Marriage vs Unions. Does the name matter?

[booley]

Is there a difference? IF there was a Federal version of civil unions that gave all the same rights, would that be the same? Most people seem to have no problem with giving the rights of marriage (hospital visitation, adoption) but vehemently oppose gay marriage. It seems it's the word "mariage" that get s many people hung up.

BUT has seperate but Equal ever worked? And as many have said, the rights of marriage dont' work without the word becuase people understand the idea of unions without the word. We have cases of Same Sex couples having all of the legal documents but still being denied the rights those documents were supposed to cover.

So ...Does the word Marriage mattter?

[IndyOp]

1. Separate is not equal. Period.

[MuseRider]

11. Period!!!

No way we should accept anything less. If they have a problem with it then let them change what they call what they commit to. It is their problem not yours.

[BR_Parkway]

2. Other - everyone should be able to get a Union, if they want a

marriage by their church of choice, that's fine too. But the rights for all go with the unions, not the religious marriage. You know, like those darn European's do it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I agree with you

A civil union should be just that-the legal procedure that gives the couple all the perks of being spouses to one another. Marriage should be religious, and done only if the couple wants it. Come to think of it, that's what my husband and I did-went before a judge first, and later before a Cherag and Cheraga of our faith for our spiritual marriage ceremony.

[krispos42]

5. Sounds good to me

The State issues the legal rights to a couple. The Church issues the "married in the eyes of God" proclamation.

[MuseRider]

12. That is the way

I hope we can move this.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. yes, and no.

The rights are all important - call it anything you want and deny the rights, and that is less than calling it a union with full rights.

And the reality on the ground is, if unions are approved, gays will be calling it marriage from day one, and in ten years so will everyone else.

[Warpy]

6. Other: once you have access to the body of law

governing marriage, you can call it whatever you want to.

BTW, in areas that have civil union laws, they've seen straight couples opting for it. Marriage carries a lot of negative baggage for a lot of straight couples, especially women.

[eggplant]

7. The solution seems simple to me

Stop using the word marriage to refer to a legal status. Make *everyone* have a civil union. If you want to "get married" in a church per the faith of your choice, go ahead, but the legal form you fill out will be a civil union license.

Now, all the people who bitch about the sanctity of marriage will be instantly appeased**, since the issue of "gay marriage" becomes one for their church to solve, not the government.

To me, the concept of "legal marriage" is as silly as the idea that one might gain some legal status via a Bar Mitzvah, baptism, or any other religious coming-of-age ceremony. People don't beome entitled to social security benefits when they become "elders" in their churches.





**Of course this is nonsense -- people who "oppose gay marriage" are simply doing it because it appears less obvious than "hating/fearing/secretly-being gay people".

[MercutioATC]

21. EXACTLY! Remove "marriage" from the equation. It's about legal status,

not being blessed by some church.

[justin899]

27. If you remove "marriage" from the equation then it's not marriage

and does not provide the rights and obligations of marriage. If it's called something else it IS something else.

It has nothing to do with anybody's church. A civil marriage performed by a J.O.P is still a marriage, not a "civil union" or other form of fake "marriage."

[MercutioATC]

29. Again, EXACTLY!

It doesn't have to be a "marriage" to convey the same legal rights as our current "marriages" do.

Don't buy into the hype. All it would require is federal legislation that would supersede state law substituting "legal union" (or whatever) for "marriage".

Hanging onto the "marriage" nomenclature is a losing proposition. We need to redefine the conveyance of legal "marital" rights.


ON EDIT:

Forget about the quagmire of writing federal law that trumps state law. Just cut off the federal highway money of any state that doesn't pass identical legislation within 180 days. States are very attached to their federal highway money.

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. Yes, it MUST be marriage to convey the same legal rights as marriage

That a religious ceremony has the same name as a civil institution is totally irrelevant. Where statutory and common law mention marriage, where statutory and common law describe the thousands of attendant rights, privileges, protections and responsibilities of marriage, it is always describing the civil institution of marriage. The First Amendment separation of Church and State allows for no other possible application or interpretation of the law.

So if churches and other religious groups don't like the idea of same-sex marriage, it is up to THEM to call their ceremonies something other than marriage. That would be very easy, as their ceremonies have absolutely no legal standing whatsoever.

[DURHAM D]

8. The gay community dug themselves into a hole when they

began to call it marriage. I have never understood why the change.

[xchrom]

14. straights dug the hole for us and asked us to stand in it.

we said no thank you.

full and unimpeded equity is the only answer.

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. What part of EQUAL rights is too much for you to understand?

