Why not have civil unions for all committed couples?

[hedgehog]

Get the government out of the business of defining marriage, leave that to the churches. Recognize that the government's concern is with people who want to be a single legal entity for financial purposes.

[pnwmom]

1. Isn't that how much of Europe does it? It would be fine with me. n/t

[hedgehog]

8. I think in France you end up with two ceremonies if you wish.

One in front of the magistrate to make it legal, another in front of a priest if you want to make it sacramental.


Cool side benefit: old people can get married as far as their church is concerned without putting pensions in jeopardy if they forego the civil union and stick to a church marriage.

[MADem]

11. You do in many countries. You can make it a ceremony, going to town hall to register.

Or you can keep it simple at the town hall, and have the big frou-frou at the church.

[pscot]

20. I was married in Germany

On Friday we went to the city hall for the civil ceremony, which set off a round of drinking and general merriment. Next day we sobered up and went to church for the religios sanction. The first one was legal requirement, the second one wasn't.

[Lance_Boyle]

91. same in Holland n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

103. Same thing in Japan

Except that in Japan, there isn't even a civil ceremony. The couple just goes to the city hall and signs some papers.

By the way, the part about the pensions?

It's done here, too. Some clergy perform church weddings that have no legal standing for elderly couples who don't want to mess up their pensions.

[helderheid]

61. That's how it's done in the Netherlands. I like it. n/t

[havocmom]

81. Mexico too.

It makes a lot of sense. Marriage as a legal entity is the business of the state. And the state needs to extend it to ALL committed adults who wish to create such legal unions or the legal entity is meaningless.

Marriage as a spiritual entity is the business of the spiritual institutions. To each his own in that arena.

So much more honest all the way around.

[seabeyond]

2. i am more than willing to use the term civil union and since i wasnt

civil unionized by the church, but a justice of the peace in a court house, i believe i am already in a civil union and not a marriage.

i agree

let the church own marriage,.... i will hold to civil union united with fellowman.

[Pushed To The Left]

3. That might be one way to handle it

Marriage would be a private ceremony with zero government involvement, and the civil unions would be for the legal recognition. My stance is this: There should be marriage equality for all people, or the government should be kept out of it altogether.

[KAZ]

4. Completely agree! n/t

[OffWithTheirHeads]

5. Works for me.

As a straight, hetero male, I frankly don't care if you fuck goats, as long as the goats consent. You want to marry your goat? Fine! It has no affect on my marriage of 20 years and it had no affect on my last marriage of 16 years. This is such bullshit!

[Clark2008]

76. Goats can't consent

And I think polygamy should be banned - simply because pretty much all of it is as a result of some Archean paternal structure that equates women to chattel.

[jgraz]

6. Why do you hate the baby jesus?

:evilgrin:

[seabeyond]

17. seeing how i am christian, i will take the chance to offer opinion.

i think baby jesus would get a chuckle how the very christians afraid of destroying marriage voting gay marriages in would ultimately destroy marriage if all us in favor of equal rights resorted to civil union, not allowing ourselves to be the very hypocrits baby jesus has always had issues with.

[silverweb]

7. I've been saying that since the issue first started.

The counter argument has been purely semantic, mostly traditional/nostalgic meanings associated with the word "marriage," which applies to religious and nonreligious people alike.

I think licensing should be for civil unions only and "marriage" should be reserved for the religious ceremony. Simple solution.

I don't see the problem with getting the civil license first and then shopping around for a liberal church that will perform the "marriage" ceremony.

[mondo joe]

18. But the "solution" is purely semantic. Whether you call it a Civil Marriage or Civil Union

it's the exact same thing. It's not a religious marriage either way.

[hedgehog]

21. I think that if we offer straight couples a marriage license and

same sex couple a civil union, we're suggesting that same sex couples are second class.

[mondo joe]

22. I'm not suggesting that. A civil marriage is basically a civil union - I don't see the

need to change it to "civil union" for ANYONE.

