Why Gay Marriage? Why Not Civil-Unions?

[last1standing]

With Howard Dean's unfortunate appearance on the 700 Club yesterday, there's been quite a fuss here at DU about whether gays should be satisfied with civil unions or whether they should push for gay marriages. So many seem to wonder what the difference is when either would give gays the same legal rights and one seems less threatening than the other. For those who support civil unions but not marriage for gays let me try to explain the difference.

A civil union would be a contract between the individuals committing to the union and the government. It would confer certain privileges and responsibilities for legal purposes, such as property rights, parental responsibility, and inheritance. In other words, it would contain most of the same legal ramifications as a marriage for straights. So why push for a word, right?

Wrong.

Marriage, in it's true sense, is not a contract between individuals and the government but a covenant between a couple and their spiritual faith. It is less a matter of tax relief and more an acknowledgment that your faith has approved of your love for another person. It holds a sacred place in societies the world over and is often seen as a key step in becoming an adult.

To deny civil unions to gays is to withhold from them the sanctions of the Constitution. To deny them marriage is to withhold the blessings of their God and their love.

Which is worse?

[Sub Atomic]

1. It's not about semantics.

It's about denying basic human rights to a group of people based upon their sexual orientation.

[last1standing]

6. I thought that was what I said.

Please reread it and let me know if I didn't make that clear, because I'm trying to say that marriage is the only true choice here. Anything else is restricting freedom of religion.

[Kutjara]

2. Marriage not necessarily religious.

Many nonreligious couples get married in civil ceremonies, yet they are considered just as 'married' as those who took their vows in a church, synagogue or other place of worship. Marriage is not necessarily a 'covenant between a couple and their spiritual faith.' It can instead be just a covenant between the couple.

I do agree, however, that 'marriage' connotes a more emotional and personal commitment than the legalistic and contractual 'civil union.' This emotional element is important, therefore the full benefit of marriage should be afforded to any couple that desires it, regardless of their sexual orientation or faith.

[last1standing]

10. I was a "deputy county clerk" in Michigan

and actually performed a couple of those civil ceremonies. Unfortunately, government has co-opted a religious ceremony and infused it with legal ramifications. That doesn't mean marriage isn't primarily a religious covenant, it just means there are exceptions to every rule.

[tishaLA]

29. As I wrote to someone last night...

Marriage is not "primarily a religious covenant" (and it wasn't originally, either). Throughout its history, marriage has been about property!

So, in essence, your formula (government has co-opted a religious ceremony and infused it with legal ramifications) should be inverted. Religion intruded on property, government, etc.

[CTyankee]

52. Yep. My spouse and I are nonreligious and we got married

and we are both firmly in support of gay marriage. It is a great thing if they can marry as we can. Anything less is "separate but equal" in my book.

AS the saying goes "I'm straight, but not narrow."

[sabbat hunter]

91. simple solution

make everyone, straights and gay alike, get civil unions so they can be recognized legally. if they want to get a religious marriage after that, that would be up to them and their religion.

[TriMetFan]

93. And I agree with you.

This is what should be done. I say this as a lesbian women, that this would be the most simple solution to this whole thing. But it would not work because it is a simple solution.

[sabbat hunter]

95. thats because

there are too many simple minded people running the government.

[Maraya1969]

99. I just found out in Florida that all you need is a license and a witness

ANYONE can perform a marriage, (a lawyer friend who just got married told me that - her husband's sister read some things and they signed a paper along with 1 or 2 witnesses).

The big problem is the license.

I don't know how you could go about changing everyone over to civil unions or is it that people who support gay marriage chose to not get legally "married" but get a civil union instead?

Anyway can change their name BTW.

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. Marriage is the only equitable end result.

The question I ask is if civil unions are a dead end or a steppingstone? Will we get there quicker, and do the greatest good for the greatest number by taking what we can get now or holding out for more?

[Solon]

3. I say it also infringes on the free exercise of religion...

The US federal government right now uses the standards of certain Christian Churches to define what constitutes a religious marriage, so, due to religious beliefs of other religions and Churches that don't follow those standards, some of their ceremonies are not given the weight of law, in other words the US government violates two tenants of the First Amendment, the first is Establishment of religion, they make a judgment call as to whose religious beliefs take precedence, hence establishing which religions are more "valid" and at the same time they restrict the free exercise of those who do follow these non-standard Christian beliefs by forbidding them the benefits of Marriage after the completion of a religious ceremony.

[last1standing]

11. I couldn't have said that better, myself.

And obviously didn't. :)

[Solon]

24. Hey you tried, gotta give you props for that...

Problem is that it should be framed as a civil rights issue only, on more than 2 fronts, as I pointed out, as both an Equal Rights and Religious Freedom issue. Framing it within practices of various religions becomes problematic, restrict it to what the government should or shouldn't do to recognize religious unions, and that's it.

[pnwmom]

4. But having legally sanctioned and equal civil partnerships (which we

haven't yet accomplished) wouldn't preclude anyone from belonging to a church that would also marry them.

[last1standing]

8. No, but it wouldn't allow them either.

If we advocate civil unions for gays we are attempting to withhold the sanction of their faith from them. That is what the fundies are trying to do. This is all about hate and civil unions will not resolve the issue.

[pnwmom]

73. No faith HAS to marry anybody, straight or gay. That's

nothing new. Churches have always had rules about who they will marry.

Advocating civil unions for gays has nothing to do with telling religions how to behave and everything to do with making sure gays and lesbians can form legal partnerships equivalent to what straight couples can form.

The scary thing is that while people like us argue over whether the word "marriage" is important or not, Frist has scheduled a vote in the first week of June to take the first step in passing a Federal anti-gay marriage amendment to the constitution. That worries me a lot more, because an amendment would be hugely more difficult to overturn than a law like the Defense of Marriage Act.

[azurnoir]

5. To deny a religious ceremony

to those that want it is also a denial of Constitutional rights.

