The reality is that in the eyes of the state. All Marriages are Civil Unions

[Perky]

They bind couples together in a legal compact assigning joint rights and responsibilities. They carry not a whit of sacramental meaning. The word "marriage" is used by the state by simple and historical convention,


The problem is that within the realm of religion "marriage" has spiritual meaning and the vows spoken and the commitments made are deeply spiritual (at least in the moment...tragic though that may be), Now I don't think for a second that my marriage or anyone elses is threatened by same sex marriage. I think for people of faith however, they perceive same sex marriage as encroachment not so much on their rights, but on the relevance of their faith in an increasingly secularized world. The problem is that they want the state to enforce special protections for what is a religious issue. Ultimately I think it springs less from being anti-gay, then it does from the same frame as Intelligent Design and School Prayer. the focus in all these instances is really about state acknowledgment of tribal relevance more than it is about anything else,

They perceive that they have no other institution to rely on for the protection of their "tribe".

It is not simply that they are anti-gay (because a good portion of those who voted yes on Prop 8 are not...thousgh most assuredly a good number were). It is that they concerned about losing relevance. The problem is that the state should not afford any special protections or rights based on religion. The religious should not demand that the state protect it. Sacramental protection and orthodoxy is the responsibly of ecclesiastical authority and they can only impose those sacraments, by whatever name, on its own adherents. They should not ask the state to impose it on non-adherents.


I think some who support Gay Marriage might be missing some of the context of what the religious sense about this, What would be the reaction if the state started performing other sacramental tasks? Baptism. Communion? Last Rites? To the religious, marriage is no different. Well the religious would be up in arms about it because it demeans the value of those sacraments and it has no business encroaching on the sacred. They make no distinction for marriage because for them it is the same fundamental issue. The state should not take away the religious distinctive of marriage to satisfy a special set of people desire for "equality" .

I personally think this is a battle over semantics. Gays don't like the words "civil union" because it seems second class. Religionists want to protect the word "marriage" because it carries for the religious, deeply spiritual and sacramental value.

Proponents need to be sensitive to the perception that the adamance on the semantic front seems to the religious to be intentionally destructive and demeaning to what they hold as sacred. It is perceived as scornful of the entire religious construct. Proponent The religious need to quite asking the state to enforce spiritual belief about marriage and religious understanding about homosexuality on those who do not share that construct.

Calling religious people 'anti-gay' and bigots is overly simplistic. The religious have to find a way to separate the sacred and the secular, but those who who advocate for equality needs to find a way to let them do it. That night be accomplished by emphasizing that what is being sought is "equality in the eyes of the state"

It is my perception that "Civil Unions" are acceptable to 75% of the population, it is the term "marriage" that is where the battle line is drawn.

Perhaps the only way to resolve this is call it "Secular Marriage". (which is really what we are talking about anyway, but it conveys "marriage in the eyes of the state". "Sacramental marriage" thus would be reserved to adherents of the sect. If a sect wants to allow gays to marry under their religious laws, that should be up to the sect without interference.

Any construction that does not contain the word "secular" as distinct from sacramental is a non-starter for many people of faith...just as "union" as distinct from "marriage" is a non-starter for proponents.

[crappyjazz]

1. So religious people are against anyone getting married at City Hall?

[KittyWampus]

8. Yes, in fact. When I first came up with the idea of Civil Unions for everybody, I found that Fundies

largely believe they shouldn't HAVE to go to Town Hall.

It's one of those things where two opposite sides of an issue go so far out from each other they bend back around and touch in a circle.

[Perky]

12. I think Opposotion to Civil Unions is limited to about 25% of the religious

They would arguie "slipper slope"


but the truth of it is that they seek to impose Levitical law on everybody which is pretty antithetical to the notiion of a "called out" people.

The rest of the religious are some where between "live and let live" and the view that they don't have the right to ompose their religious beliefs on anyone else and they certaily don't want the state to do their bidding.


