CUs ok, marriage not. Can someone explain the reasoning for this?

[JerseygirlCT]

I see this often with many of our politicians.

Now I know they're being cautious and all of that stuff they get from handlers.

But what I want to know, is how does someone justify that position rationally? How do you get there with any sort of logic?

Does anyone understand this?

[MonkeyFunk]

1. just semantics

"marriage" is an emotionally-charged issue. Civil Unions not so much.

We're getting there - the public support for same sex marriage is growing, and to be honest, is at a point I never would've imagined 10 or 20 years ago.

Younger people seem to have no problem with the concept - as the old guard dies off, it'll happen. But CU's may be a necessary step in the process.

[Bucky]

9. The OP was asking for reasons, not possibilities

You're right of course. These things take time to gain acceptance... so long as history is moving in the right direction. The only reason for opposing gay marriage is that advocating gay marriage will mean reelection of Republicans who will drag out the dying in Iraq a lot longer than Democrats will.

[rep the dems]

55. I hope you're right about that.

As someone whose in High School now, I do think that younger people do not have such a big problem with it; a friend of mine who consideres herself a Republican (though I'm not sure she really is) supports same sex marriage, and other people much less liberal than me have no problem with it. Even my Republican Social Studies teacher last year said he supported it. It's mostly the real macho guys who have a problem with it because they're worried about being labeled gay.

[LiberalFighter]

56. Find out how your state designates the difference between marriages

perform in a church by a minister vs a marriage performed by a justice of the peace, judge or other non-religious person.

I don't know what it is here in this state. But I know in one state it use to be two different types of marriages. They were designated as either a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony.

As it is now... the clergy decides whether they will perform a marriage for a couple. Why? Because it is their religion and their church. Sometimes they will even refuse to marry some couples even if they are not same sex. That is their right.

But not everyone gets married in the church or by a member of the clergy. And they don't have to. They could get married by a judge, the mayor, maybe the city clerk, a captain of a boat or other non-religious individual. That is the right of individuals. And the churches don't have a say about it and shouldn't.

A new religion could be formed. One that allows same sex marriages. The state by right shouldn't determine whether they can or can't marry same-sex. Do they prosecute lesbians and gays for having sex?

[JerseygirlCT]

59. Many churches actually do allow same sex marriage now

But since it is not legal, the officiant cannot act as an agent of the gov't in officiating those ceremonies and making it a legal marriage.

[slackmaster]

2. The word "marriage" is loaded with religious connotation for many people

A CU is viewed as purely secular, a contract in the eyes of the state; so there is no possible conflict with anyone's religious beliefs or anything their pastor may have told them.

[JerseygirlCT]

3. Yeah, I understand all that, but setting out a position like that

only continues the confusion.

No law passed allowing gay marriage would ever require any church to perform or sanction them. None.

So distinquishing between the two, for political expediency, seems to be a very short-sighted tactic.

[slackmaster]

4. It's taken centuries to get as weird as it is now

It will take a lot of work and probably a long time to un-weird it.

[JerseygirlCT]

7. Yeah, I know. I'm just impatient with Dems doing this. It's morally

weak and intellectually flabby.

Just say it: homosexual citizens are citizens and should not be denied any rights because of their orientation, including the right to marry another adult of their choosing.

There's no secular reason against this...

[Orangepeel]

14. no, it is a far-sighted tactic

You are absolutely right that it doesn't make sense to distinguish between the two and that allowing gay marriage won't force any church to do anything.

But it is a reality that many people who understand that gay people are no less deserving of partnership rights than anyone else still balk at the word "marriage."

Sensible? No. But you can't just tell these people they are nuts and expect them to realize it. And in the meantime, gays and lesbians have NO partnership rights in many states. Why not get civil union laws passed, let people see that it is no skin off their collective nose and then get either the courts or legislatures to get full marriage rights.

It is my opinion (and, I assume, yours) that it is unfair, unconstitutional, immoral and unamerican that gays have to wait for rights. But, as a long term strategy, there are two major benefits to pushing for civil unions first and marriage later. First, some rights are better than no rights. Second, IMO, full rights are likely to come sooner this way.

