"Civil Unions for all", the ultimate cop out...

[Solon]

OK, seriously, whoever thought this up, saying basically that the guvmint should get out of the marriage business apparently knows nothing about politics or practicality. What really puzzles me is how they say this has a greater chance of passing than just extending marriage rights to homosexual relationships. OK, let me get this straight, a lot of straight folks are threatened by gay marriage because it threatens the "sanctity of marriage" whatever the fuck that is. So these idiots who thought of this idea of "Civil Unions for all" decided that GETTING RID of the language of marriage will make it more acceptable to the straight folks?

How the fuck would that work? Seriously, what the fuck are these people smoking, acid laced crack? Would such a law be retroactive? I could just see the millions of married couples all of the sudden having to re-register as "Civil Unionized", yeah, that will go over well with the majority straight population. :eyes:

Even if it weren't retroactive, I just don't see many straight folks jumping on the bandwagon for this "Civil Unions for all" bullshit. Seriously, can you imagine many straight people voting for their kids, or future relationships not being considered "Marriages" legally anymore? I don't, and yes, language is important in this case.

Not to mention the legal complications, in quite a few states, the same person who officiates over the religious ceremony also helps to register the legal contract. Not to mention the rewrites of thousands of laws that would be necessary just for consistency's sake, not to mention the headaches that would reverberate in the courts for years to come. Yes, this could theoretically lead to equality between straight and gay couples, but it seems like a damned complicated way of going about it, and seems a cop out to me.

[incapsulated]

1. For a lot of people... well voting people, the language is important

Don't ask me why. But to them, the M word is somehow sacred and using the word "union" calms some of them down. Not all of course, there were plenty of VOTE NO ON CIVIL UNIONS for States during the last election.

I think for a lot of democrats that this became such a huge issue was something we didn't see coming. I would have never imagined people would cross party lines over this but they did.

I kinda agree with those who say it's generational and we may have to wait until the younger folks, who don't give a shit about all this, start voting in large numbers.

[Solon]

3. I'm talking about those who propose civil unions for both straight and gay couples....

So basically it makes the "M" word irrelevant, since neither group could legally marry. If anything is less acceptable to straight, homophobic, people than gay marriage, it would be this "compromise".

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Here's my plan...

We need to get "defense of marriage" laws passed everywhere that say marriage is between two human beings.

Present it as our only protection from unelected activist judges sanctioning polygamy or... shudder.... man-on-dog marriage.

[incapsulated]

6. Maybe though....

What they are thinking is it would be better in the end to just separate marriage as a religious ceremony and make civil unions more of a legal partnership agreement. And those who want the full marriage deal can go to their religious institution of their choice and get one.

I dunno.

[Solon]

11. Civil Marriages and Religious Ceremonies are already separate...

or at least an option. You can go to a Justice of the Peace and get a license, hell you could have a shot gun wedding in a drive through in certain places in this country.

The fact is that getting rid of the civil marriage and replacing it with a civil union will piss a lot of folks off, a lot of people who may otherwise support same-sex marriage, for the language itself would be untouched.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. As a political measure, you're correct. The "M" words matters to people

[KittyWampus]

45. If you had a clue, you'd know that this is how European countries have handled this.

[More Than A Feeling]

2. I've supported this in the past, but I've changed my mind.

It's a technicality that has little meaning in the wider culture. Marriage it is, and marriage it shall be, for consenting adults to marry whom they love, not who other people think they should be forced to, or be excluded from the whole institution.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Marriage is unconstitutional, anyway

Marriage is a sacrament. Everyone should have civil unions.

If you want to hold a supplemental ceremony in a church, that's your perfect right.

The problem is that even most religious people think religion is trivial. They rely on the state to enforce petty morality through vice laws and add the REAL blessing to their sacraments. The one from city hall.

[incapsulated]

7. Yeah, that is kinda what I was saying

Make Civil Unions the "legally binding, State recognized partnership" and leave marriage for religious institutions.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. They already are, really.

Nobody's church wedding is legal unless they filed papers with the state.

And the religious obligations and vows they added to the civil law of marriage have no meaning to the state.

[incapsulated]

13. But sepearating the word marriage

Taking it out of any state endorsed union, would be new and would finally separate this whole issue into a religious, instead of a legislative, debate.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. re: retroactivity

The only people who would be un-married would be people who were married at city hall (or Vegas chapels), and they are probably not a real religious group.

All religious vows would remain as valid as they ever were.

