I am so sick of the civil union vs marriage debate

[nadine_mn]

**warning rant to follow

I was flipping through the Sunday paper and saw this article on the front page of the Opinion section:

Mary Catherine Preus: Civil unions offer solution to a vexing question
A new kind of legal relationship could allow same-sex couples to tie the knot
without using the word "marriage" to describe it.

snip ...

If gays could let go of the word "marriage" and their opponents could allow a legal (not moral, not religious -- leave those questions out of it) recognition of same-sex commitments, could we all live with a civil union category?

full article
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1556363.html

I quit reading because I thought my head would explode and I just cleaned the house.

My husband and I have been "married" for almost 9 years .... we were "married" by a justice of the peace on her lunch hour at the botanical center in Des Moines Iowa. It cost us $50 for the license and another $50 tip for the JOP, my mom and her husband #4 was there and so were my in-laws. I am not sure if god was mentioned in our vows...my mother-in-law (who wore all black) was crying so loud I couldn't hear a damn thing. I didn't take my husband's last name and he didn't take mine. We didn't get "married" because we "had to"... no kids and no plans for kids (just because you can doesn't mean you should). In fact really the only thing that has changed since our wedding day is how we file taxes.

Yet according to some (the author of the article and some front-running Dem candidates) we are more entitled to call our union a "marriage" (which is why I have been using quotes) then a gay couple. However if you just changed one detail in the above scenario - making us same sex - then it has to be a civil union.

What????? I honestly can't stand it... marriage, civil unions, hell throw in common-law too.. who the fuck cares? If its about religion - marriage being the preferred religious term, then I refuse to be called married and want to be civil union-ed. Religion had nothing to do with us getting hitched. Why are we allowing what comes down to a second-class standard ... gays have every right to have say it should be the same word for everone - be it marriage or civil union... but not one word for heteros and a different one for gays.

Everyday I am just flat out stunned that this discussion even happens ... the hypocrisy kills me: the Catholic church (of which my husband was raised in - Catholic school all through high school) has nuns married to God and priests are celibate yet they are the ones advising couples on how to be married. We have a 50%+ divorce rate - drive thru chapels, celebutards getting married and divorced faster than the weather changes, and yet marriage is "sacred" and a gay "marriage" would sully the institution of marriage????

The quote "why don't gays give up the word marriage" - just makes me bang my head into the wall.... might as well say "why don't gays give up equal protection"

and don't get me started on the idiotic idea of a constitutional ammendment that TAKES AWAY A RIGHT of citizens, that idea flies in the face of the whole frickin document.

I am not trying to start a flame war.... I am just ranting at the fact that this "discussion" for lack of a better word gets front page status, is brought up in presidential debates. We are basically talking about the right of 2 people to be happy and to share their lives and the benefits and rights that go with it. We have men and women dying in an unconstitutional war, our environment is going to hell, our health care system is broken, the middle class is an endangered species, our education system sucks, and we are unprepared to deal with our aging population yet hold the phone... we need to make sure gays aren't getting married and taking advantage of the system - getting spousal health care benefits, filing joint tax returns....

maybe I am naive...but last I checked we are all frickin equal

on edit...fixed the all bolding

[Lilith Velkor]

1. Try being a marriage abolitionist sometime

x(

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. That was a most excellent rant, nadine_nm

Let me be the first to recommend it.

It is really this simple.

:yourock:

[MADem]

3. I think anyone who doesn't tie the knot in a religious ceremony should give up the M word.

Leave the M for the churches, and don't give anyone any 'credit' for marrying.

You want benefits? Ya gotta get a civil union, recognized by the state. Then, get married if you want, and if your religion will sanction it.

[lvx35]

5. Yeah, exactly! Im a strait guy who just wants a civil union.

Anything else will be a spiritual ritual worked out in the shared faith of me and my partner....The state simply has no busy working out these family / religious rituals for us.

[MADem]

6. That's how they do it in Italy. It works for them!!! nt

[RainDog]

24. sad, isn't it?

that conservative "christians" have such a tiny god and so little faith that they think god cannot include people who aren't like them.

