Is The Right For Gay People To Join Households A CIVIL Right?

[KittyWampus]

Is the right for ANY two people to join their households while assuming LEGAL rights, obligations and liabilities for one another a CIVIL right?

Should the Legal joining of ANY two people be a Civil act evidenced by the signing of a legally binding Civil Contract?

Should states be required to afford EVERY potential couple the legal right to join households by the signing of a legally binding Civil Contract?

If it is a Civil issue and a Civil Right for ANY two people to be able to legally join their households via a Civil Contract... then why should that CIVIL Contract not be called a CIVIL Union?

Should any two people who decide to legally join their households, and who are willing to sign a legally binding contract be forced to ALSO engage in a Religious Ceremony to mark said occasion?

Like it or not, the word Marriage has both a Legal/Civil aspect as well as a Religious/Ceremonial Aspect.

Why not jettison the use of Marriage when we speak of ANY COUPLE who wishes to legally join their households?

Note- if you start with the 'separate but equal' argument... you need to go back and re-read this post.

[MADem]

1. I've always agreed with the sense that a civil union is what happens

in front of the Justice of the Peace, and a marriage is what happens in front of clergy.

Other countries parse in this fashion; we don't, though.

We've got way too many politicians who think that "the sanctity of marriage" is threatened if it isn't done their way and to their liking, and who go out of their way to remind busybodies that they just MUST interfere in something that isn't their damn business, else the Baby Jesus will cry.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. That sense is totally WRONG

Crimenalty, how often does this need to be said?

Judges and clergy both create the exact same thing: MARRIAGE. Marriage is defined by statutory and common law with hundreds, even thousands, of attendant rights, responsibilities, privileges and protections provided by those laws. As a matter of law, marriage is and always has been a civil, non-religious institution in the United States, ever since the First Amendment was ratified and the separation of church and state became part of the Highest Law of the Land.

[MADem]

7. Well, it's wrong to YOU, but not to ME, so guess what? We're even

In many other countries, where I have resided, you can't get "married" until you go to the town offices and get "civil unioned." Then, and ONLY then, can you marry. Italy is an example.

Indeed, when people divorce in Italy, because the country is overwhelmingly Catholic, their second wedding doesn't go anywhere near the church. It happens at town hall and that's that.

My perspective is not that of the US of A, it's a world view. We're certainly not the be-all or end-all with regard to this matter.

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. No country in the world has "civil unions" for straight couples

In every other country -- United Kingdom, France, Sweden, China, India, all of them -- when a mixed gender couple sign the civil documents and file them with government authorities, they are not entering into a civil union, they are getting M A R R I E D.

"Civil unions" are, start to finish, a bigoted separate and inherently unequal situation. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant.

[MADem]

12. Well, you're anxiously talking past me, and not hearing what I am saying

You are imposing definitions on me that "I" don't happen to AGREE with. Capisce? So regardless of what you think, I don't agree with the way the system is set up. And when you're talking about a divorced person who "marries" in Italy, it isn't called marriage by the neighbors--it's called (eye roll, head jerk, eyebrow wiggle) "marriage, if you know what I mean." There's a quantifiable difference in the two states. If it ain't done it the church, it's a DIFFERENT THING. And I'm not talking about same sex couples in this instance.

To me, no matter how the couple is constructed, if it's done in front of the judge, it's CIVIL. If it's done in a house of worship, in a religious ceremony, it's marriage.

Perhaps if EVERYONE got on "MY" bandwagon we'd have less trouble and fewer irate moments. All those Vegas weddings? Civil Unions. Those little gatherings in the Judge's office? Civil Unions. The JP at the meeting hall? Civil Union.

It ain't marriage, IMO, unless you're standing in front of priest/mullah/minister/rabbi in a house of worship.

Pretty soon, given the serial marrying quality of many Americans, 'civil unions' would be the DEFAULT, and marriage would be the exception to the rule.

