Should government issued marriage licenses be replaced with civil union licenses?

[calteacherguy]

Poll question: Should government issued marriage licenses be replaced with civil union licenses?

This would solve the gay-marriage "dilemma." Only churches could marry, not the government. The government could only issue civil union licenses to gay or straight couples. The IRS and other codes would have the word "married couple" striken from the langauge to be replaced with those in a "civil union."

This would solve the "issue," no?

[Selatius]

1. The two are split in France. That is...

You go to the church to get the religious blessing, but you go to the local court house to get cohabitation legally recognized by the state for tax/record-keeping purposes. If you're gay, you can apply for the civil union license but forgo church blessing, especially if the church condemns homosexuality.

[IndianaGreen]

14. The same is true in some Latin American countries

The marriage is not recognized until the couple signs the appropriate civil papers with a public notary. The religious ceremony usually precedes the civil one.

[Karenina]

18. Here it's the other way round.

EVERYONE goes to the Rathaus for a civil ceremony to get written in das Buch. 20 persons tops. Old buildings with granite and marble. Well appointed rooms, document covers, all appropriate for acknowledging the CONTRACT. I've often provided the music (great acoustics). Sometimes it's quite a while later for the church hoopla, if at all.

[baldguy]

2. The state has no business "licensing" who adults can fall in love with.

[niyad]

3. many people fail to realize that the mariage contract has three parties--the two

spouses and the state. remember when a judge could decide NOT to grant a couple a divorce? or, just recently, the idiot pols in several states (mine, alas, included) proposing such things as felony charges for adultery, or state-mandated psychiatric counseling for couples seeking divorce (with a little subsection about not letting them divorce if there are children)

[electron_blue]

4. no. you're forgetting that some non-religious people also want to marry

Who says all marriage ceremonies are religious?

[silverweb]

9. UU, Humanist, Buddhist or other ceremony.

It shouldn't be hard to find a quasi-religious or non-religious substitute.

Besides, once a couple has that legal license in hand, who's to know where or even if they got the "marriage blessing," or to stop them from saying they're "married"?

The language is moot once the legal aspects are covered.

[calteacherguy]

11. You may have a non-religious marriage ceremony.

It's just that you will apply for your government-issued civil union license like everybody else. You are free to "marry" however you choose to marry.

The key is to get rid of government defining what "marriage" is and isn't.

[electron_blue]

20. I was disagreeing with the OP's claim that only churches would "marry". I don't like the

idea that marriage ceremonies are only for those who are religious. I ran up against this when I married and couldn't find anyone in town to do the ceremony bcs we weren't members of any church.

At any rate, the state is the only agent that legalizes marriages that I know of churches do not do that. Even when a couple has a religious ceremony, what makes it legal is when they sign the state-issued piece of paper and file it with the county court.

Btw, what's the difference between the legal rights of those who were married vs. those who were have a civil union? Are they exactly the same rights?

[IndianaJones]

5. we should redefine it so that a certain group will never have access. nt.

[phen43]

6. I like it!!

Good reasoning!!

[Up2Late]

7. Yes! Absolutely! Which is exactly why I say I oppose "gay marriage" Laws.

Marriage "Laws" that go beyond barring brothers and sister and first cousins from marrying, in my opinion, are ALL Un-Constitutional!

Just ask the Catholic Church if you are married, if you get married outside of the Catholic Church, you're not according to them.

[flvegan]

8. Okay, that covers taxes. How about other benefits?

Benefits ruled by corporations, etc. Will they be forced to have ALL of their wording changed to "civil union" and if so, why fucking bother? Let the fundies' heads explode and run with "marriage" fercryingoutloud. One person's opinion in their belief system shouldn't in any way limit the rights of my friends and family.

[goodgd_yall]

12. Well, yes, wording s/b changed to "civil union"

of course and heterosexual union conducted by a justice of the peace will have to face the fact that their "marriage" is now a "civil union." I'm sure we'd hear an outcry about that. But, boo-hoo-hoo---then they'll might get what it's like to walk in a gay/lesbian couple's shoes.

[goodgd_yall]

10. Yes. It's really the way it should be

So-called "marriages" in the civil sense are merely contracts. If people want to make their contracts more personally meaningful, they can devise their own ceremonies and/or go through a religious ceremony. The government has no right to interfere in those.

[iamahaingttta]

13. Why should it be limited to couples?

What about triads?

[seasat]

15. I've always felt that the government support of marriage was for population expansion.

When the nation was younger and less populated, a way to grow GDP was to expand population. With the strain that has put on our environment and resources, I agree that the government should get out the marriage business and limit itself to contracts. People should be able to establish a contract with each other to cover such things as hospital visitation, inheritance, and other legal matters regardless of their relationships. Two elderly folks who live together as platonic roommates would benefit from such a contract if they had no other family members to turn too. You could have special clause for folks that plan on procreating with each other to require medical testing but otherwise they could then be a subset of the standard contracts. That would go long way towards shifting us to a more sustainable growth pattern and would cover everyone equally.

[killbotfactory]

16. The two ideas should be disentangled

Let the couple decide whether their partnership is a marriage or not.

[Debi]

17. Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

:hi:

[LWolf]

19. No.

While I don't have any personal investment in the term "married,"

many GLBTs want to be married by, and within, their faith. A civil union gives them legal protections, but not the spiritual union they are seeking.

I'm actually quite ambivalent on this one. I can argue both sides.

I would prefer to leave the term "married" in place, and to prevent the judeo-christian sects from deciding in isolation how "marriage" is defined. They don't OWN the term, after all.

Would a civil union of any gender mix include a couple who were lifelong friends, but not family, who don't intend to ever marry and join their affairs strictly for the benefits available by "civil unions?"

I'm not against that, either. So perhaps both should be on the table.

[denem]

21. husband/wife husband/husband wife/wife

There's no reason why these terms should not be available with civil unions if the partners so desire.

[slackmaster]

22. Yes, excellent idea

Separate the spiritual aspects from the legal ones. Let the spiritual side own the concept of marriage.