Civil Unions: Separate and Unequal

[pdoel]

I NEVER ADVOCATED THIS AT ALL! I SAID 'CONSENTING ADULTS'!


Screw this. I'm out of here.

It sounds like we're basically fighting for the same cause. So I'm not sure why you are getting so upset.

Here was your original statement that I commented on.

That is your belief and you certainly have a right to it. As I've stated previously, I don't want to squabble about the terminology, I want results, and to fight for the the word 'marriage' with respect to rights and priviledges will only lengthen the amount of time an entire portion of our citizens are deprived of equality.

You are saying that there's no point in fighting over the terminology, and that we shouldn't fight over the word "marriage" with respect to rights.

I'm not sure what else the fight is over. Considering that currently we have marriages, and that the big debate is over whether or not to allow same-sex marriage, I think that's exactly what we're fighting for.

There's really no chance of the US Federal Government deciding to abolish the institution of marriage. So to say it's silly to fight over the term marriage, doesn't make much sense.

The only other choice is to just sit back and be happy with the term "Civil Union" when it applies to a union between two people of the same sex. Which, regardless of how much easier that may be to pass, doesn't fly with me.

 

[Booko]

I'm sorry I didn't make that very clear. What I was proposing was to completely do away with 'marriage' as a legal term. Everyone who wishes to be recognized by the state as a couple (gay or straight) must get a civil union which grants all the rights that marriage did and is recognized as well by the federal government. Marriage would be regulated to a strictly religious ceremony.

Oh, I see what you mean. We would all have "civil unions" as a legal thing, but "marriages" would be a religious thing that has no weight in law? There are examples of that in other countries (not regarding same-sex marriage, just marriage generally) and it seems to work.

I think that would be fair, but my point was that I believe even more people would be upset by this than by simply granting same sex couples civil marriage rights.

Probably so. I wouldn't be upset if the law decided to call my marriage a civil union as a legal thing and I'd still be married religiously speaking. As an atheist, I wouldn't have cared if I had a civil union or a marriage.

But I think you're right -- there would be a lot of people up in arms just because of any suggestion that their relationships would somehow changed" -- even if there were really no actual changes on account of it and only the name was changed.

I do think that, if we're going to have civil unions, they should be applied nationally.

I can't imagine what it would be like if I was married in Georgia and Michigan, but not in Indiana, and if I was driving to visit my family in Michgan and got in a car wreck in Indiana too bad for us, huh? I can't see the point in putting anyone through that kind of mess. I can't see how it works as "equal protection under the law " either.

 

[Booko]

Some might say that's still a work in progress.

edit: or should i say a work in regress?

Yeah...I'd be one of those "some."

Being a poll officer myself, I know how easy it is to suppress a vote of some community if you really wanted to. You don't even have to resort with messing with computer software. The old-fashioned methods work just fine.

 

[pdoel]

Here's a question.

Say they do away with "marriage" as a legal entity, and everyone now gets a civil union. If someone hits on you, would you hold up your ring and say, "Oh, I'm sorry. I'm civil unioned."

:jester3:

 

[Booko]

I guess I just don't understand any practical reason to not call ALL of these unions a marriage, and simply allow Churches to continue on with their current practices. A Catholic Church can deny a same-sex couple from marrying within their walls just like they can continue to deny a Muslim couple from marrying within their walls.

This pretty much sums up why, if same-sex marriage were legalized tomorrow, I would still put my pants on the same way in the morning.

 

[Green Gaia]

Here's a question.

Say they do away with "marriage" as a legal entity, and everyone now gets a civil union. If someone hits on you, would you hold up your ring and say, "Oh, I'm sorry. I'm civil unioned."

:jester3:

'Marriage' would still be a religious ceremony and in the cultural lexicon even among those not religious, it just would no longer be a legal term.

So, yes I would say I was married.

 

[Booko]

Here's a question.

Say they do away with "marriage" as a legal entity, and everyone now gets a civil union. If someone hits on you, would you hold up your ring and say, "Oh, I'm sorry. I'm civil unioned."

:jester3:

I'd say what I always said: I'm unavailable.

I said that even when I wasn't married...what's your point?

 

[evearael]

Deep breath.

It sounds like we're basically fighting for the same cause.

Yes. Yes, we are.

So I'm not sure why you are getting so upset.

Because of this statement:

Yeah, you are right. I guess I should just shut up, drink out of my own water fountain and take my seat in the back of the bus and like it.

Here was your original statement that I commented on.

And these are my previous statements which were not taken into consideration:
"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."

You are saying that there's no point in fighting over the terminology, and that we shouldn't fight over the word "marriage" with respect to rights.

I'm saying 'marriage' should be abandoned across the board with respect to the government and all the rights and priviledges. It is a religious word, you cannot convince them otherwise, let them have it. With respect to the government and all rights and priviledges, the word civil union is appropriate, and should apply between consenting adults.

I'm not sure what else the fight is over.

Equal rights and priviledges with respect to the government.

Considering that currently we have marriages, and that the big debate is over whether or not to allow same-sex marriage, I think that's exactly what we're fighting for.

