Civil unions vs. marriage

[sweetpotato]

In discussing the possibility of extending marriage to the GLBT community with my elderly, old school republican parents, what they object to is not the uniting of partners in a state recognized union that grants all of the state/federal rights to them that are granted to hetero couples, it is calling it "marriage" that is offensive.

It is a simple issue of semantics for them.

So - why not have civil unions for all household partnerships and reserve the word "marriage" for something that is done in a religious setting? These religiously based unions would serve no legal purpose, they are for making a contract with the partner, God (or whatever deity), and the temple/church/religious community. Any rights or blessings bestowed a "marriage" would derive only from the religious entity that united the partners.

Those united in civil unions would be privy to the rights and responsibilities conferred by the government and the broader civic community.

Is there something wrong with this idea? Am I missing something from the GLBT standpoint that makes this idea offensive? Please educate me - I probably need it.

[Midlodemocrat]

1. I'm not civil unioned. I'm married. And my GLBT friends should

have that option as well.

And I just LOVE how people who are currently enjoying the state of matrimony feel as though they get to decide which crumb to throw to the GLBT community. Not.

:eyes:

[sweetpotato]

10. I understand what you are saying

And no, I don't believe that I have the right to decide if you get crumbs or the whole cake.

In trying to find out what was so offensive about extending "marriage" rights to everyone, I asked my parents, who are 92 years old and 83 years old. They stated that they didn't care if GLBT couples had the rights and privileges, they just didn't want to call them "maried" and they don't want their church to be forced to support them.

The thing I was wondering was if the choice of words is what is so upsetting but the actual idea is not, then perhaps the words need changing, but the change would have to be be for everyone - not just for one group of citizens.

Just an honest inquiry - I really didn't mean to sound stupid, I am really trying to learn.

[Midlodemocrat]

18. I'm not gay. I really am married. A heterosexual marriage

with three kids living in the burbs. I'm gay friendly because I'm sick of my friends getting thrown under the bus.

[Critters2]

24. Churches won't be "forced to support them"

That's a RW talking point, and concomittantly, a lie. Churches decide now who they will and will not marry (usually at the pastor's discretion) and would with gay marriages, too. If a church doesn't want to do them, it won't have to. Period.

[Warpy]

12. You can call your union whatever you want to

and polite people will respect it (and you).

The rights are the most important. Bigots will be bigots, and it wouldn't matter if it were called marriage and conducted with full pomp at the National Cathedral. Bigots will still deny it.

It is true that being able to call it what it is--marriage--will be an incremental process. After all, there are still old bigots who refuse to recognize mixed faith and mixed race marriages. Like those unions, yours will require some time for basically good but set in their ways folks to call it what we know it is.

The fact that marriages and civil unions have been performed in several states without straight marriages failing and the sky falling is on your side. People are a lot more used to the idea than they were 5 years ago.

When spouses in civil unions say they are married, there will always be some prissy halfwit will always sniff, "No you're not!" That's just a great way to know who to cross off your dinner guest list.

[Midlodemocrat]

19. No, seriously. I AM married.

white, middle aged, hetero with three kids living in the burbs.

I think I need to put a disclaimer in my sig.

:rofl:

[Warpy]

20. Well, a less identity oriented avatar might help

If I'm ever nuts enough to want to live with anyone else, I hope there are civil unions available. I've had it with straight marriage and all the attendant baggage.

[Midlodemocrat]

22. Why?

Are you a forest dwelling creature? Your avatar implies you might be.

I chose that avatar to stand with the GLBT community so people wouldn't comment on their being a 'fringe' element. And, I'm not the only one, either here on DU or IRL.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

28. BWAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAA!!!

It's true. I must have really given you The Gay.

[rpgamerd00d]

2. Heh, you're a day late on this one, buddy. :)

[sweetpotato]

16. I was sick yesterday -

sorry.

I missed the superbowl and was confused why a snickers bar could cause such an uproar.

My bad.

[Burma Jones]

3. I think "Civil Union" is begrudging tolerance

and Marriage is acceptance.

I used to think some compromise would be in order here....but, I have come around to the opinion that it's about more than Civil Rights, it's about being thought of as a person like other people - and semantics are important when you're dealing with how people treat each other. Semantics frame our thoughts.....

