Civil Unions: Separate and Unequal

[GloriaPatri]

Civil unions don't give the same rights that marriages do. Civil unions only give the rights granted by the state in which the civil union is made. A civil union is only recognized in the state in which it's made. Marriage is recognized in every state and by the federal government.

"I never said that. If you read over my posts you would know that I support civil unions that give the same rights that married couples have"

I just said that those who enter into civil unions should be afforded the same rights.

 

[standing_alone]

Same-sex couples can have as many civil unions as they like. I don't care what they do.

But why not marriage?

 

[standing_alone]

"I never said that. If you read over my posts you would know that I support civil unions that give the same rights that married couples have"

I just said that those who enter into civil unions should be afforded the same rights.

Sorry.

It's just that the civil unions that are currently being given as an alternative to marriage are not equal to marriage. But again, sorry.

 

[Green Gaia]

Yes, I agree. People who enter into civil unions should be afforded the same rights.

But civil unions as they are defined now do not give those same rights and the federal government does not recognize civil unions. It's not the same as civil marriage.

There is no measure (that I'm aware of) that is attempting to re-define civil unions. Only ones attempting to outlaw even civil unions (and the few rights they grant) for gays and lesbians.

There is a difference in civil marriage and religious marriage. We want civil marriage rights. Religious instutions can continue on holding religious marriae ceremonies for only those it wishes to.

 

[Green Gaia]

Same-sex couples can have as many civil unions as they like. I don't care what they do.

Again, civil unions are not the same as civil marriage. It is not equal in regards to the legal rights each grants.

 

[GloriaPatri]

But why not marriage?

Because marriage has been traditionally between a man and a woman - throughout the history of man-kind. In my view, it has a religious connotation.

 

[GloriaPatri]

Again, civil unions are not the same as civil marriage. It is not equal in regards to the legal rights each grants.

Yes, and that should be rectified.

I feel we are going in circles, so unless anyone has anything new to add I'm just going to bow out.

 

[evearael]

The best way to deal with it is to acknowledge that marriage is a religious union. Since it is a religious union and this nation is secular, government acknowledgement is completely inappropriate. Civil Unions should be instituted for the purposes of contract law, between consenting adults with equal rights and priviledges on both a state and federal level, regardless of the sex of the adults involved.

As marriage is firmly in the domain of religion, it is the right of the faiths and individual houses of worship to determine whom they marry, and which marriages they recognize.

 

[Green Gaia]

Because marriage has been traditionally between a man and a woman - throughout the history of man-kind. In my view, it has a religious connotation.

Then should atheists not be allowed to have a marriage?

 

[standing_alone]

Because marriage has been traditionally between a man and a woman - throughout the history of man-kind. In my view, it has a religious connotation.

So what if it's traditionally been between a man and a woman? Traditions are mostly just customary nonsense.

In your view, in your view. You can view marriage however you wish, however I fail to see why civil marriage should be denied to same-sex couples. Same-sex couples aren't asking for religious marriage - the churches can deny us marriage - all we want is to be able to get civil marriages and be recognized by the federal government.

 

[Green Gaia]

Yes, and that should be rectified.

Ok, then to be fair we must do away with marriage as a legal term and everyone heterosexual or gay must have a civil union to be legally united under the law.

But I think that would upset far more people than just allowing gays and lesbians to have a civil marriage, don't you think?

 

[Flappycat]

Well, the main problem with civil unions is that they create a series of complications that would not exist with a simple marriage. They just make things more difficult, rather than less. There is no point in them other than to satisfy some fundamentalist's psychological need to be considered in some way "better" than homosexuals. The fundies are still in tears over the sodomy laws being revoked, guys. The governor of Virginia recently signed something that had no purpose other than to specifically exclude homosexuals from worker protections. I'm sorry, but I really can't see anything behind this discrimination other than the same, old bigotry.

