Assume you were a president, and a same-sex civil unions bill came to your desk. Would you sign it?

[eyesroll]

Poll question: Assume you were a president, and a same-sex civil unions bill came to your desk. Would you sign it?

This came up at dinner last night, and was an interesting debate.

Assume the bill unambiguously extended every right, obligation and protection of marriage to same-sex couples in civil unions, but did not use the word "marriage." Also assume it repealed DOMA and ordered states to create a civil union process parallel to that of marriage. (Assume for the same of argument that the bill would pass constitutional muster in its entirety, which I'm not sure it would but I don't want to get bogged down in that.)

Also assume it was not passed by veto-proof majorities -- if you didn't sign it, it would be dead.

Anyhow...would you vote for it?

[MonkeyFunk]

1. Yes

I would sign it. It provides much needed protections NOW.

Politics isn't about attaining the perfect.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. I Am For Civil Unions For Everybody...

If you want to get married you can go to your church, synagogue, mosque, or wherever you worship or you can have a secular ceremony of your own...

[Ian David]

5. Agreed. Civil Unions should be for gay people AND straight people, officiated by The State.

Marriage should be a religious ceremony with absolutely zero legal significance.

[alphafemale]

6. This is where I'm at.

Government shouldn't be in the business of recognizing marriage period.

Let each individual religion determine that on their own.

This way the Catholics can still refuse to marry divorced people.

And the Unitarians and the United Church of Christ and others can bless the unions of same sex couples.

[blondeatlast]

10. Exactly. nt

[Deep13]

11. Bullshit. My marriage is legal.

I don't have church to say magic words over it.

[Fran Kubelik]

16. that's not what the poster means

your marriage is legal.

[Deep13]

18. That is what s/he meant.

The central point being that marriage is a religious institution that the state has no business regulating while CUs are a state-certified relationship. I think that marriage is primarily a secular arrangement that religions have essentially stolen.

[Fran Kubelik]

19. I think you both mean the same thing.

And the problem that people fighting for equal rights for all unions keep running into is that the very vocal religious right objects to gay unions being called marriages. I frankly don't care what you call them, just please let me have the same rights that a straight couple gets when they promise to spend the rest of their lives together. If we can't ever get there by calling it a marriage, maybe we could separate the legal part out and call it a civil union. You don't lose any rights, and I get survivor benefits, I get to be on my partner's health insurance, I get to see her in the hospital, etc etc.
Do you object to that?

[Deep13]

21. I agree with both civil unions and marriage for gay couples...

...at their option. Granted, they are essentially the same thing, but the term "marriage" means a lot to some people. If gay couples can get those rights by calling it civil unions I guess I am willing to go along with it. After all, people getting CUs will tell heir friends that they are married anyway. It is too bad that this state passed a state constitutional amendment banning both gay marriage and gay civil unions. That ballot measure was in 2004 in an effort to get out the Fundy vote. I voted "no," but was one of the few to do so.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. You Have A Civil Arrangement That Government Has Called Marriage

For instance the Catholic Church believes if you divorce and then remarry you are living in a state of adultery...

Government just recognizes you have exited one agreement and entered into another...

I would say something about Santa, Reading Is Fundamental, and Christmas but , alas, I have turned over a new leaf...

I have decided to be a kinder and gentler poster, for now...

[Deep13]

45. Don't care what the RC or any other church thinks. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

57. That argument is going to get nowhere. We have civil marriage and religious marriage and it seems to

work fine- for straights.

The way to win this argument isn't to say "We're going to take away your right to be married by the goverment, straight people". Me and my wife aren't religious... so now we're not married?

It's far simpler to bring Mohammed to the Mountain- legalize civil marriage for gays the way it is now for straights- than it is to bring the Mtn. to Mohammed and dismantle the entire apparatus of civil marriage.

Why not just extend that right to gay people? Because the fundies don't want the government "marrying" gays, that's why. And it's a dumb reason.

[bunkerbuster1]

3. Sure. I'd consider it an important step forward.

No legislation is perfect. If I'd somehow managed to become President, I'd hope I'd realize that.

[annabanana]

4. I would sign a bill that granted nothing BUT civil unions

for both straight and gay couples...