[JerseygirlCT]

15. I don't disagree with any of that --

and said so already.

What I think is short-sighted is our politicians saying they don't support gay marriage, though they do support CUs. It's not only silly to set that up in that way, it's also counter-productive.

As a negotiating strategy, to get rights now, and continue to fight for full equality? Sure, absolutely, I think an incremental approach is what's going to work -- so long as the ultimate goal remains true equality, not some separate but equal nonsense.

If politicians are too chicken to just come out and support true equality, they can simply focus on their support for CUs and say they understand that some people are not comfortable with the idea of "marriage". But to stick their two cents in as not comfortable or supportive of marriage simply furthers the right's intentional confusion of religious marriage and civil rights.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. marriage ought to be a strictly religious matter.

The state ought not to get involved at all in 'marriage'. Instead the state ought to provide a uniform civil union contract or license and keep the heck out of religious issues. The confusion between the religious ceremony of marriage and the state license issued to domestic partners is routinely exploited by the hate mongerers. Just get rid of the confusion and perhaps the issue would vanish once folks figured out that their local hate-them-fags church was not going to have to marry anyone they would rather see burned at the stake.

[JerseygirlCT]

8. That's what frustrates me. Dems saying they're good with

CUs, but don't support marriage only perpetuate that confusion -- which is used so well as a wedge issue by the right.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Our party's leaders are not good at thinking things out.

They are so busy conniving on how to play the issues best to their political advantage that they frequently miss the bigger picture entirely.

[paulk]

49. "playing the issues best to their political advantage"

is often the difference between a Democrat getting elected or a Republican getting elected.

I don't understand this notion of yours that it is a bad thing, and I would think that the "bigger picture" would include the idea that getting elected is a good thing.

[JerseygirlCT]

53. Then getting elected turns into staying in office, and the thing

becomes self-perpetuating, and it gets harder and harder to stand for anything.

Then you end up with what we've got -- lots of politicians afraid to just do the right thing, because it's the right thing.

Wouldn't it be great to see that happen? If the Dems won't do it, how long does it matter that they are Democrats? If they insist on playing it safe, and playing it down the middle, so as never to offend any constituent, no one will stand for anything, and nothing will change. You just enshrine the status quo.

[twiceshy]

25. Having been through a divorce I agree completely...

Once you have been through the process, and suffered the results, you come to realize just how much the civil part of marriage is by and for the government. In some ways it would be nice to just have the religious or spiritual ceremony and bond. The partnership contract entered under in a civil union can absolutely fuck you up. Let everyone enter a civil union at their will and if they want a religiously blessed "marriage", then let them do that according to the tenets of their religion/sect. Separating the two functions would make people think long and hard about the CU.

[shimmergal]

30. I agree. The state has no business

"certifying" the sex lives of certain citizens but not others'. Nor in writing contracts that specify how partners should conduct their lives together. I'm for civil unions for all.

Actually, my church's theology says it's only the couple, and God, who determine whether a marriage is valid. But in practice, with the state's involvement being limited to civil unions, that allows to individual churches to decide whether to conduct marriage ceremonies for the members who want them.

[IA_Seth]

33. I was going to say the same thing...

Make civil unions the only option, for everyone, and leave marriage to the churches/mosques/temples/whathaveyou. Seperation of Church and State kinda seems to have been thrown out the window when it comes to marriage in this country.

And it ain't like we are doing all that well with 'traditional' marriage when our divorce rate is around 50% or wherever it is these days.

[Colobo]

41. Simple and to the point.

[NashVegas]

42. Shall We Remove the Phrase, "Lawfully Wedded ______" From Marriage Ceremonies?

Througout the ages there have been ceremonies of union outside the church. Betrothels, hand-fasting, etc.

It was the Church's own grab at secular power that united common ceremonies with its sacrement of marriage.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. You can say whatever you want in your ceremony.

It is your ceremony. Government most certainly should not control what words are spoken in a place of worship during a religious ceremony.

