Marriage vs. Civil Unions

[kennetha]

I think I have the perfect solution.

Step 1. (a) Let the Churches have the word 'marriage.' (b) Let the State keep some such words as 'civil union' 'civil commitment' (or let the State invent some other word with a nicer ring.

Step 2. Let civil unions be between any two consenting parties.

Step 3. Let the civil rights and privileges associated with civil union be the same for all.

Step 4. Let the State recognize any marriage formed by the Church as Civil Unions before the State

Step 5. Let any Church recognize as marriage all and only the Civil Unions they deem appropriate.

Step 6. let there be no distinction in law between Civil unions which are recognized by some Church or other as "holy" marriages and those Civil unions which are not recognized by some Church or other as "holy" marriages.


This way everybody gets what they want. THe state treats all citizens equally under the law. CHurches get to define marriages in ways that are consistent with Church Doctrine. It's an example of rendering unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's (Civil Union/Commitment) and rendering unto the Church what belongs to the CHurch ("holy" matrimony.)

Are there any problems with this approach? I can't see any offhand.

[Antennas]

1. It's still a matter of semantics.

I'm not gay, but if I was I sure as hell wouldn't want my union between my partner to be delegated as a "civil union." I'd want it to be called what it is - a marriage.

[kennetha]

2. Even if you had all the rights and privileges that the state associates with marriage?

What's in a name? This whole battle is a battle over what gets called what, it seems.

[Antennas]

3. Equal, but seperate.

There's still an air of "the gays aren't good enough to get married - they can only get civil unions."

Either everyone gets married, or no one does. Either everyone gets civil unions, or no one does.

[kennetha]

5. My proposal is that the state get out of the marriage business for everybody

It can sanction some marriages as simultaneously civil union. But marriage becomes a matter for Churches. Civil Union is the only business the state would be in on my proposal.

[Antennas]

7. But there are churches that will marry homosexuals.

Universal Life Church, for example.

The only thing that stops them? State and federal laws.

[kennetha]

10. Let them continue.

my proposal would say that the state doesn't "marry" anybody. Under my proposal marriage gets given to the churches to be a "sacramental" state. The State shouldn't be in the business of peforming sacraments.

Civil Unions are a contractual secular thing. And the state would treat all parties to Civil Unions equally under the law.

[AntiFascist]

14. I can just see the Religious Right up in arms because...

we have then successfully destroyed marriage, as far as the state is concerned.

Keep in mind that one of the founding backers of Prop 8 was billionaire Howard Ahmanson Jr, and one of his stated goals has been to make religious law the law of the land.

[WillParkinson]

18. What's in a name?

If that's the case why is everyone so up in arms about the word marriage? It's just a word, after all.

And many states are blocking Civil Unions, too.

That's what's in a word.

[kennetha]

24. True there is some resistance to Civil Unions

but no NEARLY as much as there is to Gay Marriage.

I think this is an issue that can be finessed. Build the entire legal/contractual aspects of marriage into Civil Unions, separate that from sacramental marriage and the temperature goes down considerably. We can have a solution that produces social peace rather than social division and gives society a chance to mature.

[WillParkinson]

28. "Some"?

Many of the states, if not all of them, are adding civil unions to their amendments in the form of not recognizing anything remotely close to marriage.

[NotThisTime]

4. I think we should do as other countries do. State issued Civil Union, Religion issues wedding

certification. And, for the record, since we are agnostics, we would have a civil union, and as long as we are accorded the same legal rights, I could care less what anyone calls what my husband and I have.

[kennetha]

6. Right. THat's basically my proposal.

It just adds that the state can choose to delegate the performance of civil union to the Church. The Church would then do two things at once -- marry and perform a civil union.

And the Church can delegate the state to perform some marriages.

[NotThisTime]

12. But you just lumped them back together. EVERYONE should be required to have a civil service at their

town hall, or some such Federal or State building (or Inn or Lakehouse or wherever, performed by a justice of the peace), Marriages should be reserved only for churches. Period, that's it. Never mix church and state. (and of course my hope, is that some day, those couples who cannot today marry, would be able to in a religious ceremony if they CHOSE to.) I don't understand why we allow religion to dictate who has a Legal Union and who does not.

By the way, did I mention I'm agnostic LOL...

[Gormy Cuss]

8. Yes. Here's an alternative proposition.

Step 1. The states reserve the right to continue to call marriage by that term regardless of how many times they change the specifics.

Step 2. Let any religious group who can't abide by that make up its own term -- "holy matrimony" for example.


It's not as if the state borrowed the term and promised to have it mean the same thing after all.

[cboy4]

9. Of course there's a problem....civil rights are not open to

negotiation.

Civil/human rights are probably the only issues not not open to deals.

And why should a church be allowed to "have" the word marriage if a same sex couple gets wed
during a sunset ceremony at Laguna Beach?!?