They are far more practical where the sacred and profane spheres intersect.

[Blue Diadem]

27. Many of my DH's family didn't consider our civil ceremony

a real marriage. We were re-married in his Catholic church on our 1st anniversary. I thought it strange that they'd only acknowledge the religious event, even though that meant our baby was then born out of wedlock. We were married 34 yrs ago and about 4 yrs ago I was at his family reunion and noticed they still had us listed as being married on the church date, 1 yr later than our civil marriage.

My Mil went so far as to contact the newspaper and have them not publish our marriage license notice that always appears in the paper. I still don't know how she did that, we were both adults.

As I think back, even my best friend at the time, a devout Catholic, asked if I considered myself married with just a civil ceremony and why would I use the civil ceremony date as my wedding date.

[fizzgig]

2. i disagree that people who voted for prop 8 aren't anti-gay

they might not be in the open about it, they might say they 'tolerate' gays or have gay friends, but to vote for that hateful piece of legislation shows their true colors

[kennetha]

3. Well-reasoned

Here's a compromise based on your reasoning.

Let the churches have the term "marriage" and let the state keep the term "civil union.' The state could then "bless" all marriages as civil unions, but the church need not recognize the state's civil unions as "marriages.'

If you got married in a church, you would also have a state sanctioned civil union. If you got a civil union outside of a church, you would be in a state sanctioned civil union, but not in a church sanctioned marriage.


How would that work?

[skepticscott]

5. The Religious Reich would fight that tooth and nail

because that know that a lot of liberal churches would perform gay marriages, which would then be legal, and they would have no way to block or nullify that. Since they can't establish and control a state church, they want the only sanction for legal marriage to remain with civil authorities that they can intimidate and bully.

[KittyWampus]

7. You are wrong. Fundies believe TRUE marriage is performed by the Church and don't

even believe that people need to go to Town Hall.

They already make the distinction the Opening Poster points out.

[skepticscott]

28. The flaw in your argument is

that fundies believe that TRUE marriage is only performed by THEIR church, or other churches that are conservative enough to meet their approval. They will never in a million years go along with a law that will let any marriage performed in any recognized church be legal, because they know that UU or UCC churches (among others) would be able to legally sanction gay marriage. That's why you've never seen our country's right wing fundy nutballs push for a law saying that marriage should only be sanctionable by churches, and never will, even though it would be what they wanted if they had control of all the churches.

[RichardRay]

10. It should require two actions, the religious imprimatur

should be separate from the state's. Maybe some of the folks who do religious marriages could be licensed by the state to provide the union license if they applied and fulfilled the requirements, but the religious marriage is not automatically the union recognized by the state.

And, more importantly from my perspective, neither marriage nor union should provide any benefits that are not provided to single individuals - legal, financial or any other way. I fail to see why the state has any interest in promoting or supporting 'coupleness' in preference to those of us who are 'un orso' - committed solitaires.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

17. Amen.

If every American were guaranteed health care, for example, a lot of miserable loveless marriages could be dissolved.

Not only does the state promote the coupled state, it really pushes and rewards procreation while punishing those who remain childless. As a single person with no kids I qualify for practically no state aid of any kind if I fall into poverty. If I make $850 a month I don't qualify for Medicaid. It is eminently clear to me that I am viewed as worthless and expendible. Except when I do make money, in which case I'm seen as a source of taxes to subsidize families.

[RichardRay]

20. The company here I work just published a 'Total Compensation'

statement. Our revenue in the coming season is likely to be down seriously so they wanted to point out that although we're forgoing our raises this year things are better than we might see.

As a single guy with no children I receive benefit from a very limited number of the additional benefits the company provides, but I am not eligible to get any more money each week. I'm not seriously pissed about it, but it sure makes me grumpy.

[marimour]

19. Totally. People who "shack up" or stay single get nothing.

There is already the moral implications that man and woman have to be married to get these same rights, no matter whether they are in committed relationships.