[lvx35]

25. Its true; their God is a welfare case.

Needing government subsidy and support just to survive. It really is quite sad.

[eridani]

11. The legal rights now associated with marriage would have to be transferred to civil unions

Like SS survivors' benefits, for instance. We now call unions performed by civil servants "marriage", and those unions convey rights and obligations no different from what churchrs call "marriage". Ever heard of anybody going to church to collect child support?

[MADem]

31. They are already, though. If you get married at the JP, you get that stuff.

If you get married in the CHURCH of the Flaky Government Hating Dipshits, but without a marriage license from the STATE, guess what? You might have a problem!

It's really a difference between BIG M Marriage in the church, and little m marriage via a civil union.

It shouldn't be impossible--if people would just start talking up the CONCEPT, it would become a common concept and easily accepted.

[eridani]

48. The trouble is that current "civil unions" are NOT legally the same--

--as the kind of civil union you are proposing. You are essentially saying "Let's call some of the unions that are now marriages "civil unions" instead. Which would be OK if all of the legal rights of those marriages apply to the new civil unions. Presently they do not.

[MADem]

51. Certainly, the states--all of them, pretty much--would have to go to the new paradigm.

Otherwise, we're stuck with these enclaves, like VT and eventually NH...and states with differing views like MA.

Once there's critical mass, then the federal aspect kicks in. It doesn't happen overnight. Hell, this country couldn't even pass the ERA.

[Midlodemocrat]

15. Won't work. The word Marriage is ingrained in our vocabulary.

Seriously, can you hear someone saying 'We've been civil unioned for 20 years'? I can't. Why can't it be marriage for everyone?

The word is a noun and then there is the verb form. Civil union is a noun. 'Civil unioned' sounds remarkably stupid to me.

[MADem]

27. Sure--but then you 'break it down' like they do in Europe.

In Europe, they don't say "We've been civil-unioned" they say "We've been married." But the MARRIAGE, you see, is a CIVIL marriage.

The bottom line is, you go get a civil union at the town hall, and you call yourself married at the end of the day. If you want a BIG M marriage, you go to the preacher and stand up in the church.

[alphafemale]

4. I don't think the "State" should recognize the "Marriage" of anyone.

Civil Unions should be the legal definition.

Marriage should be reserved as a religious/spiritual thing.

And what is recognized as a Marriage will vary wildly depending on the religion.

The Catholic Church's definition of a Marriage will forever differ from the Unitarians.
Neither should ever be forced to recognize or DENY a union they see as sacred.

But everyone should have the rights to joint property, the rights to decide medical issues for a life partner, the right to inheritance, the right to continue to raise children parented together, and even the right to be treated fairly in a divorce fer' chrissakes.

[NMDemDist2]

7. K&N for sad sense n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

8. The people who need to "let go" are the folks who think other people getting MARRIED is THEIR BIZNIZ

Fucking mind your own business. If the gay couple down the street wants to get "married"- that's with an "M"- why the FUCK SHOULD YOU CARE? Grow up, already.

In short, I agree with your OP. Anyone who thinks GLBT citizens should "compromise" on full equality just to keep some fundies from getting their shorts in a bunch over the word "marriage" can suck an egg.

[Frank Cannon]

9. Even Jesus Christ supported civil unions

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's, said He.

People should be able to get "married" in front of a priest or a witch doctor or a statue of Xenu, if they want to... but when it comes to the courthouse, just call everything a "civil union" and be done with it.

I just don't get why this is so hard for some people.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. I think there is one good argument for CUs over marriage, and two against.

The argument for CUs is simple: they'll be easier to get the electorate to accede to. I think there is a real risk that the Republicans will a) use the issue to win the next election, and b) ammend the constitution or introduce stronger national laws to prevent gay marriage ever being introduced, especially if the candidate is Thompson.

The first argument against is that it will be much harder for future governments to pass laws differentiating between gay and straight marriages, or annulling the former, than to pass laws discriminating against civil unions compared with marriages.

