Solid majority of American support civil unions, but oppose gay marriage

[LA Ute]

The needle is moving:



The blogger at Gay Patriot notes:

Perhaps the most interesting thing in the latest Pew Research Center survey on public attitudes toward gays was the juxtaposition of these two numbers. While 57% of Americans supports civil unions “allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples,” 49% say “homosexual behavior is morally wrong.”

Does that mean that at least 6% of Americans think it’s fine for us to enter into relationships, but would rather we didn’t have sex?

While Pew finds a steady increase in support for civil unions over the past six years (as the chart below indicates), a solid majority (53%) still opposes gay marriage.

I recommend the blog. He has an interesting take on most things.

[Fiyero]

Exit polls that break it down by age show the elderly overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage, while the youngest bracket overwhelmingly supports it. Every age group in-between follows that shift accordingly.

Year after year, as the elderly pass on and the youth become voting age, the gaps will keep inching onward.

[RobinFinderson]

Civil Unions are the same thing as 'separate but equal.' It is bad policy. I think that a majority of people harbor some homophobic tendencies, but that same majority is also essentially decent. The policy of civil unions offers these people safe harbor for their diminishing homophobia while they slowly come to terms with the full implications of their inherent decency. The tide is shifting, and true equality is now on the horizon.

[JohnnyLingo]

Civil Unions are the same thing as 'separate but equal.'

Can you clarify? From what I understand, "separate but equal" as it applied to post-Civil War America meant separate drinking fountains, restaurants, hotels, train cars, etc. based on race. Blacks were not allowed to take part in normal society.

I don't see this being the case with civil unions.

[RobinFinderson]

Can you clarify? From what I understand, "separate but equal" as it applied to post-Civil War America meant separate drinking fountains, restaurants, hotels, train cars, etc. based on race. Blacks were not allowed to take part in normal society.

I don't see this being the case with civil unions.

HERE are the results of a google search for 'separate but equal civil unions.' I didn't invent the argument. You are welcome to learn about it on your own.

[JohnnyLingo]

HERE are the results of a google search for 'separate but equal civil unions.' I didn't invent the argument. You are welcome to learn about it on your own.

You can't explain it yourself? I was unaware we could go to Google to defend our beliefs here.

[LA Ute]

Can you clarify? From what I understand, "separate but equal" as it applied to post-Civil War America meant separate drinking fountains, restaurants, hotels, train cars, etc. based on race. Blacks were not allowed to take part in normal society.

I don't see this being the case with civil unions.

I call it "different but equal." But in the end, this is the Great Divide in the debate.

[RobinFinderson]

You can't explain it yourself? I was unaware we could go to Google to defend our beliefs here.

I just don't enjoy debating with you Johnny. You aren't fun to debate. There is no pleasure in it. I end up spending too much time explaining the obvious. If you want an education, educate yourself. If you want to debate, do a bit more of your own legwork. Unless you say something interesting, I'm not going to respond further.

[All-American]

I call it "different but equal." But in the end, this is the Great Divide in the debate.

Separate is inherently unequal. Different is by definition unequal.

Opponents of gay marriage would do well to focus on THAT question-- why should a homosexual relationship be granted different rights and privileges than a heterosexual relationship? They propose to distinguish the two, no matter how you slice it. Why?

[LA Ute]

Separate is inherently unequal. Different is by definition unequal.

Nope. I think your premise is deeply flawed. But you haven't gotten into all the Supreme Court analysis about people who are similarly-situated, so you're forgiven. Now get back to reading Hadley v. Baxendale!

EDIT: I don't want to be dismissive, so I'll clarify: My argument is that we are talking about apples and oranges. Marriage is between a man and a woman. A same-sex union is inherently different from that, and so we are not really talking about people who are similarly-situated. Recognizing that difference in situation, Civil unions approximate (and in California duplicate) the rights of married people. I think the crux of the debate (as the blog post details) is over whether that is an acceptable solution. I do not think the analogy so interracial marriage or to Brown v. Board is sound. But in the end, we are going to resolve that issue, either in the legislative branch (preferable, in my view) or in the Supreme Court.

[All-American]

Nope. I think your premise is deeply flawed. But you haven't gotten into all the Supreme Court analysis about people who are similarly-situated, so you're forgiven. Now get back to reading Hadley v. Baxendale!

EDIT: I don't want to be dismissive, so I'll clarify: My argument is that we are talking about apples and oranges. Marriage is between a man and a woman. A same-sex union is inherently different from that, and so we are not really talking about people who are similarly-situated. Recognizing that difference in situation, Civil unions approximate (and in California duplicate) the rights of married people. I think the crux of the debate (as the blog post details) is over whether that is an acceptable solution. I do not think the analogy so interracial marriage or to Brown v. Board is sound. But in the end, we are going to resolve that issue, either in the legislative branch (preferable, in my view) or in the Supreme Court.

Hadley is Monday's reading, actually. I already covered it.

I agree that a same-sex union is different than a heterosexual union. It would be hard to argue otherwise, I think. But if you're treating one kind of union in one way, giving them a certain set of rights, privileges, and responsibilities, and treating another kind of union in a different way, with a different set of rights, privileges, and responsibilities, you are not treating them equally.

"Different but equal" holds little sway for me. If the government is instructed to treat one group one way and another group another way, they are not treating them equally. Different is not equal. The argument is over whether and in what ways the government is justified in treating these groups differently.

[RobinFinderson]

Also, being married to a blond is different than being married to a brunette. Sometimes even equal isn't equal.

[falafel]

Hadley is Monday's reading, actually. I already covered it.

I agree that a same-sex union is different than a heterosexual union. It would be hard to argue otherwise, I think. But if you're treating one kind of union in one way, giving them a certain set of rights, privileges, and responsibilities, and treating another kind of union in a different way, with a different set of rights, privileges, and responsibilities, you are not treating them equally.

But the rights, responsibilities, privileges, etc. are the same, right? Didn't LA say that CA's civil union law duplicates the marriage rights? So now we're arguing semantics. Who gets to call their union by what term.

[Viking]

Let them get married. So what?

[Solon]

Civil Unions are the same thing as 'separate but equal.' It is bad policy. I think that a majority of people harbor some homophobic tendencies, but that same majority is also essentially decent. The policy of civil unions offers these people safe harbor for their diminishing homophobia while they slowly come to terms with the full implications of their inherent decency. The tide is shifting, and true equality is now on the horizon.

Isn't this the reasoning behind the Connecticut court's decision to allow homosexual marriages? I've heard that it was this line of reasoning - that the term "civil unions" automatically denoted an inferior type of status and the decision required something like "equivalent nomenclature"?