Do you really me to say that we uppity queers should just shut up and be happy for the pathetic crumbs you deign to brush off your table?

[DURHAM D]

20. Sorry but I am an uppity queer.

In the beginning -
Civil unions or unions = secular contract.

Marriage = religious ceremony.

Again, why the change in language. Language matters. We lost the fight when the language was changed - it threw it into another arena. One from which there seems to be no way to extract ourselves. Now the separate but equal discussion has arrived and could have been completely avoided. The issue has been poorly managed from a political perspective.

[mondo joe]

33. There were no civil unions that conveyed the rights of marriage.

Only marriage does it.

What CHANGE are you dreaming up?

[Jamastiene]

24. Because I don't want to get unioned one day.

I want to get married one day. It's that simple.

[justin899]

28. What are you talking about???

The name change didn't begin with same-sex marriages. The name change came when people began passing segregationist laws, such as Civil Unions, (and before that to a lesser degree, domestic partnerships), neither of which provide the same rights as marriage.

Civil Unions do NOT now, nor have they ever in the past, nor will they EVER provide the same rights of marriage.

People who think the only difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage" is the name are either already married with all of their own rights firmly intact, or they're completely clueless as to the nature of law.

[mondo joe]

32. Why WHAT change?

Are you on CRACK?

The legal rights go with the word MARRIAGE.

That's it.

What the hell CHANGE are you talking about?

[sui generis]

41. interracial unions are da bomb

never understood why they got all uppity 'bout not letting us decide what they could call themselves.

[pooja]

9. Someone in one of my groups was telling me that if you are married

you then become a contract of the Govt... and that if you have children, they become property of the govt because you are a contract... So, someone explain the legalities to me of this...

[adamblast]

10. Civil Unions are not the answer.

I'm getting awfully tired of hearing "Let's get rid of marriage for everyone, and call *everything* civil unions"--as if it were an actual answer. That's a libertarian talking point and little more.

Best of luck trying to take civil marriage *away* from straights, instead of giving it to gays... Yeah, that'll happen.

[mom cat]

13. Other: I support the abolition of state liscensed marriages and the institution

of civil unions only for everyone!. If churches want to have a separate ceremony, that is their choice. Actually, all the states can do is to approve civil unions for anybody. We could cut through a lot of crap and just clarify the name of the process.

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. Crimeny, how many times does this have to be hashed out?

Yes, the word "marriage" matters. It matters because it carries three centuries of judicial rulings and court opinions that will never apply to something called "civil unions." It matters because state and federal laws define thousands of very specific rights, privileges, responsibilities and protections that go automatically with "marriage." It matters because there is simply no way to recreate the common law and statutes of marriage so that "civil unions" is the same thing as marriage except in name.

It matters because the Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" as inherently unequal more than 40 years ago. Why the fuck do bigots insist on bringing it back?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. if it didnt matter at all why is this even being discussed?

[TheMadMonk]

18. Colored vs White? Does it matter? n/t

[Lexingtonian]

19. Like it or not

there simply is a status difference between the two things.

The counterargument is that one shouldn't care about the opinions of fools and bigots, and their views are obsolete. Which is in many ways a proper stance to take.

To me, cultural and social anthropology says that people universally form family units out of whatever members of society are available. That makes civil unions rather like common marriage, a necessary minimum.

Yet cultural anthropology has also said that what defines a society (or subsociety) is an adherence to a shared system of belief, aka religion, and shared memory/experience from which that belief emanates. The more true and adequate to reality the belief system, the more stable the society, obviously. A commitment to the social/religious belief system and social memory lies in the term 'marriage'.

I say the word "marriage" matters, because it means (at least in the long run) full integration into society. 'Civil unions' means marginality, a tension of disbelief between society and the couple. In many instances civil unions may be the more proper stance to take toward society when marriage is an option, a moral protest at the hypocrisy and vapidity and failure of the society's belief system, actually. But marriage- unity of purposes and sacred ideals between partners and their society- is the best condition, of course. We shouldn't wrongfully bar people from it.

[Solo_in_MD]

22. Its a fight over a word and its counter productive

- Create civil unions as the equivalent to marriage
- Expressly make them synonymous in the legislation (which invokes prior legal precedents)
- Provide incentives for the states to do the same

Eventually there will be a civil/legal relationship separate from whatever (if any) religious relationships. Much of this already goes on in some religious communities (Judiasm, Mormons...)

