Marriage or Civil Union? Let's debate this.

[bertha katzenengel]

I'm sure I won't get much variance here, but I want to know how many of us unequivocally support gay marriage and how many of us say marriage is for a man & woman and civil unions are for same-sex couples. Or any variations of these opinions.

If civil unions are codified so that there is virtually no difference, including state-to-state portability, then I say fine. Call it civil unions.

But my innards cry out, "if it's identical why not just call it marriage? That's what it is!"

Your thoughts?

[Posteritatis]

1. The whole "civil union" thing strikes me as so much seperate-but-equal BS

As you said, if they're identical then give them the same word. Calling for anything less if you support the whole package anyway is just trying to make some exclusive club that Teh Ghey can't get into, and I don't see the point to making those kinds of distinctions.

[leftofcool]

2. I support full marriage between same sex couples

and that means all the rights and benefits including medical, social security, etc... Marriage is now and has always been a state institution. Marriage was never a religious institution, and has no business being controlled by religion period.

[shimmergal]

29. No,

marriage hasn't always been a state institution. That's fairly new. Read Stephanie Coontz' excellent MARRIAGE; A HISTORY. For most of history it was a private contract between families. For a thousand-plus years, in Western Europe, it was controlled by the church.

[Stinky The Clown]

34. I think you have that exactly backwards

Marriage has been the province of the churches for eons.

[MercutioATC]

3. My belief is that we should remove the semantics.

Let "marriage" be a religious thing. Religions would be free to "marry" anybody they wanted to, but it would confer no legal standing to the couple.

Come up with a new word..."Union" for a working title. Unions would be granted to both same-sex and different-sex couples and would confer the same legal rights to each. No religion would be forced to view these couples as "married" for religious purposes.

[Aloha Spirit]

7. Yesss.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. Well your understanding is sort of backward

Religions are free to marry anybody they want, right now, today. No legal standing is conferred by a religious wedding ceremony. None, right now today. No religion is now or would ever be 'forced' to view anybody as anything. No religion has any power legally to bind or unbind, the state alone contains that power. No religion is forced to do anything against its doctrain, no matter the law. Note that divorce is not accepted in many denominations, but those denominations can not in anyway prevent thier members from divorcing, those denominations can and do refuse to remarry divorced people, and yet these denominations can not prevent their members from becoming remarried, as the marriage contract is empowered by the state, and the Chruch has zero to do with it.
Why this focus on the hysterical fear that religions will be 'forced' to do anything, I don't know. State divorce laws sure don't fit into Mr Ratzinger's idea of right and wrong, and that does not seem to stop us from issuing 'no questions instant' divorce, to anyone who asks, without, by the way, any mention of or questions regarding religion or chruch affiliation.
Many of us think followers of Ratzinger and such are simply insane bigots. But they will not be forced to do anything, just as they are not now.

[Booster]

4. The perfect solution is to take the word "marriage" out of

anything that has to do with anything except the church of your choice. Everyone would have to go to the Justice of the Peace to get a civil union status and those that want a church wedding could do so, much the same way atheists do it now, and they can call their civil union anything they want to cause it won't matter. Problem solved.

[Aloha Spirit]

8. Looks like we all agree! n/t

[mondo joe]

21. No, the perfect solution is equality, not dicking around with semantics.

Civil marriage is just the word for civil union. It's already distinct from religious marriage.

[gollygee]

50. Why should we choose the most complicated way of dealing with the problem

completely change marriage so only churches can do it for anyone and create this new thing called "civil unions" that only the government can do, and make people who want to be married go through two ceremonies. Keep the legislature busy for a while completely re-writing how marriage is handled in this country.

OR simply change the words "one man and one woman" to "two people" in current laws.

WHY should we make things so complicated? There is a very simple solution. Simply allow any two people to marry under current laws.

[JackBeck]

5. A great article about this issue:

I'm sure most won't read it, and will just bleat out how marriage is a religious institution, but it's worth a post, nonetheless.