Just have marriage - it's already a civil union.

[silverweb]

32. I agree.

But the hangup appears to be with the perception of a "second-class" status in denying use of the word "marriage."

Therefore, if we strictly separate the secular licensing -- make it equal in value and terms for everyone, as far as the "civil union" goes -- and reserve the word "marriage" for a ceremonial religious or humanist ceremony/blessing, it seems to make more sense in terms of satisfying everyone.

That's what I think. Then again, I've got no personal stake in this at all, just want to help fix what has become a very thorny problem.

The goal is full and equal rights for everyone. If it takes a little semantic gamesmanship, so be it.

[mondo joe]

34. I'm afraid I think renaming marriage "civil union" is a far more uphill battle than

simply including same sex couples in marriage.

Please know, if the civil unions for all idea took hold and happened I'd be VERY happy to be wrong.

[silverweb]

37. Offical versus common language.

Let people call it whatever they want. I really don't expect couples to start giddily declaring, "We're going to be civil unioned next month!"

But if that's the language on the license, that's what it will officially be called -- even if people refer to themselves as "married" without a religious or humanist ceremony.

I'm sure there are other examples of this type of language distinction, though I can't think of any at the moment.

Once the official legal relationship is established, the language is all purely ceremonial and moot anyway.

[Pithlet]

40. But it's not just ceremonial and moot.

Words are important. The term "marriage" has been used to describe the union for so long that any union that is officially stripped of that term will be viewed as a lesser bonding, even if this isn't technically so. That is absolutely what will happen. You're not really married unless you went to a church. Marriage already isn't about the church and the steeple and the white wedding dress. I don't see why officially relegating a term with such deep emotional and social meaning to only the big white church wedding crowd helps anyone. Let everyone get married. Problem solved.

[silverweb]

45. "Let everyone get married. Problem solved."

That's the goal, of course.

However, if playing with the terminology will nullify some of the bigots against same-sex unions, isn't it worth trying?

:shrug:

[Pithlet]

49. But it is giving in to the bigots.

Only now, instead of gays being excluded, everyone else who doesn't share there religion will be, too. That doesn't make sense to me. If marriage were just about the piece of paper and the legal benefits it grants, then what you say would make sense. But few married couples think it's just about the piece of paper. It's the whole package, with the term marriage included. I haven't even looked at the actual, official piece of paper in years. The union of marriage isn't a religious one. Because many choose to celebrate that union in a church doesn't make it so. In fact, a lot of people who choose to don't actually go to church on a regular basis and religion plays a very small roll in their lives. It's all about the image of the church wedding for many. But that's not marriage itself. The Religious Right don't own marriage, and we don't need to give it to them in order to get equal rights for all.

[silverweb]

51. Well put.

And I fully see your point.

It could be that MADem has the best answer in post #14: "You could even call it marriage...civil marriage, as opposed to HOLY MATRIMONY! nt"

:)

[Pithlet]

53. Thank you.

:) Yes, I agree, MAdem's is a good answer.

[mondo joe]

41. Respectfully, that will not happen in the next 20 years, if ever.

The problem is not the legal language. People who hate gays don't want us to have any ANY legal recognition AT ALL.

[silverweb]

42. I truly hope you're wrong.

I truly hope that the legal recognition and full equality every person deserves is achieved much, much sooner than you think. :hug:

[mondo joe]

43. I think it will happen sooner than that, through equal marriage.

:-)

[silverweb]

46. Good!

I hope so! :)

[Mojambo]

9. That would be exceedingly reasonable

Therefore it will NEVER be implemented here in the United States.

[killbotfactory]

10. I would prefer that

My wife and I want nothing to do with the religious institution of marriage, we just wanted to be a legally recognized couple and to formally commit to a dedicated relationship.

[Tesha]

12. That's fine by this committed (hetero) couple!

Mr. Tesha and I could support that!