A while back I tried to convince a fundie coworker to do just that...marry his fiance in the church and not do the civil/marriage license thing. I challenged him to consider that since he felt his religion took precedence over the laws of man, he could do that, maintain his faith, and avoid some serious tax consequences. He almost did ...

Finally, this may be further reason to revise the tax laws WRT to marriage and dependents. Most non-straight couple are childless. Almost all professional couples pay more taxes when married than when living together. Of course anything that rectifies that tends to make the tax rates less progressive. Those who ignore the tax issues, do so at their peril.

[sui generis]

40. interracial unions went over so well, that we just had to do civil unions

for those pesky little gay people.

You shoulda seen them, getting all uppity about what we decided was best for them!!!!

The ingrates! Don't they know how GENEROUS we're being, how INCLUSIVE?

Why, if it wasn't for us, they wouldn't even have an invitation!

Oy.

[cboy4]

23. YUP. It matters. n/t

[Sapphocrat]

25. Other.

Either they're ALL called "marriages," or they're ALL called "civil unions."

Of course, complete equality goes without saying. But yes, it does matter, although I don't care what it's called, as long as it's all called the same thing.

[justin899]

26. Yes, there's a huge difference

Is there a difference?

There is a huge difference. There is no such thing as a "Civil Union" under the law. Marriage has a singular definition with only minor differences and qualifications from state to state (such as age requirements, etc)which is why the faith & credit clause kicks in. That isn't true for Civil Unions and other lesser forms of compromised "fake" marriages. No two are alike and the states which have them don't recognize each others. Plus there is ZERO federal recognition for Civil Unions and there is no legal standing to sue for federal recognition for fake marriages which aren't actually called marriage.

IF there was a Federal version of civil unions that gave all the same rights,

You can stop right there. There isn't an ice cube's chance in hell that this or any other Congress will ever pass a federal "Civil Unions" bill which includes all 1183+ federal rights of marriage. Republcians certainly won't do it and if Demcorats can't even bring themselves to actually pass gay-inclusive federal anti-discrimination laws (which has over 70% public approval) why on earth would anyone think they would ever get around to passing a comprehensive "civil unions" bill. If in fact they did attempt such a law it would likely only include a few of the rights of marriage, certainly not all.

Most people seem to have no problem with giving the rights of marriage (hospital visitation, adoption) but vehemently oppose gay marriage. It seems it's the word "mariage" that get s many people hung up.

The things you have in parenthesis are state issues which brings us to another problem with a segregationist "civil unions" federal law. Even if they were to pass some form of federal "civil unions" law, most states wouldn't recognize them so people living in those states would still be without the 300-400 marital rights which come from the state level, including all of the items in your example, as well as private companies such as the insurance industry which would have continue to find ways to charge higher premiums to "civil unioned" couples as opposed to actual "married" couples and use the lack of recognition at the state level as an excuse. Then there would be the entirely different issue of losing every single one of your state rights when you travel across the border into a redneck state which will never recognize "civil unions" on its own under any circumstances.

As for this myth that most people who oppose equal marriage rights are only hung up on the word, and not the actual rights and obligations that go along with it, all you have to do is take a look at what happened in Colorado where two competing initiatives were on the ballot. The anti-gay marriage amendment passed while the pro-civil unions initiative failed. People may tell pollsters they only care about the word, but the reality is over 75% of the state amendments they vote for in droves also include language that bans all other forms of same-sex unions which aren't called, "marriage."

BUT has seperate but Equal ever worked?

No, and I agree with most of the posts pertaining to racial segregation. "Civil Unions," statutes, afterall, are nothing more than segregation for marriage. If you could manage to just out of blue find enough progressives in Congress to pass a "civil unions" bill future lawmakers could easily come back and take away rights or adjust taxes on civil unioned couples without affecting the married couple majority.

So ...Does the word Marriage mattter?

Absolutely. As you and others have pointed out, marriage is not only a right, but also a rite. People who have non-religious civil marriages don't go around referring to themselves as "civil unioned." They're "married" because everyone knows what "married" means, and that's probably why such a small percentage of straight couples get "civil unioned" in states where they're legal. Beyond just losing all of their federal rights and tax breaks associated with marriage, they also realize the 'rites of marriage.'

[kiahzero]

31. Other: The word "Marriage" only matters insofar as it's already used

If everyone had civil unions, that'd probably be better than everyone having legal marriages.

[Zealot]

34. It Depends:

It depends on if the ruling government assigns the rights of the union to the word marriage. If they do not specify that a couple must be married to receive marriage rights then they do not need to be married, a simple civil union is sufficient.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

35. Seperate is not equal.

I don't understand why people still have a hard time with that.