[RichardRay]

21. Yep - absolutely NONE. n/t

[amyrose2712]

42. THANK YOU! Rarel y does anyone point out the

discrimination towards unmarried people.

[Pithlet]

30. Well I don't like it. I say screw that.

I'm an athiest/ agnotic, and I'm married. Why should that be taken away from me? I'm not civil unioned. I'm married. It doesn't belong to the religious. It never did. I say don't give it to them. It's not like they're going to roll over and say "Okay, the gays can get married now!" They're still going to fight it tooth and nail. Fuck them. I'm married and I plan on staying that way. Extend that civil right to all instead of muddying up things even further in an attempt to appease bigots that will have to be dragged kicking and screaming anyway.

[Perky]

34. Ease up.... I used the term "civil marriage" with good reason

[Pithlet]

39. Well, ease up. I wasn't responding to you. n/t

[Orsino]

49. Yeah. *No one* should have to give up the terminology.

And no one should be able to exclude other consenting adults from it, either.

[marimour]

4. i agree with a lot of this.

I have a grandmother who wold most likely be against gay "marriage" but would support civil unions in a heartbeat. Calling her a bigot would be ridiculous. She would go to the ceremony of her gay granddaughter and be just as proud as she would be at my "wedding". And she would absolutely want her to be able to raise a family, and want her to have the same parental, tax and legal rights as a straight person. Her view of marriage is deeply religious. I know the state performs marriages too but to her and many others, it is the ceremony that makes it a marriage, the certificate is just a signed piece of paper. She believes that you must take your vows before God (or another higher power) before it becomes a marriage. And I think that if civil unions with all legal rights was in place everywhere most people's minds would change and gay marriage would just come about naturally.

[crappyjazz]

9. What if some gay people would like to take their vows before god?

If you don't afford the same right to one group of human beings that you feel is fine for another, I'm sorry, but that makes you a bigot.

[Perky]

15. Are you talking about metaphysically or by clergy?

[RichardRay]

22. If they want an officiant just find one that will do it and have at it.

Nothing here is prohibiting religious marriage. I just want that part of it to have no standing whatsoever in the eyes of the state (and vice versa).

[Perky]

25. Well there is a legal requirement that people who want to bevome a union

have to have a "license" There a bllod tests and other requirements such as proof of age and consent. The state has some responsibilities to protect and document unions and be custodians of publi records. And most religious officints won't performa a ceremony withot the license in place.

[RichardRay]

26. As long as the union has no standing in the eyes of the state

then it doesn't really matter, does it?

[No Elephants]

23. I agree, but there are clergy who will marry gays "before god." I am not Catholic and no Catholic

priest is required to marry me. Are Catholic clergy bigoted against non-Catholics? Yep. So?

I don't think government should dictate to churches any more than I think churches should dictate to goverment. Separation of church and state either works both ways or it does not work at all.

[marimour]

24. You dont need a church to take your vows before god and there are churches that will do it.

When I get married it could be anywhere or with just the 2 of us but we will still take our vows. I doubt it will get married in a church and I don't care if its even a preacher that marries me. But I will promise before god to love and honor my husband. No one can prevent anyone, gay or straight from doing that.

[eridani]

51. No problem. There are quite a number of churches that would accommodate them

The fundies know that, and it pisses them off.

[KittyWampus]

6. Totally agree. Although I prefer Civil Unions for everybody and ditching the word Marriage

and leaving it for any form of Ceremony (ship captain, yoga instructor, beautician, priest, rabbi or whatever) that a couple wishes to have.

[suston96]

11. Religious officials performing marriages are generally licensed by the state.

So they in fact perform a religious ceremony and the civil union at the same time.

A civil contract is indeed signed at religious ceremonies mostly because of property or temporal rights. There may be other rights proceeding from such marriages or unions that would require state protection or governance. The principal right is equality of all individual rights affected by a marriage.

It follows that two (or more) people wanting to live together and share property and other material things can and should sign contracts validating such unions.

