What if civil unions did provide the exact same rights and privileges as standard marriages?

[StrongBad]

Aside from blatant homophobia and bigotry, it seems like the main opposition to homosexual marriage stems from various traditional religious beliefs, which solely focus the term "marriage" on a coupling between a man and a woman.

If this is the case, and a homosexual couple does not care about participating in a traditional religious institution anyway, what objection could there be to civil unions which provide the exact same rights at both state and federal levels that a traditional married couple enjoy?

I know that at the present civil unions aren't really the same thing as marriages in terms of equal rights, but if we were to make this issue a reframing of definitions in order to get the exact same rights to people who want to join lives, how could that still be considered unequal?

There could be interesting implications to this reframing as well. Heterosexual couples who do not want to associate themselves with religion could opt for a civil union instead of a marriage. As a means of compromise the term marriage could be left to the religious, while the term civil union could be applied to both secular and homosexual couples.

Perhaps the best way of getting equality for all is to not use a term so soaked in theological terminology as "marriage" is.

[dbackjon]

1. If marriage was eliminated for ALL

Civil Unions for all. Churches could do ceremonies for who they want.


Only way it would work.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

33. That's what I want. Civil unions for all, and the individual churches can do marriage ceremonies.

That way, fundie freaks can feel special that their marriages are "real" and ours aren't.


I couldn't care less about their fantasies. But in the eye of the government, I want the same rights.

[Luminous Animal]

134. So you are willing to cede MY marriage...

to the "fundie freaks". Thanks for nothing.

[bitchkitty]

101. Marriage in its current state should not be legislated.

Because religious beliefs have no place in state business.

Separation of Church and State - our founders were wise in many ways, and this was one of them.

[tigereye]

102. but in some ways, that's how it works now

We got a "marriage" license, but it's issued by the state, and we chose to have a minister from a UU church perform the ceremony outdoors. But we could easily have taken that license to a JP for a civil ceremony.

In some way the issue is semantic. Many "marriages" as they are now performed are, at base, civilly- sanctioned, by the state. Most people can't get married without a license from the state. The religious aspect is actually secondary.

For any state to say that same sex couples can't "marry" (in fact legally, they mean obtain a license to cohabit and act as one unit or entity, right?) implies that cultural and religious biases are involved in this decision, and that would, on it's face, be illegal, wouldn't it? And therefore, there is no real reason the state shouldn't allow same-sex couples to marry)


JMO

[Maven]

2. What if there were unicorns?

Civil unions don't provide the same rights marriages do, and the religious right doesn't want us to have them anyway.

They don't want any recognition of our existence as GLBT or our relationships.

The idea that the word "marriage" has religious meaning is a red herring. It's about hate.

The reason the word matters is legal, not religious.

[StrongBad]

5. Point?

[Maven]

8. Reread please

Separate but equal is bullshit, and always has been.

[StrongBad]

13. Yes, but...

...in my example hetero couples could opt for a civil union if they didn't want to participate in a religious institution and call their union a marriage. Because there is no discrimination involved and it is merely a function of labeling, I don't think the two examples are similar.

[Maven]

18. No, there is discrimination for gays involved.

First of all, most straight people would still want marriages.

And gay people would still not be allowed to marry.

Problem not solved.

And it isn't "just labeling." The labels matter from a legal standpoint, whether it's getting federal benefits in the future or getting private corporations to recognize your spouse. They also matter from a social standpoint.

There is no rational basis to advocate what you're advocating other than acceptance of the view that gay people may be treated as inferior.

[independentpiney]

32. Gays would be allowed to marry in churches that accept same-sex

marriages, would they not?.
But I agree that the label would have to make no difference from a legal standpoint. The terms spouse, domestic partner, etc. would have to be construed as interchangeable as far as private corporate and federal benefits.

[StrongBad]

36. Yes, this example assumes that the inequality present now would be done away with.

It would also assume that all contracts would cover all different types of unions.

[Maven]

41. Hence it's a useless hypothetical argument.

[Raineyb]

99. The use of civil union vs standard marriage implies a second class

status for the former. That will not fly.

Regards

[anigbrowl]

72. There isn't one. I think your OP is sensible. I'd be quite happy with it as a heterosexual deal.

[comtec]

76. Your argument is logical, sadly the issue at hand is emotional

I tend to agree FWIW.
I think the real problem is the pain caused by simply being denied equal rights.

The word marriage is a flag, that either side must have as their own. it seems that giving the GLBT community legally equal civil unions isn't enough, maybe it never was.

but since the prop 8's passed this last election because of brutal misinformation - and because GLBT's ARE a minority - they passed. not by HUGE margins, but enough to make them feel bitterly hurt by people they thought were their allies.

I admit I'm horribly disgusted by the minorities that are calling radio shows who are basically saying I got mine, screw you.

But I'm afraid at this point it's not logical, maybe it never was this IS people's loves and desires to be bonded to one another we're talking about - and love is as illogical as it gets-, and offering them a logical, possibly even a quick resolution won't work anymore, if it ever would have.

I learned a while back, having had my own searing, flaming woulds from those I thought I was defending, that you are better off standing back.

Offering them solutions is pointless. They want only one thing now - victory or death!

You can offer legally equal Civil Unions, like most euro countries do, that are non-religious but legally equal, but they won't take it. You will be burned, badly for your efforts, because this is a issue from the heart, and logic, sadly, no longer applies.

I wish them well.

I have friends I would love to see get married. Legally contracted so they can share in all the wonder (and hell) that is being mated, in theory, for life. It pains me that it is only possible in a couple states, and not where they live (and some where they live NOW). They are wonderful people, and deserve all happiness possible, and their love should be protected (hospital visits, inheritance, etc) by the law by a 20 dollar license, as opposed to thousands spent in legal contracts, drawn up by lawyers.

