A non Christian heterosexual's thoughts about civil unions

[Turkw]

A friend asked me what my thoughts on civil unions were. She wanted my opinion, since I have a interesting mix of liberal and centrist beliefs.

My initial reaction was my usual- something along the line of does the government need a constitutional amendment just to give gays and lesbians a rougher time, as if they don't have a rought enough time now. Is there nothing more dumb than saying gay marriages hurt strait marriages.

Then it hit me- what could hurt the practice of marriage IS civil unions, not gay marriage. Allowing homosexuals to marry would only strengthen the institution of marriage. But if we passed civil unions into law, why should anyone get married except for religious reasons?

Unless they mandated that civil unions were only for homosexuals, which would in effect mean that the right would force the creation of the one thing they say they are against, special rights for homosexuals. Wouldn't you love to see that spin in the news "conservatives create special rights for gays."

So unless they do that, which I don't think could pass legal challenge, every one would be able to enter into civil unions. Since I am not a member of any religious tradition that has "marriage" as part of its beliefs and culture, why shouldn't I want a civil union?

It could open up some interesting debates such as why shouldn't what we call marriage today, be termed civil union, and marriages be strictly up to religions and have absolutely NO legal significance at all.

I think this could be very interesting, fun even.

[handywork]

1. I have thought the same thing

If civil unions actually give people the same rights as marriage does then what is the fucking point of just calling them all the same thing. The only thing I can come up with is to discriminate against people. I mean come on at that point it's just a fucking word get over it. I'll get a civil union with my girlfriend if everyone gets the same privileges. However, in the end I think everyone should be able to achieve the same level of commitment depending upon their religion and their desires.

[theHandpuppet]

8. Civil Unions do not grant the same legal rights as marriage...

... though this seems to be a common misperception.

Many of the major legal differences are outlined at the site for the Human Rights Campaign at www.hrc.org Go the the ISSUES: Marriage Center link on the right side of the home page, about halfway down. They even have downloadable pamphlets available, which I personally think is a great way to inform the public and engage in some mild civil disobedience. Hey, if fundies can seed every hospital and waiting room with bibles and religious tracts, why not REAL information on the gay marriage issue? Anywhere there's a waiting room with mags, these pamphlets could be distributed. That means everyplace from your local Jiffy Lube to City Hall.

[Turkw]

14. But, if the federal government recognized civil unions, many of these

issues would go away. If the right prevents gay marriages and we can get the "compromise" of civil unions instead, I hope that many of us heteros will take this option- if homosexuals can't join us, we should join them. Then legal differences becomes OUR fight, as AMERICANS, how it should be.

The debates and issues that this will bring up, I believe, will be a Pandora's box that will haunt the right for decades.

[handywork]

15. I think that is a very good point

it is everyone's problem not just homosexuals. We should all fight this kind of shit.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. i just want a wedding!

good argument. too braindead to say anythign else.

[handywork]

3. That is the saddest thing to me

It broke my heart to see everyone lining up in San Fran in the rain to have their weddings... yes I'm glad Newsome was allowing it...but it killed me to have to watch everyone sit out in the rain. Everyone deserves a fucking wedding if they want.

[Tom_Foolery]

4. The Future Will Tell The Tale

Future generations will look back on our time and shake their heads in astonishment that the powers of today made such a big deal out of gay marriage. They will react the way most of us do now when we see "WHITES ONLY" signs from the past. Gays need the right to guarantee the security of their loved ones.

[LoZoccolo]

5. For about two years I've been like civil unions for everyone...

...even heterosexual unions (which would mean no "marraige"), and make them very very flexible to incorporate even...I guess you'd call them "celibate" relationships, basically any form of cohabitation - which could include convents of nuns, for example. I think the sooner that you making it a "boring" issue from a government standpoint, the sooner it'll make it through and the sooner people can see the benefits.

[sweetheart]

6. Should you be able to "civil union" a bride from russia?

Would your civil union have the same attributes as marriage in
reverse (russian "civil union's" a bride from the USA)?

[Turkw]

9. Why not? just look for the civil union label!

[iamjoy]

7. I Agree (Non-Christian Hetero Woman)

Years ago a co-worker was complaining about how the company we worked for at the time didn't offer "domestic partner" benefits. And I said I disagreed with partner benefits because it was unfair to offer homosexuals different privileges. Marriage is a far greater commitment and why should some one get the benefits but not the responsibility? I then said that heterosexual couples could fly to Vegas and get married the day they met, but to qualify for DP benefits, the homosexual couple has to be in a committed relationship for a specified time. That wasn't fair either. So it was only fair that homosexuals should get married.

I'm married now, and don't see why a couple should be denied that happiness (or any of the legal rights or privileges included) simply because they are of the same gender. I admit, I don't often think about the religious side of my marriage.

Basically, I see civil unions much like I did Domestic Partnerships. We are offering a "marriage light" and that will do more to harm the institution of marriage - much like some feel people living together outside of wedlock does.

[Turkw]

11. I agree, and if it happens and the institution of marriage is hurt, It wil

be poetic justice. I hope the religious right chokes on it.

[RRG]

10. A Christian heterosexual's thoughts about civil unions

I think of civil uniouns along the same lines as, the blacks can have a water fountain, they just can't drink out of the same ones whites do. They want a second argument? seperation of church and state??? How about if church's don't want to marry gay people the gov't won't make the, AND if a church wants to marry a gay couple the gov't won't stop them. They want a third argument? how about don't be hypocrytes on the bible. Their (Insert your choice of groups against gay marriage here)19 year old unmarried daughters are probably not virgins and I don't see them trying to ammend the constitution so those girls can be buried to their necks and stoned to death by the village.

"I was against gay marriages til I realized I didn't have to be in one" -James Carville

[Turkw]

12. there is no logical argument against gay marriage, it is all fear,

ignorance and homophobia dressed up with calling a history of discrimination "tradition, heritage, and culture" and backed up by a selective interpretation of the bible. Dumb!

[havocmom]

13. How is it done in Mexico? I believe a couple has a civil ceremony

and then a church wedding if they want it. Am I wrong in thinking the state does not recognize the church ceremony and thus the civil one is the one that counts for legal purposes?

Sounds like a plan to me. If the fundies have their shorts in a knot about not letting gays have legally recognized weddings, then make the fundies jump thru the same legal hoops. Gay or hetero couples can do whatever they personally want regarding the religious ceremony. Make them all use 'civil unions' as far as what is recognized by the state.