The word marriage belongs in churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and verdant groves.. Civil Unions would be THE legal document, marriage the sacrament (between me, my partner & my god (or goddess, or flying spaghetti monster)

[emulatorloo]

8. Agreed -- I would BAN MARRIAGE from state vocabulary -- Civil Unions for ALL COUPLES

with full partnership rights for all couples, regardless of orientation.

[Deep13]

14. What happens after you are tarred, feathered and run out on a rail?

:shrug:

[Exiled in America]

40. The people haven't done that to Bush yet. I think you overestimate people's willingness to act.

They would bitch, and then not do anything about it. :)

[Deep13]

46. No. People tolerate many abuses...

...as long as it does not alter cultural norms. Something like that would cause riots.

[emulatorloo]

61. They could still get "married" in a church -- knock themselves out!!!!

[Deep13]

62. This is not a Christian country.

Jesus Fucking Christ! Marriage has nothing to do with the goddamn church! You'd think I would not need to explain that here. So which church will allow atheists to render their CUs actual marriages? If there ever comes a day that any fucking bureaucrat tries to invalidate my marriage to Sweetie, then I'll lead the riot myself.

[Bill McBlueState]

25. so you're going to take marriage away from people?

Millions of gay and straight couples who are already married would suddenly be "civil union'd" instead, all because some Americans can't stand the idea of marriage equality.

In current practice, marriage is a civil arrangement that couples can choose to have blessed by the religious body of their choice. In 49 states, the only thing restricting that civil arrangement to straight couples is homophobia.

[mondo joe]

32. State sanctioned marrriage is already just a civil union - a civil union called "Marriage".

It has no bearing on the "Marriage" used by religions.

[shenmue]

7. I would sign

It would help reinforce the fact of gay couples' lives as basically (gasp!) normal.

[spindoctor]

9. Some interesting history on the subject

About 10 years ago, Belgium had passed a euthanasia bill through their parliament.
In Belgium, bills are signed into law by the king. The Belgian king Boudewijn, a devout catholic, could not sign this bill into law according to his believes and conscience. Instead of tempering with the democratic flow of things, he did the unpresedented....he resigned his throne for one day to give the bill a free pass without his involvement.

It's a much more interesting debate whether or not king Boudewijn did the right thing here. ;)

[Deep13]

12. This talk of CUs only by the state feeds right into what Fundies are saying...

...that gay rights advocates are in fact trying to undermine marriage generally. The very thing that makes gay civil unions acceptable for most people--it is not really marriage--refutes the idea that the state should ONLY recognize civil unions.

I have some difficulty supporting any Federal legislation on this. The power of Congress does not extend to regulating our personal lives. That's the same objection I have to the so-called DOMA. I suppose one could fit it in under the legislative section of the 14th Amendment. Still, I am retiscent to extend Federal reach any further into personal matters.

[Bill McBlueState]

26. good point about federal legislation

All I want is for the Constitution's full-faith-and-credit clause to be applied to ALL marriages performed in the state of Massachusetts. That would be an excellent first step to marriage equality. No federal legislation necessary.

[IndianaJones]

13. Of course, this is a hypothetical and will not happen within our lifetime...

more pressing issues to work on first.

[Withywindle]

15. Even though it's unsatisfactory, I would sign it.

It would be a case of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I would sign it because there are real people who need the hospital visitation rights and the child custody protections and the economic and medical and immigration benefits RIGHT NOW. Every day they're denied them causes very real suffering, and I would consider it my responsibility to help make that right in any way I could, however insufficient overall.

However, I would most definitely make a signing speech that made clear my belief that this is only progress towards a greater goal, not the goal in itself.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

17. I said yes, but with an asterisk...

Marriage is a sacrament of the church, and the government has no business deciding who can and cannot take part. If the Catholic Church (or any other denomination) wants to deny gays the right to have their relationship blessed, that's the church's perogative and the government should be dictating theology.

Civil Unions -- which is the social and legal manifestation of the sacrament -- is another thing altogether. Regardless of their sexual orientation, couples who are in long-term, committed relationships are good for society. They create stable neighborhoods and strong communities. The government has a definite interest in encouraging this behavior, and so it's legitimate for government to provide certain benefits (like tax breaks) to people who make this kind of commitment.

