For Everyone Who Thinks Civil Unions are the Solution

[mondo joe]

Newsflash: those who most adamantly oppose same sex marriage also oppose civil unions. There may be a broad enough consensus to tolerate civil unions in many areas, but there is not enough strong support to make them happen.

If you think - as some have suggested - that gays should just be content with civil unions, ask yourself in how states is that even a possibility. The simple fact is that civil unions are just about as hard to get passed as actual marriage.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/ap/national/mainD8NIN8SG0.shtml

Hawaii lawmakers effectively killed a proposal to create civil unions for gay couples by declining to vote on the legislation.

***

Civil unions had been suggested as a way for the state to sidestep a controversy over gay marriage, but they proved to be nearly as contentious.

Opponents argued that civil unions were being used as a step toward legalizing gay marriage. Proponents said they want the legal guarantees granted to married couples, such as tax breaks, adoption rights and health benefits.

"This is essentially a re-examination of the same-sex marriage issue except with a different title," said Kelly Rosati, a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Catholic Church and executive director for the Hawaii Family Forum.

[helderheid]

1. I am for Civil Unions but not for the reasons you state. I think it should be Civil Unions for ALL.

The government doesn't belong in the marriage business at all, gay or straight. It's a CHURCH matter.

[Midlodemocrat]

2. The problem is that the word marriage is deeply ingrained

in our vocabulary, while civil unions are relatively new.

I didn't get civil unioned, I got married. I didn't have a civil union, I had a wedding. I'm not civil unioned, I'm married.

Yes, it is just a word, but it is a powerful one, IMHO.

[helderheid]

4. I understand where you're coming from and I agree with you - mine is an idealistic view having lived

in the Netherlands where a church wedding is completely seperate and is not recognized by the government. They call it marriage as well, but it is in fact a civil union. If you want to get married in a church, you have to arrange that seperately.

[Midlodemocrat]

9. I believe it is the same in France as well.

First you marry in a judge's presence, then in a church.

It might be differently now, but I think I remember that is how it went.

[LostinVA]

35. It's still like that -- in quite a few countries, actually n/t

[annabanana]

53. I think the certificate you got from the State. . (or City Hall)

Should, legally, be the Civil Union Certificate..
It's the Church's (or Synagogue's, or Mosque's) blessing of this Union that can be called "Marriage". Then they can all make what ever kind of a big deal "sacrament" of it they like.

[REP]

59. If I Had a Choice, I'd Have a Civil Union License, Not a Marriage License

First, let me say that if there must be marriage, there should be marriage for all with the same rights, privileges, etc for everyone.

That said, I'm for only civil unions for anyone being recognized by the state with marriages being a private ceremony with no legal standing.

[aikoaiko]

3. Civil unions for all as far as the government is concerned

Marriages and all the religious baggage should be between the couple, their religious leaders, and what ever god there may be.

It just makes too much sense.

[dkofos]

5. and what of the millions who don't belong to a church??

[helderheid]

7. What of them?? What's your point?

[helderheid]

14. I reread what I posted - I see where you got confused. I am saying CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL.

Forget about the churches. I am saying the government should ONLY RECOGNIZE civil unions (for anyone gay or straight).

[ktlyon]

49. the problem is the word "married" was used in all the laws

it is in marriage that all the benefits are defined so as I say later 2 marriages: civil and religious

[mondo joe]

28. And since there are so many fighting against civil unions for gays NOW what makes you

think they'd roll over for your suggestion?

[helderheid]

36. Did I say they would?

:shrug:

[mondo joe]

44. No, you didn't - sorry. I was expecting solutions - my error.

[helderheid]

47. The only solution I see is continuing to fight for equality - and I am 100% on your side.

[ourbluenation]

50. that is the only solution...leave marriages to private ceremony.

[kdpeters]

55. Serious question, are you yourself civil unioned? or at least waiting to find the right person?

Certainly you won't get married by the government, will you?

[shadowknows69]

6. What we need to do is call all "marriages" civil unions

which is exactly what they are. It is a state that marries people not "the church"

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. Exactly

You pay the state for a license to make it a legally binding union not a church.