See above.

There's really no chance of the US Federal Government deciding to abolish the institution of marriage.

If they continue to uphold the basic definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, pandering to some religions and rejecting others, they won't really have a choice. By fighting for marriage as a religious ideal, they undermine their ability to prevent same-sex unions from attaining the same rights and priviledges under the law with respect to the freedom of religion... as other religions, like UU, would allow for such and the government is arbitrarily siding with one set of faiths over another.

So to say it's silly to fight over the term marriage, doesn't make much sense.

See above.

The only other choice is to just sit back and be happy with the term "Civil Union" when it applies to a union between two people of the same sex. Which, regardless of how much easier that may be to pass, doesn't fly with me.

Once again... I advocate, and HAVE advocated throughout this entire thread, civil unions as conferring all legal rights and priviledges with respect to the government and open to consenting adults. 'Consenting adults' means a man and a women, a man with a man, a woman with a woman, etcetera ad nauseum.

Once again... I advocate, and HAVE advocated throughout this entire thread, marriage being dictated by particular faiths and churches (WITH NO GOVERNMENTAL BEARING WHATSOEVER). Churches can marry or not marry, recognize or not recognize whoever they choose.

 

[pdoel]

I'd say what I always said: I'm unavailable.

I said that even when I wasn't married...what's your point?

There was no point. It was meant to be humorous. Thus the little jester smilie.

I dunno why, I just thought the sound of the phrase, "I'm civil unioned" was funny.

 

[pdoel]

Because of this statement:

Ahh. That's what caused the confusion. That statement didn't mean that I thought that's what you felt. I didn't mean that you thought people should sit in the back of the bus, or anything like that. It was more a statement due to the fact that many people do feel that homosexuals are less than human. That they don't deserve any rights. And that allowing them to use the term marriage would be an abomination.

Sorry if you thought I thought you thought that (if you followed that, I need to send you a gift) Ha ha.

It is a religious word, you cannot convince them otherwise, let them have it.

This is really the only thing I disagree with. While today many think of marriage as a religious institution, it surely is not. Marriage is not a religious word, and it's origins do not stem from religion. And, as argued before, many Churches actually welcome homosexuals and homosexual couples and are more than willing to wed said couples. I realize you aren't saying they couldn't continue to do so. But I think removing the term all together is counter productive. There are already marriages certain Churches don't recognize, so just because the feds allow same-sex marriages doesn't mean that practice would change.

 

[standing_alone]

I don't care if it's called a "Pop-Tart"!

I do. I'd prefer it to be called a "Toaster Strudel."

But then again, if we called it either, wouldn't there be some sort of trademark issues?

 

[Flappycat]

Look, the traditional marriage ceremony isn't even Christian. It comes from the pagan Basque religion, which also probably has a lot to do with the prominance of the Virgin Mary in the Catholic religion because their cheif divinity was the goddess, Mari. The word "marriage" supposedly comes from the name of this goddess, and that it became intertwined with the the Virgin Mary seems to mean that the significance of calling it a marriage is that the couple is sexually pure, "godly."

Therefore, with this cultural background, it is easy to see why more conservative Christians would have their objections to homosexual unions being considered marriages. To them, it would be like saying that homosexuality doesn't interfere with one being considered sexually pure and lawful.

The fallacy here is that homosexuality is only an impurity in terms of their religion. To insist that the state consider it such is 1) hurtful discrimination against homosexuals and 2) a violation of seperation between church and state. To prohibit gays and lesbians from receiving marriage licenses is pretty much like a statement that the state government still considers homosexuality on the wrong side of the law in spite of no longer being able to deprive them of their freedom under national law.

The complaints that I hear from the more shrill anti-gay activists are usually something along the lines of "we don't want the government to approve of sodomy" or "we don't want it treated as if it were natural." That seems to be the key reason for their objection, for they don't approve of gay sex or consider it natural. My response is that I don't approve of bigotry or hate speech, but I would defend your liberty to speak as you will with my life. This makes me the one of stronger character, and this is why society will eventually come around to my point of view and reject those of the fundamentalists.

 

[evearael]

That statement didn't mean that I thought that's what you felt.

That's a relief!

Sorry if you thought I thought you thought that (if you followed that, I need to send you a gift) Ha ha.

Apology accepted. Big hug! :hug:

While today many think of marriage as a religious institution, it surely is not. Marriage is not a religious word, and it's origins do not stem from religion.

I agree entirely with these statements.

But I think removing the term all together is counter productive.

I disagree, because to the faithful you are not arguing law, you are arguing faith, which does not necessarily yield to logic or legalities. By keeping the term 'marriage' you would have to change their faith in their personal definition of marriage that is determined by their faith, and that will be a long, difficult and, in some cases, impossible journey. I would rather worry about equal rights and priviledges for right now. Acceptance will come in time.

 

[Zsr1973]

Both my brother in-law and my godfather are gay.
As an African American, my people had to fight for recognition of our natural rights little by little over a long period of time.