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

[Perky]

13. But the state provides the marriage license,

ANd the peice of peper is all that matters to the state. We got ours two weeks before the church ceremony. In the eyes of the state we were married then. Now of course I used that argument to try and get my wife into bed who was on on a pre-nuptual celibacy kick.....but it did not work. "But hun.... we are married already." lol

[Perky]

14. But the state provides the marriage license,

ANd the peice of peper is all that matters to the state. We got ours two weeks before the church ceremony. In the eyes of the state we were married then. Now of course I used that argument to try and get my wife into bed who was on on a pre-nuptual celibacy kick.....but it did not work. "But hun.... we are married already." lol

[No Elephants]

16. I don't care what you call it, as long as it is called the same for EVERYone. No one used the term

"civil unions" until gays wanted to get married. Heteros do not go to City Hall for a civil union license. "Holy matrimony" is the religious term, not "marriage," which can occur before an atheist J.P. or anywhere else. But, no one gives out a holy matrimony license either.

I am sick of semantic games on this. Whatever you call the license you issue a male and female, call it the same thing for a male and a male or a female amd a female. And let the churches do whatever they want. City Hall has no business worrying about what Our Lady of Whatever church calls anything and Our Lady of Whatever church has no business worrying about what City Hall calls anything.

[Moloch]

18. I agree with you 100%

Its too bad that so many in the gay community are so obsessed with semantics.

This gay man supports civil unions for everyone!

[Perky]

29. kicking for more dialog

[TexasObserver]

31. The reality is some citizens can marry and some cannot.

All these long winded rationalizations about civil unions, government, and religion miss the point.

It's a human right. It's a civil right.

Calling it a "civil union" for gays is like making black men answer to "boy."

[Pithlet]

33. Yes. What I was trying to say only so much better.

:thumbsup: It's not frigging semantics. I get more and more pissed every time I hear someone say that.

[Pithlet]

32. It is not a battle over semantics.

Marriage is not a religious union. It is a legal contract. That is a fact. That many people ascribe a religious meaning to it means nothing legally. It means nothing with regards to civil rights. I'll repeat those points again because they're that important. It means nothing legally. It means nothing with regards to civil rights. Got that? Good. That bigots want to erroneously use the argument that marriage is a religious union for some people as an argument to deny a group of people their civil rights means nothing legally. It means nothing with respect to civil rights. That anyone even wants to give them an inch on this infuriates me to no end. It is their problem. Not ours. I'm married. I'm not civil unioned. A group of people being denied their civil rights want to be married. They don't want to be civil unioned. AND IT'S NOT SEMANTICS. It's civil rights. You're not taking that away from me, and you're not taking that away from them because you're weak kneed for the fight. Neither are they because they're bigots. You want to argue that it's the only way we'll win the argument? I say bullshit. They'll be dragged kicking and screaming anyway.

[Perky]

36. "Marriage is not a religious union. It is a legal contract. That is a fact"

based on what?

And simply because you are an athiest/egnoistice.. does not give you the right to determine for others deeply held beliefs.

Who is taking anything away from you? Go back and read the OP.... I proposed the term Civil Marriage as opposed to Sacremental marriage or Holy Matrimony.


You object to the Term "Civil Marriage" on non-semantic reasons?

[Pithlet]

38. Based on the fact that it's a legal contract.

I's a binding legal contact upheld by the state, NOT by the church, that two people enter into. That's what I'm basing it on. I'm not determining anyone else's religious beliefs by stating so. People are free to believe whatever they wish. If they wish to imbue a religious meaning into their union, of course they are free to do so. But a church had absolutely nothing to do with my marriage, and I am no less married than anyone else. It was a legal contract I entered into to solidify legal rights with the partner I love and choose to live the rest of my life with. THAT'S what I'm basing it on. Are you going to argue with me about that? Are you going to tell me I'm any less married because religion had nothing to do with it? I hope not.