[cali]

43. Actually, I believe

that in France, mixed gender couples, can and do avail themselves of civil unions. And the OP's point was why not just refer to all couples' joinings as civil unions. His/her point was that marriage in our culture has a strong religious background, and this would sever that relationship. I can't believe you'd actually carp about a system that has equality for all, just because it's not called marriage.

[Maven]

17. It always amazes me how many people don't realize that "marriage"

is a legal term.

As though it's referred to in some secret code by lawmakers and judges and the word itself is merely a colloquialism we've applied to a social institution.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

19. It's also amazing how many people think it would be easier to simply

make marriage a religious union only, in lieu of granting marriage rights to same-sex couples. Imagine the amount of time and money it would take to re-write all the legislation in this country to say "civil union" instead of "marriage." Talk about a huge waste, all to avoid giving same-sex couples the right to marry.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. While, supposedly at the same time

Creating an entirely new institution that is marriage in everything but name.

It strikes me as much easier to create a separate legal category specifically for heterosexual bigots who want to have a legally recognized relationship that is not the same thing that same-sex couples want.

[KittyWampus]

26. The SAME Rights are available to all. Why do YOU refuse to accept that

the word marriage refers to both Civil AND Religious contracts?

And it's complete BUNK to talk about "all the work" that would be required.

If the government can freaking make official documents available in English AND Spanish.. they can change one simple phrase.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

29. Wow...you can't keep your arguments straight for a second, can you?

I'm bored with this shit, and it's REALLY annoying WHEN people type like THIS.

*ignore*

[KittyWampus]

23. Yes, it's a legal term that is used for Civil and RELIGIOUS cases.

And since we are concerned with affording ALL couples their CIVIL rights it makes perfect sense for the contract signed to be called a Civil Union Contract.

[TechBear_Seattle]

47. And religious cases are totally and absolutely irrelevant wrt legal marriage

When speaking of legal marriage -- ie, things like laws and marriage licenses, etc. -- any discussion of religious marriage is either a big, stinking, week-old and mostly rotted red herring or a weather-beaten, mouse infested, mostly rotted straw man (I'm not sure which logical fallacy would apply.)

[KittyWampus]

49. No, that the religious meaning exists causes many people to object to

gay couples joining households legally. And hence it's an issue. A wedge issue.

My solution simply helps emphasise the Civil nature of a contract that exists soley as a civil act and joins people.

It reinforces the seperation of Church and State.

[gollygee]

2. IMO the ability to marry the person you love is a civil right

and the fact that the word "civil" is in civil right and civil union doesn't mean that what we call "marriage" should by definition be called "civil union." There is nothing inherently religious about the word marriage.

[mike_c]

4. I completely agree that all joining of households should be...

...a civil union, and that from a legal perspective that is the union that should count. From a LEGAL perspective all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, should be afforded the rights and responsibilities of a civil union. Religious approval of that union should be a personal matter, not a state concern. If two folks want to get "married" in a religious sense then that's between them and their fellow religionists-- the state should have no part in it, and should neither endorse nor disapprove such "marriage." But the legal union should always be a civil affair, governed by civil rules, not by religious convictions or predjudices.

[Lex]

5. Was the right for inter-racial people to marry each other a civil right for them?

Same deal.

[nickinSTL]

6. I think that what the government recognizes should be a civil union

and if people also want a church-recognized wedding, marriage, handfasting, or whatever, that is up to them and their church...the government should have no say in it.

And as for government-recognized unions, they should be legal for any two adults who are of age and state of mind to enter into any legal contract.

[KittyWampus]

8. You just boiled it down much better than I've been able to.

[Maven]

18. Really?

So if the UCC wants to marry gay couples, you'll have no problem with that?

[KittyWampus]

27. Why would I?

[boolean]

10. Why are you being a homophobe?

Jettison the word marriage? Why? Why do you have a problem with calling it marriage?

Seems to me like you want any couple, hetero and homo, to not call it marriage anymore, which is just another way of saying that the gays don't get the word marriage.

[KittyWampus]

11. Gay people can get married AFTER signing a Civil Union contract, IF they decide to go

to whatever house of worship and have a Marriage ceremony.