[liberalnurse]

6. It is my guess,

the marriage union has been for well, since human societies began, formed for the purpose of procreation....thus it has been an institute in I believe every culture in history that marriage is between a man and woman. Civil Unions give all or close to all the social rights of a marriage for the purpose of respecting/honoring the contractual union in our society as we have evolved....But, marriage is clearly that bond between a male and female.

[Solon]

13. Marriage, throughout history, wasn't about the bond between man and woman, but the ownership...

of the woman by the man. It wasn't until the middle of the 19th century that marriage evolved to become something other than a property transfer.

[Igel]

32. And yet there were other kinds of ownership of women

by men that did not qualify as marriage.

So while it's possible your definition is necessary, it's certainly not sufficient. Marriage was regarded as forming a family (transient or not), with heirs and the transfer of property being part of the deal, and at times being the only official socially respectable circumstances for sex; the other forms of ownership usually were informal, had little to do with official public approval of the sexual relationship, and had little influence on who was heir and how property or titles were transferred.

[Solon]

50. Of course there were other forms of ownership of women...

in society besides marriage, Marriage just happened to have been one of the more common forms of ownership, the other common form was the ownership of daughters by fathers. Like I said, marriage was a PROPERTY transfer, the Father basically gave the daughter away(still present in most marriage ceremonies), to the new husband.

Of course, I should say that this wasn't universal, many ancient and some current societies never had this concept of ownership and viewed marriage as a partnership of equals. Also, I'm limiting the interpretation to the way the legal system viewed marriage, outside of what individuals think. I'm also limiting this to how the laws pertained to most of Europe and other Western and Middle Eastern civilizations, which the United States adopted as part of its own legal system.

Most of the common reasons why Marriage could be considered a property contract where the woman is the property is the fact that in many cases, women couldn't inherit a husband's property in the event of death, she couldn't divorce him, yet he could divorce her, in societies where polygamy was practiced, men could have many wives, but the reverse couldn't happen, indicating an unequal relationship. Single women, of childbearing age, were shunned, and encouraged to "find a man" to take care of them, there also had limited prospects, outside of marriage, to increase there own social standing. There are many other examples in history I could list, if you wish.

[ellenfl]

11. i think the right wing loonies that are against gay marriage

don't want gays to be able to get divorces. after all, the highest divorce rate is in that part of the country that is most against gay marriage. where is the sanctity of marriage in divorce?

i believe the gay community should forget gay marriage and sign on to civil unions. that would totally kill this wedge issue . . . unless it is, in fact, a construct of the right wing. even so, if the gay community would say they do not want marriage but will accept civil unions (with equal protections and rights, of course), this would just go away. does anyone know of any gays that are insisting on 'marriage' instead of civil union? besides, once you are registered as civil partners, you can call it anything you want!

as said, this is a non-issue for the younger generation and eventually will go away on its own. then all we would have to worry about is the fundie preachers outing themselves. ;-) i just don't get why this is even an issue. of course, i'm not married OR religious so i guess i look at it differently.

ellen fl

[JerseygirlCT]

12. I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning here

I suspect that should the fight for "marriage" be given up, that the right would just come out all the stronger against CUs. As a negotiation strategy, I think gay marriage has to remain the goal. I agree that incrementalism might be needed to achieve that goal. But I think total, complete, marriage equality is a goal that can't be abandoned.

I also agree with you about the next generation. I'm pleased to see an entirely different attitude with younger people now. More of a shrug and what's the big deal, anyway? We will look back and wonder that anyone could find equality so difficult a concept.

[ellenfl]

27. i disagree. i don't think the rw could make a case

against cu because of their case against marriage. the fight from their side has never been against civil unions, only marriage as defined in the bible. civil unions are not defined in the bible. what would their argument be? that gays are not entitled to equal rights? i think that would fall flat with most voters.

ellen fl

[JerseygirlCT]

37. Fortunately, yes, more and more voters are coming around

Especially as either marriage (MA) or CUs (CT, VT, NJ) are happening, and look! the world has not ended.

But I worry that the bigots on the right, who desperately need this wedge issue, and are more than happy to play to homophobia, will simply move their complaints to CUs, saying "it's the same thing, after all". Then we lose some footing in the negotiation.