[NMMNG]

37. If "marriage" wasn't important,

The religious bigots wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep us from having our equal right to it.

[IntravenousDemilo]

36. Equal marriage is a fact of life in Canada. The sky hasn't fallen. And nothing Stephen Harper does

is ever going to change that.

I'm starting to wonder if the majority of Americans discount and disdain anything we Canucks do simply because it's Canadian, and because they feel we're somehow inferior, you know, people like O'Reilly, Carlson, Coulter and their devotees. After all, we managed to decriminalize homosexuality in 1968. 1968, people! It took you guys 35 years to lose your sodomy laws. For the life of me, I just can't understand why your country has to be so obnoxiously and pathetically backward when it comes to things sexual -- case in point, Janet Jackson's tit. Canada and the US are equally multicultural nations with a long history of friendly relations and mutual immigration: many central and eastern Canadians are descended from United Empire Loyalists, while western Canada was partly settled by homesteaders from the Dakotas, Minnesota, Montana, and other neighbouring states. My dad's dad was from Wyoming. We talk more like you than like the Brits.

Hey, Canada is even controlled by corporations as much as the US is, and most of those corporations are American. Canadians are inundated by American popular culture at every turn. We two peoples have much in common, but apparently not this (or our sense of progressive communitarianism either, viz universal health care). What the hell is wrong with your population, anyway? Please try to catch up. It's no wonder I want to rescue my Illinois BF terrya from this mediaeval atmosphere and move him up here. This would involve marriage, for citizenship purposes.

And it has to be called marriage, too. After so many centuries of general nastiness (which I need not go into here), the word "marriage" is the forfeit that gays deserve to exact from the straight community -- our pound of flesh. And you know what? The fact that so many people oppose it so vehemently makes us want it that much more.

Gay Americans, never fear, and keep your spirits up. We are in solidarity with you.

[William769]

38. Yes, and to anyone who disagrees with me on this issue

You can kiss my lillie white ass.

[sui generis]

39. if it doesn't matter why ask?

Rather, ask heterosexual people if the name matters and why. This is like asking black people to justify "interracial unions" since the "word" shouldn't matter.

[moose65]

42. another question:

First, I'll answer the question asked in the OP. Yes, the word matters. As so many have already said, marriage is ingrained in our society and in our laws, so nothing short of marriage will suffice. Now, to my other question: suppose, by some stretch of the imagination, that we had a federal civil union bill that passed. How many of us would forfeit the benefits as a matter of principle? It would be a hard decision for me. I love my partner and plan to be with him for the rest of my life, but having legal protections, even under civil unions, would solve a lot of problems that could possibly come up in the future. Do we think people in Vermont and Connecticut should forgo civil unions? I don't. If the legal protections were available to me in NC, I'd probably become "civil unioned" (is there a better term?) in a heartbeat.

[election_2004]

43. Ultimately, yes, it does....

Even with a federal system of civil unions, there would still be problems. They will still try to reserve certain "superior" secular rights for those in a marriage...whereas those of us relegated to a civil union won't have the exact same benefits.

But for the short-term, civil unions will give us the most crucial protections that we are currently denied.

[William769]

44. Well there are 14 bigots so far.

I wonder how many more will pop up?

[Tyo]

45. Marriage is already a civil institution

Religion doesn't have a say in who can or can't get married any more than it has a say in who is eligible for a driver's license. Marriage is a legal construct created and controlled by the state and its existence as such in some form pre-dates Christianity in Western culture. As was pointed out in a different thread, you are married when the state says you are not when the church says you are.

If you want your marriage sanctified by a priest or minister or rabbi, that's fine. But it's an option, and one that thousands of people forgo. If there is going to be any name changing it should be to something like "Sacred Marriage" or "Church Marriage" or "Sacred Union" when religion is involved.

[LeftCoast]

46. Frankly, it seems pretty damned stupid to set up an identical yet parallel system

Except one's for straight people only. I mean do we really expect to have all the same protections and taxation benefits in some sort federal 'civil union?'

You can call it what you want, but the right-wingers are never going to be happy giving us equal rights.

They want us dead. Yes, dead!

It's not about protecting marriage. It's about them doing everything in their power to deny us anything approaching equal rights. They don't want companies to sell things to us. They don't want people to rent to us. They don't want to hear us or see us. More than that, they want us to hate ourselves as much as they hate us.

Well, people can argue about the semantics of marriage all they want but don't lose sight of the ultimate issue here. And, whatever you do, don't think that there's any sort of compromise with these hateful creatures.