Tesha

[mondo joe]

13. It's a fine idea, but it's not gonna' happen.

Same sex marriage is a more likely goal to work toward.

[MADem]

14. You could even call it marriage...civil marriage, as opposed to HOLY MATRIMONY! nt

[silverweb]

52. Methinks you may have something there!

:)

[kdmorris]

15. Fine by me

And since the last thing I will ever do is have some church to sanction the beautiful thing that I have with my husband, I will call our togetherness a civil union for us, as long as nothing changes but the definition.

Hell, nothing would change but the definition...we were committed to each other long before we were married. We mainly got married so that we could file a joint tax return and be "legal" in everyone else's eyes. The commitment and love didn't happen just because we got a piece of paper saying it was now "OK".

[DaveJ]

16. Because of Republicans.

A simple question demands a simple answer. When there are no more Republicans, we're on our way to living in a free country.

[annabanana]

19. I think it's th best solution. . .

Get government completely OUT of the "marriage" business.

[Pithlet]

35. Why?

I'm an atheist who doesn't go to church, and I'm married. Marriage isn't about religion. Kick the government out and people like me no longer get married. There's no reason to kick the government out. We need to stop letting the government discriminate. I'm not giving up my status as married, and I don't think anyone has to in order to grant marriage rights to everyone. And that is effectively what would happen. I'm not interested in civil unions. They'll just be considered second tier, and only religious people are truly married. Screw that. Right now the government doesn't discern between my marriage and those who were blessed by a church or place of worship, and I want it to stay that way. I want to continue to check the married box. I don't want a separate civil union box that identifies myself as an "Other". It's already hard enough not to be religious sometimes.

[...of J.Temperance]

23. Yeah get the government OUT of the marriage business

Instead of having civil unions for all committed couples....how about we just let ALL committed couples get married, why should people be DENIED the right to get married, simply because of what sexuality they are?

It's a disgrace.

Yeah I know, gay marriage isn't on the cards anytime soon, but I have hope that our gay friends will EVENTUALLY be allowed to get married and have the same benefits that are afforded to heterosexual couples.

[TheDoorbellRang]

24. Sorry. Too simple and sensible

I've often thought the state should do the civil union bit -- legal contract between two consenting adults; the couple's church of choice, if any, could do a marriage ceremony. Voila! Separation of church and state. What a concept.

[bonito]

25. That piece of paper or ring doesn't mean squat

I tell ya, to think these things can validate how we live together is just plain asinine and ANY relationship that finds themselves bound by them need to start thinking for themselves!
I know from experience 38 years with my partner the last 10 of those as her 24/7 caregiver (no pay) not that it matters, not straying once and I'm damn proud of it! no one can tell me what a relationship consist of, we carry it within our own hearts!

[mondo joe]

26. It means rather a lot where legal recognition is concerned, which matters. NT

[tammywammy]

27. I've always thought this is the way it should be

It makes sense. Let churches "marry" but everyone does the legal route with the government.

[Booster]

28. Did I read that Arnold and Jerry Brown were thinking about

throwing out the term "marriage" altogether in terms as used by government, Federal or State? That would solve the problem very easily.

[Swamp Rat]

29. Why not let Americans be free to marry whomever they want, without your or my opinion?

[MedleyMisty]

30. I don't get the whole thing with words

I'm at a total loss when people start ranting about "labels" and "loaded" words.

In my head, marriage means what people in this thread seem to be saying civil unions would be - two people who are legally recognized as a couple. And as long as it's consensual and everyone knows what's up and no one is getting hurt, I don't care if you want to make it more than two people. And of course gender isn't a concern at all.

Fundamentalist religion really messes up people's heads.

But yeah, if humans are so stupid that they're denying other humans basic rights just because of semantics, I'm cool with pushing this idea. Although I reserve the right to still call it marriage myself. "Yeah, we got civil unioned five years ago." just doesn't sound right.

