OK, who the fuck thinks "Civil unions for all" will actually be acceptable to heterosexuals?

[Solon]

Seriously, I've ranted about this before, but apparently some people think that, since Marriage Equality is impossible(not so), that they want to make it more impossible to achieve equal rights by DEMOTING(in heterosexuals' view) heterosexual marriages.

Think about this logically, how many straight people, in the majority of this nation, will want to stop signing MARRIAGE licenses and want to replace them with Civil Union Licenses? How many of them would vote for candidates who support this?

This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, Civil Marriages already exist, and its much easier, both legally and politically, to simply allow GLBT people to marry each other, under the word marriage, than redefine Civil Marriage as civil unions for everybody. I'm not talking about those, like Obama and Biden, who support two separate standards, one for straight people, and one for GLBT people, but those who want to outright replace Civil Marriages with Civil Unions.

Oh, and comparisons to other nations aren't that valid when we have our own legal traditions concerning Marriage that is handled differently than many other nations. Considering Marriage is a State, rather than Federally, issued license, what needs to be done is for the State that don't allow Marriage Equality to be forced to acknowledge it through the full faith and equal credit clause of the Constitution. This is best done by repealing DOMA, and then filing a lawsuit. The key is this, all Obama and Biden have to do is stay the fuck out of the way of Marriage Equality after DOMA is repealed. Don't interfere and it will happen, sooner rather than later(hopefully).

[DailyGrind51]

1. Hey, my marriage was anything but a "civil" union, that's why we got divorced!

[rebel with a cause]

118. Yours and mine also. Marriage was uncivil, divorce is uncivil,

distance is sublime. ;)

As for the people disgrunted about the civil union thing by our candidates. I for one never had a religious ceremony, was never considered married by his religion, and I saw it as a legal union. If you want the candidates to lose just make gay marriages an issue that they must stand up for. The repubs would love that. It is bad enough, as far as some people are concerned, that they say they are pro-choice. Remember that there have been some democratic candidates that have not even stood up for women's right to choose what happens to their own body when they were running for office because of the strong opposition.

Baby steps are sometimes what we have to accept, because we are at least moving forward. If you try to take giant steps you some times fall and have to go back to the beginning. (referencing the game Mother May I) Remember that before this civil unions were not even accepted.

[renie408]

2. I wouldn't care. My husband and I have often contemplated WHY we got married.

It was because that's what you do. We aren't religious, so we don't really care about it from that perspective. I don't *think* we are any more committed because we are 'married'. I think we would feel just as committed if we were...joined?...in a civil union.

[Solon]

3. The point isn't how YOU feel, but how the REST of the nation would feel about this....

We want equal rights for GLBTQ people, period, so we must think of the proper tactics to achieve this. Civil Unions for all, as advocated by some people here, is a dead end, and won't achieve equal rights, its a non-starter politically, even more so than Marriage Equality just a few years ago.

[renie408]

I am really wanting to clear this up in my own head....

If a civil union allows you every single right that I have with my husband, what is the difference? I just don't see the difference. Is it because you cannot call yourself 'married'? But isn't 'married' a state of mind? I mean, I know plenty of people who are joined in a church in the sight of god who do not respect their vows. Are they married? Would you be less married if it were called a civil union? Could a civil union possibly be a stepping stone to something else? Could we possibly have civil unions for EVERYBODY and marriages for those joined in a religious ceremony?

If you are legally bound in the exact same way, if you have the exact same rights...wouldn't that be better than waiting for a semantic distinction? I am NOT unsympathetic. I am an atheist and see marriage as a civil contract. I understand marriage as a religious union (not really, but I get that some people feel the need for that) but I also think that is up to the individual religion.

And it IS about how I feel. And about how the other 299,999,999 Americans feel. I think that there would be little opposition to civil unions for same sex couples which would deliver the exact same protections and rights as marriage. Why isn't that enough?

[Solon]

15. I'm not talking about those who advocate for "separate but (un)equal"...

which, in my opinion, is a cop out to begin with. But those who advocate for the legal replacement of the word Marriage, for all couples, in the country with the term Civil Union instead. I'm talking about what achievable in this country, not what people would like to happen. Its simple to say that civil unions will be a way to achieve equal rights, but that is not only untested in this country, but proven to be untrue as well, so far at least. Not to mention that we already have two states where Marriage Equality has already been achieved, would those marriages still be valid in a state with civil unions?

We are talking about the practical here, not the impossible.

[renie408]

18. Why would civil unions be unequal?

And obviously, same sex marriages would be considered marriages in the states allowing such and civil unions in the states where people have a stick up their ass about who can get 'married'. If you are legally guaranteed the same rights, you are legally guaranteed the same rights. Nobody can guarantee that you won't be discriminated against. All they can do is offer you legal recourse when it happens.

[Solon]

22. Civil Unions, right now, are not recognized federally...

In addition, some states with civil union laws stipulate that the unions aren't valid outside the state. In addition, you just described a legal nightmare in the making, unless something is codefied in federal law to say that, legally speaking, Marriage=Civil Union. A married GLBTQ couple in California, even if federal Civil Union laws were passed, may have their marriage stripped from them if they move to, for example, Missouri. This would be unacceptable, hence the reason why we should agree to one term for the nation for all legally recognized couples, I just believe that Marriage should be that term, because frankly, it would be a damn near impossible to convince straights to "give up marriage" as a legal term.

[renie408]

87. I thought we were talking about some kind of federal mandate

allowing for civil unions. Which would be what you are working towards, right? Getting civil unions that are legally equal to what we currently call marriage federally protected? So, wouldn't it behoove you and all gay people to vote for and support Democrats who are more likely to nominate people for the SCOTUS who are liberal? Because THAT is where this is going to happen. In the Supreme Court. Right? I mean, the rights are already there. They are written into the Constitution. What we need is a justice system that recognizes those already mandated rights.

Other than that, what does it matter what the President thinks about gay marriage? If it is to be strictly limited to a states rights issue, then what the President thinks isn't that important.

[Solon]

93. In this thread, we are talking about Replacing Marriage with Civil Union on legal documents...

for everyone, not creating the legal nightmare of Civil Unions as a co-equal but separate institution from Marriage. I'm saying that this idea, that I just put forward, is politically impossible to pass, you are more likely to get Same Sex Marriage passed in this country rather than getting the termed Marriage thrown out of the legal system.

Oh, and why do I call Civil Unions that are "separate but equal" to marriage a legal nightmare, because it would evolve as a patchwork, as it already has, in various states, and will lead to headaches and roadblocks for many couples, both gay and straight, down the road. 2 states have Marriage Equality, about a handful more have civil unions, and then you have various cities with domestic partnerships. None of these are equal now, but let's assume for a second that, through some federal law, they are equal, but separate. Let's say you are a married gay couple in California, and due to a job change or whatnot, they move to a state that only recognizes and performs Civil Unions for gay couples. They are legal, equally, but separate, so would the marriage be legally annulled? Would you have to re-register under a civil union license for that state?

These are the types of question that will be faced by lawyers and judges down the road, IF we allow Marriage and Civil Unions to remain separate.

[renie408]

97. Ok, sorry. There have been several threads today dealing with this subject

and I must have melded several of them together.

I agree. You would have a hard time getting the word 'marriage' out of heterosexual civil unions, even though technically, that is what we all have. We just call them marriages because that is the traditional term for that particular civil contract.