I still think we aim at marriage, and accept CUs.

[ellenfl]

43. no argument with your last sentence. eom

[Lerkfish]

16. Its all labeling perception. Fundies equate marriage = religious or sacred union, and

civil union as a parking ticket level legal action.

The really hypocritical part is that they speak of the "sanctity of marriage" but have no problem, apparently, with abusive hetero husbands and fathers, people that get divorced frequently, heterosexual adultery, etc. etc.

It all comes down to incorrectly using your religion piecemeal to justify your prejudices.
If they truly read and understood the bible and Christ's teaching, they'd realize that eliminating prejudice was what Jesus was all about, with the Good Samaritan parable, the woman at the well, eating with the tax collectors, calling fishermen to be disciples, etc.

Its as if they forgot that the point of being a christian is to repent (change one's self) and instead have tried remain as they are, and force religion to bend around them.

ah well.

[depakid]

17. Personally, I think heterosexuals ought to be allowed civil unions, too

After the last go around, the words "marriage" and "husband" and "wife" are emotionally loaded for me, too!

[JerseygirlCT]

18. Well, truly, that's what secular marriage is, right?

A legal contract.

But a whole lot of otherwise nonreligious people would bristle at being told they had not engaged in a "marriage" but in a "civil union".

[depakid]

23. I reckon so, but still

we had to have a marriage certificate, even though we were "joined" in an art museum by a judge! And the whole "husband" and "wife" archetypes still applied. Looking back, I think we both liked each other better when we thought of each other more like "partners in crime." LOL.

If people wanted to get married by a preacher in church (or anywhere else) that's fine, but the church could have some say so about what went down.

I think it's a practical compromise for gays and lesbians, considering the circumstances in America today. Maybe 10 years from now, that will change. One can only hope.

[ellenfl]

28. me. too! my boyfriend is afraid that i want to marry him

but i don't. civil union would be ok though, especially for the medical aspects. fortunately, his company is employee friendly and has allowed him to put me on his health insurance policy, but i would want to be able to help him if he were hospitalized, etc.

ellen fl

[karynnj]

19. It mixed with religion

The problem is that "marriage" is both a sacrament and a legal state. Some Senator (I can't remember who, but he was Midwestern) recommended that the way to deal with it could be that the legal term be "civil union" or something other than marriage for all couples. All legal/govermental rights, priviledges, and responsibilities should then be expressed for that term.

From my perspective, this could get around the state/church problem - and is a more straight forward way of doing the same thing than "civil rights with all the priviledges of marriage". Politically, it might be harder to sell as it could be cast by opponents as taking "marriage away from everybody". (Both would need DOMA repealed to work - and very few Senators voted against it.)

The word "marriage" would then have no legal meaning - just as baptism doesn't. That word can then be used by churches. Of course, with the word having no legal meaning any one could use it - and it would likely continue to be the word actually used for the legal civil union ceremony.

[Skittles]

20. same reason they let blacks get on the bus but made 'em sit in the back

they are not viewed as equal, deserving citizens

[JerseygirlCT]

21. It's a shame to see Dems perpetuating that. nt

[Skittles]

24. yes it is

the same people who say now, what's the big deal, what's the difference? are in the same mindset as the people back then who said, what's the big deal? They are on the bus and they get to the same destination. What makes it worse is these naysayers don't even begin to see how demeaning such a mindset is to the folks it affects.

[karynnj]

31. An alternative way of looking at it

Given where the consense in the entire country is now, there may be two choices:

1) Fight for Civil unions with all the rights of marriage (which NJ recently adopted). This is supported by over 50% of the population - I have not seen state level numbers, which would be interesting. For it to work, civil unions with full rights has to be at the national level too - so it could affect social security and federal taxes and allow civil unions (like marriage today) to be accepted across states. (As DOMA uses the word marriage, it might not require repealing it.)

or

2) Saying that marriage for all couples is the only answer. This position was not the majority position even in liberal NJ. It may be a generation before it would be supported in half the states. It has significantly less than 50% approval - though age rather than political preference is the best predictor of position - with young people for it.