[GOTV]

39. That's not at all true.

Religious organizations are free to accept or deny any ceremony to anyone based on their own rules. And governments have no say in the matter as long as the ceremony itself breaks no laws.

If the organization of your choice will not let you marry it's between you and the organization. Join a different one.

The constitution is not involved.

[GymGeekAus]

7. If marriage is about God....

Why is it a government contract?

Why do we permit Atheists to marry?

Why do we permit justices to perform the ceremony?

Bah. Civil unions are an attempt at "separate but equal." They do not have "most" of the benefits of marriage, especially as they exist now since they are void outside of the state where the contract was penned. Many benefits of marriage as provided by the government are specific to the word "marriage," so it would take a lot of work to get them to be on-par.

To deny gay people the right to marriage is discrimination. To insist that gay people have their own form of marriage is segregation. To attempt to insert the government into the Church is outright treasonous.

[last1standing]

9. I couldn't agree more.

The point of my post was to say that civil unions are an unacceptable alternative that deprives couples of their right to practice their religion. Judging from the comments so far, I must not have made that clear.

[GymGeekAus]

36. NONETHELESS....

Consider the civil rights movement. It's not over. Passing laws doesn't fix everything overnight, it just creates conditions from which more progress can be made.

As such, if we're offered civil unions, we should take them. And then proceed with our efforts of desegregating the government's first try at a solution.

"The world only spins forward, we will be citizens. The time has come." The end result is inevitable. We will be citizens. We will acquire our rightful human dignity.

[GOTV]

40. Marriage is both a religious and legal concern because...

... religions and governments are acknowledging a basic human drive felt by most people. That is to pair up and form a life together.

[pnwmom]

74. There is no reason at all that Federal and state laws cannot

be rewritten so that civil unions are completely equivalent, legally, to marriage.

But if we keep churning up this issue, if we keep insisting on everything or nothing, if we insist on hanging on to that word "marriage" no matter what-- we may very well get nothing. Because on June 5 the Senate will be voting on a Federal amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage or its equivalent. And an amendment to the Constitution would be infinitely more difficult to change than the federal law (DOMA) we now have in place.

[The Magistrate]

12. To My View, Sir, The Point Is Quite Simple

When one group of persons cannot do legally something another can, and this bar is not related to anything but their inherent nature, then that group does not enjoy the same rights as the other group does. There is no reason, and certainly no excuse in a democratic society, for any group of citizens to have a lesser suite of rights than others.

[AndyTiedye]

13. Perhaps the Goverment Should Grant Civil Unions, Not Marriages, To All

A "civil union" is defined as all of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage.
As with other legal rights and responsibilities, these must issue on a non-discriminatory basis.

Pretty much by definition, all other aspects of marriage are none of the government's business.
Because the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, the religious aspect of marriage
(and anything else above and beyond the "civil union") is whatever the the marrying couple believe it should be.

The government would grant any couple a civil union. As ever, it's up to the couple to turn it into a marriage.

[last1standing]

15. Can you imagine the uproar that would cause?

I'd love to see that happen if only to enjoy the consternation of falwell. :)

Sadly, while it's the only right thing to do in this situation, it's also the least likely to ever happen.

[lwcon]

60. No, no, no!

Let the mass of people enjoy the distinction of "marriage," which absolutely does not require religion to be performed.

Let those who are blinded by bigotry and superstition come up with their own name for their flavor of hetero-only unions.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[AndyTiedye]

92. I Don't Think We Actually Disagree

Let the mass of people enjoy the distinction of "marriage," which absolutely does not require religion to be performed.

The religous component (if any) is entirely up to the couple.
The civil union is a form of legal contract and the body of legal rights and responsibilities associated with it.
(Looking at it this way, those jurisdictions that refuse to issue them to gays are probably violating existing antidiscrimination laws).

Marriage is that civil component, plus whatever else the couple chooses to add to it.

For some people, marriage has a religous component. That is none of the government's business.

Those who have religous objections to same-sex marriage should not marry someone of the same sex.

Those who are afraid that their church will be forced to perform gay marriages would have nothing to worry about,
as long as their church does not accept government funding.

[lwcon]

94. I keep hearing proposals where the secularists and gays get "civil union"

... and churchies get the time-honored word "marriage." That's what I'm objecting to.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[AndyTiedye]

98. Feel Free to Use My Resonse as a Response to That, If You Like

[Frank Cannon]

88. Agreed wholeheartedly; Jesus of Nazareth agrees too

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; render unto God what is God's."

All the legal stuff that goes with marriage (visitation rights, survivorship, name changes, etc.) should be the exclusive domain of the government. All the other ceremonial mumbo-jumbo should be handled separately however and in whatever church the betrothed choose.

I don't know why this is so dang complicated or controversial. Mention this to a fundie nut and they act like you're describing differential calculus.

[Bruden]

14. Why civil unions? Why not gay marriage?

[last1standing]

16. I thought I answered that in my post.

We should have marriage for anyone who wants it. Civil unions are a way of keeping couples from excersizing their religious beliefs.

[applegrove]

17. I agree. Who is the government to say that if a church wants to sanction

a marriage under god of two people - that it cannot happen. Perhaps traditional churches are afraid of loosing membership to more liberal churches on this issue and GOP is playing upon that with the wedge.

But it is a well thought out wedge. And Dean should talk about it like that. As it is. And explain that government should stay out of legislating what type of marriages can occur in various churches. But of course be extending civil & equal rights to all those people who have been traditionally abused.

[kskold]

18. civil marriage

It's entirely possible to find religious communities (Christian and pagan are the two I'm sure of) that will perform and recognize a "religious marriage" for gay couples. The couple make their commitment to each other, before their Deity, witnessed by their community, and that community treats them as a married couple.

If a gay couple is involved with a religious community that doesn't perform gay marriages, they need to decide whether to accept that, fight for the right, or find another community. The government doesn't have any say in this one way or another and won't even when gay marriages become legal nationwide.