[Erin Elizabeth]

14. No that very much WAS part of your point.

You said do you think most married hetero couples would go for having their relationship called a civil union? And this person answered you in the affirmative.

[Solon]

16. Only for themselves, and DU isn't mainstream...

That's the point, while Joe and Jane Sixpack, i.e. the majority in this country, go for that. Its fine if you think this way, but realize it only applies to your feelings, not those of the rest of the nation. The worst thing you can do is extrapolate your own experiences onto others and assume they think the same way.

[fifthoffive]

99. You have stated my view so well,

there's no need for me to say any more.

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. Let people choose the name for the same thing and we're all good

Let people choose what to call their state enacted civil unions. Tell your family which ever label you prefer, as it applies to the exact same set of rights and priviliges. There ya go, problem solved. And I predict that, like other countries where this type of thing was enacted, there will be a trend towards civil unions rather than the other way.

I say give people CHOICE!

[Solon]

6. The federal government would have to recognize civil unions first...

on the federal level, and even then, most people would still trend towards using marriage licenses, most likely because they wouldn't be aware of the civil union licenses, and there would be no legal differences. Not to mention traditional terminology still holds weight, not many people are "civil unionized" that's not a common term, even those GLBT people who live in states that only have civil unions available for them still call themselves married after they sign the civil union papers.

[kirby]

5. Marriage is a loaded term...

It connotes a connection with Holy Matrimony. You can bitch and moan all you want, but I dont think you are going to convince people to change their religion to suit your personal belief. You can try to force your agenda, but I think it will backfire and set your cause even further back.

Civil Unions remove the linkage with religion. It should allow the same exact benefits minus the blessing/connection of a religion.

[Solon]

7. And its even less likely to be acceptable...

Oh, and I really don't like the tone of "forcing my agenda" nice, why the fuck are you on this board in the first place. Equal rights should be a given, and are a rule on this board to begin with.

[kirby]

9. I disagree...

I'm not sure what bug is up your butt... I was stating my opinion that if the GLBT force their agenda of redefining Marriage, it will backfire. I think it would be more productive for the community to work on Civil Unions for the reasons I mentioned. If you bothered to read what I said, I specifically said equal rights without the connection to a religion.

[Solon]

11. There is no "forcing of agenda" here, and redefining marriage isn't a new thing...

so I don't know what the fuck type of problem you have, but advocating for civil unions for ALL, gay and straight, to REPLACE marriage is a hell of a lot less popular than just giving GLBTQ people the right to marry the one they love.

[Pithlet]

10. Religion doesn't own marriage.

I don't believe in God. I don't belong to any religion. I never have, from the day I was born. And I am married. No one is taking that away from me. And that is what I want for everyone. I think the OP is absolutely right, and I cringe every single time I hear people squawking about getting government out of the marriage business instead of doing the right thing, and excluding no one from it.

[krawhitham]

8. Civil unions is all the government should allow for EVERY COUPLE

It is up to religious groups to call it marriage or not

[vaberella]

12. Exactly. Hey, wait a sec...something just crossed my mind...huh....

Everyone by law is in a civil union. Marriage is really a religious gig.

Do you guys think that's what Obama and Biden might use...later.

That Civil unions are by the state and the state allows it...however marriage is a religious association and so that's up to the church. They could make a very strong argument for gay marriage in the US. Make all marriages by the state which everyone needs to get done anyway "civil unions" it gives gays the rights to be married. I seriously think that's what Biden and Obama are playing out. Huh...if it's true, they're smart.

[annabanana]

30. What I've been saying for years. . . n/t

[vaberella]

45. I get it now. That would be excellent. Gays would be happy and everyone else could shut up. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

69. But it should be up to the individual couples to decide

GLBT couples shouldn't have to "settle" if they don't want to.

[chiefofclarinet]

91. I agree, to a point

I wish that GLBT couples could have exactly what they want, instead of settling for what they can get. It is equal rights, and that is one of the main parts about being an American.

However, they can never get that from everyone. Some Christian churches will refuse until the day they cease to exist to have a religious marriage service for gays. Not only do the fundamentalists and evangelicals believe this, but the Roman Catholics and many mainline Protestant churches will not marry gays in their religion. And, through the 1st amendment, government cannot force them to "honor" a marriage from another church. (This is not just a problem with the GLBT community. Divorced Catholics cannot remarry and remain Catholic unless they can somehow get the marriage annulled.)

For those churches, like the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalists, that allow gay marriage, that is positive step for the GLBT community. However, expecting two gay men to go into Palin's group of screaming nutjobs and get a marriage is unrealistic.

That is why I am for universal civil unions. Everyone goes to the courthouse with witnesses and gets a civil union. If the particular church lets you, you are allowed to become married in that church. If not, you still have a harmonious union with the benefits of a current heterosexual marriage. It may not be what you want to call it, but the rights are still there.

In a perfect society, any two people that want to get married can be in any church of their choosing. However, a perfect world would not have John McCain's approval rating any higher than Bush's are, considering their records in the last few years are near identical. Universal civil unions might be settling for something less than perfect, but it is something more than the GLBT community has right now.

[tigereye]

107. no matter where you are married, you still need a license -

regardless of whether it's in a church or in a state office or in a Vegas wedding chapel. (well at least where I live) The state license is really the only thing that makes it valid....


You could argue that the religious aspect of it is secondary, and that's why it's so absurd that it's such as big (legal or otherwise) deal when folks of the same gender want to get "married."




My apologies if that is what the OP is already saying...

[Solon]

17. And in an Ideal world, that would already be what's in place, I live in the real world...

and rather than tearing down what structures are in place, and trying to replace them, why not add to them instead?

[GirlieQ]

21. Why should religious groups get to decide that?

There were marriages before the current religious groups, and there will be marriages after them.

[DevonRex]

43. Or to the individuals involved. I had a civil ceremony. I'm married

except in the eyes of the Catholic Church. And I don't give a rat's ass what they say or think.

[Erin Elizabeth]

13. I don't care, I think what my husband and I have is a civil union,

anyway. We were married by a Justice of the Peace. We weren't married in a church and there was no religious ceremony whatsoever.

Call my relationship whatever you want, call it a fleebledeedoo, as long as we are recognized by society as such.

[Solon]

19. Jesus, you don't get it do you...

THIS isn't about you, but about what is achievable in this country, YOU ARE NOT THE MAJORITY, if you were, hell, Marriage Equality would already have been achieved, whether through civil unions or some other means.

[kirby]

23. Oddly...

"THIS isn't about you, but about what is achievable in this country, YOU ARE NOT THE MAJORITY"

Oddly, this was exactly my point upthread about civil unions being what was achievable, rather than an agenda of redefining the majority view of what marriage is.

[Solon]

29. Again, the "separate but unequal" advocates are NOT who I'm arguing against in this thread...

But rather those who want to, I guess you would put it this way, redefine marriage for ALL people as Civil Unions.

[abumbyanyothername]

20. Personally . . .

I am all for overt, negotiated, contracts for all. No implied terms.

Not sure what that does to confused third parties (hospitals, insurers, etc.).

But I am certain that far fewer people would ever get married, or enter into civil unions, if they had the complete terms explained to them, and asked for, up front.

[NotThisTime]

24. I'm sorry, other countries do this, they have a civil service and they have a religious service

For us? We are NOT religious, we would have stopped at the civil service, period. For us we don't care what it's called, period, end of story. For all those religious people out there, let them have their religious marriage. Many countries do this, we wouldn't be the first.