[Maraya1969]

37. In Florida all you need is a license and another person as a witness

The person does not have to be a minister or priest or anything. You can get married in a booth at the Pancake House.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

40. I have no problem with that

So long as it's a legally binding agreement then it works for me.

[TahitiNut]

12. I guess I'd rather be "uncivil-unioned" than "divorced." Maybe it'd be called "seceded"?

:evilgrin: (I tend to think of it as "adulterated.")

[shadowknows69]

15. Seceded has precedent

and a term some of the southern fundies might actually like.

[MamaBear]

16. Civilly disunited?

:shrug:

[helderheid]

17. I absolutely love that picture

[TahitiNut]

19. 'Tweren't all that civil.

:silly: Well, it was, sorta ... even though it was deeply nightmarish.

[MamaBear]

29. I only made it as far as disengaged.

That was bad enough. :hug:

[TahitiNut]

32. I sometimes call it "re-singled"

... and try to focus on the fact that 'love' and 'loving' is about me - something I do. I regard that as the "Good News."
:hug:

[mondo joe]

27. Yeah - try to get that passed. What makes you think those fighting civil unions

for gays now would fight any less against your suggestion?

[Warpy]

8. No, I don't think gays and lesbians should be content with

civil unions. However, the rights need to come first. The name can come later, most likely when a sufficient number of straight couples choose civil union over church marriage and all the baggage that comes with it.

Civil unions have happened in enough enlightened states and the sky hasn't fallen and churchy straight people haven't abandoned their marriages that more people realize it isn't the big deal the preachers have been howling about and start to accept the idea.

I want civil rights for all of us and I want them now. However, I realize this will be a maddeningly gradual process. Overnight change is what gave us wall to wall conservatism in both parties over the last 38 years.

I hate the fact that we have to mollycoddle the scared little rabbits out there who are terrified of any and all changes, even the necessary changes that don't actually affect them at all. However, it's a fact of life.

Civil unions NOW. The nomenclature will follow.

[Apollo11]

10. The experience in Great Britain

is that very quickly people can learn to accept the idea of civil partnerships for same-sex couples.

The legislation is only a couple of years old and already all the main political parties support it.

Even in the Conservative Party, there are no members of Parliament seeking to reverse the legislation.

On the other hand - if they had called it "marriage" - the churches would still be screaming about it.

[shadowknows69]

13. My only advice is

don't let the language of the church be so important to you. It is civil and legal rights you are fighting for. I agree, get the rights fight for the word later. The word is made too important by the very people who's minds you'll never change in a million years anyway. Christian Gays I can see why this would be a bigger issue but then you guys have a whole bunch of stuff on your plate to fight for before marriage probably and I don't envy you a bit. There will always be bigotry until they finally inbreed themselves out of existence when they are so vile to the rest of the world that only family will fuck them. Give it time. Please don't take this as any lack of support in your endeavors.

[johnlal]

18. In Kentucky Civil Unions are treated just as Marriage

As far as the Constitutional amendment goes, neither is permissable between people of the same gender. However, the amendment does not preclude a Civil Union between two people of the opposite sex. Our amendment is like many-- poorly written.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. My wife (a Catholic) and I (an agnostic) got married by a Presbyterian minister.

A chaplain at the hospital she worked in at the time. It was convenient and brief with a friend of hers as the witness.
She later got a dispensation from the Catholic Church so that we were legitimately married in the Church. Ironically, after she got the dispensation, and after 60+ years as a Catholic, she abandoned the Church partially due to the the idiocy involved in getting the dispensation.

We got married 26 years ago for all the usual reasons. To cement our relationship, romance, and high hopes and expectations. Fortunately, beyond that, we also happened to like each other, and over time, discovered that we really do love each other and enjoy each others company.

Looking back, I believe that a relationship is built on things like trust, concern, compatibility, paying attention to the other person, and all the "little" things that make it possible to live together, no matter what it's called, who approves, or what paperwork is involved.