An Anthropologist Critiques Focus on the Family’s “Anthropological” Report on Marriage

(snip)

The appeal to anthropologists as the authority in understanding marriage;

The appreciation that marriage is primarily a social and economic institution, not a religious one;

The acknowledgment that same-sex marriage is traditional;

The recognition that Focus on the Family’s “one biological man with one biological woman” definition of marriage is flawed;

The admission that gay males are capable of stable, long-term relationships.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/25/1692

[Aloha Spirit]

6. Marriage shouldn't be a function of the state for anybody...

Everyone gets to have a civil union, and if you want to be married...that's between you and your religious institution.

But to answer your question ;-) yes, I believe gay marriage should be a constitutional right as long as straight marriage is.

[johnnypneumatic]

9. civil union is seperate and UNequal

if heterosexuals think it is so great, then they should get a civil union. By the way, it is only good in your own state, so if you take a trip the next state over, you're not recognized as married or anything at all, in fact if you have a kid with you, will that state recognize you as the parent? or will they take the kid away to child protective services...
yeah, such a deal, but no thanks

[LSdemocrat]

10. I actually support civil unions for everyone, gay and straight

If someone wants to get married before God, or whatever they believe in, leave that to individual houses of worship and group communities.

[shimmergal]

33. Yes, civil unions for all,

although IMO even that is an imperfect solution.

The state has no business certifying the sexual relationship of any two people, be they straight or gay.

It DOES have a strong interest in making sure people carry out their freely-chosen responsibilities equitably, and that as many citizens as possible (esp. but not confined to children) are part of a well-functioning economic and emotional support group.

And the Constitution forbids us to have two different categories of citizens, doesn't it?

I'd really like to see the state let people register "domestic partnerships" which involve (usually) sharing residence, finances, daily life, and obligations to each other. But with no restrictions as to whether they involve sex between the parties, and not confining the partnerships to couples only.

But that's utopian, I know. As things are now, my preferences are: 1.) Civil unions for all; religious ceremonies optional, or 2.) state certified marriage for all.

[K8-EEE]

39. Me too!!! They do it that way in Spain. I would renounce my "marriage" in a minute!

I'll be civil unionized, whatever! As long as the legal protection is the same. We got married at the justice of the peace and then after our kids were born, we got married in the Catholic Church. But I've since become very disillusioned with the Catholic Church and prefer a civil union.

Let the churches deal with the "marriage" as "sacred" bullshit. Who cares. They're full of shit anyhow. The cool liberal churches will accept everyone and the others, to hell with them.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. That is what we have now

Right now, a church or minister is an add on. The State marries people. No one has to have a church invloved at all. What you posted is true for straight people right now. And for that matter, if I wanted I could find a church and a minister to perfom a ceremony for me and my partner, today, withing 5 miles. So we could get 'married before God' today, but the state still would not recognize that religious ceremony. Because of the 1st Amendment, it is already left up to individual houses of worship etc, and always has been. Churches are today free to hold any ceremony they want to, and to refuse any that they do not wish to do. For example, while the state can not deny a divorce to memebers of religions that do not allow divorce, the chruches can and do refuse to re-marry them after the divorce, and no one can make them. Additionally those divorced sectarians can and do get remarried by the power of the state, the only power that can create or disolve a marriage or any other contract.
The problem is not with chruches as they are not needed. The problem is with the state. 100% with the state.

[cynatnite]

11. I say marriage for all...

If two people want to be married, they should get it. Period.

I understand some folks think that marriage belongs to religious institutions, but in my mind it's giving these so-called religious institutions the right to discriminate by letting them deny a group of people the same right that my and my husband have.

It's not right and we should fight them on it.

[Breeze54]

12. I support gay marriage and voted for reps who made it the LAW!!

:applause: :applause:

[Nickster]

13. I think there's far too much hate in this world to deny anyone a loving, committed, recognized

relationship. Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone, denying it does.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

14. a marriage is at first

a contract between two people creating a civil union. the gov't should have no say in how two people of legal status enter into such a contract. a marriage is secondly a union in the eyes of a religious body. the gov't should have no say in how two people engage in the practice of their religion.