It's not right that we get burned for trying to find a solution that will benefit both sides -after all compromise is about getting what you need, not what you want- and it's not right that they are still second class citizens.

My two cents is stand back, do what's right when you can, but stay out of the fight, you'll loose.

[Warren Stupidity]

That would be great!

[Maven]

26. Wouldn't it?!

We could go on magical unicorn rides!

Alas, it is not to be. :(

[jberryhill]

71. The law can define any two words to mean the same thing

It's not about physical accomodations.

Legally, all marriage is, is a status that determines things like tax exemptions, certain presumptions relative to inheritance, and so forth.

The reason that "civil unions are different" is because various state laws have defined "civil unions" to be different.

That's why, yes, there are references that discuss differences between them.

But if a state passes something as simple as a definitional amendment to their family code stating "the term 'civil union' shall be synonymous with 'marriage'" then that's what the law says.

Personally, I think that would be silly. A lot of people have a problem with the word "marriage" because they have utterly silly notions about the fact that it is also used as a term outside of the law to mean things that have absolutely nothing to do with its legal effect.

Because of that, the subject is a stumbling block to people who don't get that the law can define any word - any word at all - to have any legal effect completely independent of its meaning in any other context.

[mwei924]

3. It does seem interesting..

..that over 50% of Americans support Civil Unions, but over 50% oppose gay marriage. It seems like people are more than willing to give the same legal benefits to gay couples, but don't want to "redefine" the term marriage. IMO, as long as the rights are the same, what they decide to call it is not that important. Or maybe they'll just call it "civil marriage", to clarify that it's not going to be the religious marriage but rather just the civil/legal rights.

[NMMNG]

4. Funny how the religious nutbags never claimed "marriage" was a religious term

until gay people wanted to reclaim it. I call bullshit.

[StrongBad]

9. You must not know many religious nutbags then.

I grew up Catholic, and though I definitely don't consider myself Catholic anymore, one thing I do remember was that marriage to them is a religious sacrament. Always has been and always will be.

[NMMNG]

15. But they didn't try to claim it was strictly religious

as they're trying to do now in order to deny same-sex couples marriage equality. Nobody was claiming atheists, agnostics and other such individuals couldn't get married and therefore had to have "civil unions" because marriage was a religious term . This is nothing more than blatant anti-gay hatred masquerading as "religious freedom".

[Solon]

17. Well, the Catholic Church like's rewriting history when it suits them...

Believe me, looking at the history, Marriage was not always a religious sacrament to the Church.

[roseBudd]

95. And Catholic weddings are unbearably long because it is a full mass

[LostinVA]

105. Marriage is a legal term

[JVS]

128. Numerous local councils declaring it a sacrament up to the Lateran council of 1215 all caused by...

gay marriage movement?

[Solon]

6. You know, I'll see pigs fly before your idea becomes reality. n/t

[IndianaJones]

7. what if the water really was the same in the colored fountains? nt.

[StrongBad]

16. See my post #13

If both hetero and homosexual couples have a choice as to what they want their union labelled as, such a distinction is not truly discriminatory.

[IndianaJones]

19. white people were allowed to drink from the colored fountains. nt.

[cali]

10. Either CUs for all or marriage for all. Anything else is unequal.

[dbmk]

74. Hmmm..

The religious groups will always have the prerogative to bestow any kind blessing on their members. And decide who can be members.
So if Warren made up a new blessing, making a couple Saddlebacked - should everyone be able to be Saddlebacked to, lest it be unequal?

Straight guy here - and I would love it if we separated the terms. Let them have their word and let the rest of us move forward. The less religious I can make my partnership sound, the better.

It might not be enough to get the religious right to back of, though. But I still like the idea.

[ieoeja]

92. No, because that would be a religious thing, not a legal thing.

A religious institute can discriminate all they want. The government should not.

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. The main hangup seems to be religious people thinking they own the word "marriage"

Yet every religious marriage ceremony ends the same way.... with the words "By the power of the state", and with the minister signing a state-issued license.

So the ceremony is technically "religious" up until that last line in the script. At that point, it becomes a legal process. And the 14th amendment makes it clear that all people are equally entitled to that legal process. Therefore the document should be exactly the same, as well as all legal rights for the couple who signed it.

The rest of the ceremony is up to the religious institution to figure out for themselves. Government should not dictate the ceremony, just as the religious institution should not dictate legal documents.

[StrongBad]

22. Right I agree

So my thinking is that perhaps just changing the label to placate the fundies by not calling it a marriage would be a possible compromise so long as there is equality under the law.

Again, and so long as heterosexual couples can opt out of the label "marriage" for civil union, it doesn't seem discriminatory to me.

[Maven]

28. It IS STILL DISCRIMINATORY

For GAY people. Non-discriminatory means everyone has the SAME OPTIONS.

[Sebastian Doyle]

37. You can't force the churches to overcome their bigotry

As much as we would like to. Some churches are accepting of gay couples, some are not. Would you want to get married in one that wasn't accepting, or even attend worship services in such a church?

I'm not excusing them, I think they're stupid fucking bigoted hypocrites. But the separation of church and state is exactly that. Just as a church shouldn't have any say in what the law is, the government cannot tell a church what to believe. Defeating that bigotry is going to have to be on an individual basis, and the church hierarchies can then change their fucked up beliefs based on internal pressure from their congregation, or they can lose membership to churches who no longer have their collective heads up their asses.

[independentpiney]

38. You make a very good point that separation of church and state is exactly that n/t

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sebastian Doyle]

46. If you think I'm spouting "reich wing talking points", your reading comprehension level is near zero

And since you have posted in most of the Prick Warren threads (and oddly enough, weren't here before then) you might want to read them again, if you haven't figured out what side I'm on.

