.
News article on the French Report:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06021601.html
English Translation of the French Report:
http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf
I hope this is helpful,
kt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)