What's lacking is "civil marriage" - the government's recognition of the couple's commitment, along with all the rights and responsibilities.

If a spouse - male or female - and I were determined to have our marriage blessed, we could find someone to perform that blessing. So, as I see it, the important battle is for "civil marriage" - the government recognition and the protections and rights that come with it.

Civil unions are a stop-gap method - "half a loaf is better than no bread." As long as civil marriage and civil unions are separate there's the possibility, even the probability, that the rights and protections available with a civil union will not be as complete as with marriage, and more likely to be infringed upon and ignored. "Separate but equal" is never equal.

[Ravy]

19. The government should not recognize marriage at all...

the government should only recognize civil unions, imho.

If a justice of the peace or ship captain or someone who got a minister's license by printing it off of the web are allowed to "marry" two people, there is not really a lot of spirituality about it. States should be permitted to license and perform only civil unions.

Leave marriage up to the churches.

[jpgray]

20. That's essentially my take as well (nt)

[rucky]

21. There are hundreds of privlidges offered to married couples...

that civil unions do not get.

[pnwmom]

75. But federal law can be changed with a simple majority vote.

There is no reason civil unions couldn't have the same privileges that marriage offers, if the current federal law were changed.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. In an ideal world, I'd disagree.

I think that the definition of marriage involves it being a man and a woman (or possibly "at least one man and at least one woman"), and if there were no other considerations I'd support using a different word for the official recognition/formalisation of homosexual relationships, on grounds of semantic accuracy.

However, if two different words are used then it becomes very possible that even if initially they have exactly the same legal status, at a later date legislation will be passed applying to one but not the other. As such, I think the word "marriage" should be used, because human rights trump pedantry.



One other consideration - one that in some ways I'd favour, but which is completely politically impractical - is that as the word "marriage" has religious connotations, it should be regarded as something completely different to a civil union and none of the state's business; the state should register and recognise civil unions for all couples, straight or gay, and marriage should be left up to churches, and have no legal status. However, proposing this would render a party inelectable for a decade.

But, to answer your final question, I'd very much query the notion that the state ought to be giving or witholding the blessings of God and their love; its only remit is the sanctions of the constitution.

[GeorgeGist]

23. As you say...

"Marriage, in it's true sense, is not a contract between individuals and the government but a covenant between a couple and their spiritual faith"

So neither the government nor religion can deny them marriage?

[Apollo11]

25. Look at the example of Great Britain

In Great Britain, same-sex couples have been able to register "civil partnerships" since last December. Elton John was among the first to make use of this. George Michael is planning to do it also.

This legal reform was included in the platform of the Labour Party, and the government explains it as "allowing same-sex couples to enjoy almost all of the same rights as married couples". I haven't studied it - but I think the only significant differences concern the right to adopt children.

What's interesting is that this compromise is widely supported by gay organisations in the United Kingdom. The legislation is also supported by all of the major political parties: Labour, Conservative, Liberal. So right now it is not a divisive issue in Great Britain. Nobody gets very excited about it.

Of course there are some gay activists who think they should be allowed to have a "marriage". But on the other side there are also some Christians who would be freaked out by that (less than in the USA).

Personally I choose not to worship extra-terrestrial phenomena for which there is no substantive evidence (although I respect the right of other people to follow whatever religion they freely choose). But I cannot empathize with the religious aspects of this particular issue.

[niceypoo]

26. I agree.....civil unions are better

Using the word "Marriage" only fires up the GOP base when they are, legally, the same thing.

[GymGeekAus]

35. Seperate but equal

Did not work in the civil rights movement.

Do we learn from our history or not?

[last1standing]

45. Try reading my actual article.

I certainly don't agree with you.

[Ravy]

27. The government cannot deny you marriage. Period.

They can refuse to recognize it, that is all they can do.

So I don't understand the big fuss, but I am willing to be further educated.

Why would not removing the concept of "marriage" from all laws in return for the recognition of civil unions be a good thing to promote equal rights for all?

I am heterosexual, and I am married. Even so, the Roman Catholic church does not recognize my marriage. Do I give a crap? No.

To me, the just thing to do for the government is only to recognize and provide benefits to civil unions. Marriage can be an additonal spiritual step that couples can choose to engage in (pardon the pun), but not required to have the privileges of a civil union. What is spiritual about being married by a ship captain, justice of the peace, or Elvis?

[ComerPerro]

28. It almost seems irrelevant. We won't have either for a while

[madfloridian]

30. So if you bring Dean down in this way....who do you want?

Who do you want for chair? Name them and tell me their stance on gay marriage and civil unions.

[last1standing]

47. You know that's bullshit.

You've seen several times that I don't want to bring Dean down. I just want to say that separate but equal is wrong and unequal. You can't deny others the same rights as yourself and still call yourself a decent human being.

I understand that many don't see that difference between civil unions and marriage, but don't try to claim that I'm saying something I'm not. You know damned well that I still support Dean.

[kiraboo]

31. I think there is a good proportion of the gay population that would

be satisfied with a law which allowed civil unions. "Marriage" as you define it, is a state of mind which can be achieved outside a church. But "marriage" as it is enacted is also in fact an acknowledgement by one's spiritual peers (so to speak) of the sanctity of his/her human relationship in the eyes of a chosen god. By denying the gay couple the right to marriage the State has no impact at all on their ability to receive god's love, but rather denies them a place in a spiritual community where their union is recognized and valued by other members.

[Spirochete]

32. Maybe it can't all be done at once.

Some people at this time may be more receptive to civil unions, with all the rights accorded to people in a marriage, minus only the name. Then after it becomes apparent that Falwell/Robertson/Dobson's killer God is not going to sink North America deeper than Atlantis because of it, they may warm up to the idea. It may need to be accomplished in stages. It sucks that it has to be that way.

[terrya]

33. Civil unions simply don't give all of the benefits that marriage does.

Plain and simple.