So while I support civil unions, I don't support govermental regulation of "marriage" for any kind of couple, gay or straight.

[Withywindle]

20. I agree, but

I think the whole scare tactic of trying to tell people that church policies will be affected is a straw man of epic proportions. NO ONE is calling for that.

Traditional Catholic churches still have the right to refuse to marry divorced people, although remarriage for divorced people is perfectly valid in the eyes of the state. Lots of denominations of lots of faiths won't do interfaith marriages, and that's their right. Again, the state still sanctions such marriages. Some churches won't perform marriages for anyone who's not a member of that congregation. They're allowed. But such marriages are still, again, perfectly legal. And all those people, even though they don't fit the requirements for marriage of some religion, somewhere, are still married.

On the flip side, my parents are atheists. They were married by a judge in a courthouse. There's no religion anywhere near their marriage, and yet, no one's ever questioned the fact that they're married.

I'm sure there's some religion somewhere that will look at the most traditional, old-fashioned High Church couple and say they're not truly married in the eyes of the Faith, because they didn't fast on only palm leaves for three weeks beforehand and they didn't sacrifice a white goat and they didn't display the virgin blood on the sheets and they didn't make a pilgrimage to the Holy Temple of Sofa King Sank-Tih-Monius in TwilaitZonistan as their ancient faith dictates they must to receive the sacriment--but fortunately, that has buggerall to do with US federal law. And US federal law has no business discriminating on the basis of gender, period.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

22. Civil Unions for Everybody

As has been posted up-thread. Personally, I favor gay marriage -- I'm fine with having the church recognize everybody's life commitments. More power to them. Maybe the solution is that people who want to be legally recognized as being married go to the courthouse (and that would include everybody -- gay and straight, religious and atheist). Those who choose to have their union recognized by the church are free to do so. They government plays no part in it.

And don't dis the Sofa King!

[Withywindle]

23. Exactly. We agree on this.

Dissing? If I ever got married, I would insist on a prayer for the blessings of the Sofa King.

[Bill McBlueState]

27. marriage is not a sacrament of the church

Nobody in any of the fifty states needs to do any business with a church in order to be married. It's a civil arrangement that one can optionally have blessed by a religious body.

(And to be picky, marriage is not a sacrament in most Christian denominations.)

[Toasterlad]

35. Exactly. Marriage Does NOT Equal Religion.

Marriage was a state-run operation long before religion got its greasy, bloody hands all over it. Tell all the whacko religious clowns that THEY have to come up with a new name for their bullshit, and that the government is taking back marriage as the civil term it is.

They can call it "Jesus-joined" or "God-stamped" or whatever the hell else they want.

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. Marriage is not an exclusively religious function.

I bought a marriage license, not a civil unions license, from the government.

[onethatcares]

24. there are too many other things to worry about

than who's marrying who.

[mondo joe]

29. Is that your way of saying you'd sign it or not? As a civil rights matter, is is well worth

worrying about as long as it's denied.

[onethatcares]

51. no, I would sign it.

personnally, I, myself, and me alone, don't care who is marrying who. Does that make any sense to you. Of course I wouldn't allow 45 yr olds to marry 10 yr olds but as far as consenting adults, it's none of my business.

[Toasterlad]

30. Tell That to People Who Can't Get Married.

Straight people have more rights than I do, and yet I pay the same taxes for the same things they do. How can ANYONE not recognize what a HUGE fucking problem that is? A segment of the US population are LEGALLY SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS, and there are things MORE IMPORTANT than that?

Every last one of you should be as outraged as I am about it. Period.

[LostinVA]

36. Good post

[cboy4]

43. I know. Who cares about the human rights of others.

:eyes:

[Cameron27]

47. Exactly, what's so important about where you sit on the bus,

or who gets to drink out of a water fountain. There were more important things to worry about back then too.

:eyes:

[cboy4]

52. You said it all!

:)

[cgrindley]

31. I don't support government-sanctioned marriage for anyone

it should be civil unions all around. The government has no business using religious terminology in its laws. The word marriage should be rooted out of all government statutes as vigorously as if it were the N-word.