[Karenina]

31. But the REALLY GOOFY paradox is

if a hetero couple has a "civil union at he courthouse performed by the Justice of the peace, THEY ARE MARRIED. :crazy:

[Fovea]

4. I think the problem is like Plessey v. Fergusen(sp)

The decision that seperate but equal facilities
were actually equal.

A picture of the 'coloreds only' water fountains shows the danger, civil unions that are not equivilent to marriage in the areas where you or I live.

[Bill McBlueState]

5. this takes marriage away from people

Suddenly, anyone who didn't get married in a church wouldn't be married anymore; they'd be civil-union'd. Try proposing to people who treasure their marriage but have no interest in receiving the blessing of a church that they can have a civil union instead. You'll instantly discover that the labels we put on things are important to people.

[9119495]

6. I'm seeking a civil union

As I look to getting married, I think my girlfriend and I are going to have a civil union. The idea behind our protest is that a "rose by any other name would smell as sweet." We're both agnostic so a church is out of the question (althought the Unitarians may be an option). I just don't think marriage is that big a deal. A civil union means the same to me.

[Deep13]

7. My wife and I are married.

The fact that no one's imaginary friend blessed it does not make it less so.

[Bill McBlueState]

8. there's also a pragmatic issue

The issue on the table in the states right now is whether to extend the rights of marriage to all people. Marriage equality has even become the law in one state. So whether to allow all people to marry is the question up for debate, not whether to take the right of marriage away from even more people.

Re-classifying opposite-sex marriage as something else is all well and good if you're building a little fantasy society in your mind, but it's not the solution that has already become law in one state and is on the way on several others.

[pepperbear]

9. It's this simple....

I'd be really careful about "apples and oranges" arguments too.

[magellan]

11. Because distinguishing between "marriage" and "civil union" only adds another layer of division

And more division isn't the answer.

I was married in a registrar's office in England, a civil union only. Am I any less legally "married" than a couple who has a religious ceremony? If not, than why discriminate against other civil unions just because they take place between two people of the same sex?

Semantics isn't the problem. Any time people use words to draw "comfortable" lines between themselves and others they perceive to be different, prejudice is behind it.

[Selatius]

13. No marriage GAY OR STRAIGHT should be recognized by the state.

Whether or not people hold religious ceremonies to marry is no issue for the state to meddle. Marriage has been and continues to be seen by many people if not most people as a religious issue.

I'm fine with that.

However, the only thing a government should recognize is a civil union regardless if they are homosexuals or heterosexuals. Just because you get married in a church doesn't mean the state should recognize the union; it shouldn't, IMHO. The only time a state should recognize a union is if the couple goes to city hall and applies for a civil union certificate or document.

[sweetpotato]

15. That's what I was trying to say

I know that there are other countries where you have 2 ceremonies for weddings - one is for the government/registrar/whatever and the other is the religious ceremony performed by a member of the clergy.

[Critters2]

26. Agreed. I shouldn't act as an agent of the state. It makes no sense for clergy

to sign wedding licenses. I know clergy who've stopped doing so, and I'm considering it myself. You want a religious service? That I can do. You want a legal document signed? Not my job.

[Dora]

14. A ceremony marking the union of two people is not a "marriage."

That ceremony is called a "wedding."

I'm not GLB or T. I'm a straight woman married to a straight man. And I hate that this country encourages me to marry the person I love, but disallows my best friend from marrying her beloved.

Marriage is marriage, a relationship that is respected by law. I agree with you that all marriages should be considered civil unions, but I disagree that they should be called civil unions. Separate is not equal.

We should ALL be fortunate enough to love another person so much to want to share the rest of our awesomely beautiful lives together.

[Marnieworld]

17. yes there is something wrong with civil unions

Marriage is the legal term in all federal and 50 States laws. Unless every one of them is re-written to change to the term "Civil Union", it is impossible for that term to have the same legal relevance and impact.

It's a lot easier for people to give up exclusivity to the word marriage than for all of the laws to be changed. For true equality there should be one term to mean all committed relationships. They need to get over it. Who are they to decide what others can receive?

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

21. In France, there is ONLY "civil union."

A purely secular ceremony. But I do not believe that gays are allowed to do so...