"Marriage", "Civil Unions", "Living in Sin", "Cohabitation", should be secondary the actual relationship.

I do believe that gays should be allowed to marry if they choose to do so. My sister-in-law has been with her partner for over 30 years and would like to marry, but if it never happens, they will still stay together.

[bryant69]

21. Make Married Straight people get Civil Unions

instead of marriage.

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

[johnlal]

23. I'm straight, and I had a civil union.

My wife and I were married by a Judge at the courthouse. Our marriage was registered in the appropriate state and county offices. This WAS a civil union, but it is also called a marriage under our statutes. If somebody told me that I couldn't call myself a married person, I would be angry. Calling the same thing for same sex couples by a different name involves a value judgment-- that one status is inferior to another. I believe that same sex couples should have the same rights as the rest of us.

[sandnsea]

46. I did too

I could give a crap what the union is called. It's just a legal formality anyway. The actual "marriage" takes place in peoples' hearts, with or without legal documents.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

69. You have a civil marriage, not a civil union. And yes, the semantics are important when...

the semantics create a 2nd class tier of citizens.

Seperate but equal is never equal.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

68. No, it's a civil marriage. It's legally considered a MARRIAGE not a civil union.

[shadowknows69]

24. hear hear

they can call it what ever the hell they want but the license would read "CIVIL UNION" fuck you fudies.

[mondo joe]

30. Lovely ideal. Now tell us in practical terms how that's going to happen, and how

you'll get those fighting tooth and nail against ANY recognition of same sex unions to go for it.

[Maven]

33. For that matter

you'd get a lot of people who might otherwise support same-sex marriages to go against it. Wouldn't want to downgrade their own marriages, see.

Plus, as a bonus, you give ammo to all the RW assholes who claim our goal was to "destroy" marriage from the start!

I'd rather focus on reality than this flawed fantasy.

[bryant69]

34. oh it won't ever happen

Neither side is going to stop fighting until they win.

I suppose the good news is that those who care deeply about preventing gay marriage are, presumably, fighting against the clock.

Bryant

[BlackVelvet04]

22. Isnt' this typical of life in the United States today?

Look at how often people think (and are correct) that just changing the language somehow makes something different from what it is. We didn't have troop increase we had a "surge"......silly shit stuff if you ask me.

I don't believe in equal but separate. Either it's equal or it's not. Why should the gay community have to settle for civil unions?

[jobycom]

25. They aren't the solution, but not for the reasons you say.

They aren't the solution because no one should settle for a second-class rating on anything. There is no difference between civil unions and segregation, in essence. Refusing to allow gays the full rights of marriage, including the title, is no different than setting up "separate but equal" school systems for people based on race. No one in America should EVER have to face that.

I don't agree with anyone who says that the government should only recognize "civil unions" and not "marriage," either. The term has been in use the entire history of our nation as a government construction. The fact that religious organizations also use the term to refer to their own construction is irrelevant. The government has always called it marriage, they must continue to do so, and not change the term just because they are horrified by the thought of giving equal treatment to gays. That would be a bigger slap in the face than the segregationist policies now.

Marriage should be for all equally, by law. I don't care what religious organizations choose to call it--a person who doesn't like a religious group's policy can work to change it within that group, or can choose to join a different club (no offense to religious groups, just that they aren't mandatory and shouldn't be legislated by or allowed to legislate government decisions). Although, if religious leaders refuse to perform marriages for certain groups of people, they should not be allowed the power to perform them for anyone else, either.

The part I disagree with in the OP is that civil unions are just as hard to pass as equality in marriage. In some cases courts have ruled that gender discrimination in marriage law is illegal (not sure of the exact wording or reasoning, but in essence), and states have to offer the same benefits to same-gender couples. In these cases "civil unions" are often seen as a way out of allowing all people to marry as they wish. In other words, to continue the denial of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. So there are cases where the question isn't moot--society is offered same-gender civil unions as an alternative to marriage. That's just wrong, though in a strictly financial sense, it is at least convenient.

[gravity]

26. It should be called marriage but

realistically I think that civil unions have a much better chance of getting passes through legislation.