My view is that if you could get option 1 to work and actually got full rights and transferability of the status across state borders, the case for 2 would happen far more easily and naturally - when people see that the world hasn't caved in.

As to the "word", a gay couple could:
- send out wedding announcements and could use whatever words they want.
- could say they were married except on legal documents that would likely have a new category they could select.

So, even if you reject the religion argument, would it be worth standing on principle and NOT getting anything when it is possible to get much of what people want now by calling it civil unions.

[JerseygirlCT]

38. No, I don't think it's worth an all or nothing gambit.

But I DO think Democrats need to stop volunteering that they do not support marriage, just CUs.

Don't say it. (Better yet, don't think it, but that's harder to control). Just voice your support for CUs. Is that really so much to ask of Clinton and Obama and whoever else has used the CU ok, marriage not bit?

I agree that incrementalism is going to win this. Rights are the most important thing. And as you say, culture will begin to take care of it from there, as everyone will call it marriage anyway.

So I see a big, big difference between those of us saying we support equal rights, period, and think the best way to get there is through CUs, and those who say they support CUs, but not marriage.

Does that make sense?

[ellenfl]

29. you are absolutely right but the rw probably will never see

gays as equal and deserving. in the meantime, gather the rights that you can. i don't doubt that gay marriage will someday happen in this country. we just need to get the christo-fascists out of government.

ellen fl

[JNelson6563]

22. Could it be due to the "Christian" voting bloc?

Just a wild guess.

God, save me from your people.

Julie

[HuffleClaw]

26. typical waffling polspeak if you ask me n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

40. Yeah, that's what I think, too. I was just curious if there really

was any way to defend that, intellectually. I've not found it, if there is.

[HuffleClaw]

47. a local politican once showed up to a gay rights groups' christmas dinner

and gave a little speech in which she managed to avoid uttering the words 'gay', 'homosexual', 'lesbian', 'gay rights'... or anything that might end up being quoted.

[ProudDad]

34. Probably because

most legal benefits for "married" people explicitely use the word "married"?

According to most definitions I found here, religion has NOTHING to do with it:

http://www.answers.com/topic/marriage

[slampoet]

35. All "Marriage" licenses should be Civil Unions in the eyes of the State.

Then if you want to go the extra mile and get it blessed as a Marriage, you can go to your religious leader and do that.


This is the way it should have been all along.


What is constantly damaging to gays being able to have the right as partners is that Righties are easily able to portray this debate as forcing churches to marry gays.

I'd be willing to bet that 95% of gays don't care about the church end and just want to be able to get insurance, property rights, and let their lover visit them in the hospital.

And most of the 5% that care would say "screw you" to any church that didn't want to marry them and would use an other pastor or rabbi or what have you.

[ProudDad]

36. You're absolutely right

It's a legal issue and currently a minority group is being viciously discriminated against in this country (except in Mass)...

[JerseygirlCT]

39. I'd guess your numbers are a bit off -- but your point still holds

And many churches DO already recognize and bless same-sex unions, whether the state does or not.

[casus belli]

45. I will reiterate, in a different form, what's already been said

I think it is important not to confuse the intent of those who are using this tactic as somehow implying that they consider a civil union to be less than a marriage. I would further that most of us don't care whether it's called marriage or not, because in the interest of complete equality, there shouldn't be any difference between my marriage to my wife and that of a same sex couple who choose to marry. That said, perceptions are a very difficult thing to counteract, and unfortunately we live in a country where many people will be instantly opposed to same sex couples being married, no matter how unfair it is to not allow them to do so. I think most people pushing the "CU" angle understand that fact, and are trying to find a middle ground where progress can be made without alienating some people who would be sympathetic to the cause, but who cannot be convinced that two men or two women should ever "marry". I think most rational people are willing to say that same sex couples should not be discriminated against with respect to legal rights, etc. But, for some reason there will always be many who cannot accept it when it is called marriage.

I much the same way that I don't understand bigotry or racism, I don't invest much time trying to understand that point of view. I think in those cases finding a middle ground where we can communicate, even if it means changing some terminology, is ultimately more important than demanding someone change their philosophy.