[Solon]

14. That makes no sense...

Sorry but it doesn't, why would people who were legally married by a justice of the peace have their marriages invalidated, in addition, why would marriages performed in a religious ceremony not be invalidated? The legal document, the marriage license, is still a state issued contract. Why would it matter whether it was a justice of the peace or a clergy member who co-signed it?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. I was only referring to your OP

"Would such a law be retroactive?"

I wasn't saying it made sense... I can't see any reason why it would be retroactive, but I was playing along with the idea. If people's old civil marriages became equivalent to new civil unions it wouldn't alter any vows made before god one way or the other.

If they were "married" before god they still would be "married" no matter what the state called it.

[Solon]

19. I was talking about the transition in changing the terms...

For example, if civil marriage, note EVERYONE who has a legally recognized marriage is in a civil marriage, regardless of who or where the actual ceremony took place. Anyways, if civil marriage, and the language that goes along with it were replaced with civil union, co-equal, but separate terms. Then that would be complicated, the word marriage wouldn't be a legal term anymore, and would have to replaced in the 2,000 or so laws that deal with marriage contracts, tax and benefit laws.

There's also the problem of what to do with the millions of people who are already married, is the original language kept, but only for a certain amount of time, a grace period before they have to re-register as "Civil Unionized", or is it permanent for current marriage licenses but they are no longer issued anymore?

These are some of the complications I thought of, there may be more I haven't thought of yet.

[IndianaJones]

9. its the old "burn it all" philosophy. they would have stopped calling it "voting" if possible. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. My motive for wanting to eliminate marriage is not so gays won't taint it

I know what you're referring to. I remember public facilities closing and school systems being defunded rather than be segregated.

If anyone has "marriage" then GLBT should have it.

I just think it's wrong for any civil government function to also be a sacrament, and don't think any government function should be carried out in a church. (I'm an atheist 1st amendment absolutist nut)

Of course the problem is the civil aspect. Gay couples can find a church willing to marry them, but the state won't sign off on it.

[incapsulated]

17. I agree with you, technically

Really, it is a breach of the separation of church and state to have a religious ceremony sanctioned by the state.

However, I doubt most people will agree to this.

Honestly, gays have more of a chance working to eventually "have what everyone else has" than changing the very idea of marriage to a strictly religious ceremony along the lines of a baptism or something right now. It's too ingrained in our culture, that mesh of the two.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. Absolutely

I was just fearing being misunderstood, since I earlier said I wanted to eliminate marriage, and then IJ pointed up the possible scorched earth aspect of that argument.

[EST]

21. Language is everything, as you and several other posters have

pointed out.
Many years ago, I was a licensed, ordained minister, a pastor ( as a minister who headed up a particular, real physical world church,) and was registered with the state, as was then required, to officiate and sign off on marriages.
Now, in this state, marriage contracts don't actually require a licensed witness by the state or a religious organization, merely a witness.
Public acceptance and a lessening of confusion are other things, entirely.

"Marriage," per se, has little to do with "holy matrimony." Marriage is the amalgam of two or more dissimilar entities, lead-coated iron pipe, oil and water (a "miscible" mix) in combination, old technology with new technology, etc. All are considered and often called "marriage."

"Holy matrimony" is a religious observation, a blessing, as it were, conferred on a union of individuals. It is not a contractual term.
Marriage or unions are legal terms, describing a contract. That contract is legally binding but not necessarily spiritually so.

The problem is not the terms, in and of themselves, it is the attitude of people. It is a problem that comes up when people are so convinced of their own fundamental "rightness" that they are utterly convinced everyone else should follow their model. That fundamental conceit that everyone possesses--in one fashion or another--that, "if you would just live your life the way I tell you to, your life would work!"

That fundamental conceit, unfortunately, does not grow out of all encompassing knowledge, as its possessors assume, but out of ignorance, self-assured ignorance.

It just doesn't matter much in the face of self-assured ignorance what the clarity of language actually states; it matters only about how people feel.
People, and public spirit, have to be transformed for alternate language to make a huge difference, although it can help take the edge off.
I have hopes that the more modern practice of extensive cohabitation and less insistence on official sanction will yield a change of attitude that allows people to interfere less in their fellow travelers lives, but I have no confidence that it will.

[AndyTiedye]

20. Separation of Church and State

Marriage is a sacrament, but it also confers legal rights and responsibilities.

A "civil union" is a legal name for that set of legal rights and responsibilities —
that part of "marriage" that is within the domain of the state.

By that definition, anything beyond a civil union is none of the state's business.

