Terminology: "Gay marriage" vs. "civil union"

[philly_bob]

I hope that advocates of civil union will not insist on the label "marriage." It is the chief area of compromise with opponents. As long as we get the full set of rights, why not use the alternative wording?

It is a semantic difference only, isn't it?

Using "civil union" would defuse a lot of opposition.

(I'm new to the GLBT forum, so excuse me if this has been covered.)

[valerief]

1. Can't heteros have civil unions, too?

[KittyWampus]

3. Don't know, but it should be THE required legal method of joining households

while marriage ceremonies become an option outside the CIVIL legal system.

[MrModerate]

8. That would make sense, except that . . .

marriage as a social concept is deeply embedded in *all* cultures regardless of predominating religion or lack thereof. In that sense, it has more symbolic value than civil union, and hence a just society needs to allow granting of that benefit fairly.

Bottom line, marriage is a better social glue than a civil union, and should be favored by society.

[valerief]

10. Hey, so isn't racism, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to

unembed it.

[MrModerate]

11. I don't agree that racism and marriage are comparable . . .

concepts. They deal with entirely different areas of human experience with only incidental overlaps. Not to mention that, almost universally, marriage is considered by societies to be a good, while racism -- even if practiced by the majority -- is something of a guilty indulgence.

[KittyWampus]

13. tell that to the people in Rwanda or Darfur or Iraq or ....

'while racism -- even if practiced by the majority -- is something of a guilty indulgence'.

[MrModerate]

18. While I think I probably share your passion . . .

I don't buy your facts. Rwanda = manufactured tribalism (there was no significant genetic difference between the Hutu and the Tutsis); Darfur is an ethno-religious conflict, as is Iraq.

[valerief]

14. Ask any ex-husband if they think marriage is good. They'll laugh

like crazy. nt

[MrModerate]

19. How many ex-husbands eventually remarry?

Nearly all of them, I'll bet.

[valerief]

20. Hardly. Only if the guy is rich enough and woman is trophy enough. nt

[KittyWampus]

12. Sorry, but your commentary is BS. Marriage is now considered as a religious

ceremony. And religions are free to dictate those in their congregations who are able to be married. You going to FORCE the Catholic Church to allow gay marriages?

Further, there is no ceremony required of people who make business deals.


A Contract is a legal document. And any 2 citizens should be able to sign Civil Contracts allowing them to share CIVIL responsibilities and and benefits.

European cultures and traditions have been around longer then ours... and this is the situation in many EU countries.

[MrModerate]

17. Yes, but many non-religious people . . .

Actually *most* non-religious people -- strongly prefer marriage to civil unions for the reasons I cited in my original post. Sure, religions think they own marriage for their believers, but they don't for the rest of us.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. "Now considered" is irrelevant

In the United States, marriage is and always has been a civil institution. The First Amendment requires that it be such.

Personally, I think the best solution is to strip from ministers the limited notary power of officiating at a legal marriage. It is only a law that grants this power, and laws can be repealed. Give that power instead to notaries public, as is the case already in Florida and Maryland. If you want to have a religious ceremony, fine; but you will still need to hire a notary (or find a minister who is already a notary) if you want your religious ceremony to have any legal standing.

Problem solved.

[readmoreoften]

24. No one is trying to force a Catholic church to bless a civil marriage.

Your comments are fairly knee-jerk and ignorant on the issue. No one is trying to force churches to marry GLBT people. They can't even be forced to marry non-believers. Jews aren't welcome to marry in a Catholic church either? Should we ban Jewish people from getting married.

No church will be forced to perform a ceremony or bless a union that they don't want to bless.

My parents were married by a state official in their own home? Are they not a married couple because their marriage is secular? You try telling them that. Oh, and try telling that to the government.

[KittyWampus]

28. Knee Jerk? WTF? I am not the one obsessed with using the word MARRIAGE

to designate a CIVIL action.

Any two people who want to engage in a CIVIL matter such as signing a contract which legally joins their households should be able to call tha contract a CIVIL union.

[Creideiki]

26. Currently, no church is "required" to marry any heterosexual couple

Many churches refuse, such as the Roman Catholic Church, unless both in the couple are members of their church.

And what of the churches who want to have marriages for the gay members of their congregation? Should they be told that their religion isn't as important as the straight-marriage-only crowd? Is there a separation of church and state in this country, or what?

[KittyWampus]

29. That's my point. IF you want to go the marriage ceremony- find a place

that will do it.

