Minnesota bill would institute universal civil unions, leave marriage to churches

[DonViejo]

In the ongoing debate about equal rights for gay families, a Minnesota lawmaker takes a different approach

BY KATIE MCDONOUGH

While Minnesota state lawmakers consider a measure to legalize gay marriage and an alternative civil unions bill for gay couples, Democratic state Rep. Kim Norton has signed on to a third option: universal civil unions.

The bill would offer civil unions to gay and straight couples, getting the state government out of the marriage business altogether and making “certain that every Minnesotan couple gets a civil union in the state of Minnesota,” Norton told ABC’s KAALTV. The measure would leave marriage “to the churches that are offering them,” she added. Norton did not address how the measure, which was introduced on Thursday, would secure federal benefits for Minnesota couples or out-of-state recognition of civil partnerships.

Norton had previously supported the Republican-backed measure for gay civil unions, but withdrew her support after calling the bill unfair and unequal. This, she says, is a better compromise.

But not everyone agrees with her, including pro-marriage equality Democrats and Norton’s gay and pro-equal marriage constituents. “I think they are just trying to change the name to appease constituents in their areas and what they should be doing is educating their constituents,” Minnesotan Linda Kvall told KAALTV. Kvall also said that she does not want a civil union in lieu of marriage with her long-term partner: “She is my life. She is my partner. We raise my kids together as our kids, as our family. I think that marriage is one specific thing that two people love each other and want to be in a committed relationship,” she said.

###

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/25/minnesota_bill_would_institute_universal_civil_unions_leave_marriage_to_churches/

[Skink]

1. That's what I'm talking about

[BethanyQuartz]

2. When all is said and done

Isn't it more important to keep pushing for same gender couples to have all the rights and benefits of opposite gender couples? Everyone can quibble over what to call it afterward.

[HockeyMom]

3. If a couple is married by a priest, minister,

rabbi, etc., they still have to fill out a civil marriage license. Now, how would this work? A marriage by the clergy, with a CIVIL Civil Union license by the State? This would get Federal Benefits? If they only had a religious marriage ceremony, but no recognition or license by the state, that would confer ZERO benefits.

Do they realize the MESS this would be creating, for not only gay couples, but straight couples as well? Discrimination for EVERYONE!!! Besides which, they are advocating for only RELIGIOUS marriage.

[Nye Bevan]

4. I totally oppose this. Full marriage for all (nt)

[SoCalNative]

5. Good idea

leave "marriage" as a religious institution for the churchies that conveys zero benefits.

[Puzzledtraveller]

9. Exactly

This is how Ive been seeing it all along and it greatly weakens the oppositions argument when EVERYONE has a civil union, and noone is married outside of some ceremony in whatever church wants to "marry" you.

[tabbycat31]

6. What about going to a system like France's

Clergy are not authorized to perform civil marriages period and they have to have a separate civil ceremony.

[sarisataka]

7. While she means well

it sounds like a case of Separate but {not entirely} Equal. Changing the terminology would just create confusion.

[Puzzledtraveller]

8. YES!!

[Myrina]

10. Separation of church & state = good. But neither should be allowed to discriminate.

Which means changing the tax code to include civil union-ized couples to claim 'married' on their taxes, obtain all legal bene's of being married, etc.


JMHO.