If civil unions could give the same benefits to gay and lesbian couples that heterosexual married couples enjoy (even to someone like Britney Spears, who doesn't seem to grasp that marriage is not some damn thing to do on a drunken weekend in Vegas), well great, fine. I'd be 100% in favor of civil unions.

OR...if the government were to get out of marriage entirely...if heterosexual couples were to enter into civil unions as well as gay and lesbian couples...reserving marriage as a stricly religious right, without conferring any legal benefits whatsoever, regardless of sexual orientation...then, hell, I could get behind civil unions. But we all know that neither of those scenarios are ever going to happen.

We gay and lesbian people deserve the same rights that you do. There are no legal reasons to deny us those rights. As the Supreme Courts of Masaachusetts and Canada have so ruled.

[last1standing]

49. If you read my article you'll see that's what I was saying.

Why does no one bother to read the text?

[JerseygirlCT]

34. Because right now, CUs do not entirely offer all the benefits of

marriage. It's not just the same thing under a different name.

Because separate is not ever equal.

Because while small steps will get us there, eventually, society often needs to be pushed to look at the ultimate result in order to take the small steps on the way.

Either CUs are the only thing the gov't offers and sanctions -- to everyone -- or marriage should be available to everyone.

And eventually religious marriage will also be more widespread and available to our homosexual brothers and sisters.

[GOTV]

37. Wow! I didn't know we were so powerful....

... that WE can deny God's blessings to someone!

[GymGeekAus]

41. Reminds me of a sound clip from the Mike Malloy Show.

I'll find a link eventually.

Aha, here it is.

http://server4.whiterosesociety.org/content/malloy/MalloyMemories/How_The_Homosexual_Agenda_Destroyed_My_Marriage.mp3

[onenote]

38. Separate but (un)equal? Yes. Infringe religion? No

From where I sit, the reason that the government should recognize gay marriage and not just "civil unions" is that equating civil unions and "marriage" is a form of separate but equal that is inherently unequal.

However, I don't agree with the posts that say that the state's refusal to recognize gay marriage interferes with their exercise of religion. If a religious faith wants to perform gay marriages there's nothing to stop them from doing so and nothing to stop the couple from holding themselves out to their fellow co-religionists as married in the eyes of the faith. What they won't have is secular recognition of that marriage. But I don't see how that interferes with exercise of one's religion. Various faiths perform all kinds of ceremonies (Bar/Bat Mitzvah, confirmation, Baptism, Christening)...they don't mean a thing in the secular world, but that fact doesn't mean that the government is interfering with the exercise of religion.

I guess, in the end, I'd rather that all "marriages" be religious rites, and the secular union of a couple (with the attendant secular and legal rights/obligations) be what the government recognizes. A religion should be free to "marry" or not anyone it chooses (i.e., if the Catholic CHurch doesn't want to perform or recognize a marriage between a Catholic and non-Catholic, that should be entirely up to the church. But if someone is authorized by the state to perform civil unions, they shouldn't have the right to pick and choose the civil unions they perform, including same sex unions.

onenote

[last1standing]

42. To clarify since most people seem to be only reading the title.

I'm saying that to deny marriage to anyone is to deny them their inherent right to practice their faith. It also denies them the ability to have their love recognized by their God (or Goddess or Gods). Civil unions will only confer property, tax, and next of kin rights for the most part. Marriage will confer dignity, respect, and equality. The separate but equal proponents who support only civil unions are suggesting that its okay to allow some people to be treated unlike others.

I hope this clears things up.

[onenote]

50. I just don't see it as a religious issue

A church or other religious institution can declare anyone it wants to be "married" in the eyes of the faith even if they aren't married in the eyes of the state. Conversely, a religious faith can refuse to recognize a couple as "married" in the eyes of the faith even if it is a couple that is "married" in the eyes of the state.

Put another way, if the state recognizes gay marriage, it doesn't mean that a particular church has to conduct gay marriages or recognize them in terms of church doctrine. So its hard to see how the state's refusal to recognize gay marriage denies anyone their inherent right to practice their faith since their faith's stance on marriage is independent of the state's.

onenote

[last1standing]

55. If the state provides sanctions for one, they must sanction all.

Anything else is inequality.

I'm a Deist. When the government sanctions "God" on the currency or posts the ten commandments they are sanctioning Judeo/Christians and negating Deists (as well as all other faiths). When the government sanctions straight marriage but not gay marriage, they are negating gays.

It's fine to support removing goverment from marriage, but until that time it must be consistant. Marriage for all.

[onenote]

64. so you would force churches to perform marriages for all

Rabbis and priests would have to perform intermarriages even if it was not consistent with the doctrine of the faith?

Again, I think the state should recognize same sex marriages and judges, justices of the peace and other civil officers should be required to perform them.

onenote

[last1standing]

65. Are rabbis forced to perform ceremonies for Catholics?

Of course not and to suggest that I'm say that they should be force to do so for gays is silly. There are plenty of churches, synagogs, temples, and covens out there willing to perform services so let them do it as well as county clerks and judges.

Are you suggesting we continue to criminalize voluntary religious ceremonies?

[onenote]

70. I'm suggesting that the state's refusal to recognize same sex marriage

is not a religious issue. Its wrong, but not because it denies anyone the right to practice their religion. If a religion, as a religious matter wants to recognize two people as married (or refuse to recognize them as married), its free to do so. The fact that the state doesn't recognize the ceremony (even if it would recognize a opposite sex ceremony performed by that church) doesn't make it an issue of religious discrimination.

Think of it this way. The state allows accredited parochial schools to give out diplomas recognized by the state as equal to public school diplomas. Unlike public schools, parochial schools can make participation in religious services part of the required curriculum to graduate, even if the state doesn't recognize such participation as meeting any of the requirements for graduation (so, for example, if the state requires a certain number of hours in the classroom studying certain required courses as a prerequisite for graduation, the fact that the state doesn't recognize attendance at a religious service as counting towards that requirement, but also doesn't prevent religious schools from requiring such participation doesn't mean that anyone's right to practice their religion is infringed.