MOST people see the word marriage as meaning BOTH the Civil AND religious acts.

Thus, you will ALWAYS have people objecting to using the word marriage in certain cases.

Therefore, it's easier to just let the word marriage ONLY mean the religious ceremony.

But to LEGALLY join households, everyone should be required to sign a CIVIL Union Contract.

This is so simple.

[Jamastiene]

31. I think marriage should be considered a religious ceremony and

a civil union should be the government's "official" consideration. If the government is defining marriage as between a man and a woman right now, how long will it be before they ammend that to add and women are expected to... and men are expected to... etc? The DOMA is a dangerous legal precedent, IMO. If I was a straight married woman, I'd be furious right about now thinking about the inevitable. If we give the government an inch on defining/dictating the definiton of our relationships in any way, they will take a thousand miles.

[philly_bob]

6. Hadn't thought of that.

Doesn't that depend on how they write the law, as they are doing in NJ?

If I was writing the law, the answer would be Yes.

So I guess heteros would have the choice of either a marriage or a civil union.

As a hetero, I'd go for the civil union as a protest against church and state meddling in private affairs ... and the whole gross wedding industry.

[HockeyMom]

32. They can have a Domestic Partnership

in New Jersey now if they are straight and over 62. Which brings me to my question, what is the difference between a Civil Union and a Domestic Partnership?

Personally, the government should just scrap "marriage" for everyone. Civil Union CONTRACTS for all and "marriage" ceremonies in houses of worship for those who want that.

Even if a particular church refuses to marry a couple, either for being gay or, as in the Catholic Church, divorced, they will still have that government contract and the benefits therein.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

34. NJ's domestic partner law also applies to gay people regardless of age.

My cousin and her partner are registered as DPs. In NJ, at least, the DP provides I believe only six of the 1000 or so "rights" that come with legal marriage.

Personally, I hope they legalize gay marriage, because in our society that is what we recognize as a fully committed couple. Seperate is not equal. If it was civil unions for straight people too, then that would be fine, but since it's not, I want gay marriage.

The law NJ is enacting would entitle same-sex couples all the rights of heterosexual marriage. The debate is whether to call it a civil union or marriage.

[KittyWampus]

2. States should stop marrying ALL citizens and provide contracts to couples

who wish to join households legally and share mutual responsibilies and liabilities.

ANY 2 people who want to join households should be required to go the courthouse and sign a contract.

Then afterwards, they should be free to have a marriage ceremony if they choose to or not.

It is so simple.

[annabanana]

7. ExATCly!!

The State has to get out of the "marriage" business completely. The certificates they dispense should ALL be for "civil unions". Whether or not couples go ahead and have them consecrated somehow would depend on them and their chosen church/synagogue/mosque/ashram.. whatever.

[mitchtv]

36. That is a view shared by Liberals,Conservatives,

It really is the only way to go. This year in CA we will be able to file joint state taxes.We have RDP's, registered domestic partners.

[soleft]

4. There is a third option

http://www.maariage.com/

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

5. Oh, here I thought separate but equal was already unconstitutional?

If you give rights, you give them equally to everybody. not Rights of One kind for one group and similar rights for another. Sorry. All or nothing.

And If that means no marriage by government and civil unions for all done by the government, fine with me.

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Marriage should remain the exclusive privilege of heterosexuals, right?

The difference between marriage and civil union is NOT a "semantic difference." There are more than three centuries of statute and common law that apply to marriage that do not apply to anything other than marriage. And rather than trying to shoe-horn all of those rights, protections, privileges and responsibilities in to a separate-but-allegedly-equal "civil union", why not just call it marriage and have done with it?

[philly_bob]

23. Can you put all the rights of marriage into "civil union"?

TechBear, that's exactly the issue in my mind. Is it possible to shoe-horn all the legal stuff of marriage into a separate civil union status?

(A separate question, considering some of the reports of divorce and custody heartbreak, is would we want to?)

If it is possible, then it IS just a semantic difference, and I want to talk practical political strategy. Hey, churches, you get to keep your profitable "marriage and reproduction franchise", just allow the rest of us to have civil unions.

If it's not possible, then it is, as you say, NOT a semantic difference, and we can't compromise.

In other words, can we combine what you accurately call "three centures of statute and common law that apply to marriage" into a civil union law?

Could you simply have a clause that says something like: Participants in a civil union are entitled to all the rights, obligations, and responsibilities that apply to participants in a marriage? Or can the lawyer-types make a list of the rights that we really want to keep.

