for those who support Civil Unions but not gay marriages

[don954]

does "Separate but Equal" ring a bell anyone??? We know how that wound up.

[beam me up scottie]

1. I'm originally from Vermont.

I think state sanctioned marriages should be done away with.

We will never have equality until we kick religion out of government and we can start with the religious institution of marriage.

Civil Unions for both homo and heterosexual couples would be much more progressive.

Let the churches have their marriage, it will finally free us of one more of their chains.

Just MO of course.

[don954]

2. I agree, if their is going to be Civil Unions, it should be for everyone

govt has no biz in the marrage biz... ;)

[beam me up scottie]

3. Quite a few of us feel this way.

I will not EVER get married again.

But if I meet an awesome guy that I can't live without, I would definitely have a Civil Union ceremony.

[LittleClarkie]

7. I've heard some from the church who would like that as well

Why should a person have to get a marriage license from the state for a church wedding. From their point of view, if God approves, who needs the state's approval, you know?

[beam me up scottie]

9. Yes, you're right.

Most liberals are able to see that, I think it just hasn't occurred to them.

Doing away with state sanctioned marriage wouldn't mean people couldn't get married in their church.

Look at the blue laws, or the dry counties here in the south.

[Maple]

11. Marriage is a legal contract

about property.

All the rest of the fol-de-rol is individual romanticism and religious belief.

As long as the state backs it...that's all that's necessary.

[LittleClarkie]

12. There was a time

when folks got married without the state.

It could happen again.

A state contract is not necessary. What about common law couples. They don't have a contract, and yet they have legal rights, don't they?

[Maple]

14. Not many

The state brings legal backing to the union.

When you split up, you discover the difference.

Don't do it.

[LittleClarkie]

15. You're right, not many

It's almost the same as being married in about 10 or 15 states, including Texas, Florida and DC. But you're right, the rest don't recognize it.

[VPStoltz]

4. What I really can't get is...

What is the difference between a marriage by a JoP or some other "official" and a civil union. Aren't non-church marriages really just legal contracts between those involved. If that's true then the religious hypocrites must also have a problem with those not married "in the eyes of God" and only in the eye of the legal system.

[beam me up scottie]

5. Actually, some of them do.

I married (and divorced) the son of a rabid fundie.
At a JP's office in North Carolina, far away from mommie dearest, no less.
She tried to force us to do the church thing when we moved to Pennsylvania, but I wouldn't budge.
It was one of the only things my ex ever backed me up on when it came to his mama.

Another reason for the government to get out of the religion business.

Wouldn't they have fits?
:rofl:

[Maple]

6. I was married by a JP

And I was married, not unionized, thank you.

[beam me up scottie]

8. That's good, got to keep that separate but equal thing going...

Cause we wouldn't want heteros to be "unionized".
Lawd sakes alive, have mercy!

[GeorgeBushytail]

10. If they legalize civil unions and not gay marriage...

I am getting a civil union and not marrying, even though I'm straight. It's like choosing not to eat at a restaurant that discriminates - not a great analogy but it's late at night.

[beam me up scottie]

13. That's exactly what heteros should do.

And a lot of them in Vermont are.

Good for you.

It's called standing in solidarity with our brothers and sisters and I think we should let people know that's exactly what we intend to do.

[election_2004]

16. I support same-sex marriage

But I'm gay, so that should come as no surprise.

That being said, although I want to see gay marriage become legal in my lifetime, I'd rather have a civil union than nothing at all.

I'd rather have a short-term accomodation that will give me and my future husband basic protection, while working toward the long-term goal of full secular marital equality.

What I don't understand is how the Charlie Stenholms and Dan Mongiardos within the Democratic Party can manage to hold their heads up when they publicly oppose even a simple civil union for a committed same-sex couple.

If someone like that isn't going to respect my domestic well-being, then why should I bother to give him/her my vote? Just because he/she has a "D" after their name? I don't think so!