[JohnnieGordon]

47. Try answering the points in my post, please

Legalizing gay marriage will not force any individual church to perform gay marriage. Are you denying that?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnnieGordon]

58. Actually your point was totally convoluted

and I wasn't the only one who thought so. By the way I only said you were ignorant "if" you thought legalizing gay marriage would force any church to perform gay marriage, which is a reich-wing talking point. You deny that's your position, therefore "ignorant" doesn't apply to your position, and yet you had to throw the word back me. Along with "pizza-eater", the significance as an insult I don't even get, although I do enjoy eating pizza on occasion. I don't enjoy reading your hostile posts however, and will no longer be doing so.

[ieoeja]

93. "pizza-eater"

A tie-in between the "what do you want on your Tombstone?" frozen pizza commercials and the banning, or "tombstoning", of invididuals from posting on this website.

This pro-segregation advocate thought your posts were insulting enough that you would end up banned.

[Maven]

43. It has absolutely ZERO to do with the churches.

Civil marriage is civil, not religious. You don't need to go to a church to get one.

The OP is arguing that civil unions would be non-discriminatory if they were open to straights, even though marriage would still be closed to gays. It's an asinine argument that seems so obviously wrong I'm dumbfounded that it was made in the first place.

[Sebastian Doyle]

51. Of course you can always get married by a judge

Or a ships captain, or mayor, or whatever. But my point is that even so called "religious" marriages are still a state sanctioned legal ceremony which just happens to have a religious ceremony in front of it.

The minister signs a document issued by the state, not the church. So as soon as the minister begins the sentence "By the power of the state...." He or she is no longer acting as a religious agent, but as a legal one.

And that's why you can't make a case for "Well lets give the straights one kind of license and the gays a different kind of license" because there is NO SUCH THING as a religious marriage license.

[independentpiney]

56. The State should grant civil unions only

Just a one size fits all contract issued to any two adults. If someone wants a marriage ceremony complete with legally unenforceable romantic vows, they can find an ordained minister to perform it.

[CTyankee]

116. When my son got married, several of his and his fiancee's gay friends

got a little upset that they were marrying when gay couples couldn't. This was before MA and CT legalized gay marriages. The solution was for them to go to Canada to be married. It was a way of showing consideration of the feelings of gay couples but also being married (she was more strongly in favor of a marriage than my son but he felt that when they had kids it would be easier if they were married). It was a bit of a sticky wicket tho at the time.

Of course, today they could just come to CT, which I would have loved!

[Sub Atomic]

94. Harvey, I agree with your overall view but not this point.

A Jewish Synogogue will not marry two Catholics.

The Catholic Church will not marry two Jews.

I do believe that a church can marry whomever they want.

That said, I sure as hell don't believe that any religious organization should have any say whatsoever in whether or not I get married.

The Catholics don't look at Jewish marriages and consider them invalid. Why the fuck should they be allowed to do so to mine?

[JVS]

129. there has been conflict between civil and religious authorities for a long time over marriage.

In the middle ages, the church favored some restrictions (particularly forbidding marriage within relatives), this contradicted the desires of the nobles who wished to keep hereditary power restricted. On the other hand the nobility favored some restrictions (announcement of marriages, parental consent) which were obstacles to some marriages on the grounds that they interfered with the goals of nobility's marriage arrangements, while the church preferred less obstacles and making marriage more functional as a prevention of fornication. Local variations existed in who prevailed, based on who held more sway with the bishops.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Christian fundies won't let my rabbis marry same sex couples

Why should we have to accept the bigoted views of other religions?

[Starry Messenger]

14. Religion has muddied the waters here, not gays (or atheists).

If I went down to the JP tomorrow and picked up a license, Al and I would be "married" with some paperwork, words, etc. It's one of the accepted definitions of the word marriage.

Various religions actually got Prop 8 passed because they chose to say the word marriage *is* soaked in theological terminology. They created the argument and then won it.

[sarge43]

20. I don't understand why we're letting the fundies and bigots

call the shots here. Millions of heterosexuals marry without benefit of clergy (she raises hand). There is no question about the validity of their marriages. States determine our ability to marry, secular officials have the legal right to conduct marriages. Why the hell should the name of the institution be changed just to keep some bigots' panties from wadding up?

By the way, the Catholic Church didn't consider marriage a sacrament until the 12th century.

[Luminous Animal]

123. I've tried to make this argument...

over and over again and the "civil union" proponents have never gotten back to me.

Marriage in these United States is a civil contract. That the clergy is empowered by the state to preform legal marriages does not change this fact.

[Maven]

21. Can someone please post the link to differences between marriages and civil unions

I don't have the energy to pick apart retread #2,050,039 of this argument.

[Starry Messenger]

29. Here's one:

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

I also like Chovexani's thread from a month and a 1/2 ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4396589

[zulchzulu]

34. Definitions of civil unions/domestic partnerships (Wiki)

A civil union is a legally recognized union similar to marriage. Beginning with Denmark in 1989, civil unions under one name or another have been established by law in many developed countries in order to provide same-sex couples with rights, benefits, and responsibilities similar (in some countries, identical) to opposite-sex civil marriage. In some jurisdictions, such as Quebec, New Zealand, and Uruguay, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples.

Most civil-union countries recognize foreign unions if those are essentially equivalent to their own; for example, the United Kingdom lists equivalent unions in Civil Partnership Act Schedule 20.

Many people are critical of civil unions because they say they represent separate status unequal to marriage ("marriage apartheid").Others are critical because they say civil unions are separate but equal - because they allow same-sex marriage by using a different name.

(snip)

Legally, marriage is a means of establishing kinship outside of bloodline. This concept of kinship is one that permeates society, and is encoded in Western common law as well as the laws of every nation, including 1,138 federal laws in the United States. Kinship conveys not only rights and privileges, but duties and even restrictions. For example, judges cannot preside over certain of their kin according to Western common law.<11> Because civil unions are a new concept, they do not instruct business, the courts or other agencies how to apply the centuries of kinship-related doctrine, custom and law to these arrangements which is one of the primary differences cited between marriage and civil unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

A domestic partnership is a legal or personal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are neither joined by a traditional marriage nor a civil union. However, in some jurisdictions, such as New Zealand and California, domestic partnership is almost equivalent to marriage, or to other legally recognized same-sex or different-sex unions. The terminology for such unions is still evolving, and the exact level of rights and responsibilities conferred by a domestic partnership varies widely from place to place.