And of course I'm not suggesting that "voluntary religious ceremonies" be criminalized. They aren't now...if my house of worship wants to perform a ceremony for a same sex couple that they call a marriage ceremony they can do so. They simply can't issue a marriage license. Neither can a judge or justice of the peace.


onenote

[last1standing]

71. The act of validating a religious ceremony for one and not another....

Is, in fact, religious discrimination. I don't understand what is so difficult about that concept.

If you needed to perform a religious rite to be able to vote, but the government wouldn't accept it because you're ceremony prayed to a non-authorized God, that would be discrimination. This is the same thing. It is the act of providing state approval for some people but not others based on the desires of the members of another faith.

[onenote]

83. you don't need to perform a religious rite to be married

That's the difference. Not permitting same sex marriage is unquestionably discrimination...its just not religious discrimination.

If the government reimposed laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying, it would be a horrible and obvious case of discrimination. But the fact that same race couples can marry, either in a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony, doesn't mean that the racial discrimination is also religious discrimination.

onenote

[pnwmom]

76. Do you really think the people who oppose gay marriage

will suddenly respect gay people more because a law got passed saying they could be married? Sounds too good to be true.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

43. I'm Opposed to Gay Marriage

Marriage is a sacrament of the church and, as such, should not be regulated in any way by federal, state, or local government. They have absolutely no business in conferring any legal status or benefits on anyone based upon their participation in a religious ceremony. How's about a constitutional amendment to define baptism?

Anyone game?

[last1standing]

44. So are you opposed to Straight Marriage?

Do you think there aren't churches and other religious organizations willing to perform these services for gay people?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

46. Of course there are...

And they're welcome to do that. And in that context, I whole-heartedly support gay marriage.

I just don't believe that government should be inserting itself into what is essentially a religious issue. If anything violates the establishment clause of the first amendment, it would be government creating a state-defined and state-sanctioned religious sacrament.

[last1standing]

48. Unfortunately, it's too late for that.

They've done it for more years than either of us knows. I'm all for abolishing marriage completely as a government contract, but until that time we need to support gay marriage.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

53. Sounds like an old saying back in West Virginia...

"Brakes are out, no sense steering now"

I don't support further government regulation of my spiritual life. Even if it's for a good cause.

[GymGeekAus]

51. I'm game.

Now that federal protection and recognition of your marriage has been dissolved, you are now required to file all sorts of legal documentation for the following rights: To make decisions for your spouse when incapacitated, to continue to live in your house when your spouse dies, to have any access to your spouse's assets after his demise until probate is finished, blah blah blah. You can no longer file taxes jointly, and if your previous spouse was performing domestic duties now you have to pay them a wage and provide healthcare. In some backward legal jurisdictions you can't even have sex with your former spouse anymore without being subjected to criminal prosecution. And now there are some benefits that nobody gets, like social security benefits which are tied directly thru marriage and childbirth.

Congratulations, you have just made our legal system into a juggernaut. I suspect you are an out-of-work attorney who needs a way to make a living.

Listen to this for a laugh, by the way. And recognize right now that marriage is not and has not been strictly a religious ceremony in this country for a very long time.

http://server4.whiterosesociety.org/content/malloy/MalloyMemories/How_The_Homosexual_Agenda_Destroyed_My_Marriage.mp3

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

54. Perfect...

My spouse and I own our property jointly, and her share of our assets pshould be taxable to me under the estate tax -- since our net worth is nowhere approaching a million dollars, those assets will pass untaxed just as they did before.

And if you don't having a living will that specifically names your spouse as having the right to make your medical decisions for you, I would old say two words: Terri Schiavo.

As for the rest, the minute there starts being real ramifications for some asshat law passed in Mississippi, those laws will be taken off the books in short order.

And those benefits that accrue by virtue of being a parent would not necessarily be affected by the government's non-recognition of marriage.

[GymGeekAus]

56. Spouse? What spouse?

Is that word in the Bible? ;)

While I am always entertained by the discussion points of libertarians, it just doesn't make sense to scratch and run. Laws are horribly complicated. Your venture here creates a significant opportunity for abuse, and the only people who are going to profit are the lawyers.

Are you a lawyer?

Not everyone has their Deed of Trust listed in two names. And you didn't talk about the probate issue, which is rather substantive. There will also be all sorts of holes in the law as a consequence that you left out (like social security), which will require patching. There is also a social argument that allowing people to enter into civil marriages is good for society. Married men live longer too, so you're condemning some people to an earlier death. ;)

Do you think a church can hold a monopoly on anything, let alone should?

As for the Terri Schaivo thing, we can fix that with proper legislation and not the ridiculous bull that the Republicans tried to pull. Which was on its own unconstitutional by the way, as it was passing a law for a person instead of all people. It was also a test case, which turned out exactly like it should have.

Don't you agree?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

61. Long story short...

Nothing in your argument cannot be resolved by legislation.

Nothing in your argument even remotely convinces me that government should be deciding who can an cannot get married. You don't have to be a libertarian (which I am not) to believe that government should stay out of religious practice.

[GymGeekAus]

66. OMG. I was giving you too much credit.

Nobody is suggesting that the government should require churches to perform gay marriages. Merely that the government should permit and recognize gay marriages, and uphold the 14th Amendment.

Who told you that the government and homosexuals were trying to force their way inside your church?

Gosh. Maybe we should start taxing those buildings. After all, seperation of church and state doesn't say anything about taxing the church.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

80. When the government says "Gays can't get married"

They are deciding to recognize the sacraments of some churches while refusing to recognize the sacraments of others. What if the government then decides, "You know what? We're not going to recognize interracial marriage." Get the point? It's none of the governments damned business who gets married to whom -- either they recognize all marriages or they recognize none.