I don't see why the gay community is so against civil unions when its the rights of marriage they're actually fighting for. Marriage has been marriage for longer than millenia. In our era, it has been the religious community that has oversaw the symbolism of marriage. You can't ask them to change in one day. Sometimes change has to be spoonfed to resistant people.

Besides, like the other person said, what difference does it make where you get married? Even if gay marriage was recognized as a whole, gay people would still have to find other outlets besides traditional churches to have the ceremony anyway, Right? With civil unions, you would get all the rights of marriage and you would have the choice to have the ceremony anyway you want. That's marriage, plain and simple!! Get the legal rights first, then squabble about what its called later!!

By going for broke and persuing actual marriage (a religious symbolism) you may have lost all the beans.

 

[Draka]

I do. I'd prefer it to be called a "Toaster Strudel."

But then again, if we called it either, wouldn't there be some sort of trademark issues?

Still, better than "Eggo"

As for trademark...make something new up and then there's no issues

 

[Sunstone]

Both my brother in-law and my godfather are gay.
As an African American, my people had to fight for recognition of our natural rights little by little over a long period of time.

I don't see why the gay community is so against civil unions when its the rights of marriage they're actually fighting for. Marriage has been marriage for longer than millenia. In our era, it has been the religious community that has oversaw the symbolism of marriage. You can't ask them to change in one day. Sometimes change has to be spoonfed to resistant people.

Besides, like the other person said, what difference does it make where you get married? Even if gay marriage was recognized as a whole, gay people would still have to find other outlets besides traditional churches to have the ceremony anyway, Right? With civil unions, you would get all the rights of marriage and you would have the choice to have the ceremony anyway you want. That's marriage, plain and simple!! Get the legal rights first, then squabble about what its called later!!

By going for broke and persuing actual marriage (a religious symbolism) you may have lost all the beans.

Welcome to the Forum, Zsr!

I agree with you in part. It's good advice you offer. But should gays try to get a little bit at a time with unequal civil unions first, or should they go for equal civil unions from the start? What would be the best strategy? And what worked best in civil rights?

 

[Green Gaia]

I don't see why the gay community is so against civil unions when its the rights of marriage they're actually fighting for.

Because right now civil unions do not give the same rights as marriage.

Marriage has been marriage for longer than millenia.

And it wasn't that long ago that a black man couldn't legally marry a white woman. Marriage has changed and continues to change as does society.

Besides, like the other person said, what difference does it make where you get married? Even if gay marriage was recognized as a whole, gay people would still have to find other outlets besides traditional churches to have the ceremony anyway, Right?

No. They would get their legal marriage at the courthouse just like straight people do. And then if they want a religious ceremony they have plenty of options to choose from, including my church.

With civil unions, you would get all the rights of marriage and you would have the choice to have the ceremony anyway you want.

Like I said before, as the law defines civil union now, it does not have all the rights of marriage. People choose their ceremony anyway they want now. That won't change.

By going for broke and persuing actual marriage (a religious symbolism) you may have lost all the beans.

Well, with people trying to take away our access to both marriage AND civil unions, I'm afraid we have no other choice.

 

[Revasser]

Both my brother in-law and my godfather are gay.
As an African American, my people had to fight for recognition of our natural rights little by little over a long period of time.

I don't see why the gay community is so against civil unions when its the rights of marriage they're actually fighting for. Marriage has been marriage for longer than millenia. In our era, it has been the religious community that has oversaw the symbolism of marriage. You can't ask them to change in one day. Sometimes change has to be spoonfed to resistant people.

But nobody's asking them to change. If they don't want a same-sex marriage, they don't have to enter one. If their church doesn't want to marry same-sex couples, it won't have to. They can continue on thinking it's sinful all they like, and the churches can keep admonishing their members not to be involved in homosexual relationships.

No one is asking them to change at all. All that's being asked for, in the US at least, is equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the US Constitution.

 

[pdoel]

I don't see why the gay community is so against civil unions when its the rights of marriage they're actually fighting for. Marriage has been marriage for longer than millenia.

Besides, like the other person said, what difference does it make where you get married? Even if gay marriage was recognized as a whole, gay people would still have to find other outlets besides traditional churches to have the ceremony anyway, Right?

I'm very surprised by your response. There was a time that I was ok with the idea of a civil union. It was an African American senator that changed my mind. I heard a speach of hers where she stated she knows all too well the affects of "separate but equal" and that anything less than total equality simply isn't good enough.

Marriage has been marriage for longer than a millenia. One could also say that African Americans were slaves for centuries. Does that mean it's ok to keep it as such?

You said that it shouldn't matter where gays get married. That argument was used against allowing African Americans into the same schools as whites. Thank God Rosa Parks didn't like that answer.

While your statements seem simple enough, as someone who's probably experienced such discrimination, and who's ancestors most certainly did, I'm surprised you'd think this way.

 

[Jaymes]

By going for broke and persuing actual marriage (a religious symbolism) you may have lost all the beans.

Marriage is not purely a religious symbol.

Straight couples get married by justices of the peace, not civil-unioned. As the OP states several times, civil unionsdo not provide the same benefits and protections as civil marriage.