NationStates Jolt Archive

Someone (Don't recall who off the top of my head) made the comment in I believe the Hillary thread that Civil Unions weren't a viable alternative to marriages (in reference to same-sex 'marriages'). Was wondering how everyone felt about this.

Personally I don't see a real problem with it, my 'marriage' could be defined a civil union since the entire thing was done through government offices (no church involvement what-so-ever).

marriages for everyone just so this issue gets over and done with so we can focus on the important issues of homophobia in schools and such

edit: also its everyone right to be miserable :)

A legal distinction would be good(i.e. marriages aren't necessarily legally binding, whereas civil unions are designed to be) but there's no need for a distinction in common terminology. Like the difference between theft and burglary. It'll matter to you, but not to your mates in the pub.

I take it we're relocating to this thread, yes?

Marriages should exist as a wholly religious affair for anyone who wants them, but they should be organized by the religions themselves. The mainstream option should be a simply civil union option. This means that religions can keep their fag oppressing line and thus be kept to the margins of society where they belong.

Marriages should exist as a wholly religious affair for anyone who wants them, but they should be organized by the religions themselves. The mainstream option should be a simply civil union option. This means that religions can keep their fag oppressing line and thus be kept to the margins of society where they belong.
I agree completely, that the state enforces one religion's version of marriage in the law is bad for both the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

Marriages should exist as a wholly religious affair for anyone who wants them, but they should be organized by the religions themselves. The mainstream option should be a simply civil union option. This means that religions can keep their fag oppressing line and thus be kept to the margins of society where they belong.

so why have the name civil union at all? the government could just as easily call it all marriage so everyone knows loud a clear what the government thinks?

Thinking about it, I don't think I can endorse a switch to civil unions even if it encompasses both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

To do so would be to concede the argument to the Christian Right. It would be to accept that the people with the right to define what counts as a legitimate relationship are not "us" as a whole, the public, but instead the churches, however bigoted, arbitrary, or exclusive their definitions might be.

Change civil marriages to civil unions, and you turn the civil grant into merely a package of rights. You diminish the subversive power of social legitimation, the capacity we have as a society to reject as a society the social prejudices that judge some citizens to be inferior to others because of the sort of relationships they are in.

If it were possible for me to get a civil union that was legally equal to marriage in every way, I would prefer that to marriage.

so why have the name civil union at all? the government could just as easily call it all marriage so everyone knows loud a clear what the government thinks?

Well 'marriage' as a term is innately religious, the ceremony, tradition etc are all sexist and rooted in a reactionary position, it's a religious ceremony in short. It's better to have a state civil union which is grounded in secularism and equality in union, not the reactionary model.

Well 'marriage' as a term is innately religious, the ceremony, tradition etc are all sexist and rooted in a reactionary position, it's a religious ceremony in short. It's better to have a state civil union which is grounded in secularism and equality in union, not the reactionary model.

in the same sense that Christmas is to do with the birth of Jesus...

what I guess I'm getting at is its a tradition more than religious pomp now like some kind of right of passage

Thinking about it, I don't think I can endorse a switch to civil unions even if it encompasses both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

To do so would be to concede the argument to the Christian Right. It would be to accept that the people with the right to define what counts as a legitimate relationship are not "us" as a whole, the public, but instead the churches, however bigoted, arbitrary, or exclusive their definitions might be.

Change civil marriages to civil unions, and you turn the civil grant into merely a package of rights. You diminish the subversive power of social legitimation, the capacity we have as a society to reject as a society the social prejudices that judge some citizens to be inferior to others because of the sort of relationships they are in.

Bingo.

If it were possible for me to get a civil union that was legally equal to marriage in every way, I would prefer that to marriage.

And again, Bingo.

If gays have to "settle" for Civil Unions, it will simply legitimize them as second-class citizens.

It is difficult for me to recall an instance in American history where a group fighting for equal rights compromised their own efforts in such a manner as to favor the establishment of such a division as a matter of law.

Why would any group essentially say, "You were right...we're not legal and social equals. Lets have different standards."?

so why have the name civil union at all? the government could just as easily call it all marriage so everyone knows loud a clear what the government thinks?

I would prefer civil union because for me its about settling things legally. The relationship I have with my partner is not defined by any official stamp, but our legal and financial rights are. I think there is a problem at the moment in that there is no written marriage contract. People make a lifelong commitment without necessarily understanding the rights and obligations they are taking on. I think it would be healthier to have a clear and explicit written contract which should only be signed after taking legal advice - there doesn't appear to be any such document available, at least in the UK. How many people could accurately list the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage?

Of course, celebrations of love and commitment should still be carried out in whatever way seems appropriate to the participants :)

If it were possible for me to get a civil union that was legally equal to marriage in every way, I would prefer that to marriage.

Interestingly this issue has come up with Civil Partnerships in the UK, which are identical to marriage in every way (seriously, it's like they took the Marriage Act, photocopied it and changed the name), which has had a number of straight couples wanting to similarly be able to form civil partnerships whilst a number of gay couples want the government to finally get a backbone and call it marriage like it really is.

If the rights are identical, the social perceptions will generally follow (from my experience and what i see the media, in the UK civil partnerships are in no way presented less 'legitimate' than marriages), calling it marriage or civil partnership really just comes down to semantics. As such I think both terms should be allowed to be used by gay or straight couples dependant on personal/religious views

When will people learn that "separate but equal" isn't equal?
Either marriage for all, or civil unions for all. I agree that conceding to the Christian right isn't the way to go at this time, so marriage for all.

Abolish marriage and keep civil unions for all. Marriage sounds like "man and woman" - and not even "woman and man"...ie: sexist. Thus marriage isn't legal as a religious ceremony but it exists for symbolic purposes if people want it after getting the union recognised at the civil level.

Personally I don't see a real problem with it, my 'marriage' could be defined a civil union since the entire thing was done through government offices (no church involvement what-so-ever).

Totally nth-ed.

Civil Unions just seem like a modern Plessy v. Ferguson to me.

calling it marriage or civil partnership really just comes down to semantics.

Then why does civil marriage so scare those opposed to gay rights?

I think they're right. I think, in a sense, it is a "redefinition" of marriage... and insofar as it is so, it challenges the traditional sexist and heteronormative conceptions of marriage that they want to retain.

That's why they're more amenable to "civil partnerships", because "civil partnerships" don't present that challenge. They accept the existing conception of "marriage" that the homophobes want to preserve.

You note that "a number of gay couples want the government to get a backbone"... why do you think that is? Perhaps because their experience is like New Jersey's? (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/02/021708nj.htm)

I'd be fine with calling the civil ceremonies civil unions and the religious ceremonies marriages. With only the civil unions legally binding, of course.

But why bother with changing common terminology? I can't see myself saying "I'm getting civil unionised" rather than "I'm getting married".

That's why they're more amenable to "civil partnerships", because "civil partnerships" don't present that challenge. They accept the existing conception of "marriage" that the homophobes want to preserve.

You note that "a number of gay couples want the government to get a backbone"... why do you think that is? Perhaps because their experience is like New Jersey's? (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/02/021708nj.htm)

Oh I don't get me wrong, I do want the government to get a backbone, because it is somewhat insulting that the Church's managed to wrangle it so the term 'marriage' only applies exactly to their definition (it was, IIRC one of the conditions for getting it past the bishiops in the House of Lords, and yes, as a lesbian, I was most pissed off by this).

What I meant was that the term marriage is a very religiously loaded term, but in a highly secular society (which let's face it, most of the UK is), the difference is only semantic. Whenever I hear people in the media or in real life talk about civil partnerships, they talk about marriage, people don't get 'partnered', they get 'married', a lot of forms I see put married and civil partnered in the same box (but not all, I'll admit and that needs to change). Yes it's a bit insulting they make the difference, but in the social conscience this difference is becoming mostly semantic/legal technicality than an underlying view of one being less legitimate than the other.

So my argument really is that marriage as a technical term should be for religious unions and given that some denominations/religions have no problem with homosexuality, the choice of supporting religious marriage should be legally allow for both genders but down to the specific religion whether they'll perform the service, in the same way that people of different faiths getting married is (some churches refuse to conduct the service if the other party doesn't convert). The civil aspect should be called civil partnership irrespective of sexuality but that in every day language, everyone will probably just call it marriage anyway because that's the term people use for a lifelong and legally binding commitment between two individuals.

What I meant was that the term marriage is a very religiously loaded term,

Is it? Really?

I mean, sure, what "marriage" means in a Jewish or Catholic or Protestant or Muslim context might be religiously loaded... but civil marriage has no such association.

Yes it's a bit insulting they make the difference, but in the social conscience this difference is becoming mostly semantic/legal technicality than an underlying view of one being less legitimate than the other.

Well, good... but I'm not sure that this is generally true.

The civil aspect should be called civil partnership irrespective of sexuality but that in every day language, everyone will probably just call it marriage anyway because that's the term people use for a lifelong and legally binding commitment between two individuals.

Then why not just call it "marriage"? Why concede that term?

Is it? Really?

I mean, sure, what "marriage" means in a Jewish or Catholic or Protestant or Muslim context might be religiously loaded... but civil marriage has no such association.

Speaking as a profoundly secular individual...I think marriage does have a religious association. Marriage absolutely positively does NOT have to be religious (my own atheist parents are living proof), but it certainly does have enough religious history wrapped around it to confer religious association and connotations.


Then why not just call it "marriage"? Why concede that term?
Personally, I don't want the term, so conceding it doesn't feel bad to me at all. :D

I mean, sure, what "marriage" means in a Jewish or Catholic or Protestant or Muslim context might be religiously loaded... but civil marriage has no such association.