The second argument against is the message it sends: introducing CUs says "we acknowledge that opponents of gay rights have a point, and are willing to compromise with them"; introducing gay marriage says "opposition to gay rights is wrong, and will not be tolerated".

However, I think that the practicality argument trumps both of these. For one thing, I think that the best way to go about introducing gay marriage will be to introduce civil unions, wait for a few years to prove that they don't cause the world to end, and then rename them marriage, rather than going for all-or-nothing straight away and probably ending up with nothing.

[xchrom]

12. recommend

[caseycoon]

13. What part of EQUAL RIGHTS

don't these idiots understand? This is one subject that just infuriates me! Why SHOULD gays "let go of the word marriage?" Why should they let go of anything? What's going to happen if they have the right to marry?

OH WAIT... if they have that right maybe gays would break into my house & drag my 80 year old husband out & 'teach' him to be gay so one of them could marry him! Or lesbians would come for me! :sarcasm: Uh huh... yeah... that'll happen.

Seriously, what possible difference could it make to anyone. It would not change one single thing for anyone else. It would only give equal rights to a whole segment of our society. Why is that a problem?

[zalinda]

14. Honey, we are talking about Republicans

they don't make any sense. They only want rights for themselves and hell with any one else.

zalinda

[caseycoon]

16. Yeah, well...

It's just so totally un-American.

(I can't believe how hard it is to write about this without cussing)

[seabeyond]

17. so... i am civil unionized too and not married. in jop myself in pensecola florida

no witness, no crying and kids.

[troubleinwinter]

18. Recommended excellent rant...

right on point.

My husband and I were "married" by the JoP in Reno. The same fellow who had performed "marriages" for my husband's uncle six times.

[LynneSin]

19. I agree with your rant but...

Rosa Parks didn't sit on the front of the bus and then *BAM* next day African-Americans had the same exact rights as White-Americans. Hell we still fight discrimination today.

Do I have a problem with same sex couples getting married? NO. But I do know we have a very large and vocal part of this country who does have a problem with this and are fighting hard to prevent same sex couples and 'marital' rights. Without marital rights, same sex couples cannot enjoy many of the benefits that married couples have including tax benefits, shared health care plans, family planning. Hell if one of the partners were to die, the family of that partner could feasibly block the other partner from having any say in the funeral arrangements and other dispursments. It's a shitty deal.

So for right now, if we can at least get some form of 'marriage' for same sex couples even if we have to sugar-coat it and call it a civil union, well at least it's a step in the right direction. I attended the wedding of DUer LostinVA & Haruka in New Jersey and it was a wonderful wedding. And that certificate, whether NJ calls it a marriage or civil union, means that Lost & Haruka can plan their future in the same manner as any other married couple.

And personally, the way that straight couples have abused marriages with more than 50% of them ending in divorce - I think same sex couples can do way better than 'marriage'

[Jim Lane]

20. I agree with both of you

Same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but let's be practical: In many states, that won't happen anytime soon. In the meantime, the "civil unions" dodge will help many people lead happier lives, for the reasons LynneSin points out.

In addition, although "civil unions" is certainly a dodge, it will tend to promote full marriage equality. As more and more people come to know same-sex couples who are legally hitched, whatever the hitching is called, there will be fewer and fewer people who believe the right-wing scare stories about same-sex marriage being the end of civilization. That day-to-day familiarity will help speed the day when same-sex marriage is a reality.

[gollygee]

21. Why don't heterosexuals give up on the word "marriage"

if that word is so easy to give up on.

It isn't the word! It's the RIGHTS associated with it. And it has already been shown that a civil union does NOT offer the protections of marriage. This "civil unions" thing is a scam to try to get people who want equal rights to shut up.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. thank you

[IndianaJones]

23. whats wrong with finding a little common ground? nt.

[closeupready]

26. If it means giving up equal rights, no dice.

n/t

[IndianaJones]

28. separate but equal rights. compromise. nt.