Some legislatures have voluntarily established domestic partnership relations by statute instead of being ordered to do so by a court. Although some jurisdictions have instituted domestic partnerships as a way to recognize same-sex unions, domestic partnerships may involve either different-sex or same-sex couples.

In some legal jurisdictions, domestic partners who live together for an extended period of time but are not legally entitled to common-law marriage may be entitled to legal protection in the form of a domestic partnership. Some domestic partners may enter into domestic partnership agreements in order to agree contractually to issues involving property ownership, support obligations, and similar issues common to marriage.

One of the purposes of domestic partnership relation is to recognize the contribution of one partner to the property of the other. In the common law, devices such as the constructive trust are available to protect spouses in legal or common-law marriages. In civil law jurisdictions, such trusts are generally not available, prompting courts to find alternative ways to protect the partner who contributes to the other's property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership

[annabanana]

81. (they are all State law.. i.e. not insurmountable). . .n/t

[Luminous Animal]

126. In theory, there isn't any...

Marriage is a civil contract. Nobody can be legally married in the United States without a state sanctioned marriage certificate.

In practice...

Civil unions are also legal contracts with only the legal protections that the state confers and not recognized by other states or the Federal government.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Loving v Virginia would still apply.

We are all equal under the law. End of story. If you have the right to marry then I have the right to marry.

[kdpeters]

24. It isn't possible.

The issue is equality. There is no such thing as separate but equal. The very reason for the existence of civil unions is to prevent equality.

[dbmk]

75. But the argument of the OP is IF it was made equal in terms of the law

It is totally nonsensical to then counterargue that it isn't.

[HockeyMom]

25. Since marriage now seems to be defined as a RELIGIOUS

institution between a man and a woman, even the CIVIL contract, I would as a straight woman prefer a civil union.

[zulchzulu]

27. I've thought this for years... the first thing to do is get civil unions/domestic partnerships

The term "marriage" is one laden with religious overtones and lead to the path of needless political quandary.

The key thing to do first, in my view, is have civil unions/domestic partnerships initiated nationally so that the gay/queer/LGBT community doesn't have to wait for a generation of people to die off.

Making civil unions/domestic partnerships nearly or practically identical to marriage would give those that need it NOW immediate benefits of such legislation. From there, marriage for all would come about not soon after that.

To continue to try to make gay marriage legal in all states at this point is a valiant effort and one I participate on a grassroots level. But in the meantime, there are many couples that could benefit from civil unions/domestic partnerships now that have to wait for the politicians and the populace to agree on debates around the term "marriage".

We have to jump the "civil unions/domestic partnerships" hurdle first. And now!

On edit:

A civil union is a legally recognized union similar to marriage. Beginning with Denmark in 1989, civil unions under one name or another have been established by law in many developed countries in order to provide same-sex couples with rights, benefits, and responsibilities similar (in some countries, identical) to opposite-sex civil marriage. In some jurisdictions, such as Quebec, New Zealand, and Uruguay, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples.

Most civil-union countries recognize foreign unions if those are essentially equivalent to their own; for example, the United Kingdom lists equivalent unions in Civil Partnership Act Schedule 20.

Many people are critical of civil unions because they say they represent separate status unequal to marriage ("marriage apartheid").Others are critical because they say civil unions are separate but equal - because they allow same-sex marriage by using a different name.

(snip)

Legally, marriage is a means of establishing kinship outside of bloodline. This concept of kinship is one that permeates society, and is encoded in Western common law as well as the laws of every nation, including 1,138 federal laws in the United States. Kinship conveys not only rights and privileges, but duties and even restrictions. For example, judges cannot preside over certain of their kin according to Western common law.<11> Because civil unions are a new concept, they do not instruct business, the courts or other agencies how to apply the centuries of kinship-related doctrine, custom and law to these arrangements which is one of the primary differences cited between marriage and civil unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

A domestic partnership is a legal or personal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are neither joined by a traditional marriage nor a civil union. However, in some jurisdictions, such as New Zealand and California, domestic partnership is almost equivalent to marriage, or to other legally recognized same-sex or different-sex unions. The terminology for such unions is still evolving, and the exact level of rights and responsibilities conferred by a domestic partnership varies widely from place to place.

Some legislatures have voluntarily established domestic partnership relations by statute instead of being ordered to do so by a court. Although some jurisdictions have instituted domestic partnerships as a way to recognize same-sex unions, domestic partnerships may involve either different-sex or same-sex couples.

In some legal jurisdictions, domestic partners who live together for an extended period of time but are not legally entitled to common-law marriage may be entitled to legal protection in the form of a domestic partnership. Some domestic partners may enter into domestic partnership agreements in order to agree contractually to issues involving property ownership, support obligations, and similar issues common to marriage.

One of the purposes of domestic partnership relation is to recognize the contribution of one partner to the property of the other. In the common law, devices such as the constructive trust are available to protect spouses in legal or common-law marriages. In civil law jurisdictions, such trusts are generally not available, prompting courts to find alternative ways to protect the partner who contributes to the other's property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership

[Maven]

30. No, wrong.

First of all, civil unions would still have to be state law. You would still need to push state-by-state.

Secondly, while civil unions may be the compromise that comes out of the push for equality, we will not concede that we're second class by giving up the push for equality altogether and begging for crumbs.

I can't believe this shit is still being posted after Skinner made it clear, like 4 DAYS AGO, that it is not acceptable to advocate in favor of civil unions as an alternative to marriage.