Remember, gay people are not asking churches and other religious institutions to sanction this, like the rotten ass Mormons, Catholics, Baptists and other churches are falsely attempting to make people believe.

There is nothing wrong with a same sex couple tying the knot at city hall. It's none of the church's damn biz.

[kennetha]

11. My proposal basically allows that in a way that promotes social peace

and sweeps divisive issues under the rug for another day when society has progressed further. It actually gives everybody what they want. Civil Commitment ceremonies can be as beautiful and as moving as one wants. It's just that the wouldn't be called marriages. We would let 'marriage' be a sacramental term used by the Churches.

[FM Arouet666]

19. Very pragmatic but

So, gays and lesbians can have commitment ceremonies which are just as good as marriages? They can also use the equally equipped bathrooms labeled "Gays only". Just as good. This is a civil rights issue just like civil rights issues in the past. Be it for african americans or women, we can't sweep these issues under the rug. Hammer away year after year until society is forced along.

Sorry to sound militant and I would have agreed with you 4 years ago.

[cboy4]

23. You don't sound militant. You sound reasonable.

But I'm the one feeling militant these days.

[cboy4]

21. I can tell you allowing marriaeg1 to be a "sacramental term"

used by the churches will be overwhelmingly rejected by civil rights groups on principle alone.

We won't even get into how the church has no copyright ownership of the word marriage .. especially when the church is not even being mandated to wed same sex couples.

[WillParkinson]

37. Gives everyone what they want?

Pretty sure of yourself aren't you?

[mondo joe]

47. Can you explain why Florida just banned civil unions for gays?

[FM Arouet666]

13. Sounds very pragmatic but it probably will not be supported.

Basically what you are saying is the state get rid of marriage as the definition for a contract between two adults and rename it a civil union. Both sides of the debate tend to resist this solution. Those for traditional marriage see the redefinition as an affront to marriage and those for gay marriage view the redefinition as a form of "separate but equal" treatment in the eyes of the state. Redefining terms still sends the message to gays and lesbians that they are not good enough to have traditional marriage in the eyes of the state. As I read more and more on this issue I find myself agreeing with those advocating for traditional gay marriage. Settle for nothing less.

[kennetha]

17. You are right about the intent and probably about the resistance

But since a lot of the opposition to gay marriage is religiously motivated, I say let the Church keep marriage and get the state out of the marriage business altogether. But DON"T get the state out of the equal protection under the law business at all.

A different more evocative phrase than 'Civil Union' is needed. That's an ugly phrase. Some poet could think of a better thing to call the state formerly known as marriage.

I still think that this proposal would give all parties what the really want, while also promoting social peace rather than social division.

[FM Arouet666]

26. I would tend to agree with you

An intermediate step would seem to be the solution. Much like 'don't ask don't tell' is an intermediate solution which I hope Prez Obama will put to rest.

But, I will go with the direction of our gay and lesbian fellow democrats, if they march in the streets for gay marriage then I will march with them. Eventually gays and lesbians will have equal rights in this country, it would be nice to see it in my lifetime.

[kennetha]

27. I take your point about solidarity

That's important. But here's another form of solidarity might take.

My wife and I are both atheists. We've been "married" for 26 years. We'd both be willing to give up calling our relationship a marriage in order to promote solidarity with those who have been denied the right to marry and we would start calling it a Civil Union -- except that's such an ugly, unevocative phrase and we need something better.

[FM Arouet666]

31. Again, I agree with you but.

I too am an atheist as is my wife, when I sweet talk her just right ;), and I would gladly give up the term marriage for civil union. But, I suspect that the majority of religious or semi-religious people would not be so willing. I have been shouted down by people on this board and others suggesting what you propose. Marriage, to some, holds some kind of mystical magical connotation. Marriage to others represents establishment of equality in a society which has relegated them to second class citizenship since time immemorial.

I wonder, if atheists were only allowed civil unions, would we fight for marriage? What if atheists concluded that accepting civil unions branded us as second class citizens? What if atheists were in the news strapped to a fence post left to die as a second class citizen, or if we saw news stories about atheists beaten up outside atheist bars? I wonder if we would fight to remove the brand and claim our rightful place in equality?

I guess what I am saying is that the issue of gay marriage is more than just a word.

[Connonym]

15. The perfect solution

would be to offer equal protection under the law to all Americans regardless of their gender, race, religious creed or sexual orientation. We all know separate but equal does not mean equal.

To quote from the Declaration of Independence (emphasis mine,obviously): We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The perfect solution, the ONLY solution, is to stop letting religion dictate law and afford all US citizens equal rights. Period.

[TexasObserver]

16. Your plan fails at step one: "Let the Churches have the word 'marriage.'"

That is not acceptable.

The word "marriage" means much, much more than the religious meaning. In fact, it mainly means a social, not a religious, union.

Nope. Your plan fails.