I know some people who have no problem with homosexuality, but don't like the idea of gay marriage. They have bullshit excuses like it's tradition or the marriage is for procreation, but don't mind civil unions. I think it's completely stupid, but thats what you have to deal if you want the state to recognize gay marriage.

Thats why I think that we should work on getting legal rights now, and focus on semantics later.

Its not right, and no one should be content with it, but thats best solution right now. I believe that our culture is slowly progressing, and that homosexuality is becoming more and more acceptable in society, and thats its only a matter of time before gay marriage becomes accepted a matter of time. Attitudes are slowly changing, but we still have a long ways to go.

[Selatius]

31. You're still stuck at square one

Either case, the fundamentalist rightwing will oppose you.

Ideally, the state should recognize no marriage, hetero- or straight-, period. That's between the couple and the church.

What is between the couple and the state is a civil union license. This is how it is done in countries such as France.

Of course, this isn't the EU, so we're facing the same problem any angle you approach it: Religious fundamentalism.

[mondo joe]

45. And yet there are many DU posts - even right here in this thread - that

suggest simply opting for civil unions would be a solution.

But it's not - it's the same opposition.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. I'm for educating negroes. Just don't call them "schools."

I think "learning barns" is more appropriate.

We don't want to undermine real schools.

[Hepburn]

39. Perspective from a retired Fam Law Atty:

Legally ~~ marriage is a civil contract. PERIOD. The person performing the ceremony ~~ whether civil or religious ~~ is licensed, i.e, empowered, by the state. No license of the person performing the ceremony ~~ no valid marriage results. (There are exceptions, but those deal with "good faith" belief of the validity of the marriage and these exceptions are not relevant to this discussion.)

Without the power of the state, no marriage can result ~~ no license can issue, no person can perform the legally binding contract. Further, this legally binding civil contract can ONLY be dissolved by the state. It is irrelevant and it has -0- legal efficacy if a church grants, does not grant a "divorce" to any particular couple. Legal rights under the law are NOT altered by a "religious" divorce. We all know and understand the latter...so, let's apply the principles of divorce which ends a marriage to the principles of the civil contract of marriage.

Therefore, a church organization has -0- legal power over the legal contract of marriage. EXCEPTING: Where there is need for the approval of the church to have this civil right solemnized under their auspices. In other words, because of First Amendment reasons, NO ONE can force a church to perform a marriage and that applies to gay or straight couples. And that is about it as far as any LEGAL grounds which churches have viz marriage. They cannot be forced to perform these "legal" services on First Amendment grounds.

There are also legitimate legal restrictions on marriages, to wit, such things as age of consent, mental capacity to consent, etc. I am sure no one has any gripe about these sorts and kinds of reasonable restrictions in place in regard to ANY contractual relationship...of which marriage just happens to be one of these contractual relationships. So in stating that which follows, assume that these "reasonable restrictions" apply across the board and when I say "everyone" I am not including such persons as minors, etc.

My solution:

1. CIVIL MARRIAGE is available to any couple....PERIOD. It is a CIVIL right. The state issues the license...and a person who is licensed by the state says "the magic words" and with the power of the state behind him/her, the couple is placed in a legally binding civil contract with by their consent alters the legal relationship between them. They are MARRIED...not civil unioned.

2. RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE is available to any couple....as long as a duly licensed "religious person" consents to perform the ritual which leads to the same civil contract which binds the couple in the same legal relationship as does a marriage performed "civilly."

Thus MARRIAGE = MARRIAGE. PERIOD. There are straight couples, I am sure, who do not wish to have for whatever reason a "religious" ceremony and those who do wish to have the same. This equally applies, of course, to gay couples. That is the ONLY issue...not the legally biding civil contract of marriage...but the issue of a "religious" blessing...so to speak. And, this latter issue is between the couple ~~ gay or straight ~~ and whatever church or religious organization they wish to use.

Just my opinion, FWIW. I see NO reason to get religious/moral issues wrapped up in a matter which is solely and completely a LEGAL issue.