Turning a civil union into a marriage is up to the couple.

[sniffa]

22. k&r

it is a copout.

[John Kerry VonErich]

23. Marrage is like cars

you have to get a license for it.

[LoZoccolo]

24. You should check the polls before using all those curse words.

OK, let me get this straight, a lot of straight folks are threatened by gay marriage because it threatens the "sanctity of marriage" whatever the fuck that is. So these idiots who thought of this idea of "Civil Unions for all" decided that GETTING RID of the language of marriage will make it more acceptable to the straight folks?

Yes; this is been established for a long time.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

26. Is there any proof that they wouldn't.

A poll would be convince me of that.

[Solon]

29. I don't think there has been a poll about that yet...

But seriously, how many straight folks do you know that would give up the word marriage being legally recognized for their relationships? I don't know of one. Remember, all polls about civil unions are under the premise that civil unions would be for homosexuals only, or, barring that, are an additional option, a supplement, to civil marriage, at least for straight folks.

[KittyWampus]

46. they wouldn't have to give up the word marriage. They could go get married AFTER signing the Civil

Union Contract.

MOST people have some kind of ceremony besides going to Town Hall to file/sign the papers.

[Irreverend IX]

27. Civil unions for all is the ideal solution...

Ideally, the government should not be in the marriage business, marriage being a traditionally religious institution. However, I haven't read any posts advocating "civil unions for all" as a political position that Dems should realistically espouse, since there's no way it would pass. State-sanctioned marriage is here to stay for the forseeable future. In a perfect US, though, the government would not be granting "marriage" licenses.

[Solon]

31. Actually, marriage was traditionally a state institution before any religion got involved...

The Christian Church, what we call the Catholic Church today, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, didn't really think marriage was any of their business until well into the Medieval era, and even then, any ceremonies and sacraments were limited to the Nobility. For the majority of people in this era, getting married involved moving in together, and then saying vows in front of a witness, most likely a family member. The only reason the Church got involved at all was that most Christians wanted a set of rules and ceremony for marriage, it wasn't necessarily a Church idea to begin with.

The State always had a greater interest in marriage, considering that it affects taxation, inheritance, and property transfers, along with contract law.

[ellacott]

32. Many European countries do this

They have been doing this for some time. I wonder what is the history of this in the US. Was this a consideration when this country was founded or did it change over time.

Off to google. :)

[terrya]

28. Kicked and recommended

:thumbsup:

[flpoljunkie]

30. What's "sanctified" about a civil marriage in the clerk's office in the hall of the courthouse?

It is not the religious ceremony that confers the legal rights, it is the civil marriage contract. That said, a civil ceremony uses the same words, and is quite beautiful in its commitment and its simplicity..."We are gathered together here in the fact of this company...With this ring, I thee wed, in love and in truth, and with all my worldly goods, I thee endow..."

When you want to dissolve this civil marriage contract, you don't go to the minister, rabbi, or priest. You go to court.

Marriage without legal recognition confers no legal rights or responsibilities.

Barack Obama understands this, and so do many in the LGBT community.

[Stinky The Clown]

33. There's merit to your arguments

But there is merit to the other side, too (civil unions for all - cufa).

I guess I'm uncomfortable with your tone. I do NOT see it as the 'ultimate cop out'. I suspect MOST people seeing cufa as viable, actually favor full equality, meaning **marriage** for all. What they're doing is attempting to bridge chasm that appears to be out there.

The people you seem to be deriding are, in my opinion, your strongest allies.

You can argue the viability of one way forward over another. That's perfectly valid. But to call people making a good faith attempt to move forward - even if only a measured first step in the right direction - copper outers, or even worse, is unhelpful.

[Solon]

34. I deride it because I think its stupid...

If an idea is stupid, I'll call it that, I don't see why I would have to mince words just to satisfy some unrealistic fantasy. Its my bad habit, but I just find that I can't take it seriously, simply because, if the idea itself ever became popular enough to actually pass into law, we would have full marriage equality already on the books. The idea has no merit, even worse, it seems to try to pander to the worst elements of society in the worst possible way.

[leftupnorth]

35. Who cares what it's called?

As long as gay couples have the same legal rights as straight couples, who cares what it's called?

Language is important the religious nutjobs, and if we can make the "antis" think that their church isn't going to be forced to marry (religious context) gay couples, they'd be more likely to accept it.

Civil unions for the state, marriage for the church.

The REAL question is, are you interested in gaining equal rights for gay couples or are you just interested in whipping up frenzy amongst the zealots?