[alfredo]

33. Let churches decide if they want to do the service. If the couple can't

find a church to do the deed, they can opt for a civil union. The church service has no force of law without the legal papers (the license).

Many churches will do the service because of the potential revenue it could generate. It is an opportunity to sell themselves to a potential gay or straight member. The most important object of any retail establishment is to get the customer in the front door. Empty church, empty collection plate.

[LostinVA]

34. This should wind up being good

:popcorn:

[Ravy]

37. I don't believe in government sanctioned marriage at all...

they should only be sanctioning civil-unions - for everyone, regardless of age, race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation.

[Booster]

38. If you think about it, take away the word "marriage" and there is

no real argument Christians or anybody else could use to be against it. The only thing they could say is "I just don't like them" and that would across as being pretty petty.

[Exiled in America]

39. I would sign anything that garunteed equal protections.

Protections for your family trump ideological debates about whether marriage and civil unions are the same thing.

I also don't believe a recognized civil union closes any door to the continue fight to get government out of ALL marriage, and guarantee that marriages are options for all.

[alfredo]

41. A wise man once said that they (gays) deserve the chance to be

as miserable as the rest of us.

Good cartoon

[Lilith Velkor]

42. I'd rather abolish state-sanctioned couplehood entirely

[eyesroll]

44. I didn't mean to hit and run this, sorry...

I was at dinner with some people last night, most progressive, and people came down about in the same proportions as those here did...one said same-sex couples can form contracts or become a corporation to give them (some) of the same rights so why bother (ugh)...but most everyone said they'd sign it.

One man said he wouldn't sign it because he doesn't like separate but equal in any form, and he fears rather than being an interim step, it would signal the end of discussion and same-sex couples would never be truly equal. He has a point, I guess -- I'm a bit more pragmatic (although I should add that I am in an opposite-sex partnership and we could fly to Vegas and marry tonight if we wanted to, so it doesn't affect me as directly/personally as it may affect some of you).

It's similar to health care -- if I was president, and something short of single-payer that was still a good improvement over what we've got came to my desk, I'd sign. It wouldn't be perfect but it would be preferable.

[MonkeyFunk]

49. I don't understand the "separate but equal" argument

the problem with the education system being "separate but equal" is that it wasn't anywhere near equal. an education system requires resources, buildings, teachers, supplies, etc. etc.

A civil union requires only a legal recognition - there's no infrastructure around it that can be inferior to any other infrastructure.

I'm curious how a President Kucinich would respond to this. He voted against a 6-month withdrawal timetable because it wasn't an immediate withdrawal. Would he, similarly, veto a Civil Union bill because it wasn't exactly what he wanted?

[eyesroll]

55. My colleage argued that by calling it a "civil union," it would create a stigma that marriage lacks.

I don't know if that would pan out or not...some people in the world won't recognize a same-sex couple (or an interracial couple, or an interfaith couple, or a couple married by a secular officiant) as united or married or existing, no matter what... but would other people really make the distinction and stigmatize a civil union?

[Deep13]

65. Here's the problem with the seperate but equal analogy.

The civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s was dealing from a position of strength. The had national opinion on their side. They had the law on their side. The reconstruction amendments are squarely directed at racial inequality. They had allies in the courts and in the White House.

That is not how it is now. Far from seperate but equal, there is not even a pretense of equality. The analogue of the Plessy decision would actually be an improvement. The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act could not pass today. People are far more conservative than they were. The law is against us. Numerous states have passed draconian laws banning gay marriage forever. Popular culture is against us. Public opinion is against us. In fact, a significant minority of Americans are convinced that allowing gays to marry will be an invitation to divine wrath. There is no pro-gay majority in Congress and the WH, well, you know. It is not a question of right and wrong. It is a question of what is possible. Right now the choice is between no gay marriage, but maybe civil unions vs. no gay marriage or civil unions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Of course.

It is both the right thing to do, and the necessary first step to obtain the right to marriage.

As much as I dislike incrementalism, in this society it's the best we can hope for.