[TahitiNut]

41. It's really stunning to me that this isn't just common knowledge.

I see no possible civil reason to impose religious restrictions of any kind on civil marriage. Since the law affords certain legal entitlements to 'married' individuals, the imposition of any religious limitations on such contracts seems unconstitutional on its face. I can see no reasonable argument to this. Any two adult people should be able to enter into this contract unless, by some due process, one or the other has had this civil liberty suspended.

[NMMNG]

57. Bingo

People can get legally married without ever stepping foot in a church or enlisting the help of clergy. It's time the church be told once and for all that, despite what it seems to think, it doesn't run everything--let alone the marriage business. Marriage is not just for the religious, it's for everyone.

[Hepburn]

61. That is exactly why....

....I have NEVER understood the BS over gay marriage. I went to law school a long, long time ago. I was taught that marriage is a civil contract. What the heck is it other than this? It's a LEGAL relationship. What the heck does the sexual orientation of two people entering into a contract have to do with ANYTHING?

If the "church" cannot end a legal relationship, then it needs to keep its nose and principles out of the formation of that relationship. Can you imagine any support for having "divorce court" held in a church?

So IMO, if religious principles have NOTHING to do with the dissolution of the contract ~~ especially in the age of "no fault" divorce ~~ then their principles have NO place in the formation of the contract. It's the STATE that has all the power on this issue...and religious principles have -0- place in the rules that govern civil contracts. PERIOD.

Just my thought, but if some time is spent educating the public on issues like this, maybe some of the "emotional" crap that has NOTHING to do with these LEGAL issues might be defeated. Maybe, maybe not. But it might be a way to explain to those who have the absolutely ridiculous notion that gay marriage will harm marriage in general to get a bit of a legit perspective on the issue. How do the legal relationships involved in any legal relationship completely separate and apart from any other such relationships cause harm? What an absolutely absurd notion.

Like I said, FWIW.

[robcon]

42. I think the title thread misses the point

Like other civil rights, there needs to be momentum building for equal rights for same-sex partners.

Whether we get civil unions (my preference) or marriages is less important than progress, and achieving an irreversible trend.

[johnaries]

43. If a Justice performs a wedding, isn't that technically a Civil Union?

And don't preachers have the right to refuse to marry someone if they wish?

I always thought the distinction was ridiculous.

If 2 consenting adults are in love, they should be able to get married. Period.

[Thothmes]

62. Civil Union

The State considers it a valid "marriage". When a priest, preacher, reverend, etc. performs a marriage ceremony, he is acting as a licensed representative of the State.

[Hepburn]

64. The clegyman...

..is acting with the POWER of the state. Like I said, if he/she is NOT licensed...he/she can say the magic words, "I now pounced you spouse and spouse," all day long and it has exactly -0- legal efficacy.

It's the state that governs marriage...not the freaking church or religious principles.

[Hepburn]

63. Like I said...

...marriage is purely and simply a civil contract which alters the legal rights between two people who agree to enter into such a contract. PERIOD. Sexual orientation has -0- logical, legitimate, or legal efficacy on the ability and/or right to contract. If sexual orientation is a legitimate concern in the area of a marriage contract....then it would be the same in any other area ~~ and we all know that is total BS. Can you see different contract rights, for example, on the purchase of a car for straight people and gay people? If that is ridiculous, then the same IMO applies to any other purely contractual matter ~~ and marriage is NOTHING but a civil contract.

It just boggles my mind that people seem to think that putting the issue of sexual orientation in ANY contract is a legit issue in which the state should be involved. Total and complete BS from my POV.

[ktlyon]

48. I think we should have religious marriage and civil marriage

basically what we have now except everyone can marry of course. We would have two types of marriage.

[mondo joe]

52. You might as well wish for the moon. Some of us don't have the luxury of tossing

out ideas of what we'd LIKE - we're actually dealing with the real situation.

[ktlyon]

67. say what?