[Solon]

40. Most of the nation cares what its called, that's the problem...

What I'm trying to point out is that it may be more politically expedient to push for gay marriage instead of recreating civil marriages as civil unions. Look, I personally don't care what its called, and neither do you, but I'm more concerned with PRACTICAL ways to obtain marriage equality. Confusing the issue by renaming marriage for legal recognition doesn't help.

[MLFerrell]

36. Segregation for all!

Marriage between a member of the pure white race and a negro would defile the sanctity of marriage!

:sarcasm:

No difference between racist marriage laws and homophobic marriage laws, IMO.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. One of your points:

"How the fuck would that work? Seriously, what the fuck are these people smoking, acid laced crack? Would such a law be retroactive? I could just see the millions of married couples all of the sudden having to re-register as "Civil Unionized", yeah, that will go over well with the majority straight population."

How the fuck this would work is quite simple. What the fucking state would issue is a fucking standard civil union license. All fucking existing marriage licenses would be fucking grandfathered in and would be fucking legally equivalent. You could continue to get your fucking religious marriage in your fucking church and you could fucking call it anything you fucking want. You could, for example, call it 'tuesday'.

There are no legal complications. The only point of 'civil unions for everyone' is to separate the religious institution of marriage from the secular institution of domestic partnership contracts. The reason is to address the concerns of the homophobic and religiously afflicted that their homophobic church is going to be coerced at gunpoint to 'marry them gays'. They can continue to exclude everyone they hate from their church ceremonies. What the bigots cannot continue to be allowed to do is to institutionalize secular discrimination against people they hate.

[leftupnorth]

38. BAM! Like an anvil to the forehead.

You nailed it Warren.

[Solon]

39. And just how are you going to sell it to straight folks? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

41. By patiently explaining to them that nothing will change.

Other than the name of the license. By addressing the concerns of the homophobic and religiously afflicted that their homophobic church will not be forced at gunpoint to marry them gays. By separating 'marriage', a religious ceremony, from 'domestic partnership contracts', a secular matter, and in doing so defusing the wedge issue exploited by the professional hate mongers.

Convincing the homophobes is a tough sell no matter what. Certainly selling 'gay marriage' to the homophobes has not been exactly successful outside of Massachusetts, and Massachusetts got there through court action and not the ballot box. So your argument there is very weak, or to put it in your terms: fucking stupid.

[Solon]

42. They already are separate, on a practical level...

You can have a Civil Marriage without a religious component, and you can have a Religious Marriage without a Civil component. You can explain THAT to the homophobes just as easily, and then patiently explain the First Amendment and how it fits in with all this.

[NMMNG]

47. It would be much easier, and more fair

To simply legalize marriage for gay people. Tell the bigot churches that they don't have to marry gay people if they don't want to (just like they don't have to marry people of other faiths or no faith if they don't want to). There's no muss, no fuss, and the bigots don't get to keep claiming "marriage" is their domain when it isn't.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. I am not opposed to that approach either, however

so far the track record has not been good. The argument for civil unions for everyone that I find interesting is that it clearly separates (what has become) the religious ceremony of marriage from the civil contract. It drives a wedge between the opposition - between those who's objections are a (deliberately fostered) confusion that 'gay marriage' will force them to alter their religious rituals, and those who are simply homophobic haters who sincerely wish to keep homosexuals as second class citizens, and would probably be happier if they were all criminalized instead.

[zulchzulu]

43. Civil unions and domestic partnership legislation is the first step

Let me say from the top that I don't care who gets married to whom. Gay marriage is fine with me.

But...

...in order to get legislation that goes toward the final target of gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships are the easiest way to get toward that goal.

There are enough moderate Republicans to make a veto-proof majority to pass legislation along with Democrats for civil unions and domestic partnerships.

It might have to be rebranded like Fred Luntz does it with Bush legislation. Call it "Fair and Equal Relationship Act" or the "Equal Liberty Act"...

Unfortunately, if the Democrats want to pass "gay marriage" laws, it just gets stuck in the swamp. Because of that ill-begotten strategy, so many people in relationships that could have civil unions or domestic partnerships get left out in the cold...again...

[leftupnorth]

44. B - I - N - G - O! n/t

[goodgd_yall]

48. Straight people won't support their precious civil unions---called "marriages" taken away from them

I think it's a good idea to abandon the term "marriage" in civil contracts because it's more descriptive of what it is. But you're right, straight people would never accept this, and politicians advocating this risk their political careers.