CIVIL UNIONS: Andrew Sullivan and Hadley Arkes converge

Andrew: "...The Justices in the majority mercilessly home in on the central meaning behind so-called 'civil unions'--the only defense of them is that they are a device to maintain exclusion, especially when they are substantively identical to civil marriage. In that sense--same thing, different department--they're a text-book case of 'separate but equal.' If you're going to give gay couples the same rights as straight couples, why are you calling it something different? If both can drink the same water, why a different water fountain?" more

Hadley: "But the judges also wrought better than even they knew, for they also delivered themselves here of the most searing criticism that has yet been made of the whole scheme for contriving 'civil unions' as a surrogate for marriage. The argument might be condensed in this way: If the legislature is willing to grant every legal benefit and attribute of marriage to a couple, but simply holds back the name of 'marriage' for couples of the same sex, the implication should be clear: There is something in that class of persons not exactly worthy of the name of marriage. Consider how the same legislation would have appeared if the substance of marriage were given to couples, but only 'civil unions' given to dwarves. Or people with disabilities. Or Jews and blacks. In other words, it is precisely the scheme of creating the parallel substance of marriage, and withholding the title, that picks out classes of people in a demeaning way. And the truth that comes crashing through in this clumsy opinion is this: that the scheme of 'civil unions' is simply geared to keep generating invidious distinctions, in the way that the traditional laws on marriage do not." more
posted by Eve at 4:50 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home