|
Gotcha!
I agree the name is disparate, but the reason I think that Civil Unions are still a satisfactory remedy is that I don't think a mere difference is name is enough for the solution to be considered unconstitutional.
Now, If we began to see companies affording different treatment to "married" people as opposed to "Civily united" people then I think that is unconstitutional, but what I am proposing would require equal treatment each. I just believe history has defined marriage and that while our government should be sensitive to the demands of ever-changing times we do not have to undo or redefine marriage. I think THIS ISSUE can be handled otherwise.
I believe separate but equal in the racial context is different than in the context of sexuality and choices pertaining to it. I believe that race is a social construct and the stigma imposed by segregation was, just that, imposed on children and its very purpose was inequality.
In the context of sexuality while I don't believe people choose to be homosexual, I do believe that they choose to commit the homosexual act. I do not believe homosexuality was socially constructed to separate as race was. Because of this I do not believe in the context of sexuality different is inherently unequal...its just that different.
No homosexual (that I know) would say that a homosexual relationship, though different than a heterosexual one, was inherently less, or second class. However, many AfAms would have said that about the schools they were relegated to during Jim Crow. If the relationship itself can be different, but not "less than" then I certainly believe its secular/legal union can be different but not "less than" as well.
|
Threaded Mode