Why not make all couples have civil unions and leave marraige alone?

1. 0

   sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago

   Leave marraige to churches and make it their ceremony not even a public issue and everyone as a matter of law have a civil union.
   
   This was a sugestion made by Livelonger and if I didn't word it right it's because I'm not real bright.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Daniel Carterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, you are very bright, sneak. Just because I disagree with you sometimes doesn't mean I don't think you have clear thoughts. LOL
      
      A very good point indeed. I rather agree with this approach about civil unions to satisfy the law, and marriage to satisfy the church. I think it could solve a lot of problems in a lot of ways.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Sally's Troveposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Well said.  I agree.  When two people pledge their lives to each other and desire to enter into a legal contract, then that option should be available to them.  The word "marriage" holds a certain meaning for those of some religious persuasions but should not be confused with the intent to make a lifetime bond under the law, especially in this country that is so proud of its civil liberty heritage.

         replyreport
      2. 91

         rmcrayneposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Me too.  Let's vote for that.

         replyreport
      3. 0

         Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, I would agree

         replyreport
      4. 60

         The Ropeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Always right on Daniel.  Couldn't have said it better.  Families come in all types and in all designs...Love knows no bounds and all those other general comments we always hear. 
         
         Our children today already know this and are accepting of almost everyone, haven't found one teen in the last year that doesn't quietly ask me why we 30's and up still debating such topics?  And yes Goldenpath, many of them come from very traditional backgrounds.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      pgrundyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I have wanted this for years. I don't see why the government has to stick its nose into it at all.
      
      With Bill in the hospital we hear, "Is this your wife?" at least ten times a day and we both just started saying "yes" because it's too big a pain in the ass having to explain EVERY time--as if it is anyone's business. Our reasons for not being married right now are complicated and not about our personal relationship or household. Neither of us feels like we should have to constantly explain ourselves to strangers at such a hard time--or ever, really.
      
      We have a form that social work at the hospital is setting up for us so that legally it won't become a mess if things get worse, but I do like your idea. I think it's the right way to do it.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Nope.
      Civil unions is a misnomer.  There's nothing "civil" about gay unions.   And "gay marriage" is also a misnomer and a blatant attack on marriage.
      
      And civil unions wouldn't work anyway.   Think about it.  If civil unions for gays become law,  the government might as well plan on sanctioning as a "couple"  EVERY two people who live together in "common law marriages", and the widow and her son/daughter who lives with her and takes care of her;  also the arrangement of, say, two individuals who simply share housing for financial benefit or just for the sake of being close friends.
      
      It's stupid to start the ball rolling in that direction.
      It's evil to take steps  to try to legally sanction homosexuality anyway.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I agree 100%! But what can we do I see hugh lawsuits on the horizon. The ACLU would like nothing more than to ruin religion in America.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Lawsuits?  Yep.   Maybe even jailing conservatives who try to uphold moral laws in the face of "politically correct" ones.
            
            Myself, I've decided that when man's laws seriously oppose the laws of God,  then I have no responsibility to cater to man's laws.    I will become "lawless" if need be,  and not give a whit, actually, because some things are worth fighting for, and even dying for if need be,  and 2 of those things are traditional marriage and the rights of unborn children.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I believe this is a sign of things to come.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Could be.  A sign of the battle, both Spiritual and literal.....

                  replyreport
2. 71

   rhamsonposted 14 years ago

   I went through this question awhile back with a gay person in here who when it came down to it wanted the name of marriage because she felt it was the only way it would mean the same.
   
   I guess there is stubborness on both sides.

   replyreport
3. 60

   Beth Solomonposted 14 years ago

   I think your point is that you are against the concept of same sex "marriage".  While I agree with the idea of a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage, what would you call the "union" of two people of the same sex in a church by an ordained minister?

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Sally's Troveposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      There is nothing that Rhamson said to lead anyone to think that the position expressed is against the concept of same sex marriage.  You ask a good question about the union of two people, but you preface your question with a falsity...Rhamson never said or implied an "against" stance.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You are correct Sally.  I personally have nothing against either or.  The post I made was just citing someone who said she wanted the term applied to be marriage to have true equality.
         