[Solon]

26. Most of them had legal traditions about this dating back centuries, and so does the United States...

That's the POINT, for crying out loud, why do you think I discounted the experiences of other nations in regards to this? The United States has a governmental structure unlike most of the rest of the world, and that actually leads to unique problems such as this, that need to be addressed based on American legal tradition, rather than that of some other nations.

[NotThisTime]

60. There should be no civil difference between Unions recognized by the Government & religious Weddings

that take place separately, that is MY point. All these religious wingnuts will never allow Marriage for all, I think if you look at other country's, we should follow THEIR models. Ours is just wrong.

Did I say that was right? NO, I say Civil Unions for all and Weddings for those of religious persuasion.

Joe Biden is all FOR Civil Unions recognized by the Government. I might me hetero (my father is not and has been with his partner for 29 years), but in my opinion we have to get away from this never ending circle of marriage. It's a piece of paper, it's nothing, it's the civil liberties that go on behind it. Can you visit your spouse in the hospital? Do you have the right to Inheritance, do you have the rights to benefits? We ALL should have these rights. I'm all for getting religion the hell out of all of our lives. For those who choose it, great, but personally, for me? Not so much.

[Solon]

65. And in an ideal world I would agree, but how long would it take to convince the middle...

in other words those who are for civil unions for GLBT people, but not for themselves, to go for that?

[NotThisTime]

70. Honestly, my father has been waiting 29 years, I don't know, but I just have to hope it happens

But meanwhile everyone deserves the EXACT same constitutional rights, and that's just fact. Anyone who says differently is just dead wrong.

[LittleClarkie]

71. The couple should be able to decide what they want

and not be "allowed" or "tolerated"

[Stop Cornyn]

25. I've been to weddings in Mexico and Germany, and that's the law there. You get a civil license. The

process is about as romantic as getting a fishing license. If you want to have a separate church service (and you do if you want your marriage recognized by the Catholic church, for example), then you are free to do so. If you do not wish to have a church marriage, that's entirely up to you.

But the church marriage by itself is not sufficient to establish the civil bond of mutual marital rights, and the civil license by itself is not sufficient to warrant recognition by many churches.

I have no problem with this.

[Solon]

27. The only difference between them and the United States, is that here, the officiate...

over the marriage ceremony can sign the Marriage License, this is an OPTION in practically all states in the United States, though it varies somewhat, depending on the state.

Again, this isn't the issue, the issue is what to call it for ALL couples, how many people in the United States will favor replacing the term Marriage with Civil Union? I'm making a relatively safe assumption that very few people favor this, so why not work on what's possible rather than what's not possible.

[Stop Cornyn]

35. I don't think you have to police what word people use to describe their relationship. In Mexico and

Germany, people who get a civil license only don't introduce their partners as "my civil union-mate" and they don't deny being "married" or use some different term other than "marriage" to describe.

I think the point is that, while I favor marriage for all, I am not threatened by the concept of having everyone -- straight or gay -- obtain a civil union certificate to initiate the legal status of the couple which confers all the legal rights of a marriage. Then, if someone wants something else -- a different piece of paper or some further recognition -- they should feel free to go to their church (of their union hall or their wife-swapping club or whatever) and obtain the additional document of seal of approval which makes them happiest.

Why does this approach seem like a good "plan B" if we cannot pass universal marriage?

States which recognize gay marriage should be permitted to adhere to the current system of allowing churches to "do all the paperwork" to create a fully binding legal union.

States which discriminate should be forced to end their discrimination by either adopting universal marriage or by getting churches out of the "marital paperwork" business and having separate civil and religious processes.

Forcing a choice between recognizing gay marriage or getting churches out of the legally binding paperwork process would likely cause some people to experience anger at having their coupling frowned upon, and -- maybe -- if these people had a better insight into what it feels like to have their coupling frowned upon, they would have a better appreciation for why the right to marriage should be universal.

[Solon]

36. People will use whatever terms they want to describe their relationships...

Even those who refuse civil marriage may get a religious marriage and call themselves married. Again, not an issue, its what the STATE calls it, what the state uses as the term on the license itself, within the laws and regulations governing the benefits of Marriage. That is the issue, and a defining one as well.

[Stop Cornyn]

40. I'm glad that laws on the books in the 1940s which referred to "Negroes" have been re-written to

use other terminology.

I'm glad for the evolution in the terminology that the government chose to use, but I'm not sure change in terminology was an earth-shattering revolution (while the change in actual legal status certainly was).

[Solon]

42. I have no clue how that would apply to what I'm referring to.

:wtf:

[Stop Cornyn]

46. I misunderstood you to say what the state uses as the term on the license itself was the issue. If

that was not your point, my bad.

[Solon]

49. No, that is the point, the point I had was that it would be extremely unpopular for the State...

to relabel Marriage, as in Marriage License, to Civil Union, as in a Civil Union license. More unpopular than giving GLBT folks the right to get married.

[Stop Cornyn]

55. My point was that re-writing the laws to use a different terminology (e.g., eliminating the term

"Negro") may not be as earth-shattering as change as you project. People would still refer to their relationship as a "marriage" and if you changed the title of the marriage license to a "civil union" license, I'm not so sure that there would be rioting in the streets.

Plus, if the change in the title of their marriage license did anger some people, perhaps that anger could be channeled into fixing the situation by the alternative preferable means of making the right to marriage universal.

Still, I suspect that if you were to go to a random evangelical church (say, for example, Sarah Palin's church with the witch-hunter preacher and the Jews-for-Jesus preacher and the pray-the-gay-away preacher), the folks there would be less comfortable with allowing gay marriage than changing the terminology on the marriage licenses to make them "civil union licenses."

[Solon]

57. Of course it would be earth-shattering...

the right would make sure it was Earth shattering, but that's not the point, the point is that those who are more in the middle, i.e. they support Civil Unions for "those people" but not for themselves would never go for what you are suggesting.

[NotThisTime]

61. Exactly, Bolivia is exactly the same

[annabanana]

28. It's perfectly OK with me. The State makes it a legal union, and

my church makes it a "marriage" or "ragu" for you Pastafarians . .

[Teaser]

31. When I'm through with em, they'll all see things my way

all of them.

[Solon]

32. Did anyone in this thread read past the title of the OP?

"Oooh, I'm for it! Whoohoo!" Just fucking great, that means It'll be law of the land tomorrow, NOT! :eyes:

[TheKentuckian]

33. I believe its easier to ask do you believe in equal protection under the law?

and acting accordingly versus asking how you define marriage and acting accordingly.

I'm not emotionally invested either way. I'm not gay, I'm not married. I have no personal investment other than wanting all people to have equal protection under the law and I think this is the path. The people that are against gay marriage on care about in a religious sense, if you take that away then you win.

[Solon]

34. The question is HOW you go about it, what's practical and what's not practical...

both legally and politically. First off, let's see what's happening now, there are two states with Marriage Equality, and, knocking on wood, both will remain that way for the foreseeable future. We have a handful of other states with Civil Unions, which only apply within those states, and aren't recognized Federally, unlike Marriages. Then we have Domestic Partnerships, which are also only in a few states, and a few cities have them as well, they don't apply outside their own jurisdictions, and are even more limited, usually only applying to local laws within a jurisdiction.