[Pithlet]

31. I'm married. I didn't get married in a church. I'm no less married than the people who did.

Marriage is not a religious union for many, many people, and hasn't been for a long time. I'm not having that stripped away from me, and don't see why it has to in order to extend the right to marry to everyone. I don't think we have to let them hijack the term and reserve it only for religious people in order to grant everyone equal rights. I wasn't civil unioned. I was married. And I want everyone to have that right.

[flowomo]

33. I wrote my weekly newspaper column about that on 3/11/2004....

Also available online at:

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2004/03/11/editorial/rich_lewis/lewis01.txt


A private marriage, a public union
By Rich Lewis, March 11, 2004

Last updated: Thursday, March 11, 2004 9:49 AM EST


At a time when we have truly serious national problems to confront - terrorism, unemployment, health care, deficits, education, energy - President Bush has decided to get us slugging at each other over an issue with virtually no significance or consequences for most Americans' daily lives.

His sudden call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage is a pointless distraction - and a sad gesture from a man who promised to be "a uniter, not a divider."

So I was very happy to see this week's Washington Post-ABC News poll indicating that 52 percent of Americans "disapprove of the way Bush is handling the issue of same-sex marriage," and that 53 percent opposed amending the Constitution.

The oddity in the poll is the split over two questions. Fifty-one percent think that homosexual couples "should be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage."

But only 38 percent said it should be legal "for homosexual couples to get married."

Even Bush said that states should be left to define "legal arrangements other than marriage," suggesting the proposed amendment would allow states to establish civil unions for same-sex couples.

So the fight is now clearly over the name, not the substance. Most people are willing to let homosexuals enjoy the benefits of marriage, but don't want to let them call it "marriage."

That seems like a mighty tiny piece of turf on which to wage a screaming national debate.

The question is: Do we want or need two different words to signify the same legal status?

The answer is yes, but not in the way usually suggested.

"Marriage" and "civil union" should not describe a difference in the sex of the partners, but in the institution that joins them together.

"Marriage" should be reserved to describe pairings blessed by private groups, like churches - and "civil union" should describe any pairing created by the government, no matter what sexes are involved.

This makes sense because the greatest objections to allowing same-sex "marriage" come from people who believe it violates their religious principles. So fine, let's reserve the word "marriage" for people joined by, say, the Catholic or Baptist church. They can retain all their rules and traditions and refuse to "marry" anyone who doesn't follow them.

At the same time, all people who are joined by judges, mayors or any other agent representing the state should be partners in a "civil union."

I was married by Judge Louis Scolnik up in Lewiston, Maine in 1979. I would have had no problem if my partnership was called a "civil union." If people asked me if I was "married," I'd probably say "yes," just out of habit. But that would fade out over time, and, really, who would care either way?

The fact is that people who object to same-sex marriage are really objecting to the sex part. They can't abide the idea of two men or two women having a physical relationship. But that's now exclusively a religious doctrine, not a civil doctrine, since the Supreme Court nullified the laws against homosexual relations last November.

And homosexuality is only one of many possible barriers to a religious wedding. For example, Catholic doctrine insists on sex, or at least the possibility of it. Father William Saunders, writing for the Catholic Educator's Resource Center, says, "A man or woman who suffers impotence... cannot enter into marriage because he or she cannot physically consummate the marriage."

In 1996, a Catholic bishop in Brazil refused to marry a paraplegic because he could not have sex with his intended wife.

But these kinds of religious objections have absolutely no weight outside their own membership. Show me a single case in modern times where a judge refused to marry a paraplegic.

Religious groups are certainly entitled to establish such rules, but state-performed marriages don't include any such rules. None.

Imagine this:

A man and a woman decide to get married by a judge in the simplest possible civil ceremony, at which they announce:

1) They met yesterday and know nothing about each other.

2) They intend to live in different states after they marry.

3) They will never have sex with each other.

4) They will never have children by any means, including adoption.

You can cluck-cluck over this arrangement - but there is nothing in it that would block this couple from entering a legal marriage.