When did this site stop opinions? I am in the real world, that is why I and others raise this thought. I will continue tossing out ideas, maybe someone will listen. What is your real situation? Marriage is a word that is used in the laws passed by Congress. All the laws would need to be amended to include the words "civil union" or it doesn't matter. NO marriage no rights. So being a practical, "real" world person I think using the word marriage in the new law word be easier.

Are you always so mean or just having a bad day?

[mondo joe]

72. I'm a person for whom this issue is more than an abstract.

There is no momentum behind creating universal civil unions.

And even if there were, the bad guys ALREADY oppose same sex civil unions.

The idea that all we need to do is have government provide civil unions isn't just a useless fancy - it's folly.

[Hepburn]

65. Actually, legally there would not be two types of marriage...

...since the same legal principles would apply to this contract whether it was entered into in a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony. As I said, marriage would be marriage. That is the deal right now with marriages which are limited to one man and one woman ~~ whether the JP down at the courthouse married them or the priest in the local Catholic church ~~ those contracts are governed by the same legal principles. THAT is what defines what a marriage is ~~ what the STATE says it is. When a couple goes into a courthouse to have that civil contract dissolved, a marriage which was entered into in a civil ceremony is not treated differently than one which is entered into in a religious ceremony. The subject of HOW the couple got bound into that legal relationship is totally irrelevant. (Unless there is an issue on the validity of the marriage and that issue is not relevant to this discussion.)

I wish those opposed to gay marriage would just get over it. It's a CONTRACT. I want to just say to those who are opposed: Come on folks, it's NOT like the earth is going to stop spinning on its axis if we extend contractual rights to people and do NOT put sexual orientation into that mix.

[ktlyon]

74. Yes legally marriage is marriage

but there are two ways to achieve. Civil union should include everyone, our constitution demands it.

[BlooInBloo]

51. Woohoo! Separate but equal! Separate but equal!

:rofl:

[Liberal Veteran]

54. Let's just be honest. The opposition to gay marriage has NOTHING to do with....

....protecting the so-called "sanctity of marriage". It is based on hate. It's as simple as that.

No matter how it is rationalized, the bottom line is that the people who are opposed to gay marriage would just as soon we gay people cease to exist.

You can call it "marriage", "civil unions", whatever you want.....the people who stand in opposition to this generally won't stand for ANY kind of recognition of gays and our relationships.

Just look at the meanspirited legal gay-bashing done by the assholes who claimed the entire business of getting various states to pass constitutional amendments to outlaw gay marriage was to preserve the sanctity of marriage. The very next thing they did was go after states for allowing gay people to purchase health coverage for their partners through their employer which has nothing really at all to do with marriage. Or Virginia and it's plan to try to nullify contracts between same sex partners that they wrote to protect themselves and give responsibility to their partner's for making medical decisions.

You are never going to convince me that opposition to any kind of recognition has any rationale other than pure hatred and bigotry.

What it is called is irrelevant. If it is seen as any kind of legitimizing of gay people, they will stand against it.

[foreigncorrespondent]

56. BRAVO!!!

You have said what I haven't been able to find the words to say. Thank YOU!

On edit: typo

[NMMNG]

58. Indeed

If it was all about the "sanctity of marriage" they'd be fighting to outlaw divorce, not to prevent people from getting married.

[Hepburn]

73. Exactly. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

60. For those who think the government...

can create or prevent a spiritual union, you're irrational.

[mondo joe]

66. Who the fuck is talking about "spiritual union"? I'm talking aboout legal recognition.

Thank you.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

70. You're irrational if you think we're talking about spiritual unions.

[gollygee]

71. What I don't get is why people want to have huge changes to current law

like completely changing the way all marriages are performed in the US, instead of making a very simple change to current laws by eliminating gender specifications.

[Alameda]

75. civil union/marriage?

I arrived late here, but my 2 cents worth...in reality what is called marriage here is in reality civil union. It would not be recognized by the Catholic Church for one. The laws the "states" have instituted are civil laws and many are not recognized by official religious institutions. We should call it what it is, a civil union. If some want "marriage" let them go to whatever religious institution they desire.

[FyurFly]

76. Equality for all n/t