Right now, this would lead to a rather unpractical scenario of a patchwork of laws, different licenses, and other items, that will cause conflict in several different states. Even more confusing are states like New York, that recognize Same-Sex Marriages, but don't perform them itself. The question will be how to ensure that same sex couples, nationally, will be able to keep the rights they are granted in some states in others that don't recognize their Unions, regardless of the name.

[jsmirman]

37. I understand that it's not my cross to bear, but I really believe this way is the right way

The country is not ready for Gay Marriage.

We can go to the mat on it, let them steal the election by pandering to hatred, lose, and then watch things get much, much worse.

Our greatest ally is education. The Republicans don't want an educated populace, because they know it will sound the death knell for their party as currently constituted. Under a Republican administration, Education will suffer. Democrats like Barack actually WANT to see the education system improve from its currently disastrous levels.

More educated people in this country = a country that will finally be ready for Gay Marriage.

But trying to be willfully obtuse and jam a square peg into a non-existent hole- that's just not good thinking. The cart cannot go in front of the horse on this one. Feed the horse.

[Solon]

39. To make a comparison Interracial Marriages didn't obtain majority support until the 1990s...

Anti-Miscegenation laws were struck down in the 1960s, that's thirty years of interracial marriages being legal, but not obtaining majority support within the country. Same-Sex marriage, I believe, is following the same route, notice that in the two states its been recognized in, it was in response to rulings by the courts, I think this will be expanded to the Supreme court a hell of a lot sooner than trying to convince the majority that they should vote for it. Marriage wasn't voted on back then, and it shouldn't be voted on now.

[jsmirman]

52. I think two states is a woeful minority

it's also WAY more socially acceptable to be anti-same sex marriages than it was to be anti-miscegenation. Even if the anti-miscegenation people were comfortable in their own communities, even they knew the issue wouldn't play on the national stage. There is a socially acceptable position to being anti-same sex marriage. You heard it from both candidates last night (sort of, I have no fucking clue exactly what it was that she said).

But I don't think it's a fair comparison.

I don't think you're being realistic about what the movers behind this and the courts would be moving against right now.

The voice politic was ready for interracial marriages back then - it is not ready for same sex marriages right now. The Court VERY rarely will go where the people are not willing to go. I think you are way too optimistic that the court will change on this in the immediate future and I think that if we were to lose this election, that court wouldn't change on that in my lifetime. They would make things much, much worse.

[Solon]

54. Uhm, back then, people were debating whether blacks had the right to even be allowed to live...

in the same neighborhoods as whites. The body politic of the time was extremely racist, even most anti-segregationists were against inter-racial marriages.

The only reason why those who supported anti-miscegenation laws were slightly less outspoken for 30 years or so was because it wasn't useful in partisan politics to be either for or against inter-racial marriages.

[jsmirman]

62. You know what, I wasn't around then, so maybe you're right

I don't think a platform advocating that as a campaign issue would have played well in the North, but maybe I'm wrong.

I know much more about the Civil Rights struggle in the South than I do about what was really happening up north. I guess when I think about it, we just don't study that part of things much. I know some of the history of NY state on this issue, but that's about it.

[Solon]

64. The North was just as segregationist as the South, it just wasn't codified into law...

It was more cultural than legal, and voter suppression tactics weren't as endemic either.

[jsmirman]

74. I guess I still think there is a difference between views people are publicly embarrassed to hold

and views that socially conscious individuals can hold and feel perfectly comfortable with (there is the whole issue of the bible being the back stop in contrast to just a heritage of racism, which I think is a real issue, but I deleted a paragraph on that).

Was white racism in the north back then a quiet, underlying reality of life or was it more open than I realize?

[Solon]

76. Well, I live in a border state, so I'm not sure, and I didn't live back then...

But I did research it extensively. Look up what happened in Boston during forced busing, or in Chicago as well, a lot of racism and segregation in both cities, and these are Northern cities as well. It was also really out in the open, its only more recently, since the 1980s or so, that racism sort of sat on the back burner, still simmering, but not boiling over, and that's only true in a general context, some areas still had open racism.

[jsmirman]

78. Let me just stick to one comment-

Boston. Come on, it's Boston. One of the most openly racist cities of the modern era. Boston people admit that racism in Boston is off the charts.

I'm guessing it's probably a pretty varied picture - I mean, look, there are certainly communities in my home state that are openly racist - I just wonder what the breakdown of that picture really was.

I do think you've made me realize something I had never really thought about - it is a disservice how little we teach about the Northern response to desegregation, at least in New York schools.

[Skidmore]

38. My husband and I were married in a civil ceremony by a JP, not a

religious one. My first husband and I had a church ceremony, followed by 20 years of soul-crunching pain. The civil ceremony serves the same purpose. I don't need the church to bless my very human relationship.

[DevonRex]

41. Fine with me. We had a civil ceremony. The Catholic Church

doesn't recognize it. I don't care. If the title across my certificate said Certificate of Civil Union or Certificate of Civil Marriage it wouldn't make any difference to me. I'd still say I was married either way. And the state sure as heck shouldn't care if you had some minister issue some other symbolic document because it's the state's document that is legal.

If a person needs a church-signed document, let them go to the church to get one, in ADDITION to the government-issued certificate.

No big whoop.

[Solon]

44. Ugh, again, this isn't the point, its not a "big whoop" to you, but it would be for the majority...

of people in this country.

Aww, fuck it, this thread seems to have passed over EVERYONE'S head. Never mind.

[DevonRex]

47. Really, I understand what you're saying. I just think that those people

can go to a church and get a "Marriage Certificate" signed by their priest or minister or whatever, in ADDITION to the legally binding state document.

Since they're so religious and all, I'm sure that's what they'll do anyway.

I think we MUST try to get it into people's heads that we DO have separation of church and state and that the state does NOT cower to churches in legal matters.

[Solon]

50. Most people in this country care about what's on the legally binding document...

that's the ENTIRE point of this thread, as most people in this thread have illustrated, they don't care what's on the license. My point, as it were, was that a LOT of people, the majority of people in this country DO care. Hence the reason why supporting taking "Marriage" off of the certificate is a foolhardy endeavor.

[Pithlet]

56. I think the problem is that people are confusing religion with marriage.

Marriage is not a religious institution. True, most people in our country imbue a religious theme into their wedding ceremonies, because a majority of people in our country are religious. But, that does not make marriage a religious institution. The government IS in the marriage business, and has been for years and years, because marriage has been the social construct for couples to bond permanently for hundreds of years, whatever their religion or lack of religion. That is why the civil union argument is wrong. I wouldn't be satisfied with it. I'm married. I don't expect anyone else to be satisfied with it, either.

[Solon]

58. Exactly, for some people, the terminology isn't a big deal...

but for most people in this country, Gay or Straight, the terminology is all that matters, whether it brings about equal rights or not.

[Pithlet]

67. Yep. Words have meaning.

We would never in a million years get something like that passed. People want that certificate to say "Marriage". Progress is sometimes maddeningly and painfully slow, but I do believe we'll get to a point where we have equal rights where marriage is concerned. It will happen someday. This argument for Civil Unions for all is a dead end, and doesn't help the cause IMO. Your OP and posts in this matter are dead on.

[jsmirman]

77. Wait - are you religious at all?

Because it is NOT just a religious theme. It certainly isn't, at least, in my religion. I think there are two parallel forms of recognition that exist here, but to dismiss the religious side of it as just a theme seems at odds with reality.