So please retract your accusation of homophobe and reread what my opening post actually said.

[gollygee]

13. I disagree with this because I like being married

I like the word "marriage" to describe what my husband and I have. I like calling him my "husband" and him calling me his "wife" instead of "civil partner" or something. And we aren't religious and wouldn't have any other kind of ceremony than a civil union in this case. I don't want to lose my right to get married either. And I mean MARRIED.

The word "marriage" isn't religious.

Any particular religion can choose to not marry anyone they don't want to marry for any reasons they want.

And why should it be so freaking complicated? Why completely change all the laws we have? All that has to be done is one very very small change to existing laws. Take gender specifications out. That's IT. Simple. Finished.

[KittyWampus]

15. Who cares if you call yourselves "married" etc? I am talking about Legal terms

and what appears in on the actual contract you signed in the courthouse.

And you are in gross error if you do not think the word Marriage has an inherent RELIGIOUS aspect to it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. So tell me: are people who had a civil, non-religious ceremony NOT married?

That is exactly what you are saying. I have done more than 30 civil, non-religious weddings over the last four years; do you mean to tell me that they are not and never have been married to one another, despite what the law says?

[KittyWampus]

16. They can PRIVATELY call themselves any-fucking-thing they want

And the 30 something couples that you joined are LEGALLY a couple who can call themselves whatever they please.

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. My point is, they are legally MARRIED

All of the statutes say they are MARRIED. All of the court precedents say they are MARRIED. If they chose to dissolve their union, they must be divorced, which is possible only if they are first legally MARRIED to one another.

Who are you to say that they are not married, solely because they have not received some kind of religious blessing? When was the First Amendment separation of church and state replaced with rule by theocratic doctrine?

The point is not what they call themselves, but what their relationship is called in the eyes of the law. And the law is pretty definite in calling them married.

[KittyWampus]

22. The POINT is that by having the Legal Document being entitled

a "Civil Union Contract" a linguistic distinction is made between Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage.

And that distinction helps delinate the CIVIL nature of the contract and the degree to which allowing ANY two couples to legally join their households.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

24. Have you taken into consideration the time and money involved

in rewriting all of our legislation to change the wording from "marriage" to "civil union?" It would be not only absurd, but enormous. It'd be much easier and more fiscally conservative to simply give same-sex couples marriage benefits.

[KittyWampus]

28. Did you take into account how much time it takes to make official documents

bi-lingual and available in Spanish?

Or to make Govt. info available to deaf?

OR to make Govt. buildings wheelchair accessible?

And this would only be changing one phrase in a contract provided by the local courthouse.

[TechBear_Seattle]

32. We are not talking "official documents", we are talking laws

There is a vast difference between the two. By statute, we have marriage and not civil unions. Centuries of court precedent and common law refer to marriage and not civil unions.

What you proposed is NOT, by any stretch, a simple matter of renaming a marriage license to be a civil union license. It would require rewriting each and every single law that mentions the word "marriage." In Washington State, there are over a thousand such laws. And even then, it would be impossible to revise the vast body of common law that deals with marriage. Huge stretches of court precedent would no longer be valid because those precedents deal with "marriage" and not "civil unions." Court decisions that have been in place for 50 years, 100 years, in some cases more than 300 years would have to be redecided in light of civil unions rather than marriage. (Some eastern states have case law stretching back to when they were colonies.)

All because some people would rather abolish marriage entirely than let same-sex couples be legally married. It is absurd, it is bigoted and it is totally without merit.

[KittyWampus]

36. Again, noone is 'abolishing' marriage. And to instate the term "Civil Union'

would not negate preexisting contracts.

So you have no argument...

[TechBear_Seattle]

41. So I ask again: How are the rights, protections, etc. of CUs mandated?

Ok, let's get to the heart of the matter.