Now imagine the above example involved two men or two women. What possible objection could anyone have to allowing it? In fact, the Catholic Church "blessed" exactly this kind of union between men for centuries, as scholar John Boswell discovered. They just didn't call it marriage.

Marriage is a word carrying much freight, but most of it is rooted in religious tradition and that's where it should stay.

Instead of trying to squeeze "same-sex" into "marriage," we should make all non-religious pairings "civil unions."

Everybody would get what they want. No one would be "discriminated" against on the basis of sex. Since most people are married in a religious ceremony of some kind, they can keep the word "marriage" for themselves.

And the rest of us can live in "unioned" bliss.

[Lilith Velkor]

36. Why do couples have to have legal recognition?

Can't they just buy an ad in the newspaper or something?

Sure, it's groovy when two people dig each other, but seriously now, grow the fuck up and pay your taxes like the rest of us. Sheesh.

[mondo joe]

44. I can think of a lot of reasons - especially once kids enter the picture.

If my partner is hospitalized and is unable to make choices about his care, he wants me to do it. And vice versa.

We bought a house together - if one of us dies it should belong to the survivor - not one of our siblings.

Kids add additional complexities and responsibilities.

[Lilith Velkor]

56. Single people have kids all the time

Why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than married people who don't?

Shouldn't people be able to name whatever beneficiaries they want?

I think it would be good to examine the reason marriage has all those benefits in the first place. My guess is that married people wrote all those laws.

[mondo joe]

57. I don't realy give a shit about the tax rate.

And you should be able to name whatever beneficiary you like.

I didn't mention either.

[Lilith Velkor]

60. Yes you did, you mentioned a partner's sibling getting your house if he dies

Perhaps I should have said inheritor instead of beneficiary, but anyway, why should anybody's will be contestable because they aren't married?

And why should hospitals be allowed to jerk around their patients based on marital status?

[mondo joe]

62. That's not a BENEFICIARY.

Duh.

Here's what you're not getting: In most married couples (and a number of couples who would like to be married but can't), the desire is for the partner to have the right to these issues. It's a PARTNERSHIP.

If you don't want that partnership you don't have to have it. But it is so standard that it makes sense to have a simple easy access to the contractual relationship.

Now to answer your questions:

1. "why should anybody's will be contestable because they aren't married?"

Answer: Anyone's will is contestable. But in a marriage (PARTNERSHIP) the assets are typically shared, and are not easily divided. Moreover, most people don't WANT the assets divided. My partner and I have built whatever assets we have - I don't want someone to try to rob him of what I feel is OURS.

2. "And why should hospitals be allowed to jerk around their patients based on marital status?"

Answer: Hospitals shouldn't jerk anyone around. I don't know where you get that. Marriage simply declares who you want to make your decisions when you can't. It is normally next of kin - marriage establishes a legal next of kin.

[Lilith Velkor]

63. Read the first fucking sentence of my post.

Duh yourself.

Sure, you don't have to have a partnership, but there are economic incentives to create one, and I don't think it's any government's business to encourage anybody to take a vow of lifelong monogamy, which most people figure out by ~age 25 is a total crock of shit.

Married and unmarried people should be equal in the eyes of the law, and I find it somewhat disconcerting that an adamant civil-liberties dude such as yourself seems to be arguing otherwise, but there are a lot of things I don't get about human society due to mild autism, and I guess this is one of them.

[mondo joe]

64. I read it. Glad you figured it out.

1. "Sure, you don't have to have a partnership, but there are economic incentives to create one, and I don't think it's any government's business to encourage anybody to take a vow of lifelong monogamy, which most people figure out by ~age 25 is a total crock of shit."

Answer: I don' think it's government's business to encourage it either. But I do think government should be responsive to the needs of the people, which includes an easy way to address a common contractual need.


2. "Married and unmarried people should be equal in the eyes of the law, and I find it somewhat disconcerting that an adamant civil-liberties dude such as yourself seems to be arguing otherwise, but there are a lot of things I don't get about human society due to mild autism, and I guess this is one of them."