[Solo_in_MD]

23. There are also marriage cerimonies and weddings, but they are purely religous and have no

civil standing. An approach I agree with.

Civil union: Legally hitched with all to obligations and privledges associated with it.

Wedding/Marriage Ceremony: Anything you want in any church you want with no legal ramifications.

[damntexdem]

25. Exactly. But marriage doesn't belong exclusively to the church.

It's also a community property. No church is needed for a local community to recognize a marriage. It's that it should be a social recognition -- with state sanction limited to civil unions.

[Gormy Cuss]

27. Marriage is the word used in civil law to describe civil unions.

Marriage is also used by religious groups but is describing a religious event. According to the church, I'm not married because I haven't had a religious rite of matrimony. I was married in a civil ceremony. In order to be considered married by the church I would need to have my marriage solemnized by a priest. That's why I object to creating a second category in civil law to appease those who feel it damages their sacramental rite.

Here's an exercise. Take your statements from your original post and turn them around.


So - why not have marriages for all household partnerships and reserve the term "sacred union" for something that is done in a religious setting? These religiously based unions would serve no legal purpose, they are for making a contract with the partner, God (or whatever deity), and the temple/church/religious community. Any rights or blessings bestowed on a "sacred union" would derive only from the religious entity that united the partners.

Those united in marriages would be privy to the rights and responsibilities conferred by the government and the broader civic community.

It works well that way in other countries. The state ceremony is separate and mandatory for heterosexual couples in order to have the civil rights and responsibilities recognized by the government. The religious ceremony is not mandatory and its form and function are controlled by the sect of your choice.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. would straight people give up their marriage rights to get civil unionized?

would you?

[and-justice-for-all]

30. Its MARRIAGE..equal to the core...

Speaking from the Gay side of the fence and having been in a relationship longer then most heteros are married (13 years to be exact) it makes not damn difference what you call it as far as I am concerned. If the recognition is the same and its called "civil unions" instead of the obvious "Marriage" then so be it. I don't give a shit what it is called but the equality has to be the same on all levels.

I don't think this issue should be debated about. When this is debated about, the Gay community appear to be second class citizens, this issue is cut and dry. Equality is Equality, we have all the right to marry whomever we wish. The fundies cry that "marriage is under attack", BULLSHIT its under attack. The marriage of any 2 persons is a private affair and to see people advocate that marriage is "for heteros only" is disgusting as well as out of line.

Who in the fuck do those people think they are to determine what another group/class of people can and can not do?? If we can not marry and it so sacred that its only for one particular class of people, then those people should not be granted divorces! What we have is a diluted are fundie groups who have in for the Gay community as it is. They are controlling and think of themselves as "better then the rest" when in reality they are as dysfunctional and as prone to human error as the rest of us. We are after all, Human...To have a group tell another group they are sub-human is utter bullshit, whatever pedestal those Fundie Nazis are standing on is an imaginary one.

[mondo joe]

32. If heteros are willing to surrender state marriage and call it civil union, fine with me.

But it seems ridiculous to me to rewrite every freaking law and code to say "civil union" when instead it's easier to just include gays in "marriage" - which, incidentally, is what our civil marriage is.

[Zhade]

33. Marriage does not belong to religions. Do you think atheist/agnostic couples aren't married?

If so, you're wrong.

[JerseygirlCT]

34. There's nothing wrong with the *idea* -- it's perfectly logical

But I suspect you'd find a great deal of resistance from straight folks who would be riled at no longer being considered "married".

I think we'll find the incremental approach is what wins in the end, as semantic differences begin to blur in the common parlance and usage. Meantime, though, the situation is horribly unfair, and I hate that straight folks' discomfort with homosexuals means that those gay folks are denied basic rights. No one should have the power to deny someone else their basic rights like that.

[gravity]

35. I believe gays should be allowd to marry but

Realistically, I think gays should just push for civil unions right now. I know its not equal, but the opinion of the American public isn't going to change overnight.

The whole argument just comes down to semantics which is superficial. Go for the practical laws now, and argue about the semantics later.

[madeline_con]

36. Bull hockey....

People can only be married if they get hitched in a church?

So, my hubby and I were "civil unioned" at my mom's house. :eyes: