What is your stance on government-recognized marriage/civil unions?

[eyesroll]

It seems DU is pretty united in that the FMA is bad, but I'm wondering how we fall on the specifics of marriage . How would you structure marriage in this country, if at all? I'm not talking about religious marriage here -- religions, and couples, have always defined marriage on their own terms and that would, of course, continue.

And, for the poll, I've only included couple options (simplicity's skae), but feel free to talk about other arrangements in the comments.

For the record, my vote is #2, but I don't think that'll happen (we're quite tied to the word "marriage"), so #1 is acceptable, too.

[Old and In the Way]

1. Civil Unions for all; marriage is the domain of religion and the

government has no business involving itself with any religion's position on marriage.

[truthspeaker]

2. I respect your right to your opinion, but I call BULLSHIT

Marriage was a family arrangement first, then civil. Religion didn't insert itself until much later.

You are basically saying that the non-religious can't get married. That includes my parents, by the way, who have a valid marriage license.

I suggest everyone who voted option #2 rered the second sentence of the OP.

[eyesroll]

3. Hey, I've got a civil marriage license as well

To achieve option #2, we'd have to do a lot of redefining of vocabulary. Which I'm willing to do. Not everyone is; therefore, I think #1 is the more realistic scenario.

That said -- I never said non-religious couldn't get married. They can call themselves married if they like -- it's just that the government doesn't define marriage. I think the word "marriage" would still survive colloquially -- just as a social, not a legal, term.

[Old and In the Way]

8. I am saying nothing of the sort.

"You are basically saying that the non-religious can't get married."

A civil union is defacto marriage.

What I am saying is that the government should not tell religious institutions who can or can't be married within their religious dogma. If the (insert faith here) decides that gays can't be married based on their church law, find another church or work to change the institution's dogma on this issue. The government should stay nuetral in this argument.

[gollygee]

4. I don't understand why this has to be made more complicated than it is

Why change all this country's marriage laws and create a new institution called "civil union" when all we have to do is keep our existing laws but change the part where it says "one man and one woman" to "two consenting adults." This doesn't have to be a big complicated change.

And frankly I hate how religious people think they own the word marriage. My husband and I are married. We got married in a civil ceremony. I like the word "married" and I want to keep it. If some religious folks want a word that is specficially religious to describe what kind of family set-up they like, then they can create their own word, maybe "goddled" or something, and then they'll own it and can use it for whomever they want.

[LoZoccolo]

5. I voted for #2 but my opinion goes farther than that.

Part of the reason I would prefer "civil unions" is that there is not necessarily any sort of sexual import to it at all - they could be used for any relationship where resources are shared. Nuns in a convent, for instance, could register a legal relationship for purposes of getting benefits and what-not. I see no reason for not making it that flexible.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. I voted #2 also.

I've been married for 21 years. I wouldn't be any less "married" if it was called a civil union. Anyone can call it anything they choose but have all the rights of what is called marriage now.

[SemperEadem]

7. #2

The state already recognizes "common law" unions, so the civil union can be an outgrowth of that already established consideration. The filing should be the same as what's already in place; once the pertinent info is processed, you're legally joined and the state then recognizes that the two are one for legal/tax/inheritance purposes. There is no need to redefine anything except what comes into the realm of law and jurisprudence.

If a couple then wants a religious recognition of their union in the form of a marriage, then they are still as free to seek and enjoy that as they are today. But church recognition wouldn't make one union "more" than another except for easily intimidated people who look down their noses on those not like them. One is reminded that the institution of marriage has had a long history of being approved as an instrument of covetousness by the church and the crown/state.

[VelmaD]

9. I notice everyone keeps talking about a "couple"...

or any "2 people". What about those people in relationships that involve more than two people? I have lots of polyamorous friends and I don't see any reason why their multi-partner relationships don't deserve the same recognition as any 2 person relationship.

[HEyHEY]

10. Why is it our business to say who can and can't call themselves married?

That's my stance.... what two people do is none of my business

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

11. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman,

but civil unions for same sex couples would work. Flame away.