I do think married and unmarried people should be equal in the eyes of the law. I haven't said anything contrary to that.

[Lilith Velkor]

80. OK, cool. n/t

[silverweb]

47. There are many reasons.

Most of them legal/financial. It's not just about taxes. It's about inheritances, hospital visitation, medical family benefits, and so many other things. There are many legal rights and responsibilities that are directly related to a legal union status. I've barely scratched the surface.

[pnwmom]

48. It's not just a question of taxes, but inheritance rights, property rights,

legal "significant other," insurance issues -- a host of legal matters are affected by the legal recognition.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. Rights to make medical decisions...

I knew a gay couple that had been together for over 20 years. One partner died unexpectedly, and since he hadn't thought to write a will, his siblings, who had never approved of the relationship, came into the house and took all their brother's stuff. Legally, there wasn't a thing the surviving partner could do about it, since in the eyes of the law, their relationship had no more standing than ordinary roommates.

There was also a case in Minnesota in which a lesbian was severely injured and paralyzed in an accident. Her parents, who didn't approve of her lesbianism, took the opportunity to bar her partner from visiting her.

In addition, the fact that there is no legal procedure for divorce when same-sex relationships go sour makes breakups even messier than they'd have to be.

[crispini]

38. I completely agree, but

it's so sensible it will never fly. I know some people who object to the idea of "gay marriage" but when pressed, they say that they think that gay people should be able to have legal protections such as visiting their partner in emergency rooms, property rights, etc., they just don't like the word "marriage." So take away "marriage" from the civil sphere entirely-- and EVERYONE gets a civil union for the government, then a second religious ceremony if they wish to be "married." Works for me.

[Pithlet]

39. No one is taking my marriage status from me.

Marriage is too ingrained in our culture, so this will never fly, fortunately. There are a lot of people like me that don't want to be relegated to a second status because we aren't religious. But, it still bothers me to hear people say this because the implication is that I'm not really married because I didn't go to a church to do it, so it shouldn't bother me to change the term to civil union. It's just semantics. Well, it does bother me. I'm married and am acknowledged as such by society and the government. I don't see the need to create two tiers of marriage, and that's what civil unions would do. Society would regard them as less than, because marriage has been the traditional union for everyone for way too long. Let everyone get married. It's the simplest solution. It makes no sense to surrender such an important institution to only the religious. It doesn't belong only to them in the first place.

[Lurking Dem]

58. But how fun it would be

when someone asks me if I'm married and my answer would be, "I'm in a UNION!"

I guess what I'm asking (and I DO see your point and tend to agree) is how long would it take to change the whole concept of marriage from a societal point of you? Can it EVER change?

I really, REALLY don't like government being involved at all in "marriage". All they should be concerned about is a contractual obligation between couples. Which is pretty much how I view "marriage" anyway.

My husband and I would never have gotten married if it weren't a legal necessity for specific things. If we had a right to call each other "husband" or "wife" legally under different circumstances, we would have.

[mondo joe]

65. But the contractual obligation is all the government IS involved with.

It sounds like you want to leave government's role unchanged but just call it something else.

[Lurking Dem]

66. I want them

to not legally certify ministers/rabbis/others to perform a religiously based sacrament that they deem is necessary for the non-bastardization of children, distribution of assets, and rights to everything from property to who can go into an ICU.

Fill out the paperwork, pay the fee, file, BOOM you're done.

If people then want a religious based ceremony, they can arrange that on their own with the institution of their choice but all they should get for that is a bill and a certificate of commemoration.

[mondo joe]

68. Very good. I support that.

:-)

[Lurking Dem]

70. Cheers!

:toast:

[bpeale]

78. terms

to me the term civil union only denotes where the marriage took place. holy matrimony is marriage sanctioned by the church (any church) thru some sort of religious ceremony. either way its still a marriage & its not just semantics (at least to me).

