Civil Unions: Separate and Unequal

[evearael]

If the law changes, what will happen to our marriage licenses? Will it be fair to future heterosexual couples who get married in the courts to not get marriage licenses when some of us still have them?

I imagine a grandfather clause would permit them to still make full use of their marriage license, but I'm no lawyer, so...

 

[Green Gaia]

It will alienate the heterosexual couples who get married at the courthouse and choose not to have a religious ceremony. These people would no longer be considered married, they won't have a marriage license...they will have civil unions instead.

I would say that most people will still call it marriage, even though the legal term would be civil union to make it fair to all and to take the religious term marriage that seems to make many people opposed to same sex couples having equal rights (they don't really oppose the equal rights part, just calling it marriage. So by doing this it takes that argument off the table), out of the legal documents.

Now instead of making homosexuals second-class citizens, you'd be making non-religious people (or people who follow unrecognized religions) second-class citizens.

How? They will be treated exactly the same under the law. Everyone will have civil unions.

What of all the heterosexual couples who have marriage licenses now? If the law changes, what will happen to our marriage licenses?

Like evereal suggested, a grandfather clause of some sort. They would not just become null and void.

Will it be fair to future heterosexual couples who get married in the courts to not get marriage licenses when some of us still have them?

The will still have the same rights, the wording on the piece of paper will just be different. I don't see how that would be unfair to anyone.

Imagine you present your civil union lisence to someone instead of your marriage license...what will they think? It will give them the opportunity to discriminate against you due to whatever their crazy imagination comes up with (homosexual, atheist, whatever they assume).

Who cares what they think, they will still have to honor just the same.

 

[Quiddity]

I know neither you nor anyone else is trying to alienate anyone. :hug: I just fear that if we all gang up on someone who is on our side for equal rights just because we squabble over definitions that this may push some people who are on the fence to the opposite side.

While there are many similarities in women and African-Americans getting the right to vote and gay rights to those of us who see all of these as cases of civil rights, there are differences as well. No one disputed what the word 'vote' meant but we clearly have different definitions of what a marriage is. To be fair and consistent under the law we should remove the word marriage as a legal term and use civil union for everyone. That way there is no distinction as far as the law and the government is concerned therefore not creating different classes. Religious institutions will still be allowed (as they always have) to hold to whatever definition of marriage fits their needs and beliefs. I see this as a win-win situation for everyone, although I'm not naive enough to think there won't be opposition. I'm quite sure there will be. But if we separate the legal and religious terms very clearly and show the religious part has been taken out of the equation then those still in opposition will be seen as what they are: against equal legal rights for all citizens.

I have the upmost respect for you Amy...I think it's people like you that keep this dialogue civil and at least keeps the table open for others who disagree to come in and talk. You are saintly in doing this.

Thank you so much......:hug:

 

[Ðanisty]

Who cares what they think, they will still have to honor just the same.

I'm not talking about a matter of people honoring it. I'm talking about a matter of people giving you the runaround and making things difficult based on what they think it means.

 

[Green Gaia]

I'm not talking about a matter of people honoring it. I'm talking about a matter of people giving you the runaround and making things difficult based on what they think it means.

I guess I'm not understand why you think they would do that if everyone has the same piece of paper from now on.

 

[Ðanisty]

I guess I'm not understand why you think they would do that if everyone has the same piece of paper from now on.

I was more or less talking about the transition period.

Regardless, if I weren't married now, I wouldn't like this idea at all. I fully support gay rights as I am bisexual myself. However, if I could no longer obtain a marriage lisence and had to have a civil union license, I'd be pissed frankly because marriage licenses already have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

 

[mr.guy]

...I'd be pissed frankly because marriage licenses already have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

This much i can understand; i'm not sure how convincingly the concept and subsequent "intellectual property right" marriage is to the religious right. Is it accepted to be their toy, insofar as they can take it away and go home with it?

 

[Green Gaia]

I was more or less talking about the transition period.

Regardless, if I weren't married now, I wouldn't like this idea at all. I fully support gay rights as I am bisexual myself. However, if I could no longer obtain a marriage lisence and had to have a civil union license, I'd be pissed frankly because marriage licenses already have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

I don't understand. The rights would be the same. The only thing that would change would be the wording on the legal document. You could still call yourself married, and I'm quite sure most people would regardless if they have a religious ceremony or not. It's part of our cultural lexicon, but it's obviously too divisive to be a legal term. You're right marriage licenses have nothing to do with religion. But far too many people can't see past that word 'marriage' to be able to do the fair and right thing. So we take their argument against us off the table. We compromise, they compromise and everyone gets what they want. We get what we want: equal legal rights. This religious institutions get what they want: to define marriage however they wish.

 

[Ðanisty]

Well, I guess some of us just don't want religious institutions to be the ones who get to define marriage. As I've already said, marriage has had two separate definitions for a long time. I don't disagree with what you're saying. I would love for everyone to have equal rights. I just don't like the idea of doing that by backing down from the "church" when the "church" doesn't have any business in the issue in the first place.

 

[Green Gaia]

Well, I guess some of us just don't want legal institutions to be the ones who get to define marriage. As I've already said, marriage has had two separate definitions for a long time. I don't disagree with what you're saying. I would love for everyone to have equal rights. I just don't like the idea of doing that by backing down from the "church" when the "church" doesn't have any business in the issue in the first place.

Did you mean religious institutions instead? Because they do that now already. A UU's definition of marriage is different than a Catholic's. What I proposed will allow both to be right in their own little worlds and neither has an effect on the law.