[Pithlet]

80. Not religious in the least.

I'm speaking strictly from a separation of church and state viewpoint. Marriage as the government performs it is strictly non-religious. When I look at my marriage certificate, God and religion is mentioned nowhere on it. That is indeed reality. It's also been the reality that marriage has been the sole construct for bonding couples across the board no matter what religion a person ascribes to, or whether they ascribe to one at all. People then choose what religious meaning they themselves want to ascribe to their union.

[jsmirman]

84. I think you're underinformed here

Marriage has a specific construct in our governmental and legal systems, yes. What you walked away from your marriage ceremony may have had nothing about religion mixed in, but that is you. In the Jewish religion, we sign a religious marriage contract and certainly, the Catholic religious side of entering into a marriage is a very serious one.

What you said is indeed ONE reality. It happens to be the reality that is tied up with the issue of and possibilities of civil unions, actually. And people do not just choose what religious meaning they ascribe. As members of a faith, their RELIGION chooses to ascribe what meaning goes along with the commitment.

And marriage has been the sole construct where? In American history? World history? What are we talking about here?

[Pithlet]

95. In American history. This is GDP, here.

Marriage has been a state run business since the beginning of American history. I'm underinformed? Reality is reality. This isn't some meta discussion board, here. It isn't just me. The state doesn't inject religion into it for anyone. It is a civil contract, referred to as marriage. Period. You aren't any more legally married than I am simply because you belong to an organized religion. Your marriage is no more legally binding than mine is. You aren't extra special married. Certainly, as a member of a formal religion, you may have had a religious leader sign your certificate, but that was your choice, and it doesn't confer any special legal rights. Your reality is my reality in that department, I'm afraid.

[jsmirman]

100. Ugh, you made a silly statement about religion, and then you admitted

that you're thoroughly non-religious. It's this type of dismissive attitude towards religion that has threatened to marginalize our party over the last decades.

Marriage- as to its rights, obligations, and legal constructs has been a state run issue. Which happens to be the part that is supposed to be equalized under effective civil unions.

I am not making an argument either way in terms of whether this should make it satisfactory or not - and by the way, geez, don't be such a prickly ***** about that, so you are underinformed on one thing, so what- I wasn't trying to be rude there, just suggesting that there may be an area that you're missing something on.

Where in the world did I say anyone is more legally married via religion? What would make you put that thought into what I wrote? That's the whole point - LEGAL marriage is entirely state run. And there are two parallel contracts going on- the one you make in the eyes of the state and the one you make in the eyes of your religion.

My commentary is that simply dismissing the Marriage concept and contract of a religion is not proper. That has nothing to do with any legal rights.

You're trying to make this non-meta, but the fact is that it is this parallel system of marriage that presents the whole problem. It means two different things in the two different systems, but unfortunately, we're stuck with the same word. And because the word has all the weight and connections, etc. in the religious context, that stuff gets dragged into the debate about LEGAL marriage.

Your unnecessarily assy answer aside, this appears to be the crux of the issue. If they just called it "Grokking," this legal thing we've entered into via the state for all of our history, and the religious thing was called Marriage, would we have a problem?

[Pithlet]

101. Whoa.... What silly statement about religion did I make?

Methinks you must have misread something I said. My sole point all along has been that marriage *as it relates to the state* is not a religious matter. How on earth is that a silly statement about religion??????? How am I dismissive toward religion?(There aren't enough questionmarks)

I'm sorry, but I took your "two realities" comment to mean that in thinking that my marriage was less valid, because that was in response to my statement that my certificate didn't allude to any religion. Now I see what you meant, but I still disagree. Some people want to drag the religious aspect of marriage into the debate because they're using religion as an excuse to discriminate. That still doesn't make marriage a religious institution when we're talking about legal rights. Sorry, but it doesn't. If you want to take that as a silly, dismissive statement, then I don't know what to say. You want to bring religion into the discussion. The fact that I'm making the point that it doesn't belong doesn't mean I have no personal regard for religion. Just because I happen to be atheist doesn't mean I'm anti-religion. But we're talking about legal rights, here. Please don't assume I'm one of those "angry atheists" who thinks religious people are morons or something. Believe me, I'm not.

There are some who think that the only way to win is to give the term solely over to the bigots who are using religion as a weapon. Let's just make it civil unions for everyone, they say. Well, for all the reasons I've outlined, I'm against it. Why give in to them?

[jsmirman]

105. Just reread what you said - I quoted it for you:

"Marriage is not a religious institution. True, most people in our country imbue a religious theme into their wedding ceremonies, because a majority of people in our country are religious. But, that does not make marriage a religious institution. The government IS in the marriage business, and has been for years and years, because marriage has been the social construct for couples to bond permanently for hundreds of years, whatever their religion or lack of religion."

It sounds as though you just meant to include a number of specifiers in there that were left out. Because Marriage IS a religious institution. LEGAL marriage is NOT a religious institution. I guess that's what you were trying to say, but I think you can see how that would be very hard for someone to guess at reading what you first wrote.

I think that honestly - for many people - what exists is not just an excuse to drag religion into the debate. The unfortunate exact sameness of the word is an actual hurdle for them to clear. I think you and we might get further by realizing that it is a legitimate problem for these people, that many of them may be seeking an internal way to rationally accomodate. I am not all that religious, but religious enough that it has *some* role in my life and religious enough to know about my religion. For my part, I don't care if GLBTs want to be "married". It won't make my eventual marriage any more or less ANYTHING. But I'm not that religious.

I don't think the bigots you refer to could get their heads around civil unions for everyone in a million years, btw. Like I said, I'm for civil unions first, marriages later. The statistics that will become available from GLBT civil unions will be the most compelling argument that can be made. And THAT sort of thing is actually the sort of thing the Court DOES respond to.

[Pithlet]

108. Sorry. But I stand by what I said.

"Because Marriage IS a religious institution. LEGAL marriage is NOT a religious institution." No, I most certainly did not mean to say this. Because it's wrong. There aren't two separate institutions, here. Do you realize how insulting that is to me? It sounds like "There's the real marriage that religious people do, and then that legal technicality that YOU do". I can see no other reason to insist it's two separate institutions. So, it does indeed seem that I did originally interpret your meaning correctly. Ugh. And that's EXACTLY why I'm against the whole civil union falderal. That attitude, right there. You're not really married, because you didn't do the religious part, so we aren't going to call it marriage anymore.

And I still don't see how my view lessens religion any less. I'm going to a religious wedding cerimony next weekend. I'm sure this lovely couple fully plans to follow the tenets of their faith in their marriage, and they intend to incorporate those tenets into their wedding cerimomy. And it will be beautiful. But they're married in exactly the same way that my husband and I are. They will be a married couple, just like he and I are. It's the same institution. That's not a silly dismissal of religion on my part.

[jsmirman]

112. That's just ridiculous

I guess I can see how you're reading it this way, but it sure seems like it's because you have an axe to grind. Marriage could also be a surfer's institution. Or an institution among oenophiles. In no way am I saying it is superior to legal marriage, and you're just choosing to read it like that.

There are many institutions in a religion. Marriage is one of them. Deference to elders, say, could be another one of them.

I'm not indicating that there is any such thing as MARRIAGE and marriage - I'm only pointing out that an idea of marriage and a meaning of a concept marriage exists within religions. And that causes a problem.

Try to realize that *you* are the one who assumed that I was indicating one was superior to the other and that this was a big and unfair assumption.