Then why not just call it "marriage"? Why concede that term?

In our common psyche when we say marriage, we see a church, a religious ceremony etc... not a visit to the registry office. I think the conception still is that marriage is equated to the religious ceremony, not the civil one.

I have to admit, I have always placed more importance on the legal aspects of marriage than anything else. I personally have a distinct oposition to the idea that any form of external ceremony is required to give legitimacy to my relationships, that should be something between me, my girlfriend and our family/friends. But I know I'm probably in a minority on this point.

Speaking as a profoundly secular individual...I think marriage does have a religious association. Marriage absolutely positively does NOT have to be religious (my own atheist parents are living proof), but it certainly does have enough religious history wrapped around it to confer religious association and connotations.

And this is what needs changing.

I'd be fine with calling the civil ceremonies civil unions and the religious ceremonies marriages. With only the civil unions legally binding, of course.

But why bother with changing common terminology? I can't see myself saying "I'm getting civil unionised" rather than "I'm getting married".

Mmmm "With this ring I thee civilly unionise..." doesn't really trip off the tongue.

Mmmm "With this ring I thee civilly unionise..." doesn't really trip off the tongue.

Nope :D
I'm perfectly fine with leaving the word "marriage" to the religious if it means so much to them, but only if we can find a practical alternative. Civil union just doen't work in everyday language.

I think they should call them all 'Jehosephats' and the ceremony will be one of my devising. There will still be cake though. *nod*

I think they should call them all 'Jehosephats' and the ceremony will be one of my devising. There will still be cake though. *nod*

Not pie? An exchange of tacos?

I think they should call them all 'Jehosephats' and the ceremony will be one of my devising. There will still be cake though. *nod*

Will it be a government approved cake?

Not pie? An exchange of tacos?

I am not saying 'no' to pie, and certainly not to tacos. I am merely affirming the continued tradition of cake. *nod*

Will it be a government approved cake?

Gubment Cake? Sounds ghastly. Still, an expert should probably be consulted to confirm the cake has the correct aerodynamic properties. *nod*

Canada has had gay marriage for 5 years and everything's fine and dandy. You don't even hear people complaining about it anymore, except the nuttiest of the religious nuts. Everyone else has moved on after finding out that it didn't change a damnedest thing in their life.

If it's good enough for us, it ought to be good enough for the US of A.

Interestingly this issue has come up with Civil Partnerships in the UK, which are identical to marriage in every way (seriously, it's like they took the Marriage Act, photocopied it and changed the name),

No, they aren't, at least not if the reporting on them is correct. I can name two differences off the top of my head:

1) The rules for public declaration and the ability of people to object are different.
2) A same-sex spouse is not automatically assumed to be the legal parent of his/her spouse's biological child.


As for the original question, the only acceptable solution is one in which a single legal construct exists and is offered equally to all couples, regardless of the sex of the individuals. You could call it civil marriage. You could call it civil unions. I lean towards the former because of the tacit and explicit agreements that many countries have to recognize the marriages of the others. Unless the entire world changes to "civil unions", using that term will automatically offer less legal protection to the couple.

No, they aren't, at least not if the reporting on them is correct. I can name two differences off the top of my head:

1) The rules for public declaration and the ability of people to object are different.
2) A same-sex spouse is not automatically assumed to be the legal parent of his/her spouse's biological child.


From the Uk government site:

How does civil partnership differ from marriage?
[...]
There are a small number of differences between civil partnership and marriage, for example, a civil partnership is registered when the second civil partner signs the relevant document, a civil marriage is registered when the couple exchange spoken words. Opposite-sex couples can opt for a religious or civil marriage ceremony as they choose, whereas formation of a civil partnership will be an exclusively civil procedure.

So on point 1, yes you are right. But this was apparently brought in so that gay couples can conduct the ceremony in private, if they wish. On point 2, yes they are not automatically granted parental responsibility, but nor are step-parents in heterosexual couples, they have to apply for it.

On the point of international recognition... most countries recognize gay marriage seperatly from straight marriage if they don't already have the former, and if they recognise gay marriage they will also recognise civil partnerships from what i can tell.

Saying "marriage" is a religiously loaded word is like saying catechism is religiously loaded, too. Yes, we generally think of catechism in the Catholic Church, but only one of Merriam-Webster's three definitions for the word mentions religion... just in general, not Catholicism specifically. And there is marriage in just about every world religion, so even if it is a "religiously loaded" word, it's not specifically Christian.

While I'll probably vote for Obama, it makes me very angry that a black man would support civil unions. Can't he smell the "separate but equal" in it all?

In the end, it's a government contract. Why are we denying one group of people to enter this contract? Things like this sort of make me want to take the Angelina Jolie "I'll get married when everyone can marry who they please" stance.

However, dressing like a pretty pretty princess, dancing like a fool, and having delicious cake would be fun.

If a Civil Union has the same legal benefits and protections of Marriage under the law, then I don't give a crap what it's called. But only then. Otherwise Marriage only.

2nd class citizenship FTL.

From the Uk government site:

So on point 1, yes you are right. But this was apparently brought in so that gay couples can conduct the ceremony in private, if they wish.

It is unequal treatment, one way or another.

On point 2, yes they are not automatically granted parental responsibility, but nor are step-parents in heterosexual couples, they have to apply for it.

I'm not talking about step-parents. From my understanding (and this is based in common law), if a married woman has a child while married, her husband is automatically assumed to be a legal parent of that child, unless he contests it. He automatically gets parental rights and responsibilities. This does not happen when a woman in civilly unioned lesbian couple has a child.

With a step-parent, there is already a second parent and legal parenthood must be transferred.

On the point of international recognition... most countries recognize gay marriage seperatly from straight marriage if they don't already have the former, and if they recognise gay marriage they will also recognise civil partnerships from what i can tell.

That option shouldn't be on the table. Recognizing them separately is unequal treatment - and automatically represents less protection for some on the basis of sexual orientation.

Marriage absolutely positively does NOT have to be religious (my own atheist parents are living proof), but it certainly does have enough religious history wrapped around it to confer religious association and connotations.

Isn't that true of most everything important about people's lives?

Personally, I don't want the term, so conceding it doesn't feel bad to me at all. :D

As far as personal taste goes, I'm completely with you. But on the societal level, we are not anywhere close to the majority (or likely to ever be), and it is public legitimacy that is required for true equality: society's recognition in society's terms.

To concede marriage, then, is not just to concede a word: it is, more importantly, to concede its significance as well, the ideas of love, stability, and legitimacy that go along with it (at least in most people's eyes.)

In our common psyche when we say marriage, we see a church, a religious ceremony etc... not a visit to the registry office. I think the conception still is that marriage is equated to the religious ceremony, not the civil one.

As far as weddings go, yes, because it's the ceremony that sticks out most in our minds. But when it comes to marriage itself, I don't think we identify the concept with anything particularly religious. For instance, a religious person might have a religious conception of marriage, but that doesn't mean that she would be inclined to deny that those who do not belong to her religion are truly married.

I personally have a distinct oposition to the idea that any form of external ceremony is required to give legitimacy to my relationships, that should be something between me, my girlfriend and our family/friends.

I agree. It isn't a matter of "giving" legitimacy. If that's what I said I misspoke. It's a matter of recognizing the legitimacy that is already there.

On point 2, yes they are not automatically granted parental responsibility, but nor are step-parents in heterosexual couples, they have to apply for it.

Who cares about step-parents being granted parental rights? That's not the same as a gay couple wanting to start a family.

What if a lesbian couple was unionized and wanted to start a family, so they (as a couple) sought a sperm donor and one went through in vitro fertilization? (Yeah, I know, this is totally Tina and Bette from The L Word. Love that show.) Does that make the non-birth mother any less of a parent, even though the couple intends to raise the child together and the non-birth mother played an equal part in the search for a sperm donor? That non-birth mother deserves parental rights in this case just as much as the birth mother.

Canada has had gay marriage for 5 years and everything's fine and dandy.

That's what they want you to think.

That's what they want you to think.
The Canadian government's doing a good job of hiding the fact that Canada is sinking into hell.

Who cares about step-parents being granted parental rights? That's not the same as a gay couple wanting to start a family.

What if a lesbian couple was unionized and wanted to start a family, so they (as a couple) sought a sperm donor and one went through in vitro fertilization? (Yeah, I know, this is totally Tina and Bette from The L Word. Love that show.) Does that make the non-birth mother any less of a parent, even though the couple intends to raise the child together and the non-birth mother played an equal part in the search for a sperm donor? That non-birth mother deserves parental rights in this case just as much as the birth mother.

[Ok, shall I put it another way, if in a straight couple the male was infertile and the women had in vitro fertilization then the 'father' would similarly have to apply for parental responsibility*... so do biological fathers if the child is born out of wedlock]. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that the law in this case is the same between heterosexual marriage and civil partnership.

Edit: * I believe. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to accept this fact and retract my statement
Edit 2: ok, I looked it up, I am wrong. Hmmm... I think is is an aspect of the law that does need to be ammended then.

Ok, shall I put it another way, if in a straight couple the male was infertile and the women had in vitro fertilization then the 'father' would similarly have to apply for parental responsibility... so do biological fathers if the child is born out of wedlock. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that the law in this case is the same between heterosexual marriage and civil partnership.

So if a MARRIED straight couple sought in vitro fertilization due to the man's infertility, he'd still have to apply for parental rights?

Quick, someone who knows about this stuff, is it that way the in US? That just doesn't make sense to me.

While I'll probably vote for Obama, it makes me very angry that a black man would support civil unions. Can't he smell the "separate but equal" in it all?

That bugs the heck out of me, too, and I do support him. He does have the good sense to admit that he may be wrong on the issue, but it still irks me.


Ok, shall I put it another way, if in a straight couple the male was infertile and the women had in vitro fertilization then the 'father' would similarly have to apply for parental responsibility... so do biological fathers if the child is born out of wedlock. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that the law in this case is the same between heterosexual marriage and civil partnership.

I don't think you're correct on this count. I'm admittedly more familiar with US law than with British law, but I'm pretty certain that common law in both countries recognizes a woman's spouse as a legal parent of the child unless he specifically contests it. Even if the couple used a sperm donor, he would still automatically be considered to be the legal parent, unless he or the sperm donor contested that designation.

Edit: I believe the actual term is "presumed father", but I'm not certain.

That bugs the heck out of me, too, and I do support him. He does have the good sense to admit that he may be wrong on the issue, but it still irks me.



I don't think you're correct on this count. I'm admittedly more familiar with US law than with British law, but I'm pretty certain that common law in both countries recognizes a woman's spouse as a legal parent of the child unless he specifically contests it. Even if the couple used a sperm donor, he would still automatically be considered to be the legal parent, unless he or the sperm donor contested that designation.

Edit: I believe the actual term is "presumed father", but I'm not certain.

Yes sorry, i was wrong on this count... damn my bad memory. I retract the statement. I have to say when I first commented about step parents, I had been thinking in terms of biological children from prior relationships (happens quite a lot), not of in vitro. My bad.

Marriage.

After all, it's all the same forced misery.

The Canadian government's doing a good job of hiding the fact that Canada is sinking into hell.

I was joking. :)

Option three had been my position for over 3 years. I have expressed it many time and did so in another thread. Perhaps it was me or a new poster that proposed it when you say it Dy. It's the only option that makes sense. The separation of church and state is very important to me. I am religious, but I do not believe in marriage in the state sense.

Option three had been my position for over 3 years. I have expressed it many time and did so in another thread. Perhaps it was me or a new poster that proposed it when you say it Dy. It's the only option that makes sense. The separation of church and state is very important to me. I am religious, but I do not believe in marriage in the state sense.

I suppose we should stop having the government ever use the term "confession", then? After all, it also has a religious meaning.

Words sometimes have more than one definition. This fact does not breach the separation of church and state.

Canada has had gay marriage for 5 years and everything's fine and dandy. You don't even hear people complaining about it anymore, except the nuttiest of the religious nuts. Everyone else has moved on after finding out that it didn't change a damnedest thing in their life.

If it's good enough for us, it ought to be good enough for the US of A.

OH sure it is if you're anything but a Conservative. *nods* In which case, it bothers you night and day because those damn homos from Toronto are getting married and ruining your way of life in Lethbridge. :p

I'm curious about those who seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water and abolish marriage rather than just allow same-sex marriages.

Do you really think everyone that is married should have their marriages annulled and replaced by civil unions?

Do you really think we should have "marriages" for religious couples and second-tier "civil unions" for everyone else?

In 1967 when the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967), should they have just decided that it was consitutional to bar inter-racial marriages, but inter-racial civil unions were OK? Was the Court wrong in holding that marriage is a fundamental human right?

Do you really think everyone that is married should have their marriages annulled and replaced by civil unions?

Do you really think we should have "marriages" for religious couples and second-tier "civil unions" for everyone else?

Actually, the civil unions would be the superior form - they after all give tax breaks and have legal value.

Marriage would be an unprotected word to represent a religious union. Of ANY religion. As far as the state would be concerned a potato church marriage would carry exactly the same weight as one done by the dominant Christian denomination: none whatsoever.

Of course, the actual feelings people would have about unioning before state and marrying before God could be different.

Actually, the civil unions would be the superior form - they after all give tax breaks and have legal value.

Marriage would be an unprotected word to represent a religious union. Of ANY religion. As far as the state would be concerned a potato church marriage would carry exactly the same weight as one done by the dominant Christian denomination: none whatsoever.

Of course, the actual feelings people would have about unioning before state and marrying before God could be different.

That's all very nice, but we aren't writing on a clean slate.

Marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution and the UN Declaration of human rights. It is also a legal institution with profound consequences well established through history and statutes.

To simply waive a wand and declare all marriage no longer legal protected would have many consequences. It seems unnecessary to do so merely to avoid the recognition of same-sex marriages.

That's all very nice, but we aren't writing on a clean slate.

Marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution and the UN Declaration of human rights. It is also a legal institution with profound consequences well established through history and statutes.

To simply waive a wand and declare all marriage no longer legal protected would have many consequences. It seems unnecessary to do so merely to avoid the recognition of same-sex marriages.

What part of marriage is actually protected that would not be catered for by a civil union ? The word "marriage" ?

Of course, we could also restrict marriage to the state and "holy unions" to churches. The important thing is to be consistent: the state has no reason to disallow homosexuals to form a common household. Some religions do. So seperate them.

I'm curious about those who seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water and abolish marriage rather than just allow same-sex marriages.

Do you really think everyone that is married should have their marriages annulled and replaced by civil unions?

Do you really think we should have "marriages" for religious couples and second-tier "civil unions" for everyone else?

In 1967 when the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967), should they have just decided that it was consitutional to bar inter-racial marriages, but inter-racial civil unions were OK? Was the Court wrong in holding that marriage is a fundamental human right?

No, the court was right. That right should apply to homosexuals as well as heteros, in that two consenting adults can marry.

If people will oppose it, then no marriage for anyone, just legal binding civil unions, with marriage remaining a symbolic ceremony for religious people. It wouldn't be a valid, legal union unless the civil portion was already completed.

That way it's strictly a government affair; a social contract between two consenting adults. Thus removing the legal right of a religion to validate a marriage contract. The right to have the ceremony wouldn't be rescinded but for the union to be legal, it would have to go through city hall like every other civil union.

Remove religion from the marriage business, let the government take over.

I'm admittedly more familiar with US law than with British law, but I'm pretty certain that common law in both countries recognizes a woman's spouse as a legal parent of the child unless he specifically contests it.
Edit: I believe the actual term is "presumed father", but I'm not certain.
The common law is that the spouse is the legal parent EVEN IF he contests it. Some states (not sure whether it is a majority or minority) have changed this, but the actual term is "irrebuttable presumption": it does not matter if the spouse is proven to be not the father, he has the responsibility for any child born within the marriage anyway.


The differences between civil unions and marriages:
Instead of getting "married", we get "civilized"
Instead of holding it in a "church", we have the ceremony in a "union hall"
Instead of a "preacher", the ceremony is conducted by a "union organizer"
Instead of exchanging "rings", we exchange "union labels"
Instead of having "marital spats", we have "civil strife"
Instead of "cheating", going outside is called "treason against the union"
Instead of a "divorce", a complete breakup is called "secession from the union"

I'm curious about those who seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water and abolish marriage rather than just allow same-sex marriages.

Do you really think everyone that is married should have their marriages annulled and replaced by civil unions

Yes. Because marriage is a religious, social, and communal creation. And the government has no place defining religious, social and communal relationships. To use the word "marriage" intrudes the government on an area it should not be in.


In 1967 when the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967), should they have just decided that it was consitutional to bar inter-racial marriages, but inter-racial civil unions were OK? Was the Court wrong in holding that marriage is a fundamental human right?

As long as the government uses the word "marriage" then the institution the governmend defines as "marriage" should not have discrimnatory principles. I just think from a matter of governmental role, the government shouldn't use the word marriage at all, and leave it up to the communities, cultures, and religions to define "marriage" however they wish.

Marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution and the UN Declaration of human rights. It is also a legal institution with profound consequences well established through history and statutes.

To simply waive a wand and declare all marriage no longer legal protected would have many consequences. It seems unnecessary to do so merely to avoid the recognition of same-sex marriages.

Not nearly as difficult from a legal perspective as you might think. For instance, Loving said that marriage was a fundamental right. People could not be STOPPED from getting married.

On the other hand, the government is under no obligation to give benefits to marriage. Tax benefits, inheritance benefits, power of attorney benefits, those are all state created. Loving says, that the government can't STOP people from getting married. Equal protection says that if you give benefits to some married couples, you have to give it to ALL married couples.

However nothing says the government has to do a damned thing for married couples at large. Those benefits for married couples don't have to exist, and to transition it is very simple:

"effective as of this law all instances in the federal law, as well as regulations promulgated pursuant to congressional approval the word marriage and married are replaced with the expressions "civil union" and "civilly unionized". All couples married under the fderal law prior to this date are presumed to be civilly unionized effective as of the enaction of this law"

Not nearly as difficult from a legal perspective as you might think. For instance, Loving said that marriage was a fundamental right. People could not be STOPPED from getting married.

On the other hand, the government is under no obligation to give benefits to marriage. Tax benefits, inheritance benefits, power of attorney benefits, those are all state created. Loving says, that the government can't STOP people from getting married. Equal protection says that if you give benefits to some married couples, you have to give it to ALL married couples.

However nothing says the government has to do a damned thing for married couples at large. Those benefits for married couples don't have to exist, and to transition it is very simple:

"effective as of this law all instances in the federal law, as well as regulations promulgated pursuant to congressional approval the word marriage and married are replaced with the expressions "civil union" and "civilly unionized". All couples married under the fderal law prior to this date are presumed to be civilly unionized effective as of the enaction of this law"

Wouldn't it be easier, more fair, and more just to simply stop discriminating on the basis of gender when it comes to marriage?

marriages for everyone just so this issue gets over and done with so we can focus on the important issues of homophobia in schools and such

edit: also its everyone right to be miserable :)

Actually, I'll throw this into the pot:
Civil unions for everyone -- being legally identical to what we call "civil marriage" now.

You want to get married, then get the church ceremony.

Everyone equally happy (or equally miserable) :p

I agree completely, that the state enforces one religion's version of marriage in the law is bad for both the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

???? Excuse me?

You're saying that it's a Christian ceremony for everyone?

Or Jewish?

Or Buddhist?

Or Muslim?

Or Shinto?

Wouldn't it be easier, more fair, and more just to simply stop discriminating on the basis of gender when it comes to marriage?

Sure, but the poll asked me what I prefered, and I prefer the government not deal with marriage at all. With that being said however, I'd certainly accept just calling the whole thing marriage.

Nope :D
I'm perfectly fine with leaving the word "marriage" to the religious if it means so much to them, but only if we can find a practical alternative. Civil union just doen't work in everyday language.

How about, "We're getting hitched?" :D

I think they should call them all 'Jehosephats' and the ceremony will be one of my devising. There will still be cake though. *nod*

You can't fool me. There will be exchange of cream pies -- from ten paces.

???? Excuse me?
You're saying that it's a Christian ceremony for everyone?
Or Jewish?
Or Buddhist?
Or Muslim?
Or Shinto?

The state currently does not recognise all religious ceremonies as valid, and in that sense it does discriminate. A Wiccan ceremony involving two people of the same gender for instance is not recognised. Polygamy is not recognised, even if the religion of the people involved allows such marriages. A marriage performed by a roman Catholic priest however is considered valid.

It would be better to just completely seperate state and religion in the marriage area. People that want both can have two ceremonies. Just like you said ;)

Actually, I'll throw this into the pot:
Civil unions for everyone -- being legally identical to what we call "civil marriage" now.

You want to get married, then get the church ceremony.

Everyone equally happy (or equally miserable) :p

How about, "We're getting hitched?" :D

"Will you hitch me?"

"Will you hitch me?"

I'm really quite flattered that you asked, but I'm unavailable. :D:D

How about join, then?

"Will you be joined with me?"

What part of marriage is actually protected that would not be catered for by a civil union ? The word "marriage" ?

International considerations.

Of course, we could also restrict marriage to the state and "holy unions" to churches. The important thing is to be consistent: the state has no reason to disallow homosexuals to form a common household. Some religions do. So seperate them.

Why do they have to have different terms in the first place? "Confession" means something different when we are talking about legal issues than it does when talking about religion. Why shouldn't "marriage" be the same way.

We already have separate institutions - civil marriage and various types of religious marriage. The law does not recognize any marriage without a marriage license and churches only recognize those marriages they approve of. Arguing over the word is pointless.


Yes. Because marriage is a religious, social, and communal creation. And the government has no place defining religious, social and communal relationships. To use the word "marriage" intrudes the government on an area it should not be in.

...except that "marriage" is also a civil institution.

Why are people so caught up in the idea that a word cannot have different meanings in different contexts?

The state currently does not recognise all religious ceremonies as valid, and in that sense it does discriminate. A Wiccan ceremony involving two people of the same gender for instance is not recognised. Polygamy is not recognised, even if the religion of the people involved allows such marriages. A marriage performed by a roman Catholic priest however is considered valid.

It would be better to just completely seperate state and religion in the marriage area. People that want both can have two ceremonies. Just like you said ;)

I think you might be a bit confused here. The priest carrying it out has little to do with it. All they do is sign off on the date they officiated. If someone walks into a Roman Catholic Church and asks the priest to marry them without a marriage license already in hand - without already having gone through the civil authorities - it is not recognized by the government.

Allowing ministers to sign the document to state when the union took place is just a matter of convenience.

I was joking. :)
So was I...

The state currently does not recognise all religious ceremonies as valid, and in that sense it does discriminate. A Wiccan ceremony involving two people of the same gender for instance is not recognised. Polygamy is not recognised, even if the religion of the people involved allows such marriages. A marriage performed by a roman Catholic priest however is considered valid.

It would be better to just completely seperate state and religion in the marriage area. People that want both can have two ceremonies. Just like you said ;)

You are not quite correct... a ceremony performed by an ordained Catholic priest is only valid if a marriage license supplied by the state is also filled out at the same time, signed by the appropriate people (the ordained officiator being one, or a person otherwise designated by the state, such as a justice of the peace, as authorized to sign), and returned to the correct office to be filed. As such, a Wiccan priestess can perform a legal marriage ceremony as well (she would need to be ordained by a recognized religion, but there are Wiccan churches with that power, or to additionally be a JP, which is a route many such "alternative religion" folks follow) by filling out the paperwork.

Basically, the ceremony or lack thereof makes no difference. If you don't have that piece of paper, the marriage is not legal. With that piece of paper, any ceremony at all (or none, if you choose) is fine by the state.

Polygamy is not legal, no matter what church, because it is not recognized by any state. The same is true of gay marriage in many states. Neither of these points have anything to do with what a priest might say about it.