The rights, protections, responsibilities and privileges of marriage are defined by civil law, both as statutes and as common law. How do you propose guaranteeing the rights, protections, responsibilities and privileges of civil unions? Would civil unions have any of the same rights, protections, responsibilities and privileges of marriage? Would civil unions have any inherent rights, protections, responsibilities and privileges? And if those are going to be the same rights, protections, responsibilities and privileges as marriage, why go to such lengths to create a meaningless distinction?

[KittyWampus]

51. It's in the contract/license they sign at the courthouse.

Good cats,this is so simple.

You go to the courthouse and what used to say "Marriage License" now says 'Civil Union License'.

Pre-existing licenses used by couples in the past are still valid.

But all new couples are signing a legally binding document that uses a different phrase.

[TechBear_Seattle]

54. So it would be, in fact, legal marriage as it exists now

With the one and only difference being found at the top of the marriage license? Why would that distinction make any difference?

[KittyWampus]

59. it takes away the wedge issue. Most people agree gay people have

the right to a civil union... but the problem with that is it establishes 'seperate but equal' situation.

What I am proposing is therefore the idea of civil unions for everyone.

If some people get so hung up on the word marriage, then why not let it refer to the religous act.

Having a seperate word for the civil act just helps reinforce the seperation of church and state.

And thanks for not putting me on ignore and helping me figure out how to argue my point. (sincere thanks, btw)

[mondo joe]

61. Millions of American hetero couples are NOT GOING TO GIVE UP their

government sanctioned marriage.

[KittyWampus]

63. they have no need to. As it is now, you have to get a license at the courthouse

my proposal does not change that at all. And it wouldn't change pre-existing licenses.

[mondo joe]

65. Of course your proposal changes it - it changes the word marriage

to civil union. They LIKE having state sanctioned marriage -- they're not giving up that word.

[KittyWampus]

69. how about inserting the word Civil so it'd be called Civil Marriage License?

or something like that.

[mondo joe]

72. Then you're back to gays getting a Civil Marriage.

Look, if the government ONLY issued Civil Unions or Civil Marriages or whatever, the supermajority of gays would be fine with it.

But the same anti-gay crowd that doesn't want gays marrying isn't going to go for THAT either.

[KittyWampus]

76. True, but they wouldn't even have a rhetorical leg to stand on anymore.

And UIAM, many poeople who aren't overtly anti-gay do have an issue with using the word marriage. Yes, this shows a latent bias. But many people would be fine if the words changed.

But I could be totally wrong and appreciate your helping bring up the weak spots in my original proposal.

[mondo joe]

77. You can't take a rhetorical leg from people unwilling to surrender it.

You're not going to beat them with semantics. They'll just change their argument to match.

[KittyWampus]

79. perhaps,but without that leg, they'll go in circles cause I think there is a

sizable number of people who would be able to overcome their latent bias
just by giving them an rhetorical out... the fact that so many vote against gay marriage indicates the issue goes further than the 30% Backwash Fundies.

This is my opinion and I think polling numbers on the issue of gay marriage would support my contention. Especially since when the term civil union comes up, people are more amenable to it.

I think it isn't just rabid, gay-haters who can't embrace gay marriage.

[TechBear_Seattle]

73. Thoroughly and completely redundant.

Not to sound like a broken record here, but legal marriage is already civil. You are creating a totally pointless distinction.

[TechBear_Seattle]

34. For the last bloody time

RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE HAS NO LEGAL STANDING IN THE UNITED STATES AND NEVER HAS.

Legal marriage is and always has been a civil, secular, non-religious institution. The laws proclaim this. The courts affirm this. The Constitution of the United States of America requires this. It is NOT possible to have a religious ceremony and call yourself legally married without the filing of secular papers with the appropriate civil authorities. It IS possible to file secular papers with the appropriate civil authorities and be legally married with absolutely no religious ceremony at all, and thousands of people are MARRIED each and every year in this country by doing just that.

Why is it so bloody important for you to redefine the way marriage this way? Why?

[KittyWampus]

37. FOR THE LAST TIME- THE WORD MARRIAGE REFERS TO BOTH

Civil and Religous acts.

And my proposal makes the Civil act become designated by the actual word Civil.