[zulchzulu]

35. So we wrestle with getting gay marriage passed for years while couples could use benefits of...

...civil unions AND domestic partnerships?

If "it is not acceptable to advocate in favor of civil unions as an alternative to marriage", then I will leave DU. (On edit) I don't "advocate in favor of civil unions as an alternative to marriage", but to deny that kind of dialogue seems a bit like censorship of political dialogue that I find tasteless.

You probably want that, though...right?

[Maven]

40. Stop pretending that if we just stopped pushing for marriage we'd get civil unions

Because that's a lie. They don't want us to have ANY RECOGNITION whatsoever, and they push against civil unions as hard as they do marriage because civil unions are so much "like" marriage.

In fact, one of the reasons we've gotten civil unions passed before is by pushing for marriage and getting civil unions as a compromise. Why would we want to concede the fight for full equality at the start?

And yes, it is against DU rules to advocate in favor of civil unions as an alternative to marriage, a rule going back at least 4 years that Skinner reiterated last week. Deal with it.

[zulchzulu]

49. OK, champ. Give me a forecast when gay marriage will be declared legal throughout the US...

This I have to see...

I'll give it 10 years the way things are going. That's being optimistic. Meanwhile, couples that could use the benefits of domestic partnerships and civil unions GET JACKSHIT.

Way to go!

[Maven]

50. It won't EVER happen if we stop fighting for it, champ

And pushing for full equality doesn't meaning snubbing opportunities for incremental progress.

[zulchzulu]

55. I absolutely agree...champ.

Seriously, I absolutely understand that gay marriage... same sex marriage... equal marriage... is exactly what this country needs... yesterday!

But... do we continue to fight for it (I do as a heterosexual helping with grassroots efforts, I really do...) and not even get past getting civil unions and domestic partnerships being legal?

For example, I have a brother who is gay and has been in a long relationship. He almost got murdered in a hate crime in Puerto Rico less than a month ago... abduction, robbery, pistol-whipped, left for dead in a field... he's missing some teeth and has some head wounds (a few dozen stitches on the back of his skull) but is otherwise doing well. He and his partner have property there in P.R. and some other locations. They've shared expenses on fixing up the places. What bothers me and him is that his partner would not be able to visit him in the hospital and worse, if he had passed, the property would go to the state or be in a state of legalistic limbo.

Add that I have helped my brother engage with other family members on his preference and it helped me decide to work on gay/queer issues on a number of efforts.

What do we do about people like my brother NOW? Do we tell him to wait for a generation to die off before we get gay marriage?

[Maven]

59. Again, you're setting up a false dichotomy

based on the falsehood that giving up on marriage would mean getting civil unions.

It wouldn't--in fact quite the opposite as I explained.

Pushing for marriage does not mean rejecting opportunities to gain rights by another name. Again, as I explained, the push for marriage HAS resulted in less equal compromises like domestic partnerships. Likewise, the push for civil unions and domestic partnerships has been fought just as hard by the right. In at least one state, the bigots went so far as to invalidate any contract between two people of the same sex that approximates the rights and obligations of marriage, leaving legal experts to wonder if the law would dissolve certain regular business arrangements. Get the picture?

What happened to your brother is unbelievably sad and I hope he recovers soon. Unfortunately, even if your brother had a civil union in his home state, it would not be recognized in Puerto Rico. Moreover, though you may not recognize it, the willingness by so many to concede second-class status for gay people in whatever realm contributes to an atmosphere of hate that leads to violence.

The difficulty of struggle is no reason to give up and accept less, particularly when it's not your personal struggle. That is not your right.

Also, the word is "orientation," not preference.

Thanks.

[zulchzulu]

64. Thanks for your response

I think I disagree with you on how the right would fight as fiercely for the push for civil unions and domestic partnerships. In my view, it seems like their real (on many) hangups is with the term "marriage".

On my brother, he has always had a great sense of humor so he's dealing with it. As for Puerto Rico, it turns out there is some promise with domestic partnerships there:

In an unexpected turn, the archbishop of San Juan, Roberto González Nieves, will appear today for the second time before the commission to revise the Civil Code in order to propose a variation of current marriage, which he called "domestic unions".

A "domestic union", according to González Nieves, is made up of two or more people living under the same roof and who share a pact of rights and responsibilities derived from a common life or express pact.

http://www.bilerico.com/2007/04/puerto_rican_ar.php

[Warren Stupidity]

54. Alabama didn't get rid of its miscegenation law until 2000, champ.

[zulchzulu]

57. We can always look to Alabama for what NOT to do

Still, perhaps you can also tell me when gay marriage will be enacted nationally... that was the question I asked...

[Maven]

60. The repeal of DOMA would go a long, long way

because lawsuits to have same-sex marriages enacted in one state recognized in others based on FF&C would be able to move forward. In fact, the result could be a domino effect that broadens the reach of marriage equality over a relatively short time.

[zulchzulu]

62. That BETTER happen

DOMA needs to go into a coma.

[moriah]

63. The PE says he plans to do that....

... let's hope he means it.

The DOMA is insanity.

[LWolf]

31. As far as the legalities are concerned,

as long as every license issued was for a "civil union," I see one problem:

Many LGBT couples want to be joined in their faith, like their straight brothers and sisters.

From my perspective, if it were me I'd have no problem being married by a minister from a faith that welcomed me, rather than one that turned me away.

I'm not gay, though, and I don't have a faith that I must be married in.

My first marriage was in a fundie 4 square church; my fiance's mother's pastor. It didn't really matter to me; the whole thing was for the fundies who disapproved of me already, being a confirmed sinner. It was supposed to reconcile them to my presence, and it did for the 10 years I was married to husband #1.

My second marriage was in a chapel in Vegas, by a "tired" minister; the stamp on the license was old, and the "re" didn't take. About 12 people made the trip to watch, and then party the rest of the afternoon and night away. There was no religious language in the ceremony.