[sandnsea]

46. Because without the tradition of man-woman & babies

None of us would be here. It is engrained that the traditional family is the root of any society and deserves special protection. For a whole host of reasons. Like it or lump it. That's what people think. Accepting civil unions for legal purposes is as far as many people are willing to go.

[slampoet]

48. If it were about babies You would see more hostility towards the infertile.

As it is I haven't heard of many cases of people attacking the rights of infertile couples.

[Withywindle]

51. Can you imagine the outcry if...

infertile people, people who didn't want children, and people past reproducing age were suddenly forbidden to marry?

Would the "man+woman+babies traditionalists" support such a measure?

I bet most wouldn't. And if not, there has to be something else at work to make the hypocrisy make "sense."

[JerseygirlCT]

52. That's just it -- there really isn't a single, secular reason for

the bigotry. None. It simply doesn't exist.

People try awfully hard to come up with excuses for why it's fine and dandy to deny others the same basic rights they themselves enjoy. But they come up short everytime.

Which is why they'll ALWAYS attempt to claim marriage has always been the same. (Wrong)
Or start spouting scripture (Can be taken apart so many different ways and isn't in the least relevant to gov't.)
Or they'll try variations, like the need to have children one. (Of course, being gay is no impediment to having children. Might make the mechanics a bit more involved if the need is for bio-children, but still doable. And why would having gay marriage suddenly decrease the number of children being born? As if straight folk will suddenly decide they want in on gay marriage, marry someone of the same sex and not have kids???? There will still be just as many children born, marriage or no.)

Ugh. Sorry. You know I'm not arguing with you. It's just that the arguments are so old and so silly they frustrate the heck out of me!

[Withywindle]

54. They are utterly silly when looked at rationally, because they're not rational.

The prejudice comes first, the justifications tacked onto them later, and the justifications are accordingly weak. Intelligence-insultingly weak, IMO.

It is very much like the arguments that used to be made against interracial marriage. NOT because the black struggle for civil rights is identical to the gay struggle, of course it isn't. But because in both cases you have a base, primal ignorant superstition being argued for with patronizing arguments cobbled together from pseudo-religion, pseudo-science, pseudo-sociology, and pseudo-legalese.

[bluedawg12]

57. The justification is:

that society sets the laws.

If it is in the interest if society and if it is the will of the people to define marriage and codify it as one man and one woman, then society has the right to define it this way.

The reasons cited in support of one man and one woman are well known and well worn:

Marriage protects off spring, inheritance, the family unit and gays don't have kids.
Invalid because gays can now adopt and even pro-create with-in gay relationships and some bring kids from previous het marriages.

One man and one woman is the ideal way to raise kids for their sake. RW blow hard pseudo-intellectuals cite biased studies in supposed support of this.

Invalid, because there are studies that gay couples are loving and nurturing parents.

Religion is the back bone of society and the Bile says....yada yada....as it does say so many things that no one does.

Then, there is the weird: protect marriage by keeping gays from marrying, as if, the high divorce rate were related in any way to any gay behavior or political issue.

Bottom line there are only two reasons against gay marriage as a full fledged institution:

1.) Out right bigotry and ignorant prejudice.

2.) Political expediency as some consider it a third rail issue.

[bluedawg12]

58. The political problem is:

That while gay activists were discussing the topic in early stages of development, the RW and HerrKKKarl took the ball and ran with it and made it their own alarmist issue, actually, the RW and certain groups who make a lot of $$$ and live off this issue and rely on it as a way to get followers to panic and follow have been at this and scaring people for over 10 years:

<<<The gays are coming!>>>


<<<The gays are coming!>>>

Like chicken little the alarmists used this topic to strike fear into the hearts of right thinking red blooded amerkuuns, and gays was linked to God (as in anti-faith) and linked to gun control...and so a certain segment of the population thinking themselves conservative libertarians saw the gay marriage issue as just another one a series of government interventions into changing our lives to the left.

I think the gay community was late in framing the issue when it hit the media all during the 2000 elections and the RW stole the issue and they defined it.

Talk shows were full of RW guests and bibliofascists who made the case against it before the gay community could even get their position out there.