My civil union

[LiberalEconomist]

According to the definition of civil union given out by many, if not all, of our candidates, what I have with my wife is not marriage. The contract between my wife and me is a civil/secular/legal contract and not a religious one. Our ceremony was purely secular. You know what? I am completely comfortable with using the term civil union to describe what I have with my wife. Moreover, I refuse to use the term marriage to describe my union so as long as my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters out there are not permitted to do so. I encourage others like me to do the same. Let's take away the significance and power behind marriage and just relegate it to a word, to a technical definition: marriage--pertains only to a religious ceremony; civil union--the actual legally recognized institution based on secular/civil authority. So, you can have a religious ceremony but it is only legally accepted when you sign the "marriage" certificate. The marriage certificate ought to be changed to certificate of union.

[question everything]

1. Great. And, perhaps you can even refer to your partner as spouse

and not wife. Look in the dictionary and you will find that "husband" and "wife" are not equal.

Otherwise, I whole heartedly agree with your post...

[Lars39]

2. This touches on something I've been wrestling with today.

I think the whole civil unions, justice of the peace, marriage ceremony maze ought to be overhauled, not just because of the need to recognize the right for gays to be married, but to also protect anyone who would not or could not be married in a church. It's possible that somewhere down the line the repub-puritans would try to not recognize ANY ceremony unless it is done in a church. It's not too far-fetched, considering the attitude towards the unchurched.

Would it be acceptable for civil unions to be the only legally recognized contract(?) for everyone? Let church weddings be a very personal add-on option. I'm not talking about a 2-tier system of priviledges, though. I mean everyone would have to do the courthouse routine and everyone's legal rights would be the same.

This solution might rout the repub-puritans from their possibly next goal of targetting the unbelievers. I'd like to think that this would preserve everyone's rights, but I'm no legal scholar. Are there any downsides to this? Would the GLBT community consider this?

[Greyskye]

3. Silly question

So what do you call two people who have engaged in a civil union between themselves, if not 'married'? Civil Unioned? Civilized? Seculared? CU'd? I think we need a new word for this...

[Lars39]

4. heh.

"Bound and determined" doesn't quite sound right either. :) What do people in France call themselves? :shrug: They have civil unions.

[wellstone_democrat]

5. Yes, my husband suggested this as well

He brought up the very good point that we, like that Bride-of-55-hours Brittany Spears(sp?), married in Las Vegas. Relatives on both sides urged us to later "get married for real in a church." We felt we were married, the IRS did, and so forth. And, we are as "married" as anyone anywhere. But, we are increasingly uncomfortable with our very special rights-----that's right "special rights."

We are no better than any other Americans and we too agree that taking the power out of the term "marriage" neither effects our personal union but it does align us with those Americans whose rights under the Constitution of the United States *exist* even if they are not *recognized.*

Yours in solidarity, friendship, and constitutionalism,
Mr and Dr W_D