If I were to be masochistic enough to marry again, I'd have my son do the honors. Several years back, when his friend wanted a non-religious marriage ceremony, he was "ordained" by the "universal life ministries" church. He's married several couples in 3 different states with that license.

[moriah]

65. We'll never be able to force a church to marry a couple.

I don't WANT to see that, as it would be a violation of the Free Exercise clause.

But there are some congregations that will marry same-sex couples, in various faiths. If a couple searches for a welcoming pastor to perform the ceremony, they can get that religious ceremony. And I think the government telling a church they cannot marry a same-sex couple is a violation of the Free Exercise clause as well.

I think, though, we need to create a bit of separation between the religious nature of marriage and marriage as a legal contract. There is no reason why any two consenting adults should not be allowed to enter into a contract with each other.

[LWolf]

86. I think that's what I'm thinking, if I'm not communicating it well.

Personally, I don't really care who a particular church marries, or not. I don't need the blessing of any organized religion, or a specific branch of one.

I think there may be some religious GLBT who feel differently. Many of those have probably already found friendlier denominations who won't discriminate against them. Others may be working towards non-descrimination in the faith and church of their choice, or their roots.

I don't think that can, or should, be legislated. At the same time, I wish those GLBT who belong to those congregations success in helping that faith evolve over time. Churches evolving to become more enlightened, more inclusive, less judgmental, are a positive thing for the planet, not just for the members.

We CAN legislate a universal license, available to all couples regardless of gender pairings. It's discriminatory not to. I don't care if we call it a "civil union" or a "marriage license," as long as it is universal for all those applying. No "separate but equal," so to speak.

[jberryhill]

69. What churches perform what ceremonies is up to them

Even heterosexual couples cannot be married in whatever church they feel like being married in.

I don't get the point of this at all.

[LWolf]

84. Two points,

although you are correct, of course.

The first is that the state issues a "marriage license." If all licenses were for "civil unions," then there would be no issue. Or, all licenses can be for "marriage." Don't discriminate the license according to gender of the licensees.

The 2nd? It's not really an issue for me. I don't need the blessing of a particular branch of organized religion.

The religious, though, feel differently. They want to be married in their faith. I think it's reasonable to expect them to compromise on that point, if we get a universal civil license.

It's not my issue, though, so I'm less qualified to speak to it.

[jberryhill]

88. I still don't understand what you are saying

About them wanting to be "married in their faith".

Mormons, for example, have two entirely different tiers of marriage, with different ceremonies.

What people want to do in their churches is entirely up to them.

Whether the state establishes a legal status called "X" has nothing to do with whether churches want to baptize, confirm, circumcise, anoint, marry, canonize, or do any other thing that establishes some status within their religion.

It's like saying "Jews will have to compromise on considering adulthood to begin at age 13, since the law usually sets the age of majority at age 18". I don't get what you are saying at all... if someone wants to say their adulthood in their faith begins with a bar mitzvah, nobody's asking them to "compromise" anything.

[LWolf]

97. I'm thinking about

a friend talking to me about this, a couple of years back. He was catholic, and wanted to be married to his partner AS a catholic, in a catholic church, by a priest.

He didn't consider a ceremony outside the church to be legitimate. Something about church doctrine; I'm not a catholic, so I can't speak to it.

Is that making any sense to you?

[jberryhill]

103. It makes sense in a way but has nothing to do with the law

I think we have a prime example here of people simply not understanding what "marriage" is.

And this is why using two different words for what "marriage" means at law, and what it means in the minds of people generally, is a good idea.

I know precisely what you are talking about. What I'm not sure of is whether you understand it has zero relevance - zip - zilch - nada - to whether two people are married as that term is understood in any context having any legal significance.

[LWolf]

109. Of course I know that.

Which is exactly why I've said, repeatedly, that whether or not you call it "marriage," or "civil union," it should be one license, one term, one legal identity, one legal connection, for both, whether you take that license and join in a church, or before a judge, or other secular person licensed to make that "union" legal.

If everyone, including hetero couples, got a "civil union" license, along with the legal rights that married couples get, then it wouldn't matter if religious couples went to be "married" in their church, or WHAT their church chose to call it. Church ceremonies and declarations don't have legal standing.

"Married" couples get tax breaks, get community property, get to be included on insurance policies, get "maternity leave" for the non-pregnant spouse, are automatically allowed into hospital rooms, etc..

I don't care what it's called. One license, with one title, that grants all those same things regardless of gender, and regardless of what a church does after.

What is so hard to understand about that?

[jberryhill]

112. It's hard for people to separate the legal and social meanings

Frankly if you put on the form "Marriage / Civil Union License" it would be the same form.

[LWolf]

113. Yes, and I don't care if you call it "marriage license,"

"civil union license," or marriage/civil union license," as long as all couples use the same license and get the same benefits.

[Orangepeel]

39. It would be a good interim step.

it would give gay families some relief until the voting age population shifts toward generations that include a majority of people who realize gay marriage is both fair and nonthreatening to them. As society naturally progresses, the courts would overturn separate but equal.

Before one can move from the back of the bus, one actually has to be on the bus (rather than under it).

[mondo joe]

44. They don't, because they can't. The NJ study confirmed it. It conveys a second

class standard that is unfair.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

45. "Why are black people complaining? They have their own restrooms!"

:eyes:

[kdmorris]

48. Marriage wasn't "soaked in theological terminology"

Until homosexuals wanted to marry. Suddenly it became religious.

I was married in 1986 at the county courthouse. Not a single person said that my marriage wasn't valid because "marriage is a religious institution".

I got divorced in 1994.

I got married the second time at the county courthouse in 1998. Again, not a single person said that my marriage wasn't valid because "marriage is a religious institution".

I am an atheist. But my marriage is still valid. It's not called a civil union. It's not called a domestic partnership. It's called a marriage, sanctioned by the STATE, not the CHURCH.