The contract creating a civil union should not need to be supported by an underlying religious marriage. The gov't should have no say in the structure or execution of that contract.

sP

[cynatnite]

16. So, it's okay for religious institutions to discriminate?

I don't understand :shrug:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

18. yes it is

a religious body can do as it sees fit. however, what that religious body does should have no effect on the status of two people wanting to enter into a civil union. all marriages should be seen as civil unions by the state. the state should not be concerned with the religious makeup of a marriage or even if there IS a religious make up to it...

sP

[cynatnite]

23. The state already recognizes marriage...

That's not going to change. It should just be extended to recognize those between the same sex.

To me, civil unions sound like they don't have as much meaning as marriage does. Maybe it's because of how marriage has been treated so seriously by society for the most part. Civil union sounds like formally living together, but not married. Still discriminatory, IMO.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

25. i guess semantics get in the way...i think i pissed someone off below

but it would not be the first time.

all i want to say is that, regardless of the words used to describe the union of two people, the gov't should NOT interfere with rules as to the structure of that marriage/civil union/whateveryouwannacallit. if you want to get married in a church in a religious ceremony, then naturally the church would have some say...but not the gov't.

sP

[K8-EEE]

40. Yes BUT

As a straight married woman, I left the Catholic Church over their discriminatory teachings re: gays.

Let them have their discriminatory "beliefs...." They believe gay love = "wrong."

BUT COME ON PEOPLE, EITHER SPEAK UP OR LEAVE AND JOIN A DENOMINATION THAT RESPECTS ALL PEOPLE!

Let them discriminate AND pay the consquences for it.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. You are righteous

Yes you are. You have actual principles and you are my allie of the day, internet stranger!

[mondo joe]

17. Civil marriage already is distinct from religious marriage.

The government already has no say.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

20. but they do where two people of the same sex want to marry

don't they? isn't that what the argument is about here? why should the gov't care if two men or two women want to marry?

sP

[mondo joe]

22. Are you daft? Those against same sex marriage are also opposed to almost any legal

recognition of same sex couples, for the most part.

If you REALLY think the word is what matters you haven't paid attention.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

24. maybe we are miscommunicating

all i am saying is that the gov't should have no say in how two people wish to join their lives. the gov't should not have a say in the structure of marriage...should they?

i am not daft...i may be bad at communicating my idea...but daft? hardly...

i KNOW that now gov't DOES interfere in marriage matters...else this discussion would not be happening at all. what i am saying is that they shouldn't restrict marriage to ONE MAN/ONE WOMAN...and the word means nothing, i get that...it is about the structure and how the gov't honors that structure...

sP

[mondo joe]

26. With regard to government and marriage: it is common that human adults

form pair bonds, as partnerships. I think it's reasonable to provide couples with easy access to such partnership contracts, particularly as they relate to establishing next of kin status, inheritance and so on.

Beyond that, the government's only interest should be in ensuring that no one's rights are violated in this - or any- situation.

:-)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

28. amen...

and not that it matters...but i am one of those fundy nut that SHOULD have a problem with same sex marriage (at least according to what many would think here and, daresay I, at my church)...too bad my logic circuit gets in the way sometime and helps me see the light...

:toast:

sP

[LWolf]

15. Marriage. Equal under the law.

Marriage is not just a religious construct. A heterosexual couple of any faith, or no faith at all, can legally marry.

That same legal right must extend to the rest of the population.

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. The last years of my marriage were not civil

or a union.

All laws that apply to marriage should apply to a civil union.
I got married by a Justice of the Peace.

[aikoaiko]

27. govt --> civil unions; religion --> marriage

I think the government should be in the business of civil unions for all, and religious folks should have their marriage ceremonies.

[Lil Missy]

30. "Marriage" seems to have a religious connotation that I don't need.

I am more interested in "equal rights", legally, and just plain "civil rights", generally. I don't care about the religious connotation.

However, I do respect the wishes of my religious gay comrades that wish to have their union recognized in the religious sense too.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. See if you allow gays to get married then all of our children will become gay

Also, it's a slippery slope. Next thing you know people will marry their dogs. Where do we draw the line?