[Gormy Cuss]

85. "Holy matrimony:" think about it.

Why is the word "holy" needed in description of the sacrament except to distinguish it from marriage outside of the church? The only reason to lose the term marriage in civil ceremonies is to appease the people who can't comprehend or refuse to admit that one is a legal contract, the other a religious rite.

God has nothing to do with the civil marriage.

[mondo joe]

86. I haven't been to many wedding, and no civil marriages, so perhaps you could help

me: Is "Holy Matrimony" used for any legal purpose?

[Gormy Cuss]

90. I was about to edit the earlier post but I'll answer it here.

The way our system works now, people can have their marriage contract solemnized by anyone who meets the requirement of the state with little if any ceremony. At city hall, the town clerk reads a few words, checks the paperwork and supplies witnesses, and gets everyone to sign the certificate, then is responsible for filing it properly according to the rules of the state.

Most married by clergy have the same civil marriage event right after the religious one, although they don't always recognize it as a second marriage because it involves the same actors as the religious ceremony. The civil event is signing and witnessing the marriage certificate. If the paperwork isn't filed in accordance with the state requirements, the couple isn't legally married. So to answer your question, "holy matrimony" has no legal purpose. It's the civil act that makes it legal.

[mondo joe]

94. Okay - that's about what I thought. So long as the civil act does not involve

terms like "holy" or "sacrament" I'm fine with it.

[Gormy Cuss]

96. It doesn't and shouldn't in this country. That's the point.

Civil marriage is what it is. No name change needed to create a "special" subset just because some people can't separate church and state.

[Lurking Dem]

87. Hell, just the word "sacrament"

is bad enough.

And if people looked at marriage more as a business contract than as a relationship blessed by G-d, maybe there would be fewer divorces.

[mondo joe]

89. I may be totally ignorant on this, so I'm seeking answers.

Do the states or federal government actually refer to civil marriages as a sacrament?

[Lurking Dem]

100. Not that I am aware.

But the phrase was bandied about a lot during the arguments vis a vis the Defense of marriage Act.

Bill Frist, for instance:

"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between - what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined - as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment."

[Blue-Jay]

50. Hey, I have a better idea!

How about we afford the same rights to gay couples that we straights folks currently enjoy?

Surely that's easier than redefining legal committed relationships to make homophobes "feel better".

[Gormy Cuss]

54. Fine with me, but call them civil marriages.

The religious ceremonies can be called "sacred vows" or "blessed marriages" or whatever else works among the faithful.

[bpeale]

79. i can sign on to this concept.

[Bill McBlueState]

55. the people who oppose gay marriage hate this idea, too

Bigots want their relationships to be called marriages just as much as they want to deny that right to same-sex partners. I think equal marriage is actually more likely to come about than this idea. Hell, it's already here in one state.

[KharmaTrain]

59. I Have Two Marriage Licenses

One from the state...it's the civil recognition of my marriage. The second is my Jewish marriage certificate (note I don't call it a license). The IRS doesn't recognize my Jewish certificate, but it sure does my state license. That license is a civil contract...it's binding in a court of law and can only be terminated through a civil action (not a religious one).

My civil license is purely for economic purposes. No where on there did I have to list my religion or sexual preference or skin color...but I sure had to list my occupation.

I've long felt this issue is a religious, not a political one as marriage is first, and foremost, a spiritual bond. The civil side of this...which involves financial and legal rights, should be "divorced" from the religious. I don't find calling my marriage also a civil union as an insult, it's a fact.

[Marrah_G]

67. Civil Union sounds so cold and impersonal

How about we call them Marriages like everyone else?

[mondo joe]

69. Especially since the same fuckheads against same sex marriage will not be appeased by this

at all.

[LoZoccolo]

93. I've seen some polls that suggest otherwise. n/t

[mondo joe]

95. I'm certain there are SOME people who would be okay with civil unions but

not marriage. (I don't know that those same people would be okay with surrendering their OWN marriage.)