So was I...

Oh. Good.

Sometimes it's difficult to tell, over the Internet and all.

Oh. Good.
Dinnie worry, there’s been enough threads on gay rights for me to have a pretty good idea of your views.

Sometimes it’s difficult to tell, over the Internet and all.
Too true.

I should have used me smilies.

I suppose we should stop having the government ever use the term "confession", then? After all, it also has a religious meaning.

Words sometimes have more than one definition. This fact does not breach the separation of church and state.

I think you missed my point. A confession is simply someone admitting something they may or may not have done wrong. A confession does not require any sort of legal agreement of any kind. No one can say, "I entered into a confession and we are not bound by civil law." A confession to a crime may bring about your incarceration, but a confession to a priest may not do the same. Priests are, however, required by law to bring certain information to the authorities. The Supreme Court has decided there are limits to the privilege of confession to clergy. It's not that there is more than one meaning of the word that makes the difference. A confession is the exact same thing, the only difference is the party in which you confess to. This is why your example falls short.

Define marriage in terms of the state? What does it mean to the state? Marriage to the state is nothing more than a contract between two individuals. It must be entered into with people who are both of sound mind at the time of the union. Marriage in a religious sense is a union of souls. "Let no man tear apart what God has joined together." There is no union of souls when it comes to the state. Marriage for the state can be defined as:a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger. Or, the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock. One can be married legally but have no religious ceremony right? This makes the act mutually exclusive. Technically you are married when you sign your marriage certificate. The rest is your particular religious preference.

International considerations.



Why do they have to have different terms in the first place? "Confession" means something different when we are talking about legal issues than it does when talking about religion. Why shouldn't "marriage" be the same way.

We already have separate institutions - civil marriage and various types of religious marriage. The law does not recognize any marriage without a marriage license and churches only recognize those marriages they approve of. Arguing over the word is pointless.



...except that "marriage" is also a civil institution.

Why are people so caught up in the idea that a word cannot have different meanings in different contexts?

It does have separate meanings. This is why the state shouldn't be in the business of marriage. Marriage to the state is nothing more than a contract. The religious aspect is separate.

I'm really quite flattered that you asked, but I'm unavailable. :D:D

How about join, then?

"Will you be joined with me?"

*shudders*

Sorry, but that sounds too much like a surgical procedure...

You are not quite correct... a ceremony performed by an ordained Catholic priest is only valid if a marriage license supplied by the state is also filled out at the same time, signed by the appropriate people (the ordained officiator being one, or a person otherwise designated by the state, such as a justice of the peace, as authorized to sign), and returned to the correct office to be filed. As such, a Wiccan priestess can perform a legal marriage ceremony as well (she would need to be ordained by a recognized religion, but there are Wiccan churches with that power, or to additionally be a JP, which is a route many such "alternative religion" folks follow) by filling out the paperwork.

But - and that was my point - the legal ceremony was carefully constructed to be almost fully compatible with the Christian concept of marriage (almost - divorce is allowed after all) - and not with the concepts of other religions. A state marriage in principle is a marriage between one man and one woman until they die because that is the way the Christians like it to be.

There is in this day and age no reason for the state rules to be so restrictive and to follow the Christian layout so closely - but they do. And that is why they should be seperated completely - including in name.

I think you missed my point. A confession is simply someone admitting something they may or may not have done wrong.

And a marriage is simply the binding of individuals into a single entity.

A confession does not require any sort of legal agreement of any kind. No one can say, "I entered into a confession and we are not bound by civil law." A confession to a crime may bring about your incarceration, but a confession to a priest may not do the same. Priests are, however, required by law to bring certain information to the authorities. The Supreme Court has decided there are limits to the privilege of confession to clergy. It's not that there is more than one meaning of the word that makes the difference. A confession is the exact same thing, the only difference is the party in which you confess to. This is why your example falls short.

Actually, you're making my point quite well. A confession to a priest is a matter of saying what you did wrong, in a religious setting. The consequences are religious. A confession to a legal official, on the other hand, has legal requirements (ie. Miranda rights, etc.) and legal consequences. At their base, both confessions are the same thing - admission of wrongdoing. But their are clear differences between religious and legal confessions.

This is just like marriage. A religious marriage has religious requirements and procedures. A civil marriage has legal requirements an procedures. At their base, both are the same thing - the binding of two people into a single entity. The difference is what that binding means.

Define marriage in terms of the state? What does it mean to the state? Marriage to the state is nothing more than a contract between two individuals.

Incorrect. A marriage license requires the couple, in many ways, to be seen as a single legal entity. This cannot be accomplished simply by a contract between two people. It also legally requires the participation of the state and other legal entities.

No matter what context you place it in, "marriage" is the binding of two (or, sometimes, more) people into a single entity. In religion, that binding is more spiritual. From a legal point of view, that binding is legal.