[cynatnite]

32. Rick, is that you?

:rofl:

Cats and dogs...living in sin...armageddon here we come. :nuke:

[Hippo_Tron]

35. What can I say? I have a lot of free time on my hands these days

[shimmergal]

38. That's already happened.

In India...KO had a cute cameo about a man/female dog wedding a few weeks ago. It seems the guy had had a run of bad luck ever since he inadvertently hurt or killed 1-2 dogs. He went to a fortune-teller who advised him that such a marriage would turn his luck around.

My 10-year-old granddaughter was watching and said, "That's not legal, is it?"
I stammered something.

But Keith put it all in perspective. "Everyone but Rick Santorum seems happy about the wedding."

[GreenEyedLefty]

36. I say civil unions for all, legally speaking.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. I favor marriage for all

That's my principled side.

My pragmatic side says civil unions for all with marriage the province of the churches.

It seems to me that, legally, the government can NOT discriminate, no matter what the churches want to do.

[The Straight Story]

41. You can marry your dog for all I care

But then, there are always people wanting to poke their noses into other peoples' personal business - and sadly there are a lot on the left, it is not just people on the right wanting to run the lives of others.

I don't even want to go down that whole road....

[frogcycle]

42. somebody has far too much time on their hands n/t

[Chovexani]

43. Marriage, marriage, marriage.

Civil unions have proven time and again to be woefully inadequate with regards to ensuring gay and lesbian couples have the same protections under the law as their heterosexual counterparts, in almost every area. Those inadequate measures are even limited to the state in which the civil union was performed, because they are not portable. Nor do they confer any of the hundreds of federal rights and protections afforded to heterosexual married couples.

Separate but equal is not equal, period. For the heterosexuals who keep espousing civil unions, I would ask you: would you be willing to give up your own marriage and settle for second-class status?

[devilgrrl]

44. I'm for Marriage, on one condition.

That I get invited to all the weddings.

:silly:

For marriage.

And that's my final answer.

[Chovexani]

45. LOL. You're invited to mine if my gf is crazy enough to marry me.

Just be prepared to gussy up in Renaissance garb. :D

[JackBeck]

47. It's a deal.

Even though we got married in San Fran, which was overturned, and still had our ceremony in Brooklyn...not technically marriage, right?

Once Jersey becomes legal, since we now live there, we'll talk.

[Pisces]

46. I am a straight married woman who supports gay marriage 100%

[Myoho]

48. Once Civil Unions carry EVERY right that a "Marriage" does

then I am all for it. If not, then all current marriages should be be rescinded (like they did to gay marriage in SF).

We are not equal until everyone is equal. What part of the the Bill of Rights don't some of us understand?

[Marrah_G]

52. "So are you married?" response: "no, I am civil unioned!" See how dumb that sounds?

Civil union sounds like a cold, unemotional partnership. People don't get that the same genders can fall in love, by calling it civil union they can pretend it is just a contract between sex partners.

Anyone not in support of full civil rights for the GBLT citizens should really sit back and evaluate why this bothers them. I guarantee it is your own learned prejudices that are keeping you from not being outraged that people are being discriminated against.

[SidDithers]

53. Marriage...

anything else isn't enough.

Sid

[KatyMan]

54. Semantics

Any two people should be able to go into a government facility and declare themselves partners, enjoying the full protection and benefits of the law. Marriage is something that a church does, and the definition and duties probably vary greatly between Catholic, Protestant, Hindu et al, so should not be considered a valid legal joining in the eyes of the courts....just my liberal, Catholic, hetersexually married (by a judge), two cents....

edited to add, getting married by a judge is probably way cheaper too...our marriage in 1992 cost us $30 for the license and a $20 tip to the judge...

[Ohio Joe]

56. Complete equal rights for all

There should be nothing less.

[Orsino]

57. I support equal access to marriage for any consenting adult couple.

Continued discrimination is simply not defensible. There is no "debate" to be had on this matter.

[Howler]

58. Marriage or Civil Union?

I think laws and social institutions should be for ALL citizens equally Period. I don't think it speaks very highly of social evolution that in the year 2008 this topic is still being debated While citizens in our communities are being legally discriminated against.I think its a shame a real shame.