The way I'm describing it, there could be six, fifteen, or three hundred organized groups that had a concept of "marriage" that was important to them. The religions of the world happen to be a few of those in this system I'm describing, and they happen to have a lot of members. You misread me badly.

[Pithlet]

113. How was it unfair, when you came right in swinging at me

and claimed I was making a silly assumption about religion? That put me right on the defensive, and you have to admit, understandably so.

Look, this is a discussion about marriage as it pertains to legal rights. I don't get the point you're trying to make, here. Yeah, plenty of people have lots of different notions about marriage. So what? There's marriage. Two people get married. They're a married couple, and the state gives them legal rights that they're entitled to, and religion doesn't factor into it there. One institution. It doesn't matter how religious they are; if they didn't do it through the state, then they're not married. So, you're wrong. One institution. You come in and start talking about, Well, there's this kind of marriage for religious people, and then the technical kind... then really, what is the point of that, except to muddy the waters, especially when we're talking about equal rights. Really, it was confusing. I apologize if I misunderstood, but really, I'm not sure how else I was supposed to read it.

[jsmirman]

116. Reread what you said, though - you said marriage is not a religious institution

that statement - with no qualifier - just isn't correct.

There is such a thing a marriage in the eyes of a religion, it's an institution of that culture/community and there's nothing superior or inferior about it to the legal kind. If anything - well, certainly in the eyes of the court and in other aspects of American life, it's inferior. But all I'm suggesting is that it exists and it's different.

As to why am I bringing this up? I've said this a few times already, but the point I am making is that it is precisely because there are these two different things and they have the exact same name, there are people out there who are very hung up on *legal* marriage.

THE WATERS ARE MUDDIED! THAT IS THE POINT! *THAT* IS REALITY!

We seem to be talking in circles now, though, so either you'll see what I'm trying to say this time, or let's just give up.

[Pithlet]

119. It is correct. Sorry.

If you were right, then people could get religiously married, and wouldn't have to go through the state. But, they don't do that, do they? How many people have you known throughout your life that got married through their church, but not through the state? Most organized religions that perform wedding ceremonies, in fact, are actually licensed through the state to perform their ceremonies, aren't they? If not most, than many. Yes, most religions have very specific ideas on marriage. That is absolutely true. Many look upon marriage as a religious matter. Very true. But that doesn't make marriage their own. It doesn't make marriage itself a religious institution. Not because they say so. Not because you say so. So, yes. Let's just give it up. The view that marriage is religious is just a byproduct of how dominant religion is in this country. You probably see marriage as religious because this is such a religious country and the majority here are religious. There aren't a lot of people who get married who aren't. Therefore, marriage must be religious.

For the most part, people who view marriage as primarily a religious institution are more likely to view my union as less than if I tell them of my beliefs and they learn we didn't have a church wedding. You may claim it doesn't in yours. If you say so, then I believe you. But, trust me when I say that a lot of people don't see it that way. When you agree with them that marriage is a religious institution, and the legal aspect is a magically separate institution somehow, then it gives credence to their belief that my marriage is less than theirs. I just did it the civil way, but I didn't do it all the way.

[jsmirman]

122. I'm telling you, we're just talking past each other

maybe someone else can step in and assist. I have to go out, what with the whole not being married and all thing.

I still think you have a crucial part of my contention completely backwards, but maybe it will get cleared up some other time.

[Pithlet]

48. Don't worry. Not everyone.

I got it. I know, it's maddening. I get sick of that civil unions argument, too, because it's an argument for inequality. But it's never a wasted effort to fight it whenever you see it.

[CTyankee]

51. Altho I have a "marriage license" I feel like I have a Civil Union and that's just fine withme!

This marriage thing is stupid. If you want to have a religious marriage, fine. Just don't force every American to do this. Have a civil union and then have your marriage in a religious ceremony and that's that.

Good lord, what is the problem?

[Solon]

53. *SWOOSH!*

That's the point of this thread, flying right over your head.

[CTyankee]

59. I prolly should have added that I agree that civil unions should have the protections and privileges

that marriages have now. My mistake and sorry. It is absolutely true that marriage confers better benefits at many governmental levels.

I was griping that we shouldn't even HAVE this difference between the two, civil unions and marriages. To me, a hetero, it doesn't matter one bit. It is fine and as a supporter of civil rights I of course support the rights of gay couples.

So I have been as up front as possible with you.

OK?

[Solon]

63. And again, *SWOOSH*...

I start a thread basically saying that the position of "Civil Unions for all" is basically bullshit, and would never pass in this country, and a bunch of people basically said "I have no problem with it" as if THAT mattered. A discussion of tactics, totally going over people's heads. My point is that you would more likely be able to pass MARRIAGE Equality in this country than relabeling Marriage as Civil Unions in a legal context.

[CTyankee]

72. Hey, don't overdo this with ME! I get it, totally. I am fine with your idea too.

My political sense tells me that not everybody is in tune with your point, even tho I certainly see that and have no objection.

The fact of the matter is that "marriage" means something a lot different from people other than you and me and we can't really change that, can we? It would be nice, of course, but then so would a lot of other things we'd like to change, right?

C'mon. We're on the same wave length. You catch more flies with honey...remember...?

[CTyankee]

85. AND, one other thing. I believe in separation of church and state.

OK?

[Solon]

90. And what does that have to do with this argument?

Marriage isn't a religious institution, its practice predates the existence of most major religions today, including Christianity, and for a long time after Christianity was established, the Church refused to perform marriages. It wasn't until the Victorian era that Weddings really became as big as they are today, it was only romanticized relatively recently.

[CTyankee]

132. Marriage is a sacrament in the Roman Catholic Church, I believe.

FWIW, most people consider marriage a religious act. That the government gets involved in this at that level is, to me, overstepping into the private realm of religion. Why else is the idea of gays getting married such anathema to the religious right?

[krkaufman]

66. I'm against it. I don't want to be married *or* civil unioned. n/t

[quakerboy]

68. I am curious

How do you feel toward those of us who would be for abolishing Marriage completely and moving to Civil Unions for everyone, GLTB or straight? Setting aside the whole could we get the country to agree to it practicality thing?

[Solon]

75. I'm for it, technically...

Considering that, for myself, it doesn't matter to me, if I end up signing a Civil Union license with my wife, as long as its legally binding, nothing else matters. But, on a practical level, I know this will never fly with so called "middle America" hence why I'm against advocating for it. Besides all that, why is it so important to get rid of the word Marriage when, on a legal level, nothing would really change?

[quakerboy]

86. My experience is that it does matter.

I spent 4 very contentious years at an Evangelical Fundie Oriented college. This is one issue that came up over and over, given how crazy they are in their opposition to gay marriage. And it is one issue where I regularly won the argument(winning as defined by convincing people, not merely having the more sane and humane idea).

My take of it is that it is an issue where those of us caring about Civil Rights for all can not just fight for them, but even tap into the rather frenetic energy of the Christian Right and use it for our own purposes. What did it for me was tying it to Church/State. They are all for the church controlling state issues, and make no bones about it. But when the state controls a church, boy do they get worked up. They have been chafing at this IRS/Apolitical thing that got challenged a few days back for a long time. But I pointed out that they were stuck with what the government decides about marriage. And that was enough to bring otherwise hateful "Christians" to believe that we should only have Civil Unions. I think that, with some work and a the right political environment, the right arguments, it is a winnable issue. Even with "Middle America".

Then, from my own experience, once you separate the issues of marriage and a legal union, a lot of the urgency to oppose GLTB unions leaves the argument.