But the hardcore opposition to same sex marriage doesn't want ANY recognition of same sex couples. They have successfully prevented a number of states from recognition in any way - including civil unions.

[bryant69]

71. I've supported this theory for a while.

The deficiencies in Civil Unions will be fixed quickly if everybody has to use them.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[IndianaJones]

72. we could have called african americans "non-voting citizens" nt.

[bpeale]

73. i got married in a judge's chambers

i consider my marriage a civil marriage not a church sanctioned union. i did my duty & rendered unto ceasar.

[Lurking Dem]

74. My husband refers to it as

the "No sin tax".

[sniffa]

75. pretty much because

gay coupLes wiLL be denied (what's the number at now?) federaL benefits.

if you're suggesting that aLL marriages become unions, and that aLL get the same benefits, then great!! but that wiLL never happen any time soon.

[yardwork]

77. I've been saying this for years.

Actually, I think that this issue goes to the heart of the BIG PROBLEM in this country.

Marriage as an institution is pushed by the right-wing precisely because it combines religion with the force of the state. And, be honest, a lot of people get married because it is the only way to get protections and rights including healthcare, retirement, etc. Many women, in particular, wouldn't have these basic needs taken care of unless they were married. So the economic and legal incentives tied up with marriage push people into this institution. Which is exactly the way the corporatist right-wing likes it.

A far more equitable approach would be to guarantee civil liberties and rights - including health care and retirement - to all INDIVIDUALS in this country.

Then people can choose to make commitments to one another or not purely on the basis of their feelings for one another. Taking the economic incentive out of marriage might well make it a far less popular option.

[havocmom]

101. Wow! yardwork for president! Nailed it all!

Never thought of 'marriage' as custom that "combines religion with the fores of the state" but that is really part of it! My marriage is better than your's! Mine is State and GOD! You can only have state with a small s.

Oh, yeah, THAT is the RW passion with fighting equality for gays to marry! It boils down to the holier than thou shit.

And spot on about the need to guarantee civil liberties, rights, health care and retirement included for all!

Marriage offers some legal protections. The RW doesn't want anyone different from themselves to be legally invested.

Yes! You nailed it yardwork. Thank you for nailing down that nebulous thing we have been kicking around.

It is just a way for the self righteous to feed their need to feel superior.

[Midlodemocrat]

82. I'm married. I'm not civil unioned. The word marriage is far too deeply entrenched

in our vernacular to eliminate it and replace it with civil union.

Why not marriage for everyone? It's not as if the heterosexual population has a lock on doing it right. With the divorce rate hovering at 50%, how much worse can the GLBT population make it?

[Dora]

83. Marriage is a civil union.

Leave the weddings to the churches and other purveyors of ritual.

[CK_John]

84. All you need to do is convince 48 other states to do like VT and MASS. IT IS A STATE ISSUE. n/t

[Dr. Strange]

88. More and more, I find myself leaning that way, BUT...

I'd go a step farther: why just couples? Why not civil unions for groups? If two men and three women want to form a communal marriage, should government have any say in preventing that?

[LoZoccolo]

92. Part of the deal could be to include non-sexual relationships as well. n/t

[mondo joe]

97. No one knows if you're having sex or not in your marriage.

Though odds are you're not having as much as you expected. ;-)

[LoZoccolo]

99. Sure. Something I didn't realize a long time ago...

...is that some Catholic leaders feel that the legal privileges issued with them would be appropriate and desirable for nuns in convents, for instance. It's just another way of turning the opposition.

[Zookeeper]

98. A legal union should be available to everyone regardless....

of sexual orientation. A church blessing is optional, and something that some gay couples will want and some straight couples couldn't care less about.

The important part is to make the legal rights and protections available to everyone, regardless of what it's called.

[TimBean]

102. Pretty much the way to do it

Keep the government out of marriage and marraige out of the government.