         My comment as to stubborness was to merely suggest that there is a resistance on the other side to give up on naming gay unions as marriage.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            There lies the problem no compromise will ever work, thats to bad.

            replyreport
      2. 60

         Beth Solomonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         My comment was in reference to the original poster (sneakorocksolid), and not Rhamson, but your comment was fair.  The OP did not specifically state that he was against the concept of same sex marriage in this thread, but his activity in other threads has led me to that conclusion.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            You're right but I'm willing to support a plan that protects the sanctity of marraige but affords gays the rights they want. How could you honestly ever enter into a debate not willing to concede some points for a do-able compromise?

            replyreport
   2. 0

      sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Some churches would not allow it and that would have to be respected, others, I don't know.

      replyreport
4. 62

   spiritactorposted 14 years ago

   The vocabulary of "marriage" speaks directly to the Protestant roots of our country, adopted later by other religious institutions that have been "accepted" into the fabric of our modern-day American society. As a result, there's a perception of a built-in hierarchy to "marriage" throughout our variety of accepted religions, presenting it as a privilege rather than a right.
   
   Presenting "marriage" as a bare-bones "civil union" is a step in the right direction, as "civil" is contained within our Constitution.
   
   "Civil liberty" has been tried, as you know, unsuccessfully as the term "marriage" is continually linked to it; bringing all of that religion-based baggage along with it.
   
   Maybe such a re-wording would link it more directly to the Constitution, by vocabulary, and make it another inalienable right rather than some perpetually-arguable attack on religious beliefs.
   
   I think it's at least the beginning of a very good idea!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Well said.

      replyreport
5. 86

   livelongerposted 14 years ago

   It's got my vote!
   
   Who's going to reach out to Maggie Gallagher and see if she's in?

   replyreport
6. 78

   Sally's Troveposted 14 years ago

   I'm glad we all have that sorted out.  This is, unfortunately, a hot issue, in the USA and also among countries and cultures that lead by extremest religious viewpoints.
   
   Spiritactor, I just saw your post, and I agree, mostly.  But "marriage" has meanings quite beyond our Protestant heritage.  Globally, the term still represents a joining of man and woman.

   replyreport
7. 60

   Beth Solomonposted 14 years ago

   Yes, this is definitely a hot button issue for a lot of people.  I live in Massachusetts, so I've seen some of the "heat" in my community.
   
   Back to the original topic.  Why can't we separate the current definition of marriage into civil unions and religious marriage?  I guess the next question is: why separate them in the first place?  The concept smacks of "separate but equal" in my eyes.
   
   I do believe that each church should have the right and option to decide whether or not they will marry same sex couples.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Why not go-along, to git along?

      replyreport
8. 66

   goldenpathposted 14 years ago

   I have no problem calling it a civil union.  However, I reject any proposal that uses the term "marriage" in relation to the union of same-sex.  To me and my faith marriage holds a very unique vow or contract that is exclusive between man and woman.  It is the foundation of family and the authorized means whereby children are brought into the world.  It is the order of family, nothing new, just the prescribed family from the beginning.  Try not to shirk my words simply because of the "modern thought" on the subject.  I would urge rethought for anyone who may think that society's current state of morality, policy and views on the family to be better or above those held in such high esteem a hundred years ago. 
   
   I support liberty and the ability to cohabitate with an individual of the same sex.  I don't support the act but I don't dislike the individuals.  If the people speak in support of the traditional view of the family we all have the obligation to uphold it.  If marriage becomes widely accepted for those of the same sex, and I promise you it will, then I will follow the law knowing I did all I could to reject it. 
   
   It is my firm belief that we have already begun a very dangerous journey on a path that does not come full circle in our current state of the world.  It is the beginning of the collapse of the family unit as the world had always known it.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That wouldn't change. Your church would continue to define marriage as it sees fit. Under the law, though, you and your spouse would be "civil union partners", not husband and wife (terms only used for marriage, which would not be something the government is involved in at all).
      
      Keep in mind that there are plenty of churches that *do* allow same-sex couples of wed under their auspices, and you would not have any right to deny them that.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         goldenpathposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Agreed.  It just goes to promote the claim that we are at the edge of a cliff from which there are no lifelines.  The more we make gray the lines that once divided black and white the faster we will compromise ourselves into the swamps of bitterness.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Sally's Troveposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I would offer that the more we make gray the lines that once divided black and white, the sooner we will understand our purpose on the earth as well as in the spiritual domains we wish for but can hardly comprehend.

            replyreport
   2. 78

      Sally's Troveposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The world has not always made the family unit as we know it today such a sacrosanct entity.  Families have had other definitions through history.
      