Why do we keep trying to allow the religious right to tell us what marriage is? Why do we keep trying to compromise with these assholes? Instead of allowing them to redefine it as " a religious institution", why isn't every single one of us, gay or straight, out there fighting for equality instead of trying to change the meaning of everything?

If you allow them to set the terms, they will just change the terms the next time homosexuals get close to getting equal protection.

[Politicub]

53. It would be better that what we have now, but it still wouldn't be equality

But I would take this option in a heartbeat, and continue working towards marriage. Unless all unions of two people become civil unions, and marriage is relegated to religious institution (not a legal contract).

[dbmk]

77. Thats the way I would prefer

Make the legal mumbo jumbo a civil union. Then everyone can call it what they like afterwards.

[AntiFascist]

61. I have a marriage license from the state of California...

I don't want that to be taken away. That said, I would be willing to compromise if the state Supreme Court ruled that the literal translation of the word 'marriage' referred to a man and a woman, but also ruled that future marriage license contain additional language to include gay and lesbian unions. I don't like this "separate but equal" solution, but if its the same marriage license it doesn't make that much difference to me. If they issue some sort of separate certificate for gay and lesbian unions then this not acceptable. They may rule that these are to be equivalent now, but it would be too easy to change the situation later. Also, as the state Supreme Court has argued, this separate but equal certificate would likely be viewed as second, or lower, class.

[dbmk]

78. The hypocrisy of that would be astounding :)

"We can't give you civil unions, because that would make you second class citizens."....

But I agree. There should be no distinction at all from a legislative point of view.

[AntiFascist]

117. California has taken a very strong stand on the civil rights issue...

which is much more powerful than even the marriage ruling in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, gay marriage could be easily taken away by legislative action, but in California (especially in light of Jerry Brown's recent conclusion) that may be impossible to do also. The CA Supreme Court, just today, requested a response from the other side to Jerry Brown's conclusion so we'll see what they have to say. California decided not to go the civil union route for good reason, and the precedent-setting rulings could have an effect on other states as well, as has happened in Connecticut.

[bluedawg12]

66. Justice under the law, everyone has the same State issued license.

The legal term is marriage license and has nothing to do with religion.

[ddeclue]

67. What if separate black schools really WERE equal?

:eyes:

Separate but equal inherently ISN'T... that's why Brown v. BOE overturned SBE.

Doug D.

[jberryhill]

68. A collection of legal definitions differs from a physical facility or staff

The law can define any set of words to have any legal effect.

If you are talking about public accommodations or facilities, which is the context of "separate but equal", yes they are inherently not going to be equal, because no two "things" can ever be, in every sense, the same.

If you are talking about a collection of legal benefits, that's different.

Take a patent right. Is it property? It might be, it might not be, in some cosmic sense. However, we have a statute that says it is property. Boom... it's property.

So, here's something I don't get. Take one legal effect of marriage - the federal tax filing status, for example.

Now, if you get a deduction for having a spouse or civil union partner, and if civil union is defined "to confer every legal status accruing to marriage", then how is a "married" deduction any different from a "civil union" deduction - it is, to the dollar, the exact same deduction if the law defines the two terms to mean the same thing.

Every article I've read on the subject, and ones linked above, deal with specific civil union statutes, which of course introduce differences in status.

However if the law defines "civil union" and "marriage" to be identical and synonymous terms then they are identical terms. Period. Exactly identical and synonymous.

Personally, I think that would be a silly thing to do. It does seem that some people have a stumbling block with the word "marriage" because the average person on the street ascribes some significance to the word beyond its operation as a term of legal status.

[mondo joe]

107. Not so much. Even where CUs and Marriage are defined as equal,

CUs are still treated as inauthentic or lesser. So finds the blue ribbon commission in New Jersey.

[jberryhill]

120. ...which was based on the NJ statutory definition

A tax deduction of $X is a tax deduction of $X no matter whether the form says "Check box for spouse or civil partner".

We do this all of the time with the words "parent" and "guardian".

[boppers]

70. I like my water fountains.

Yasuh, massuh.

[sohndrsmith]

73. I'm guessing I'm naive... but I did not have a "wedding" - I got "married

at the local courthouse, and it was just myself, my SO and our mothers. The JP had to ask his secretary to be a witness. We were in a hallway lit by flourescent lighting... a very VERY civil ceremony in every way I can imagine.

But - one of us was male and one of us was female (3 months pregnant, oddly enough).

How is that NOT a civil ceremony?

I'm not battling, I'm just curious... there was nothing religious or formal about it. It was sort of between lunch hour and the court calendar. You could't get more civil if you tried.

So, is that not legit? Or is is only legit because it was a two-gender union?

None of that makes senes to me....

[AllentownJake]

79. When the religous community objects to people getting married

in drive through chapels in Las Vegas as fervantly as they do gay people getting married they can talk to me about semantics over the sanctity of the term.

[crappyjazz]

80. What if those two water fountains did provide the exact same water?

:yoiks:

[jberryhill]

82. No - a tax deduction is "different" if obtained under another name

If a "civil union" nets the same tax deduction as "married", then the deduction is counted in entirely different dollars.

Same thing with, say, inheritance tax - it's an entirely different non-taxed dollar than a married one.

And so on.

[Orsino]

83. With respect, this is about the ten thousandth thread to point out...

...that so much hinges on the word "marriage," and to propose that same-sex couples accept something lesser.

No such civil unions as you propose yet exist that carry the all-important federal recognition that marriage does. Inventing such a thing would be to create a second-class form of marriage that would by definition be unequal.

[jberryhill]

85. "No such civil unions as you propose yet exist that carry the all-important federal recognition"

All that takes is a state law defining two words to be synonymous, and a federal law stating the same thing.

A tax deduction is a tax deduction. Unlike a public facility, it cannot be defined in "different" dollars and cents, nor can it be of a different quality.