[closeupready]

32. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

Are you seriously suggesting that separate-but-equal is an acceptable compromise? As in Brown v. Board of Education? Or lunch counters? How old are you, anyway - 10?

[IndianaJones]

33. I'm just looking to find some common ground. excuuuse me. nt.

[closeupready]

35. Sure.

:crazy: :D (I'm going to assume you were trying to be funny. lol)

[Dr. Strange]

50. You'll have to forgive IndianaJones,

In the real world, he works for Senator Byrd.
:evilgrin:

[Lilith Velkor]

41. Specious argument

Gay "marriages" and straight "civil unions" would be done by the same justice of the peace.

I do agree that Mr. Jones' use of that phrase was unfortunate, in that it could easily be misconstrued as code.

[Marrah_G]

34. That is why it is legal in Mass

Our state believes "equal" to mean everyone. There is no "Separate but Equal" Just Equal.

[IndianaJones]

36. thats a relatively new concept for Mass, no? nt.

[Marrah_G]

38. No, it's not really, it is in our constitution

It just took a bit to get it implemented in this case.

Yes, gay marriage here is relatively new. Nothing has changed for the worse. There have been no negative effects.

It is not time to let up on this. People need to understand that there is no such thing as separate but equal.

I realize you have good intentions and I actually felt the same a while back. That perhaps one step at a time would work best, ease people into the idea, after all, civil unions is better then nothing. But that is unfair to the GBLT community. They are the same as all of us, they are not separate. They are our families and friends and neighbors and they have the same rights as we all do.

(I won't be able to respond until morning, my modem at home needs to be replaced, so I have to post from work)

[nadine_mn]

45. you are kidding right?

Because separate but equal has worked so well

[ulysses]

42. what common ground?

Take out the religion and a heterosexual union is still called "marriage". Why not homosexual unions?

"Separate but equal" isn't - thought we'd already learned that.

[IndianaJones]

43. reach out...compromise....wait a while. nt.

[ulysses]

47. yes, because that worked so well

for the African-American civil rights movement.

[nadine_mn]

44. common ground is equal rights and equal protections

not a separate right for some

[Marrah_G]

29. Civil Union sounds like a contract having nothing to do with love

Which I believe is why some anti-gay- marriage folks don't mind it. They can wrap their brains around needing a legal contract, but don't want to have to think about the love and affection part.

Gay Marriage is legal here. The world has not come to and end. No one is negatively effected.

GBLT people have a right to the same way of life as everyone else.

[gollygee]

30. Good point

it sounds very legal and not very romantic.

[nadine_mn]

46. marriage originally was a contract

there was no love - look at the history of arranged marriages, dowries for wives, marrying women off to make peace for families or for land. This is the history of marriage, it has always been referred to as a contract.

Anti-gay marriage people need to look at history .... wait that requires critical thinking

By the way...love the quote "Gay Marriage is legal here. The world has not come to an end."

[gatorboy]

37. My wife's a minister. Let me tell you a story about morals...

A couple had come in the chapel one day to be married. When my wife had mentioned she would be performing their ceremony, the woman became hesitant, informing my wife that it was against her morals to be married by a woman. My wife then offered the service of the male minister but told the couple that he charged double.

So they let me wife marry them...Morals be damned when cash is involved. :rofl:

[Az]

39. Simple solution

Get government out of the marriage business. Allow the government to recognize unions of couples be they same sex or not as civil unions. Let individuals form whatever social union their particular culture or religion allows for. Be it marriage or whatever.

[K8-EEE]

40. I'M WITH YOU!!!! I'll give up my "marriage" and be "CU'd"

WTF difference does it make?? Totally retarded non-problem. That's how they do it in Spain -- everyone has a civil union for legal status, then if you want a church marriage that is a separate (and ceremonial) thing.

[Evoman]

49. Call it marriage, and give them equal rights to marriage. If religious people complain,

tell them to shut the fuck up and stick their piece of shit "moralities" up their pruney asses.

That's what needs to happen. Isn't it about time we learn we can't compromise with religious idiots. Give them an inch, and they take miles.