I do think that it is a winning direction. I would prefer not to have to do it in 2 parts, but the energy and hate I have seen there is incredible, and I do not know how it can be directly beaten with this country the way it is.

[Solon]

88. But most of those arguments boil down to having civil unions that are SEPARATE from Marriage...

not replacing marriage.

[quakerboy]

109. And that is where I

jump off their Bus. I think it should be civil union across the board. Marriage should be about as legally meaningfully as First Communion, Bat mitzvah, or Ramadan.

I am not saying that there is any easy way to do this. But I think with the right energy, it could be done in a few years, instead of endlessly argued. But I tend toward the pessimistic when it comes to getting the American people to agree to what makes the most sense.

[Solon]

117. See, that's where I diverge from you, I don't see it happening, ever....

I see no chance in the American people agreeing with that. From what I observe, they place great emphasis on Marriage, even those who aren't that religious, and only go to church for Weddings and Funerals place great emphasis on it. I find this whole "Civil Unions for all" advocacy as a delay tactic, personally.

Frankly, I think we will have better luck going the court route, at least there, all that would need to be done is to force all states to recognize marriages from California and Massachusetts and force the federal government to recognize them as well. This can be done relatively rapidly if DOMA is abolished, and then we wouldn't have to worry about "convincing the people" but rather just make sure the equal rights exist first, then worry about the people's attitude later. Kinda like how interracial marriages were handled.

[quakerboy]

120. You may be right

the court route is more likely than a straightforward popular vote, I think. But I don't see that happening with the courts current makeup.

I don't think the American people will agree spontaneously. I do think that if it were Rove(or someone with the Cold diabolicism that we often ascribe to him) directing, he could manage to harness the Christian right to make it happen, simultaneously accomplishing our goals and getting them to shoot themselves in the foot.

And to be honest, I really like getting people I don't like to shoot themselves in the feet.

[chicagoexpat]

73. I'm voting Democratic because the GOP says

its the Democrats who promote homosexuality

I can't compete in the clubs as it is, I want to be the last straight man left

[Undercurrent]

79. I'm heterosexual and have entered into a civil union twice.

It does appear that to most folks the word marriage implies something more than a civil union. To me it doesn't. I've never had a marriage in that "traditional" sense. No ceremony. Religious or otherwise. We took out a license, and signed papers along with a justice of the peace.

The civil union is the part that give each partner rights, and is the part that is dissolved in a divorce. So in that aspect, all marriages are civil unions whether you call it a marriage or not.

That said, I do absolutely think that all states should recognize a civil union between same sex people in the exact same way they do between people of the opposite sex. The sates of Washington, and Texas recognized my civil unions, so it is only logical, and right that they should for a gay, or lesbian couples too.

[moriah]

81. That's why I said what I believe about it *is* controversial.

I know that many people wouldn't accept it.

We gave up "separate but equal" in regard to public schools. It's flat unconstitutional to say that there has to be a separate term for a same-sex union. So it's either all are "married", or all are in "civil unions".

As for heterosexuals accepting it.... I am heterosexual. And if civil union status is ever recognized, I will likely seek that out instead of marriage if there is still any legal difference between the two. But that is mainly a solidarity thing.

So many people are so upset about the idea of "marriage" being corrupted (as if a committed long-term relationship between two consenting adults is something dirty that could actually corrupt something) that if they don't want the term "marriage" to be used, they ought to be happy with the idea of letting their church say they are married, and why should they care what the government says?

But I still firmly believe that neither federal or state government has any business defining marriage.

[vanderBeth]

82. That's how it's done in other countries.

I don't know why it isn't valid to compare. The legal term should be civil union. You're "married" if it was done by a church.

[Hepburn]

83. I am a retired atty and I did family law for a very long time.

Frankly, there is no difference in California on how civil unions and marriages are treated. The only difference between the two is that one ~~ marriage ~~ has a religious flavor and a civil union is strictly a civil contract. It should be noted that a marriage under the law is merely a civil contract as well which civil contract has beeen blessed ~~ what the hell ever that is ~~ by the authority of some religious organization.

What both of these contracts do is alter the civil relationships between two persons who prior to the agreement were not related in law in any manner ~~ both benefit and burden flow from that agreement.

I personally if I were to remarry ~~ long-time widow here who had what I consider the perfect husband and who currently has no interest of any nature in getting married again ~~ I would opt for a civil union over a marriage. I am straight, but in my state, California, I could opt for a marriage or a civil union. However, I am NOT interested in any manner whatsoever in having some religion sanction what I would feel is the ultimate important relationship in my life. It is MY opinion that counts ~~ fuck any organized religion and their need to fucking approve of who I think is important in my life. I do NOT need that entity to pass judgment on MY relationships. What I do want and would want is for the "state" to recognize that I have a formal, enforceable legal relationship which allows for this significant other in my life to have a legally very important place in my life.

JMHO

[Goblinmonger]

89. And Biden made it clear that his stance is

that there would be no legal or constitutional difference between heterosexual and same sex unions. You can call it whatever you want but if there is no difference, there is no difference.

And he got Palin to agree with is position, which I'm sure caused hundreds of strokes in the religious right.

[Hepburn]

106. Both marriage and civil union should be available to ALL couples...PERIOD.

If a couple wishes to have a religious blessing of the union, that is up to the religious organization...the state cannot be involved in this for the obvious First Amendment reasons.

IMO, if two people wish to make a commitment to each other, that is a good thing. I could not care less what the terms are ~~ marriage, civil union, whatever ~~ it is just necessary IMO that all legal relationships between consenting, non-related adults are open to all persons and, further, all these relationships are treated EQUALLY. Gay persons do NOT wish to have BETTER rights ~~ all they are looking for are EQUAL rights.

If two people wish to make a commitment ~~ that it is a very good thing which has IMO a stablilizing effect on society. The freaking religous nutcases need to butt out of what is essentially a contract granted by the power of the state. It is NONE of their business what the state decides to do...because it does NOT effect any contract of a similar nature which they may wish to make!

:hi:

As to Palin...IMO, she had NO clue that she may have agreed to ANYTHING!

[Goblinmonger]

110. I agree with you completely

and I think that is what Biden was saying as well.

[Solon]

115. And again, that's in an ideal world, not our real life one...

In the real world, in the United States, we have Civil Marriage Certificates and then, if you want, an optional marriage ceremony, whether religious or secular. Will the majority of people in this country support abolishing the Marriage Certificates and replacing them with Civil Union Certificates?

[kestrel91316]

92. The legal contract between couples, regardless of orientation,

should be called a CIVIL UNION. If anybody wants a church wedding or other religious ceremony that results in a MARRIAGE, they can find a clergy to MARRY them. Lots of churches will marry gays.

No one should be under any obligation to have their civil union made into a marriage (solemnized, as it's called). The full legal rights should be associated with the CIVIL UNION, and the MARRIAGE should be a purely spiritual/religious matter. Separation of church and state.

[Solon]

94. Marriage isn't strictly a religious institution, never was, so I don't understand...

why separation of church and state would matter. Marriages can be performed in courthouses and are just as valid legally as marriages performed in churches.

[kestrel91316]

134. There's the matter of getting the marriage license from the STATE,

and that is separate from getting the marriage "solemnized" by clergy. It has been a two-step proces for at least 100 years.