Whether inheritance is taxed or is not taxed in a given way is a binary outcome.

[Orsino]

87. Well, marriage equality wouldn't take anything more, on paper.

What we're really discussing here, I suppose, is the management of public opinion.

[jberryhill]

91. Which is like managing superstition /nt

[izzybeans]

90. They are pointing out that every couple accept something" lesser" if that's what you mean.

But I'll tell you my wife and I do just fine with our civil union. It's not lesser, it's the same without the religious symbolism hoisted on top of you. Those unions should be open to you and anyone else who wants one under the law. Win that right and there is nothing stopping you from legally getting married in the religious establishment of your choosing-hence marriage is open to us all. But whatever happens, these unions have to be defined in a way that impacts all individuals equally (gay or straight).

This is a false choice; between marriages and civil unions. There is nothing lesser about either of them. It might make for good political imagery and help mobilize all of us on this issue, however when action is actually taken in the legislative sense, this is the way out. Civil unions are marriages, there is no distinction. We will all be able to choose what we call it, just like straight people (like me) can choose between the two now.

[Orsino]

111. My wife and I were married by a JoP, with no religious involvement.

Is that what you're referring to as a civil union?

[izzybeans]

121. I suppose under the premise of the OP, sure

that's what I called it for lack of a better term. I was speaking only hypothetically.

[Orsino]

122. Well, I don't feel that I accepted "something lesser."

My wife and I enjoy the rights of marriage.

[izzybeans]

124. Exactly

I wouldn't consider it lesser either, however for some reason in this political debate that is how it is viewed.

[Orsino]

127. By whom?

My marriage and yours are viewed as lesser? :shrug:

[izzybeans]

89. I think all marriages should be considered "civil unions" under the eyes of the law.

same-sex, two sex, intersexed, whatever.

Secular heterosexual couples already opt for civil unions anyhow. The law should be that any civil servant who perform ceremonies can not deny the right of any consenting adult to enter into a union with another consenting adult. Religious officials who have the same powers to perform the ceremony can not be regulated and so have the power to choose who they want to marry (just as they already do). If they define marriage in narrow ways, then perhaps they suffer "market" consequences for their actions. Business can go elsewhere and it will.

[ieoeja]

96. Segregation Now! Segregation Forever!

[GOPisEvil]

98. I thought "separate but equal" went out in 1954.

[Hepburn]

100. My views:

Marriage ~~ open to all. This is a religious ceremony and the issue of whether it can be performed for ANY couple (straight, gay, or bi) is up to the church/clergyperson involved.

Civil Unions ~~ open to all. This is a secular rite performed by someone empowered to do so by the state such as a judge. Or can be done by a "religious" person if he/she so agrees and the couple wants it this way.

End of discussion ~~ as far as I am concerned, it is up to the couple ~~ regardless of gender ~~ as to how they wish to make their relationship legal in the eyes of any particular state.

[LostinVA]

104. Separate but equal -- thanks loads

By it's very nature, it could never be equal.

[LostinVA]

106. Read this great OP by our own Pacifist Patriot

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4700877

[jberryhill]

114. The law can define any two words to be synonyms

[Texasgal]

108. NO.

Marriage FOR ALL.

make it EQUAL FOR ALL. PERIOD.

[lumberjack_jeff]

110. Then there's no reason not to call it marriage. n/t

[Leo The Cleo]

115. Give us all civil union

If marriage is a church providence (which it isn't, because it's authorized by God, which means only God ordains it) then it is a violation for the gov't to have any say in marriage. Marriage should be handed over to citizens and allow them to define their own marriages with God. If they want to use the church as a proxy, then let them sort that out with God. However, all citizens should have civil union. That is something the gov't can do.

[Luminous Animal]

125. Marriage is NOT God' providence...

Marriage is the state's providence. The "Marriage Certificate" is a civil contract recognized by the state. The state empowers certain officials (some of those being clergy) to legally perform "ceremonies" that solemnize this contract.

[Leo The Cleo]

130. Surely, Marriage is God's Providence

Now, if the state won't change the name, then it has to grant it to every citizen of consenting age. Otherwise, it should leave marriage in the hands of private citizens and leave civil union for matters of legality and residency.

[Luminous Animal]

133. Legal marriage resides soley under the purview of the

state. No clergy can perform a legal marriage without the states sayso. That some folks want to have representative of God to bless what only the state can legally recognize, then so be it.

[davsand]

118. Ok--here you go--everyone gets a "civil union" license and THAT is the legally binding part.

If you want to go to a church or anyplace else for some sort of spiritual ceremony you need to give them a copy of that "civil union" paperwork first.

That way we are not forcing churches to do anything they have a problem with (and you know as well as I do that there are entire denominations that have an issue with recognizing any form of a relationship between glbt folks) but every one is provided with the same rights and legal protections.

The license, however, will be a FEDERAL one rather than a local/state one...

How's THAT as a possible alternative?

:shrug:


Laura

[jberryhill]

119. You can't have a federal marriage or civil union...

Frequently overlooked in the discussion is that there are differences between whom states will permit marriages, even among heterosexual couples.

For example, some states permit marriage between first cousins, others do not.

Some states will allow first cousin marriages upon proof of infertility, others will simply allow any first cousins to get married.

The assumption that states are uniform in their marriage laws - even concerning heterosexuals - is wrong.


The federal government is not in the business of deciding who is married. For federal purposes, if the state says you are, then you are.

If a state had synonymous "marriage" and "civil union", then all that is needed is a federal statute recognizing whatever-you-call-it as the same thing.

[LWolf]

131. What if there was just one license, with one set of rights and privileges,

for all.

What one did with the license upon leaving the courtroom is private choice.

What if we didn't do "separate but equal," and just did one single license for all?

[Rockholm]

132. Then call it marriage.

That is what I do, as I was legally married in Massachusetts in 2004.