A marriage is a legal contract, and the fact is a group of people are being barred from entering into that contract and their civil rights are being violated because of it. We don't change what it's called to appease those who insist they be barred. That's the coward's way out, and it won't appease them anyway. They'll still insist those people be barred because it really isn't about the words anyway. It's about hate. They're only using the term marriage as a cop out. I'll concede that Civil Marriage doesn't sound as bad as Civil Union, but it's still stupid. It still won't change the fact that the GLBT community is having its civil rights violated, and I honestly don't think tacking on the word Civil will change the bigots' minds one bit anyway.

[Pithlet]

43. Look. The thing is

I understand what you're saying. The forces at work against gay marriage think they own the term marriage. My problem with that is, in addition to all the reason I've already mentioned in my above post, these type of people don't just think they own marriage. They think they own family values. They think they own America. They think they own patriotism. We don't give it to them. We liberals and progressives aren't going to stop calling ourselves Americans to make them feel better in order to win some battles, are we? Say, call ourselves Civil Residents? Or stop calling ourselves families. Start referring to our sons and daughters as Civil Offspring. All to make these people feel better and then maybe they'd throw us a bone? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Now maybe you can see why this sounds foolish to me. That's the argument I'm making. These people claim to own marriage, and family values, and America. But they don't. They don't. That's my point, Perky. Your argument is conceding to them. You can never concede to hate like that. If we even give them a tiny little bit of an inch on this, we lose, and we lose big. It's not just semantics.

[lib_wit_it]

52. Wow, Pithlet, great job hanging in there to make the point. I was

wavering, but this cinches it for me:

"these type of people don't just think they own marriage. They think they own family values. They think they own America. They think they own patriotism. We don't give it to them. We liberals and progressives aren't going to stop calling ourselves Americans to make them feel better in order to win some battles, are we? Say, call ourselves Civil Residents? Or stop calling ourselves families. Start referring to our sons and daughters as Civil Offspring. All to make these people feel better and then maybe they'd throw us a bone? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?"

Yes, it does.

If anyone needs to be reminded of where this thought can lead, read the article from which I grabbed these excerpts:

Backers of the proposition to ban same-sex marriage in the state cast their campaign in apocalyptic terms. “This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon,” born-again Watergate felon and Prison Fellowship Ministries founder Chuck Colson told the New York Times. Tony Perkins, the president of the Christian right’s most powerful Beltway lobbying outfit, Family Research Council, echoed Colson’s language. “It’s more important than the presidential election,” Perkins said of Prop 8. “We will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage.”

The campaign for Prop 8 has reaped massive funding from conservative backers across the country. Much of it comes from prominent donors like the Utah-based Church of Latter Day Saints and the Catholic conservative group, Knights of Columbus. Prop 8 has also received a boost from Elsa Broekhuizen, the widow of Michigan-based Christian backer Edgard Prince and the mother of Erik Prince, founder of the controversial mercenary firm, Blackwater.

While the Church of Latter Day Saints’ public role in Prop 8 has engendered a growing backlash from its more liberal members, and Broekhuizen’s involvement attracted some media attention, the extreme politics of Prop 8’s third largest private donor, Howard F. Ahmanson, reclusive heir to a banking fortune, have passed almost completely below the media’s radar. Ahmanson has donated $900,000 to the passage of Prop 8 so far.

Few Americans have heard of Ahmanson—and that's the way he likes it. He donates cash either out of his own pocket or through his unincorporated Fieldstead & Co. to avoid having to report the names of his grantees to the IRS. His Tourette's syndrome only adds to his mysterious persona, as his fear of speaking leads him to shun the media. While Ahmanson once resided in a mental institution in Kansas, he now occupies a position among the Christian right’s power pantheon as one of the movement’s most influential donors. During a 1985 interview with the Orange County Register, Ahmanson summarized his political agenda: “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.”