[TechBear_Seattle]

50. Shut the F up about religious marriage, will you?

Religious marriage does not now, has never and will not ever (I dearly hope) have the slightest bit of relevance to any discussion on legal marriage anywhere within the United States.

You propose changes to the way legal marriage has always existed in this country. Unless you are trying to declare a theocracy, your constant harping about religious marriage has no bearing on the topic you brought up. If you are incapable of sticking to discussing legal -- and thus, by definition, CIVIL -- marriage, then consider your point invalidated and your argument groundless.

[KittyWampus]

53. It's relevant because it molds peoples attitudes and causes them to vote

against allowing gays their civil rights.

But you seem to think that it's more important to force the issue using the term 'marriage'. Even though it is totally possible to use a term that removes ANY religous connotation and thus many people's objections.

My proposal takes away the bone of contention. But you seem to want to keep fighting on this issue for the sake of fighting?

Even though European countries have employed the same strategy as my proposal.

[boolean]

30. You seem uncomfortable

Every post of yours oozes your obvious discomfort with redefining (or more accurately, broadening the definition of) the word marriage. I urge you to look deep within yourself to find the source of that passive bigotry. It's there.

[KittyWampus]

38. Find the bigotry that resides within yourself that you can't grasp that the word

marriage refers to both a Civil and Religious act.

Honey, I was married to a gay man and lived with both he and his partner for eight years.

And my proposal takes a wedge issue from the GOP and solves a problem simply.

I have no attachment to the word marriage but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit how it used.

[mmonk]

25. If a court says a civil union is equal protection under the law,

then the clergy or churches that decide they will perform gay marriages are legally binding also. Pretty damn simple as I see it. You're not going to keep the bigot churches from deciding not to.

[mondo joe]

31. To jettison the use of the word "marriage" would be even more fruitless.

People aren't giving that up.

[KittyWampus]

33. Good, they can go get married AFTER the Civil Union Contract is signed.

See? The only problem with this is, there IS no problem with this.

Except it takes the wedge issue away from the GOP.

[mondo joe]

35. No, the problem is no one will go for this.

It's useless.

[readmoreoften]

39. THANK YOU

First convince American heterosexuals that they must first be married by the state, then their pastor can marry them in the eyes of God (with no legal power) and I'll get on board. It ain't gonna happen.

[KittyWampus]

40. Hello? Heterosexual couples ALREADY are required to get a liscense

at the courthouse.

So that means you're on board.

[mondo joe]

42. Get a license - a marriage license. Not a civil union license.

They're not giving that up.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. I object to taking the word "marriage" out of government simply because

it puts some religious folks' noses out of joint to think of gays getting "married".

[KittyWampus]

62. So your priority is rubbing some religious folks' noses in it rather then

moving aside and stealing their thunder by just abandoning the word 'marriage'.

When using the word Civil Union for everyone actually helps designate the civil nature of the legal contract?

Is it really worth it? (sincere question).

If my proposal was followed, there would be no objection left.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. No, my priority is equal rights for my gay and lesbian brothers & sisters.

Not sacrificing those rights so that intolerant religious people who've never met them can save the word "marriage" for themselves.

Sincere Answer? Yes. I understand what you're proposing. I toyed with that solution in my head a while back, myself. If the government got out of the "marriage" business entirely, it could work. But it won't- so it won't. "Marriage" has been separate from, and bigger than religion for a long time.

The ONLY answer is for government to extend civic and legal marriage to gays and lesbians, and for the people whose religion tells them they need to meddle in other people's personal lives to get over it. And, just like with interracial marriage and other civil rights issues, eventually that's what will happen, and our grandchildren will be appalled that anyone argued for anything else.

[KittyWampus]

46. Says you? I think some gay people just don't want to settle this

or rather, they want it settle THEIR way.

A solution that takes away a wedge issue for the GOP should not be considered cause a bunch of gay activists are totally wedded to their own 'solution'?

Even though calling a Civil Contract a Civil Union makes sense.