Really, not being able to get married through the same channels as heterosexual couples doesn't really bother me much, in and of itself. What bothers me is the spite and bigotry behind it. It's an insult, and I take exception to it. What, is your relationship with your spouse somehow so much better than mine that yours deserves a special name and set of privileges? Hand me that in person, and you'll get a dent in your head. Supposed "equivalents" to marriage only further complicate things, and most couples can't afford the legal counsel needed to sort out the legal complications involved in living together and with raising a child.

Oh, and the whole case against gay adoption is rooted in bigotry as well. The basic argument is that we make poor parents, nevermind that every study that has ever been conducted shows that, in spite of poorer average economic conditions, our kids tend to grow to be more well-adjusted and successful than those of heterosexual couples and are not the least bit more likely to be homosexual. What's the justification for discriminating, then? Spite. Nothing in it but spite.

Personally, I wouldn't trust myself to raise a kid because I've got an anger management problem, have zero leadership qualities, and procrastinate horribly, but this doesn't have a single thing to do with the sexual orientation of myself or my partner. Perhaps I wouldn't make the world's most wonderful parent, but there are millions of gay couples who would do wonderfully. Why screw them over, then? Spite? I can't think of another reason when having parents of the same sex actually seems to put kids at an advantage.

 

[GloriaPatri]

So what if it's traditionally been between a man and a woman? Traditions are mostly just customary nonsense.

In your view, in your view. You can view marriage however you wish, however I fail to see why civil marriage should be denied to same-sex couples. Same-sex couples aren't asking for religious marriage - the churches can deny us marriage - all we want is to be able to get civil marriages and be recognized by the federal government.

That's fine. I pray that you will be able to get recognition from the US government. I just wish that they are defined as civil unions and not marriages.

 

[standing_alone]

That's fine. I pray that you will be able to get recognition from the US government. I just wish that they are defined as civil unions and not marriages.

So this has nothing to do about the actual institution of marriage? Just the word "marriage?"

 

[evearael]

I would caution against divisive language among people who are on your side for equal rights. The movement for equality before the law is long and hard and we need all the friends we can get. Fight for equal rights and priviledges, before petty squabbles over words.

 

[Green Gaia]

That's fine. I pray that you will be able to get recognition from the US government. I just wish that they are defined as civil unions and not marriages.

The problem is we have too many definitions and everyone has their own interpretations of those definitions. My purpose in starting this thread was to educate those who believe that civil unions are just the legal side of marriage. I think I have shown that it is not, and that civil unions as they are defined now are not equal to civil marriage (the legal term).

Let's just make it simple and fair to everyone:

Civil union: legal for any couple regardless of gender
Marriage: religious ceremony, optional and up to religious institution who marrys

Does anyone have a problem with this? If so, what?

 

[GloriaPatri]

So this has nothing to do about the actual institution of marriage? Just the word "marriage?"

The institution of marriage and the word 'marriage' and closely entwined. Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman. Marriage is a sacrement. If people want to get civil unions so that two persons of the same-sex can get the benefits of married couples that's fine - but it is not a marriage.

 

[evearael]

Civil union: legal for any couple regardless of gender
Marriage: religious ceremony, optional and up to religious institution who marrys

Your phrasing opens the floodgates for the polygamy and incest debate. You may want to clarify that argument as being for another thread.

 

[GloriaPatri]

The problem is we have too many definitions and everyone has their own interpretations of those definitions. My purpose in starting this thread was to educate those who believe that civil unions are just the legal side of marriage. I think I have shown that it is not, and that civil unions as they are defined now are not equal to civil marriage (the legal term).

Let's just make it simple and fair to everyone:

Civil union: legal for any couple regardless of gender
Marriage: religious ceremony, optional and up to religious institution who marrys

Does anyone have a problem with this? If so, what?

Those are pretty good definitons.

 

[standing_alone]

I would caution against divisive language among people who are on your side for equal rights. The movement for equality before the law is long and hard and we need all the friends we can get. Fight for equal rights and priviledges, before petty squabbles over words.

I wasn't trying to squabble over a word, I was just curious if that is where the objection to marriage lies.