I don't think anyone should have to involve a church or clergy in any way in order to be legally united. If the fundies want their frickin' "marriage", let them have it. But everybody should then know that it is a purely religious thing with no legal standing on its own.

No one should be barred from entering into what we now call legal marriage because of sexual orientation or color or religion. Clergy and churches should have NOTHING to do with people entering into this legal arrangement.

[faithfulcitizen]

96. I do, soon.

[chiefofclarinet]

98. Are you asking for ALL heterosexuals to accept it, or just a majority?

If you mean a majority would not be happy with a civil union, then you might be right. There might be a severe backlash against removing marriage from the document and replacing it with civil union. There might not be as well. Personally, I don't give a damn what you call it; I just want the woman I want to spend the rest of life with (once I find her...) and I to have the benefits of a heterosexual marriage. (I'm a heterosexual male, by the way.)

If you want all heterosexuals to accept universal civil unions, then you have a long time of waiting. Some people in this country want the United States to send all non-white, non-Protestant, non-straight people away (or be killed). They want to force-feed us what they believe to be true. They will not allow a "God-given right" like marriage to be "taken away." We should not wait for these bigots to go away, because, unfortunately, they never will.

Frankly, neither way will be a smooth going. However, and this is just my opinion, universal civil unions will go over with less friction than gay marriage. "Separate but equal" civil unions will have even less friction, but from a civil rights point of view, that isn't anywhere near enough.

I do agree the best way to solve the problem is taking it to the Supreme Court, which I hope Obama stocks with progressive and forward-thinking judges. This will make the issue a moot point. But, until then, the bigots will not allow us to get much of anything on this issue.

[TheKentuckian]

102. In all likelihood Obama's court appointments would simply maintain the balance we have now.

The Reich Wingers are relatively young. The lower courts are in horrible shape.

Carefully coded civil unions are the only short term solution and the whole concept needs to be reexamined marriage/civil unions whatever you want to call it currently give special legal protections based on associations. The special status give preference to couples versus singles, that's not equal protection under the law. I think its social engineering bullshit on all counts. Unions and the rights conferred ought to be wide open or no rights should be conferred.

[progressivebydesign]

103. Divide and conquer is working well on DU tonight. How many threads do we have today on this?

The Dems continue to shoot themselves in the foot because they are so one-issue obessed.

Fine. We get it. Many of us are gay here, many have close friends and family who are gay. Many of us are Democrats because one of the things they stand for is equal rights.

But someone went off on a tangent today because they didn't like what Biden said about gay marriage, and suddenly it's spread like a virus today.

If you have an issue with their stance on that.. then you might contact the campaign about it. If you think you can't support them now because of this ONE issue, then I wish you luck with the alternative. This shortsighted self-centeredness of Democrats always rears its ugly head. The infiltrators here on DU know exactly which issues will divide us, and I"m quite certain that they're enjoying their handiwork.

Are all these threads really appropriate for GD- P? Or have they jumped the shark and become something else entirely?

What is it exactly that all of these threads are trying to accomplish?

[Solon]

104. Well, my thread just went over your head as well.

Typical myopic DUers. :eyes:

[TheKentuckian]

111. Your thread didn't go over my head

I understand your stance. I simply do not agree.
Nor do I think this happens in a single step as desirable as that may be.

[Solon]

114. What don't you agree with?

Its my opinion that most heterosexuals in this country would not want their Marriages relabeled as Civil Unions, and would oppose that more than simply giving GLBT people equal rights in Marriage. Is there something I'm missing here?

[Canuckistanian]

121. Jumping through rhetorical hoops

We briefly flirted with the "Civil Union" BS in Canada before full rights were enacted.

Either you give Gays legal equality with married couples or you don't.

That's the bottom line.

[Solon]

125. Damn right!

Its need to be hammered through, somehow, either through the courts, or, if Obama channels a little bit of LBJ or FDR, by twisting arms, calling favors, committing blackmail, to get this thing through. I don't want us to wait until a majority of people support Marriage Equality, I want Marriage Equality to happen, then let's worry about whether people will be happy about it later.

[KittyWampus]

123. "Demoting"? LOL! It'd be changing the words on a piece of paper. This is the perfect solution

and other countries are perfect example of how it works.

Grow up.

[Solon]

126. Its a perception we would have to fight in this country, and it would be an uphill battle...

In this NATION Marriage > Civil Union, how do you plan to change that perception?

[Meshuga]

136. Do it like in Brazil, allow clergy to let people get their marriage before god

but don't make it an official union until these people go to court and sign the necessary paper. The rest is just semantics.

Non-religious people will not care to go to a court and get their union. Religious people can get their union before God and sign the union at the court house to get the privileges from the government.

[Egnever]

124. I couldnt care less what you call it.

[RhodaGrits]

127. Fine with me.

Marriage is a religious sacrament and the government has no business being involved and the churches and religious institutions have no business telling the government who can form civil partnerships.

Two adult humans should be able to apply for a license to form a civil union if so desired no matter what their gender or sexual orientation and a certificate of union after a civil or religious service forming the union would be issued by the government recognizing that union.

Separation of church and state. You don't like that the church won't let you get married, take it up with the Pope or change churches. The church I was raised in wouldn't marry a Christian and a Jew let alone a same sex couple, no way - no how. The government couldn't and shouldn't make them do it. I don't belong to that church anymore for that and many other reasons.

I believe people need rituals to honor the special and important occasions of our lives. But we don't need the government's permission to form them. All the government should do is grant us the rights to which we are entitled to as people under the Constitution. And that means ALL people - straight, GLBT, whatever.

And yes, this change would not only be acceptable - it would be preferable to this heterosexual woman. My GLBT friends should not be treated any differently - and that means that the law has to change in how we form these civil unions at their inception for ALL people.

[chicagoexpat]

128. Why do these selfish assholes vomit threads that are NOT RELATED to "PREz ELS? - take ur shit elswhr

[Solon]

129. OK dude, I have no fucking clue what you are on, but learn how to post, for Christ's sake...

oh, and this has nothing to do with the Presidential election, so learn how to fucking read. :eyes:

[chicagoexpat]

130. Buy a clue & figger out the world ain't centered around whatever u feel like today

THIS IS A PREX ELS FORUM, not ur own persononal DR. PHIL SHOW

[Solon]

131. How can it be self centered if it doesn't apply to me in the first place...

There, parse that post why don't ya?

[chicagoexpat]

137. u raised it -- why don't u go to the GOP & feel their welcoming embrace?

[Chan790]

133. I don't care what is acceptable to anybody...

I'm in favor of civil unions for everybody because I think it's the only legally-valid status into which the state should consider people joined; a proxy basis of the joining of rights between people. It strips all context and pretense out of why or whom is being joined. No implication of sex, nor desire to breed, or even cohabitation. Just two (or more. I'm in favor of civil poly-unions as well) people deciding that their interests are best served by combining forces, mutuality and shared privilege and rights.

Want to get hitched to your platonic best friend? Sure.
Business partner? Why not.
The two other people in your triad? Great.
Your roommate of the past 15 years? Okay.
The other parent of your children? Yes.
Your lover? Whatever you want.

The state should not be in the business of determining the legitimacy, context or content of anybody's relationship.

Edit: I forgot the person/reason most people get married. :dunce:

[Meshuga]

135. It is not a demotion

People can get a civil union from the state and get a wedding from a church, a synagogue, or an Evils in Vegas. If one need God for their unions and/or are so worried about semantics they can always pay the clergy to fill their need.