[GymGeekAus]

86. So you actually support gay marriage?

As long as there's a church that is willing to marry them?

Fabulous, because there are churches that will do that.

Great to have your support, as worthless as it might be.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

101. I love you, too...

despite your limited intelligence.

NOTE: If it weren't entirely beneath me, I'd be using one of the little smiley thingies right now!

[ulysses]

59. no.

Marriage is a sacrament of the church

Not really. If a hetero couple goes to a justice of the peace, we don't call them "civil unionized". We say they're married. And they are. No church involved.

If your church doesn't want to marry gay folks, it doesn't have to. There are plenty of churches that will.

[anewdeal]

62. The government gives benefits for marriage

those benefits belong to the gays as much as they do to the straights.

[Book Lover]

63. Then what do you suggest we atheists do? (nm)

[GymGeekAus]

68. Yeah, I don't think you want him to answer that.

Are we sure this poster is for real?

[Catchawave]

84. Webster's recognizes same sex marriage....

Main Entry: mar·riage
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross >


Shhhhh...don't tell the fundies !

[Joey Liberal]

57. I say it's up to the Gay couples

This is (was) a free country. If a Gay couple wants to marry, they should be able to. If they prefer a civil union, that's fine too. Isn't that what being "free" is all about? I don't give a damn about what any church or conservative feels about the matter. We are talking about freedom here. Republicans would happily take away our freedoms and trample on the Bill of Rights. I consider republicans to be a lot more of a threat to our freedoms than Al Qaeda.

[lwcon]

58. My wife and I are *married*

We got a marriage license from the state, and we were married by a justice of the peace in a community hall.

What's God got to do with it?

If the bible-thumpers want to separate church matrimony from civil matrimony, let *them* come up with a new term.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. You are absolutely right, and that is why it is such a profound shift

for many Americans to embrace Gay marriage. Yes it is the right thing to do, to allow Gay and Lesbians the same ability to invoke the God of their beliefs for the sanctity of their relationships. But something being right does not by itself make it so, or make it so easily, without a lot of wrenching soul searching by many who have deeply held preconceived and contrary beliefs. What you wrote in your OP speaks to the heart of why this is much more than a civil rights issue, it is also a spiritual issue for many tens of millions of people, Gays and Straights alike, which is why overcoming resistance to that step is both slow and painful for so many who now oppose it.

Victory is NOT assured in our lifetimes. Backlashes can be powerful forces, entrenched religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman are more difficult to change than opinions on what the legal age for voting should be. Yes this fight must be fought, because it is right to do so, but losing a fight due to a weakness in tactics does no one any good.

Trying to take down a man like Howard Dean over this matter is foolish in my opinion. Howard Dean is the guy pushing the National Democratic Party to do the work needed so Democrats can take over State governments in all parts of our nation. Until that is achieved, legalizing Gay and Lesbian marriages will continue to run into roadblocks at the State level. But more important than that, Howard Dean has done a lot to advance the Gay and Lesbian agenda. That shouldn't put him above criticism, but it should put him above being regarded as an enemy of justice for Gays and Lesbians.

Until the battle for Gay and Lesbian marriages is fully won, I would love to see grass roots local movements to replace the terminology of "Civil Unions" and "Domestic Partnerships" with the term "legally wed" in laws around the nation. That would throw the conservatives for a loop. Have "legally wed" become a legal civil term, so Gay partners can say they are "wedded to each other" and have an official document to prove it. Not as a replacement to pushing for Gay and Lesbian marriages, but as a way of continuing to break down resistance to them.

[last1standing]

69. Thank you.

You're one of the few to have actually read my post versus just jumping in and attacking me for saying something they agree with.

I wish I could edit my OP and add your post to mine. It was beautifully stated and I couldn't agree more.

[TankLV]

72. It's "separate but equal" if it's anything less than marriage.

Simple really.

Hard to fathom for too many, unfortunately.

[pnwmom]

77. Why is the word "marriage" worth fighting over if the laws

were changed so that civil unions and marriage were the legal equivalent?

[last1standing]

78. So long as they both get to the same place....

why does it matter where black people sit on the bus?

[pnwmom]

85. That analogy fails, because people in the back are less

likely to be able to get a seat, among other reasons.

The other argument I usually see is that using the word "marriage" will gain respect. But I don't think the people who are against gay marriage are going to respect gays and lesbians more simply because their unions are called "marriages" by the government rather than partnerships or civil partnerships or civil unions.

People can call their unions whatever they want, and already do, and churches already can decide whether they want to perform unions or not.

[last1standing]

89. "Less likely to be able to get a seat"? That's just assinine.

If that's the best you can do to refute my analogy, then I'd say you're pretty much washed up in this debate.

[pnwmom]

102. Guess you don't ride much on crowded busses.

The history is important, too.

Marriage, as a concept, did not originally come about to discriminate against gay people, but to protect the children who were born, seemingly willy-nilly, from the unions of men and women.

Racial laws in the south had no other purpose than to discriminate against African Americans.

As the daughter of a gay man, I couldn't care less whether his and his partner's union is offically called a "marriage" of not (except for the legal aspects, which are worth fighting for)-- and neither do they.

[last1standing]

103. My gay dad doesn't care so why should you.

Once again you provide no real substance. I don't care what your dad calls his arrangment, but I do care that people are being discriminated against. If you don't then just come out and say it in plain words. Don't try to use false history and iffy anecdotes to obscure it.

[pnwmom]

105. And how do you refute a false analogy?

It's like trying to refute a poem.

I'll say it again. I don't think using a different word to describe relationships between people of opposite genders and people of the same gender is discrimination. Sorry. I care only about the legal rights, which can and should be equivalent.

[last1standing]

106. It's scary to hear people arguing for "separate but equal"

which is exactly what you've just done. I have no respect for that argument and no respect for those who would so easily wave aside the rights of others.

I think that's about all I have to say.

[TankLV]

111. I have no respect for her either. She's proven what she is many times

already.