[kennetha]

22. My plan involves a bit of linguistic reformation, that's for sure

But I don't see why the connotations that you talk about that go beyond the religious for the word "marriage' can't be peeled off from that word and associated with another word -- a better word than the phrase 'civil union' which I admit is unlovely and not at all lyrical. We need a lyrical word that can carry the connotations you talk about. But that can be done. So I don't see your objection as an insurmountable one -- but it is an important one.

[Marrah_G]

39. SInce many churches will marry gay and lesbian couple it is still the same issue

[MercutioATC]

20. I agree 100%...and I think detractors might be putting pride before practicality.

Your solution (one I've advocated for a while) is the quickest, surest path to equal rights for same-sex unions.

We used to call them "soda fountains". We used to call them "negroes". Our vocabulary changes...nomenclature is transient.


It's not important what we call it as long as we use the same words for ALL couples. Getting hung up on the word "marriage" just because a bunch of religious freaks managed to make it a cultural standard doesn't make any sense to me. There is a practical solution...let's implement it.

[kennetha]

25. Step by Step

your view and mine will, I think, eventually win the day.

[WillParkinson]

29. You won't be using the same words for ALL couples.

Separate but equal didn't work then. It will not work now.

[MercutioATC]

32. That's exactly my point. We need the same words for ALL couples.

No "separate but equal" like "civil union" for gay couples vs "marriage" for straight couples...completely identical words that signify a legal status or a secular status.

I just don't think that insisting on the word "marriage" is productive. If we let the bigots have their word (despite the fact that it has no legal status), I believe they'll keep their mouths shut (for the most part) about legal equality for same-sex couples.

[WillParkinson]

33. And again you will be wrong...

They don't want gays to have anything remotely similar to marriage. Call it whatever you want, but they do not want gays to have rights even remotely the same as straight couples.

[MercutioATC]

34. Yes, and "they" would be happy if blacks were still picking cotton..

So what? Have ONE legal process for all couples and call it something other than "marriage".

What's the problem with this?

[WillParkinson]

36. If you don't care about the same rights...

Then the word shouldn't bother you either. As you said, what's the problem with this?

[MercutioATC]

44. If you want to choose the steepest slope to climb, be my guest.

Again, the goal is to get truly equal rights for everybody. Separating the legal and religious/cultural aspects of "marriage", making the legal part the same for everybody, and letting religion handle the religious part any way they see fit would do this.

You're free to fight for the word "marriage", but I think it makes the process unnecessarily difficult.

[mondo joe]

45. But you're advicating for precisely the steepest slope.

There is significant support for equal marriage.

There is none for revising the law as posited by the OP.

[mondo joe]

43. You can implement it. No one here is stopping you. NT

[readmoreoften]

30. Fucking this bullshit again. This place is becoming Spam Underground.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

35. Seriously

[Gwendolyn]

38. So how come this perfect solution didn't work in Mexico, France and other countries.

They all have "civil unions" for heterosexual couples, yet the partnerships for same-sex couples are not equal.

Renaming a legal model is worth sh*t. It's the attitudes and mores of a people that need to be addressed.

Some people really live in a unicorns 'n cotton candy kind of a world.

[cate94]

40. semantics, semantics and more semantics

Have you read any of the other threads on this?

If it were a matter of semantics then Florida wouldn't have made civil unions, domestic partnerships AND gay marriage illegal.

There is NO step by step here. Other than to make sure one group of people can never have equal rights.

What is sacred in a marriage is NOT bestowed by a religious institution. It is determined by the two people involved and their God. And BTW, I consider my marriage sacred despite the fact it is not legal. It is just our vows. It is just our commitment. It is just our love.

Churches would NEVER be required to marry two people of the same sex. Got that? NEVER. Just as the Catholic Church is NOT required to marry divorced persons. Churches KNOW this already. They are just playing the fear factor card.

[RadicalTexan]

41. I don't see how, constitutionally and reasonably speaking, "churches" and their wishes are relevant.

Personally, I'd do away with legal marraige for everyone. It privileges couples over individuals. Let people form personal relationships at their will, with no interference from the state for good or ill.

[mondo joe]

42. If you think that's a good idea, go for it. I have seen nothing to indicate it is feasible,

so I can't invest time or effort into it.

[Le Taz Hot]

46. Sorry, hon.

Brown vs. Board of Education. Separate is inherently not equal. This issue was decided in 1954.

[marshall]

48. I totally agree

A few years ago I tried to register my mother as my civil partner. We were running a farm together but I had an outside job and wanted to get her on my health insurance. Everyone acted like I didn't know what I was talking about when I approached the subject. Now that she is retired and past 65 she no longer needs the insurance coverage, but I am a single parent and would benefit from having the designation of a civil union.

Not every household consists of sexual partners. Some are blood related adults who have chosen to live together for whatever reason they deem necessary. The push for gay marriage and gay marriage alone ignores the diversity in people's lives that exists in our country.

[TommyO]

49. Tell you what, the people keep marriage, and churches can have holy matrimony

Problem solved.