All arguments are inherently matters of semantics. Sorry, but it is unavoidable. Public perception and behavior do change over time, and not just because the courts make rulings on issues of justice.
Court rulings may at times lead and promote that change and at other times follow changes in cultural norms. The recognition that blacks have the right of equal treatment under the law is a good example of how norms change. One could semantically argue that racial differences make one race inferior to another, a belief that was, as you know, the norm in America when we were children. And as you probably recall interracial marriages were not only considered immoral but were actually illegal at that time.
In the case of same sex orientation it is primarily religious beliefs about sexual orientation that makes "coming out" an act of courage. And, by the way, although one might argue that all crime is "hateful," they aren't all motivated by hate.
During the 50s and 60s, in sympathy to blacks, and in recognition of a need to treat them more fairly, the segregationist principle was established called "separate but equal" under the Jim Crow laws of the time. The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal. Labeling unions between same sex couples a "civil union" only complicates the legal and social climate in which we live. And it allows people to maintain a perception that one form of sexual orientation is indeed inferior to another.
In my post that used the term "overlapping" I was referring to the overlapping domains inherent in marriage. Religions define marriage differently than the state that issues the licence to marry. Religions deny the right to divorce but civil law does. So, whether or not one admits that cultural norms change over time and that our laws should reflect those changes seems moot.
Religious people who belief that marriage is a sacrament that joins a man and woman together forever by God are still free to do so, even though civil laws allow for divorce. Divorce laws don't interfere with their religious freedom to believe that marriage is forever.
In the same way, civil laws could be easily expand to allow for people of all sexual orientations to marry under existing statutes, and in the process grant everyone equal protection under the law, not just heterosexuals.
Pat, If separate isn't equal how come any establishment with 2 or more stalls in their water closet has them designated as MEN and WOMEN? The answer is that sometimes there is a legitimate reason for "separate" and yet they can certainly be equal.
ReplyDelete