After graduating from Occidental College with poor marks, Ahmanson became drawn to a heavily politicized brand of Christianity that was growing popular in evangelical circles. He discovered the writings of a radical right-wing theologian whose family was massacred in the Armenian genocide, R.J. Rushdoony, Rushdoony’s book, The Politics of Guilt and Pity, in which the theologian mocked wealthy liberals, struck a particular chord with the young Ahmanson.

Calling for the literal application of all 613 laws described in the Book of Leviticus, Rushdoony paid special attention to punishments. Instead of serving prison sentences, criminals would be sentenced to indentured servitude, whipped, sold into slavery, or executed. “God's government prevails,” Rushdoony wrote, “and His alternatives are clear-cut: either men and nations obey His laws, or God invokes the death penalty against them.” Those eligible on Rushdoony’s long list for execution included disobedient children, unchaste women, apostates, blasphemers, practitioners of witchcraft, astrologers, adulterers, and, of course, anyone who engaged in “sodomy or homosexuality.”

Read the article here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-03/the-man-behind-proposition-8/1/

[Pithlet]

53. Thanks.

I was just checking in real quick. I'll check out that article in the link later. These people are indeed dangerous.

[yowzayowzayowza]

35. "What's in a name?

That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
..."

Rights are rights. I don't see where a label is worth delaying those rights.

[Deep13]

37. I am not going to pander to believers by pretending there is any reason to oppose gay marriage...

...beyond religious prejudice.

And I have a marriage, not a civil partnership. I never signed any contract or negotiated terms. I was married to my wife by a notary in a civil ceremony.

[nichomachus]

40. "Marriage is a civil contract" --Brigham Young

How come the freaking Mormons never mention that?

[tandot]

41. Gay people don't like "Civil Unions" not because it "seems second class" but

because Civil Unions do not offer the same legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities that a Marriage offers:

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

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.

[Perky]

44. and if those issues were overcome in the context of "civil Unions"?

That is all reference to marriage were by law extend to legal civil unions, would that assuage the concern?

I am not saying the legal morass is not daunting thing to clean up and the concerns on "equal standing" or not wholly legitmate. What I am asking is if a civil Uniion law were to nullify the diustinction would you be ok with "civil unions" being the legal framework by whis obligations and protections are entered into.

[tandot]

45. I am actually straight and married here in CA and I would be totally fine

if our marriage would be called a "civil union" if it has exactly the same rights and privileges than our marriage. We actually consider our marriage to be a "civil union" since we didn't have a religious ceremony.

My sister is a lesbian living with her long-term partner for over 10 years, raising her three grandkids.

[Left Is Write]

46. Simply put, "marriage" is not a word that belongs to religions.

They can claim it does, but it does not.

Marriage is a legal term. Baptism, communion, and Last Rites are not legal terms and they have no legal definition. Marriage is and does.

Millions of people in this country are married without benefit of any clergy or religious ceremony. They are still married. Why? Because marriage is a legal term.

[Perky]

50. I understand the argument and I think it is sound. The problem is that religious people

think is is sarcred , holy, mystical as well as legal,

The compromise of Civil Marriage and Holy Matimony/ Sacremantal Marriage allows the religious to keep what they cherish and affords people to be recognized as married in the eyes of the state and afforded the same rights as everyone esle,

[electron_blue]

47. but, but, but.... a civil union, as some states have for gays, is not the same as a marriage of an

atheistic couple. The atheistic couple (or any married couple) has more legal rights than the one with only the civil union.

You can be legally married with no religious ceremony whatsoever. You can have a civil union as well. But civil unions are not the same as marriages. MARRIAGES ARE NOT ALWAYS RELIGIOUS. And if they are not religious, they are not automatically civil unions. They are still marriages. One does not have to have the religous part to 'earn' the marriage title.

This is why I'm against civil unions. They do not have the same rights as marriages. It's time to make it clear to everyone that the religious do not "own" the word marriage.

[Orsino]

48. Well, it's *part* of The Reality, anyway.

We're fortunate that most legal interpretation doesn't rely on religion.