      I agree that the word "marriage" should define that unity of a man and a woman as proscribed by religious belief.  It's just easier.
      
      And so, let's move on.
      
      There are those who believe that the downfall of civilization is caused by a cultural acceptance of homosexuality.  Those who believe this cite references to the downfall of Greece and Rome.  But then, doesn't that natural tendency of life, in the non-human animal kingdom as well as the human kingdom, say something about a characteristic that belongs to us life forms on the earth?
      
      Better to accept it and get on with life than to legislate against it.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Beth Solomonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Absolutely.  Many of the primary male figures of the Bible had multiple if not many wives and concubines, concepts we would consider polygamy and adultery today.  They seemed to get along just fine, but that's a whole other can o' worms.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Sally's Troveposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Beth, I think this is the can of worms. 

            replyreport
            1. 66

               goldenpathposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Agreed.  I appreciate the constructive criticism without the feeling of contention.  I appreciate the historical illustration of polygamy.  Being of the faith that is constantly blasted for having had practiced it well over a hundred years ago I sometimes forget that even that situation defined marriage for some.  I could easily build a couple hubs explaining in detail the doctrines and practices of polygamy but I fear the incredible hate mail that would be sure to follow.  Of course, that would probably bump me up to a 100 quick and fast.  Just kidding. 
               
               To close on common ground I agree that they key is love.  How one achieves this condition is between him or herself, the other and God.  Thanks for the kind words Sally's Trove!

               replyreport
   3. 0

      sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely perfect! My position exactly but I don't want to see the carnage if the ACLU gets in the middle.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         goldenpathposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Oh, sure!  You just say that to rub it in that you are soaking up all the wonderful warm weather down there.  I feel the love...  Thanks for the attempt to cheer me up.  It's cold in Iowa.  : (

         replyreport
9. 0

   Revive@OwnRiskposted 14 years ago

   It seems to me that "marriage" and "civil union" is all about semantics. They really become devices for legal/religious grounds, don't they?
   
   What gay people want is the same as heterosexual people. A family life with a partner and in many cases, children. While this is definitely a can of worms to so many here, it's not meant to be. It's just pointing out the obvious.
   
   Perhaps the semantics do become important in terms of how they can define rights. But whatever that may lead to should arrive at the same thing at the end of any person's day: a place to call home with a partner, and whatever form of family life that means to those individuals. Throughout history, these basic things have been different to different societies, religions and cultures. But they have one thing in common: love.
   
   The basis for this motivation of partnering, family life and home really comes from love, doesn't it? If so, then whatever legalese needs to be created to insure this right--because we all seem to want it very naturally--should be inclusive, not exclusive.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Beautifully said

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Sally's Troveposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Amen.

      replyreport
10. 60

    Joseph Moschettiposted 14 years ago

    Perhaps I am just old fashioned but the term marriage will always depict that union as being between a man and woman. I cannot, for the life of me, understand the same sex "marriage advocates" being so determined about definitions. The original impetus of the movement was to attain the same legal status that traditional marriages have in government benefits etc. Why is not enough to grant those same legal rights to same sex couples who want to create a legal civil union, with which I have no objection in the legal sense. I do not agree with it but I can say live and let live and mean it.
    
    The church involvement in the process means nothing to me. The legal status is created by law, common law or statutory.
    
    The legal entanglements have created a whole new pandora's box of fun for the legal profession, of which I am one, but so what! The public has spoken, even in California, which is where most extensions of legal rights occur in our courts. Why can't the proponents of a legal "marriage" for same sex partners, in name, as well as deed, be satisfied? Is it they that have the moral dilemna? I think I have hit a nerve.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       pgrundyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Marriage as a legal institution hearkens back to a historical time when Church and state were one and the same and women were closer to chattel than people. Teasing out the religious dimension in a fair and equitable way will be messy. I don't see why civil unions can't be available to all and those with religious convictions can sanctify the commitment at the religious institution of their choice. It seems that would be a better way to sort it out than just legalizing gay marriage.
       
       If there are legal problems with that plan, I'd like to hear what they might be. It would make a good hub if you wanted to write it.

       replyreport
11. 86

    livelongerposted 14 years ago

    A Talibangelical lovefest.

    replyreport