[mondo joe]

48. Marriage is already a legal right. Heteros aren't about to change that to

Civil Union. Your crusade is useless.

[readmoreoften]

58. Right. We don't want to settle it. We want to live without benefits

and without legal protections over a word. We're just selfish and persnickity. Did you ever think that maybe YOUR SCENARIO IS UNTENABLE?

"a bunch of gay activists" indeed.

[KittyWampus]

66. why is it untenable when it works in Europe? Honestly, please tell me.

If it works in other countries, why not here?

[readmoreoften]

83. Because the fundies won't let it happen!

Yes, I know, they all have civil marriages first anyway and they don't realize that. But if you change the law that their pastor's "can't legally marry them and can only symbolically marry them" they will see this as an attack on civil marriage, not religious marriage. They will scream on Fox News and CNN that this is the next step in the war against marriage. There is no point in trying to pander to this element.

No church is obligated to marry someone they don't want. Jewish marriages are not performed in a Catholic church. Rabbis do not perform Catholic ceremonies and any religious leader already has the right to deny a church wedding. There will never be a law obligating a church to wed a gay couple in the eyes of God.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Like you said, "marriage" has two separate aspects- gov't and religious

And they co-exist fine already. You don't need to take the word "marriage" out of government, because -for instance- not any heterosexual couple that wants to get married in a Catholic Church can do so. But they can still get married legally. Heterosexual couples get married on boats. In Vegas. The idea that the religious and the government aspects are so inextricably linked that the whole house of cards will come down in the government starts letting gays marry is ridiculous.

And some relgious denominations DO marry gays- even though the government won't.

You don't NEED to change a thing, except let gay couples get married -legally married- just like straights do. Churches can still decide who they want to "marry".

[KittyWampus]

55. Except there are many, many people who do not accept that. And the problem

is the word marriage.

And the reason for that is the word marriage has a religious and traditional usage.

So why not use a term that has no religous or traditional usage.

Civil Unions describes a civil act very well. And has none of the traditional baggage.

[mondo joe]

56. Why not use a different term? Because the US population will overwhelmingly

not go for it.

They LIKE government-defined marriage.

[TechBear_Seattle]

74. Then why not give THEM a separate classification?

Why not create a special class of "religious marriage?" Segregate the bigots, since they are the only ones kicking up a fuss.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. But some religions don't accept divorce or 2nd Marriages, either.

So those people can't get married in those churches.

But those people don't get to re-define everyone else's reality to fit their personal belief system. Since marriage is not only a religious concept but a legal one as well, and since religious marriage is already an exclusionary and separate concept from legal marriage, the right thing to do is to expand legal marriage to encompass gay and lesbian couples.

[mmonk]

52. The New Jersey court has decided that gays

can get married legally (civil unions) and receive all that comes with it (equal protection under the law). Marriage pre-existed Christianity. Therefore, Christianity has no hold on the institution of marriage and now by law, cannot prohibit gays from getting married in New Jersey. The only right some churches retain is their own particular right not to administer a gay wedding.

[KittyWampus]

57. As an anthropologist, I have to say that most of humanity down the ages

has viewed life and customs through the lens of religion.

So while the religous aspect might not have been explicit.. that is becauase it was so deeply embedded in life in general.

And marriage most certainly has had a religious aspect since the Roman era.

And while NJ might say marriage is legal... calling them civil unions is "seperate but equal" and therefore, according to gay rights activists (and I agree) not acceptable.

[mmonk]

64. I was raised Catholic.

If I wanted to marry a protestant in a protestant church without a Catholic priest presiding, the church will not accept that as a marriage. Can I still get married legally? Am I being discriminated against? Churches make their own rules. I can not in any way get the Church to recognize that as a marriage no more than a gay couple can theirs recognized by the catholic church. And marriage began as a pagan ritual, not religious. The court handed down a victory. Catch a clue.

[KittyWampus]

70. I thought that there was an issue with 'civil union' being seperate but unequal

and while NJ is moving forward (despite the problem with using civil unions for gays) lots of other states can still use this as a wedge.