I don't know.

Anyway, my main thing is I don't want to lose any more elections because right-wingers scare folks about a homosexual agenda. I appreciate you folks in this forum kicking this around.

[readmoreoften]

25. Not really, because you don't usual have separate legal terms

for identical things. If they are identical, then you use the same word for both. For example, a citizen can bring their spouse to the United States. Even if NJ allows civil unions, those partners will not be allow to co-habitate with their non-partner citizens. In NYC, my employer pays for domestic partner benefits-- but I have to pay taxes on that on my federal income tax.

Bigots don't just want gays to not have religious marriage. That's the excuse. The reality is they want us to have no part in society at all. If you promote civil unions, they will say "it's the first step to dissolving marriage".

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. No, it is not possible

First of all, you would need to create an entirely separate body of law. That in itself is an extremely daunting task, as it would require either rewriting or duplicating hundreds, even thousands of statutes which touch on child care, inheritance, insurance, property rights, powers of attorney, etc., etc. Once that is done, there is the equally daunting task of keeping two separate sets of statutes in exact parallel. A change in a law that, say, deals with the parental rights of a non-parental spouse, would have to include an identical change in the law that deals with the parental rights of a non-parental civil partner. If such a change is not made, you have a separate but not equal body of laws with one group having more rights or protections than the other group; that is unconstitutional. In Washington and several other states, this would require passing two separate bills, as our state constitution does not allow legislative acts that deal with more than a single subject.

And that only covers statutory laws, not common law. Common law is the body of judicial precedents and rulings which serve as the foundation of the American legal system. As I'm sure you know, previous rulings of a law court must be given consideration in how existing law is interpreted; the higher the court and the more often a particular view is enforced, the more weight it must be given. As long as marriage and civil union are two separate things under the law, it is simply not possible to apply the body of marriage related common law to civil unions. A court could issue a ruling to that effect, but that would eliminate the category of civil unions and make them into... guess what? Marriage, which would make the entire process of creating a separate category an incredibly useless waste of time. If no such ruling is made, civil unions inherently lack a vast collection of the rights, protections, privileges and responsibilities of marriage, making them unequal to marriage and thus unconstitutional.

[KittyWampus]

30. No, you wouldn't. ALL this requires is using the term CIVIL UNION on the

legally binding paper contract two people sign in the freaking courthouse.

THAT IS IT>

That some people can't get something so freaking simple is strange.

[TechBear_Seattle]

33. Ok, then. What are the rights, responsibilities, protections and privileges of CUs?

All of that with regards to marriage is defined in statutory and common law. If you do not modify all existing laws and precedents to include civil unions, all you are doing is signing a piece of paper that will give you no rights, no protections, nothing at all.

That some people can't get something so freaking simple is strange.

[Warpy]

15. Once you get access to the body of civil law

governing marriage, which is a legal way to promote a non relative to first degree relative status, you can call it whatever you want to. You'll piss the fundies off, but you're already doing that just by living, so don't worry about it.

Straight couples in Canada have been opting for civil union rather than marriage. Marriage has too much baggage attached to it, most of it intensely sexist.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. Why not just "Equal Marriage"

If it is all just a matter of semantics, after all. Or would that, perhaps, show the phrase "gay marriage" as the discriminatory phrase that it really is?

[Ayesha]

22. Separate is not equal!

I would prefer civil unions for all, but if male-female couples get marriage, then I want marriage, too.

The religious argument is bogus. The Catholic Church doesn't have to marry any couple they don't want to ALREADY. They wouldn't be required to marry same-sex couples any more than they are required to marry two Jews of opposite sexes.

I would actually like to see religious groups that perform same-sex marriages sue to have those marriages recognized by law. Freedom of religion should provide for them to be!

[IntravenousDemilo]

35. We have equal marriage in Canada and the sky hasn't fallen.

In keeping with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it has been deemed necessary and constitutional by almost all provincial appellate courts and the Supreme Court of Canada to define marriage for civil purposes as the union between two adults, and this has been ratified by the legislatures of most provinces and territories, as well as the federal Parliament.

Our compromise is this: religious organizations are not required to solemnize homosexual unions if the idea goes against their core beliefs. However, since marriage is a civil construct, Justices of the Peace, registrars, and other government employees are required to do their job and issue marriage licences to any couple that fits the legal definition.

It's the only compromise needed, and no one should feel put out.