[MrCoffee]

53. I voted "No for other reasons"...namely because it's not a federal issue

states regulate marriage, not the feds. don't even get me started on what a horrible joke DOMA is. the fed courts need to step up and throw that steaming turd out.

[eyesroll]

54. That's why I added the caveat about it not passing constitutional muster...

I actually tried to figure out exactly where marriage recognition would fall federally. We do have federal anti-discrimination laws (race, religion, gender, etc.) that apply to employment and housing, so why not anti-discrimination for marriage? (Which, I realize, is a different matter entirely from federal civil unions. Which is why I decided to just assume everything would be OK constitutionally.)

Thing is, though -- lots of federal things hinge on marriage. Taxes, immigration, etc. If the federal government didn't draw any distinction between a married couple and two single people, I'd agree with you whole-heartedly. But they do. We'd need to reconcile the fact that the federal government has made marriage a federal issue in many respects with the fact that the federal government doesn't recognize marriage if it's between two members of the same sex. If the federal government did start treating marriage (or civil unions)in a gender-blind matter, what would the states do? Could states still refuse to recognize same-sex marriages?

[Poll_Blind]

56. This poll went over well in 1859 among abolitionists when it was titled:

"Assume you were the president, and a bill granting Negroes the right to be considered as 4/5ths of a man instead of 3/5ths of a man came to your desk. Would you sign it?"

And then they wised up.

PB

[MonkeyFunk]

58. so you would

veto the bill?

[Warren DeMontague]

59. And then I would use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to say the following:

"I remain steadfast and unapologetic in my committment to full and equal rights, including marriage rights, for our GLBT citizens.

And let me add this:

If You Don't Like Gay Marriage, Don't Have One.
If You don't like abortion, don't have one.
If you don't like birth control, don't use it.
If you don't like consenting adult porn, don't look at it.
If you don't like pot, don't smoke it.
If you don't believe in end-of-life choice, the next time you're terminally ill you can let 'God' decide how long you should suffer- for YOU- but leave other sick people out of it.
If you can't mind your own fucking business when it comes to the affairs of other consenting adults who aren't harming or endangering anyone else, please... move to a different country."

[Adsos Letter]

60. Yes, I would sign it...

...but I would not insist upon the word "marriage". If I need to be educated here then please educate me. I am under the impression that once a couple has signed a marriage license they are considered to have engaged in a civil union. This should not be withheld from the LGBT community; they are citizens and should be liable to the same rights and privileges as anyone else.

As far as "marriage" goes, I view that as a religious term invoking a religious ceremony. Religious denominations should not be forced to perform LGBT marriages (OR ANY OTHER MARRIAGES) if they don't want to.

To me it's the difference between civil equality under the law, and the rights of religious groups to set their own doctrines.

Here's to the Separation of Church and State...I hope we get it back.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. You do need to be educated, a bit. Hetero people get a marriage license. Not a civil union license.

And this saw about churches being "forced" to marry anyone they don't want to is a crock. Here's an example. Divorced people get "married" at city hall.. (non "unionized", married) all the time. But the Catholic Church won't marry divorcees any more than they'll marry gays. Does the fact that the state will allow divorced people to marry mean that somehow the Catholic Church is being imposed upon? No.

Look, I understand the logic which says "make all civic marriage civil unions". But I think rather than telling hetero people that the state is going to stop calling what it does for them "marriage", the sensible argument is to INCLUDE gays and lesbians in that option.

And churches will still be able to marry -religiously marry- anyone they want or don't want.

[Adsos Letter]

66. Well, thankyou for the education...

...I obviously did not understand what happens at the civil level.

My point would have to change, then. Let it be called "marriage"...but I wasn't trying to repeat an old "saw" (not consciously anyway) regarding church marriages; just don't want legislation telling a church they cannot refuse to perform LGBT weddings, that's all.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. I don't think such a thing would be constitutional, even if it were at all likely to happen.

And conversely, there ARE already churches that do perform gay and lesbian marriages. Religious marriage and civic marriage are already totally separate. Legalizing gay marriage- in the eyes of the state- wouldn't change that.

Peace!

[BuyingThyme]

64. I would vote against it unless you took the "same-sex" language out.