I don't think I'm backing down from the goal though, which is equal rights for all. I think we have to realize what is important and not be so stubborn that it takes another 25 years to get what we want. There are families and couples who need these protections NOW. I, for one, am tired of squabbling over definitions when we could clear this up easily and get everyone the rights and protections they should have and that some so desperately need.

 

[Ðanisty]

Did you mean religious institutions instead? Because they do that now already. A UU's definition of marriage is different than a Catholic's. What I proposed will allow both to be right in their own little worlds and neither has an effect on the law.

Yeah that's what I meant...i'll fix it. Multi-tasking doesn't always work as well as it should.

I don't think I'm backing down from the goal though, which is equal rights for all. I think we have to realize what is important and not be so stubborn that it takes another 25 years to get what we want. There are families and couples who need these protections NOW. I, for one, am tired of squabbling over definitions when we could clear this up easily and get everyone the rights and protections they should have and that some so desperately need.

What I'm not understanding is that it's apparently not good enough for homosexuals to have civil unions that are exactly the same as marriages (yes, I know that's not how they are now), because it upsets homosexuals that it's called something different, yet I'm saying the same thing as a person who's in a heterosexual marriage and there seems to be a problem with that. I'm married and I want to be married...not civil unioned, as someone else put it. Yes, I can still call it marriage if I want to, but it's still backing down from the issue of separation of church and state...it's still backing down from the issue that some people from certain religions want the right to tell others what to do in civil matters. This might be a good compromise for homosexuals, but overall, it's not a good compromise on the big issue.

 

[Green Gaia]

I want to be married too, but they're not going to let us anytime soon, are they? Mostly over one lousy word. And by the time it does happen, it may be too late and certainly will be too late for some people. How much longer do I have to wait?

 

[Ðanisty]

I'm not saying you should have to wait at all. I think something should be done now. I just don't think it should be done that way. I think there are other solutions...I'm not saying I know what they are. I just think that if we're going to give homosexuals rights, it shouldn't require redefining everyone else's rights. Honestly, I think we should just give them to you too, but obviously some people can't handle that.

 

[Green Gaia]

I'm not saying you should have to wait at all. I think something should be done now. I just don't think it should be done that way. I think there are other solutions...I'm not saying I know what they are. I just think that if we're going to give homosexuals rights, it shouldn't require redefining everyone else's rights. Honestly, I think we should just give them to you too, but obviously some people can't handle that.

I'm just trying to come up with a solution that everyone, or at least most people, could handle, that would get same sex couples equal rights, would not impact the rights of heterosexuals so everyone can get on with their lives. Because quite frankly, this is getting tiresome and I'm tired of hearing, "just be good and wait, they'll come around."

 

[maggie2]

I have come late to this post but want to comment anyway. In Canada the problem has been resolved by our federal government making gay marriage legal and binding. Anyone getting married has to get a marriage licence from the local government. That is the binding legal document. Then they can be married by a Justice of the Peace or in a church of their choice. That is not the legal and binding document, but the ceremony.

A union between gays is called a marriage, just as a union between straights is called marriage. Both unions are considered equal under the law and married gays have the exact same rights as married straights.

Churches can refuse to marry a gay couple if they don't believe in gay marriages. However, they can also refuse to marry a couple if they don't practice the faith regularly as well. As far as I know, a Justice of the Peace can't refuse to marry anyone.

This is working well here and I see no reason why it can't work anywhere else. I hope that someday soon gay and lesbian couples will be afforded the same courtesy in the States as they are here in Canada.

I fully support the gay movement in its quest to be permitted to be legally married.

 

[GloriaPatri]

But this is trying to pass your religious beliefs on a nation as a whole. Marriage is not an exclusive right of just Catholics, but you seem to think it is. What harm, to you personally, would gay marriage cause you? Do tell.

My religious views are my views.

Read all of my posts.

Nothing to me, personally. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions are fine (I think I've said this 500 times).

 

[kevmicsmi]

My religious views are my views.

Read all of my posts.

Nothing to me, personally. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions are fine (I think I've said this 500 times).

500 times in 59 posts? Isnt that a little redundant?:sleep:

 

[Zsr1973]

I read the responses. I guess if it were me, I would expect my love to be respected like everyone else's.
Just for the record, my teacher has taught me that we shouldn't be concerned with other people's sexuality (in regards to judging them). Consenting adults shouldn't be told what to do or not do (within morals) by other adults.

But I guess other people's morals is the problem. Religous people think that if the USA allows same sex marriage by law, then the USA may be condemned by God. I'm not a Christian, but I don't understand how people pick and choose in the bible what to forgive and what not to forgive. Christians want to forgive murderers, rapists, abusers and all sorts of people, but they can't accept gay people? I debate about this with my gay brother in law all the time. He says that Paul (or Luke, Paul's friend) wrote even in the New Testament that homosexuality is not acceptable. There isn't much progress after that because my school does not accept the teachings of Paul as fact.

In my heart, I don't think we should judge who gets married at court. I agree with age restrictions, but I also note that Mary was only about 12 (according to the bible) when God conceived Jesus with her. (So much for Christian morals..)

I think gay people deserve equal rights. But for those who responded to my early post, there was over 100 years between the Emancipation Proclamation and the passing of the final laws on civil rights. We always had civil rights by birth, but getting prejudiced people to recognize them was the problem back then. And today for you too it seems.

 

[Green Gaia]

BUMP for deseretgov

 

[deseretgov]

Thanks. I'm reading through it. Quite a few pages though.