[TankLV]

110. I determined that LONG ago.

Arguing with the clueless is pointless.

[GymGeekAus]

90. Because seperate but equal has never demonstrably been so.

Personally, I would love for the country to take this first step towards marriage equality and grant civil unions to gay partners. But I warn you--it will probably not be legally equivalent. Right now, Vermont's civil unions aren't. How can they be if they're not even protected by the full faith and credit clause? Even Mass's gay marriages aren't--crossing the state line dissolves your marriage while you are away. So equality, equal protection under the law, probably wouldn't be reached by that step, and we'd have to continue to move towards our equal protection and fair treatment under the law. Right now, the Federal Government refuses to recognize those marriages being performed in states and countries where they are legal. (Not to mention the fact that some people oppose civil unions altogether, or insist marriage is about producing offspring)

Let's say that someone passed a law saying that civil unions and marriages were legally equivalent. Doesn't that make marriages into civil unions? Hear me out--if the word "marriage" only refers to the fact that a particular couple was joined in a church, and the government shouldn't be getting involved in these church issues, then why use the term "marriage" at all? Just write a law saying "The United States government does not recognize marriage, except in that it is a civil union."

I think you are using a very specialized definition of marriage, pnwmom. I think in your mind, marriage means "a union consecrated in the eyes of God." Well, that's not a universal definition by any standard, and it's not the definition used by the government right now. There's no "God" in marriage unless you choose to put him there, and choosing to put God someplace OR CHOOSING NOT TO is quite clearly a protected right by the first Amendment. The Government doesn't establish religious requirements and tests, you see.

If your desire is to maintain a wall of seperation between your marriage and the marriages of others who do not share your faith in God, perhaps it is time to start using a word that actually conveys your opinion and meaning instead of the word "marriage." You could call it "zambookie" or something else fun to say. Or you could just use an adjective when you talk about your style of marriage, and call it "Christian marriage" (heh heh--that won't stand long) or "Consecrated marriage" (same deal) or "Heterosexual marriage" (hey, that one is fine).

Why is the word "marriage" worth fighting over, pnwmom? We fight over equality because we are entitled to it as human beings. Why do you fight over the word "marriage?"

I will say this: Some people fight over the word "marriage" strictly because they oppose equality. Or actively hate.

[pnwmom]

104. No, that's not my definition.

I think we risk creating a backlash by insisting on the word "marriage" now instead of taking a more step-by-step approach.

As far as my definition of the word is concerned, I happen to have no problem with using the word "marriage" to designate legally-committed relationships between a man and a woman, and some other term to designate the equivalent relationship between people of the same sex. As a daughter of a gay man with a 25 year relationship with his partner, I just don't think the word matters, just the legal rights. And they feel the same way.

We should all be concentrating on making sure the federal constitution isn't amended. (An important vote is coming up in June.) I'm afraid that, given enough backlash, that could happen, and that would be a disaster.

But I'm convinced that, without a backlash, the federal law, DOMA, will be thrown out within the next ten years. That might seem like a long time to you but it doesn't to me.

[TankLV]

108. What part of "separate but equal" don't you understand?!

You are intentionally being obtuse.

[TankLV]

112. So it's OK if I call black people niggers then, right? After all, it's

only a single word - means the same thing according to your kind!

[pnwmom]

113. A "civil union" or a "partnership" is not a slur.

[TankLV]

115. Tell it to somebody else.

It's degrading.

It's demeaning.

Words matter.

That's the point.

It is obviously lost on you.

[bakerman2033]

79. When paper HAS to justify marriage, a problem is only beginning .....

Sure, many of those who have been married to the same person
for many years, did so when a marriage license meant
something. Today the meaning of a marriage license is more
legal than commitment. As for the divorce rates, it now seems
to be "acceptable", rather than frowned upon.
Doesn't do much for the words that are so stated before the
preacher, "until death do us part". That should be
changed to "until death or divorce do us part".
.
When a piece of paper becomes needed to "validate"
your love for another, there seems in my opinion that this
allows the beginning of the first step toward possible
distrust of the other from the git-go. 
.
A Marriage License or Civil Union Document should be construed
as only bearing some weight in how two individuals can prove
they "own" their children, dog, furniture, and all
other material possessions. Love is not one of them. In
theory, if you took the divorce rate of heterosexual couples
and were able to compare it to divorce rates of gay couples,
the numbers would be a hugh embarrassment based on the so
called 10% theory that the population hovers around 10%. Even
at 20% the embarrassment level would surely remain the same. 
.
References to God? Please, how many have actually read the
bible from cover to cover? How many have read it twice or more
from cover to cover?
How many have after achieving this stupendous feat, actually
debated it within a group of people who have done the same? At
this point you have to take the same group of people and add a
third religion with the same criteria. Don't stop there! ...
There are many more "religions" that also should
have the respect to be included and added into the criteria.
It would take the majority a long time (a very long time) to
accomplish this.
An hour a week on Sunday does not adequately allow for a
rational decision. Interpretation is up for debate, and should
never be held as absolute.
I think the so called " writers' of these documents would
have many things to say about whose done what with their
words. And clarification from them isn't forthcoming via
satellite anytime soon.

[Rockholm]

81. My piece of paper means EVERYTHING.

My husband and I met in 1995, starting dating in January 1996 and have been together non-stop ever since. In 1994 we got married. Equal under the law. At least here in Massachusetts. Equal as any straight couple who get married. Even dear old Britney Spears and her 50 hour "marriage" and annulment. I am glad that she and her ilk appreciate the fact that they CAN get married anywhere.

How fun it is to do our taxes. Federal taxes were do them as "single" and in Massachusetts, we did "married filing separately." We paid $3,000 MORE in federal taxes than if we would have filed as married.

I take my vows seriously. I do believe that marriage is "til death do us part." If Bush and the republicans are SO concerned about marriage, then propose a Constitutional Amendment to BAN DIVORCE.