[mmonk]

80. Maybe they can.

But nobody of any sexual orientation can force all churches to recognize their marriage. No such law exists. I'm sure there are churches and clergy that will perform a gay marriage ceremony. The important thing is now that marriage is recognized with all legal force and benefit. Sorry about the get a clue comment. I just want people to understand that decision was a victory.

[KittyWampus]

82. Well, I heard Stephanie Miller the 1st time Friday morning and wondered

what she looks like>>>> checking out your signature line.

Why do the guys on air with her joke about her age (like she's old)?

She looks young.

[mmonk]

85. I don't know.

She's 35. Maybe since she just turned that age. It's young to me.

[TechBear_Seattle]

60. Civil unions != marriage

A marriage in any state exists equally in all states. A civil union exists only in the state in which it was filed.

Marriage inherently grants hundreds of rights, protections, responsibilities and privileges all for the price of a single $55 filing fee. Civil unions inherently grant only a limited selection of those same benefits, and only in the state in which it was filed. Any effort to get more of the benefits of marriage requires the drafting of separate legal documents, usually at a cost of thousands of dollars and even then, such legal documents are routinely challenged -- and challenged successfully -- by family.

Marriage carries additional benefits defined in court precedents and common law. Civil unions, by virtue of being legally distinct from marriage, no not have any access to those benefits. The only way civil unions could get access would be to convert several centuries of common law into statutory law, or wait however long it would take for the body of common law dealing with civil unions to rule separately -- and hopefully, identically -- with all of the cases found in several centuries of marriage common law.

If the New Jersey Legislature creates civil unions, they will be in violation with the directive of the state Supreme Court to give same sex couples the identical benefits of marriage.

[KittyWampus]

68. Wait, so the problem is the term 'civil union' already has a legal meaning?

Would my proposal work if the term became ... work with me here... Civil Marriage?

Civil ........ (fill in blanks)?

Thanks for sticking with me.

Cause it seems to me that the original idea in the opeinng post is valid.
But it's easy enough to tweek the actual terms used. As long as marriage is either jettisoned or refined.

[TechBear_Seattle]

71. Vermont? Remember that?

And we come back, yet again, to the fact that ALL legal marriages in this country are civil marriages.

[KittyWampus]

75. Laughing, I think we just went round in a circle. I know all legal marriages

are civil marriages... but just using the term 'marriage' freaks a LOT of people out. Because they are stuck on its also having a religious aspect.

It would seem that you won't take these objections of many people to the use of the word marriage into account and try to find a way around it.

Why the alternate way around this issue is objectionable, I still don't understand. As long as the remedy includes everyone. Gay, straight, earthling, maritian...

[TechBear_Seattle]

78. At one point, interracial marriages freaked a lot of people out, too

So did interreligious marriages. So did marriage between people of different social classes. Would it have been justified to redefine marriage just to palliate the sensibilities of a group of narrow minded bigots?

Added: And so that you know where I and a lot of other people are coming from....

What if you were deeply in love with someone of a different race, it was not possible to get married in your own state and it was a felony if you two left the state to get married elsewhere? (This is not at all a hypothetical situation; this was exactly the case the US Supreme Court heard in 1968, Loving v. Virginia, which resulted in the Court striking down all antimiscegenation laws as unconstitutional.) How would you feel if someone kept going on and on about creating a totally different, legally separate classification of marriage just so that interracial couples would not have the same type of marriage as the bigots? Be honest, now.

[KittyWampus]

81. IMO, yes cause gays would already have these legal benfits

and it wouldn't be a wedge issue.

And the same law would apply to everyone.

Then there is the point that my proposal simply highlights the secular nature of a legal act.

Times change and do does the language we use.

[mmonk]

86. Yes, they specifically gave them equal protection under the law.

So it can't be redefined in New Jersey according to the court to be less in benefit.

[Sapphocrat]

67. The initial question is moot in Virginia...

...nullifying all the questions that follow.

[StellaBlue]

88. Marriage sucks. nt

[shanti]

89. yes n/t