[ggdwill]

82. Why should the state recognize marriage at all?

Despite the gender of those involved, the only reason why people haggle over this issue is because they take the underlying issues for granted. Encouraging or discouraging marriage through "incentives" like tax breaks is simply social engineering; something anathema to a free society.

Individuals are individuals, whether they are emotionally invested with another person or not.

[BR_Parkway]

87. My church would provide me with a marriage, spiritual blessing and all

but I need the "civil union" part of it for the tax breaks, inheritance rights and all those other things conveyed by the government.

Quite frankly, I'd like to see the government get out of the marriage business entirely - leave the word up to the various churches to define as they care to. Let every couple (regardless of gender) apply for a civil union license to get the civil benefits, like they do in Europe

[McCamy Taylor]

96. Wonder when far right will notice loophole in no gay marriage laws.

Legislators DO NOT want to actually eliminate the possibility of gay civil unions for some very good reasons, the main one being that marriage saves states money.

For example, when two old gay people have been living together for a gazillion years and one of them becomes sick and infirm they want to be able to force the healthy/working/solvent partner to assume financial responsibility for the sick one. If they were married they could. If they were civil joined they could. If they are just "living together" the state is stuck with the bill for the nursing home.

Or, if two gay people live together and one does not work so has no health insurance and gets sick, he or she qualifies for Medicaid, right? Because he or she has no income and no assets. Even though there is a partner who makes $100k a year with health insurance. The state would be spared that Medicaid burden if the two could be in a civil union.

What about child support? Say the non bread winner in a gay union is living with a partner who provides all the money to her and her biologic child for 10 years and the partner was able to adopt. When they divorce, the state can slap the breadwinner with child support payments. On the other hand, if the state forbid the civil union and the adoption, once the two seperate, the state has got to fork over welfare.

States dont have much money any more and keeping their budgets balanced is their number one priority. Getting people married helps them save money in a lot of ways---and that is true for gay people, as well.

[Nightflurry]

97. Why inter-racial marriage? Why not inter-racial unions?

Same could be said about any minority group.. Jews, blacks, whatever. Seperate is not equal.

I don't mind nationally recognized civil unions as a stepping stone, but equality itself must not be shunned.

[last1standing]

118. Why not try actually reading my damned post!

I'm sick of people who can't be bothered to check anything but a title.

[dpbrown]

100. You can't force religions as easily as you can force governments

Can you force Muslims to perform gay marriages?

Possibly not, but you can force the government to recognize civil unions.

If the couple is legally recognized and has all the benefits (and penalties) of otherwise married people, that is the best result.

[TankLV]

107. E.Q.U.A.L.I.T.Y. - it's very simple, really. Try it.

Or, how about "Separate but Equal" - is that clear enough for ya?!

Somehow, I doubt it.

EQUALITY - nothing more, nothing LESS!

[last1standing]

114. Now that you can spell, try reading the post not just the title.

I was saying that marriage is the only real answer.

Thanks for jumping to conclusions before taking the time to read. :eyes:

[TankLV]

116. Then if that is the case, I apologize.

Caught up in the heat with all the ignorant assholes posting here.

[last1standing]

117. There's too much damned posturing going on.

From you and others. I don't support civil unions for gays - I support marriage for everyone. I've been on that bandwagon from the time I was a kid, too many years ago now and long before most were even willing to talk about being gay at all. That doesn't mean I think we should be screaming from the top of our lungs that it has to happen at this moment or else all gays should leave the Democratic party. It means that we need to change our politicians' minds by changing public opinion. That has been the successful route for every civil rights movement in our history, why would this time be different?

Jumping on the Dump Dean bandwagon won't help you or me in the slightest. It will only remove someone who supports our causes from a position where he can do something about it. No, he doesn't support gay marriage, but he's not against it, either. That makes a tremendous difference from most.

I'm asking you, sincerely, please look at the long term implications of what we're trying to do and not just try to score a win for today. We need people like Dean who are actively trying to bring progressive voices into the party and put them on the ballot. We'll never get anywhere if we have a "moderate" Dem from the south or midwest in the DNC chair pulling us even more toward the right, will we? Do you remember who came in second during the run for chair? I do, and he was much more conservative than Dean. There would have been no chance for help from him.

It's time for us all to look to the future and what we are trying to achieve. I hope you're with me on this.

[IntravenousDemilo]

119. It's the principle of the thing. It's what we are owed.

Actually, the question is moot in my country, gay marriage being a fait accompli. Marriage is not considered a spiritual covenant under Canadian law, and for the purposes of the equal marriage legislation, marriage is treated as a civil arrangement (though I've seen a lot of marrieds who are pretty uncivil to each other). And churches aren't forced to marry same-sex couples if doing so will go against their religion.

There are certain rights and financial privileges that accrue to married couples that would not accrue to people in mere "civil unions". And North America isn't South Africa under apartheid; equal but separate just won't cut it.

But mostly, the word "marriage" is payback, the mere ounce of flesh the gay community demands after centuries of abuse at the hands of straight people, abuse that I don't think I need expand on, since it's well documented. An ounce is far less than we deserve, really; we have every right to ask for the entire pound that's owed us, but we're not going there just yet. Oh, and the fact that some straights are horrified at the idea of equal marriage for gays, that they feel "persecuted", that they feel religiously offended, just makes this ounce of flesh all the more delicious, delectable, and desired. Turnabout is fair play. Bigots may be offended, but it really serves them right, and fuck 'em if they can't handle it. If some don't like the idea, well, they should have thought of that before the bashings occurred, shouldn't they? They're just lucky we don't all carry guns, because then they'd really have something to complain about.

[kentuck]

120. Why can't it be a simple human rights issue ?

Why does it have to be part of the agenda of one political party or another? Does it have to be political? In the final analysis, it is more important than the Democratic Party, even if it might be a losing issue in the present political climate. Why can't we just stand on principle?

[ulysses]

121. it can and should be.