Regarding Civil Unions...

[SidneyCarton]

I realize that the this topic is an inflammatory one here on DU, so I accept that many people will disagree with me, I take no offense as I think my solution is a little too radical to ever even be considered. The problem with Civil Unions that has been constantly brought up here is that they constitute a form of segregation, a form of “separate and not really even equal” for Gay couples, and therefore they are unacceptable. I can see the validity of this argument because as long as Civil Unions are only applicable to Same-Sex Unions, they offer no equality at all. In my own opinion Civil Unions should not only be applicable to all, they should be mandatory. Or in other words: GOVERNMENT SHOULD GET OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS ALTOGETHER.

The idea of government sanctioned marriage is a relic from times past in which church and state were united as the only legitimizing force, outside of which stood only adultery and fornication (which were, at that time not only considered sins, but prosecutable offenses.) With the advent of separation of these institutions, their respective definitions of marriage have shifted considerably. For the government, marriage has become a contractual obligation between two parties for certain legal, tax and economic benefits. On the other hand, religious groups have defined marriage according to their varied doctrines. Finally many who marry do not do so merely for the legal benefits, nor do they have any particular interest in its religious foundations, they do so because marriage has become the cultural symbol for the deep level of commitment between two people who truly love and care for each other.

As such is the case, it may be argued that there are truly two forms of marriage in the United States at this time: Public marriage, which involves the legal rights, privileges and obligations granted by law, and Private marriage, which consists of the beliefs and values of the two contracting parties. As there is no reason why government should interfere in the latter, why not separate the two altogether. “Marriage” may become a private relationship, in which the two parties, choose to engage, using whatever spiritual, philosophical, religious, or personal ceremony they wish, and it will not be recognized by the government. A “Civil Union” will be the legal rights, privileges, etc. granted in the county offices, which will be available to any two contracting individuals, regardless of their gender.

Under such circumstances, there will be no denial of Same-Sex marriage, for such marriages are already performed by the Unitarian Universalist church, as well as other progressive Protestant denominations. Other religious groups, which currently oppose these marriages on the fears that they will be forced to perform them in violation of their doctrinal tenets, will no longer have that justification, as religious marriage is now a private institution, in which no one can be forced to do anything.
At the same time the equal rights which the LGBT community seeks will be granted them, as all couples, Gay or Straight, would have to get a Civil Union in order to receive the legal privileges formerly conferred by marriage. Hence by abolishing marriage as a legal institution, and making it a private institution, while mandating Civil Unions for all, equality may be achieved.
I realize that this solution is probably unrealistic in the extreme, and may not be workable. If any of you can enlighten me on this subject, feel free.
S. Carton

[Deep13]

1. Marriage by definition is a legal institution.

The point is that society and the state recognize it as a unique personal commitment. I sure as hell am not going to agree to have my lawful marriage be downgraded just because no one said any magic words at the wedding.

While I see civil unions as a useful intermediate step, I agree with many of the posters on this board that it is degrading to be given a second-best classification.

If we really want to change the terms of the debate, we need to recognize that committed gay couples are in fact married right now. We simply want the law to reflect this objective reality.

[SidneyCarton]

2. I see your point...

But if nothing changes but the name of the institution (which is what I'm trying to advocate here, the idea of making marriage private, and not merely religious was an admission that Atheists get married too) has your lawful union really been downgraded? After all, you would still be "married" because you choose to consider yourself so.

[Deep13]

5. I'll put it this way...

...if there is significant resistence to the idea of extending the definition of marriage to include a small percentage of same-sex couples, what kind of resistence do you think there will be to down-grading tens of millions of lawful hetero marriages?

[SidneyCarton]

8. Hence my admission that it is likely unworkable.

Yet are these marriages really downgraded? I am not advocating bringing down existing marriages to the current level of civil unions, but to bring civil unions up to the level of current marriages, and then changing the name.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. If all rights, obligations and prerogatives are unchanged,

how are those marriages 'downgraded'?

[gollygee]

25. This is largely emotional for most people

Hetero couples will be upset to have the wording changed. They already have their rights so they aren't worried about that. They just want a term that is for them only. That term is "marriage." If that term is taken away, their fears that "the gays" are out to "destroy marriage" will be proven true to a lot of people. It will make things worse as far as discrimination goes, not better.

[sui generis]

3. technically the right idea but the wrong battle

The issue is as much an issue of conditioning as it is one of legal nuance.

At the federal level it really should be a civil union for all. The state should have absolutely no say in variations of the contract except to function as a distribution of effort in affording licensing. There should only be one standard ("consenting single adults") and it should have nothing to do with gender or the potential for procreation.

And yet that battle would be fundamentally more difficult to win than same gender "marriage".

Personally I'm for "contract marriage" as defined by Heinlein in "Friday"; the corporatization of marriage, shared assets and accountability within a marriage.

We're just nowhere near there yet.

[MineralMan]

4. Marriage is a Civil Institution...as it should be.

If it were not, those with no religious beliefs could never be married. As it is, now, there are hundreds of religions and sects of religions in the USA. Civil marriage laws makes them all the same, as it should.

Since marriage affects so many financial and legal issues, it must remain a civil function.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. There is a legitimate state interest in determining inheritance rights, powers of attorney, etc

The sole purpose of civil marriage is to establish a very clear structure of legal rights with regards to inheritance, powers of attorney, custody, property, etc. Why do you want to throw all of this away?

Religious bigots are the ones who cannot comprehend civil marriage. Let THEM be the ones to create a new religious institution.

Leave civil marriage alone.

[SidneyCarton]

10. I am leaving civil marriage alone, I am advocating a name change.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. A name change to satisfy religious bigots

Again, they are the ones with the problem; let them be the ones to change the name of their institution. That would be far easier than changing federal laws, laws in all 50 states, laws in all of the commonwealths, territories and protectorates (the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Marshall Islands, Guam, etc.) and then having to slog through cases to get court precedents and judicial rulings related to "marriage" to apply to whatever "marriage" has been renamed to in every state, commonwealth, local and federal court.

[SidneyCarton]

14. A compromise to avoid an endless conflict.

If this is the defining civil rights issue that you argue it is (justifiably so) and it is as important to the religious groups as they assert, then surely a blanket legal solution could be found.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. A stupid, futile and ultimately pointless excercise, you mean

Did you even bother to read what you responded to? Such a measure would have to pass Congress to change federal laws, all 50 state legislatures to change state laws, hundreds of thousands of local assemblies to change municipal and county codes, plus the legislatures of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Marshall Islands and any other protectorates and commonwealths under jurisdiction of US law. Then, after all of that, you have the situation where centuries of court precedent and judicial rulings applying to marriage no longer apply; our system of common law requires that federal, state, local and protectorate courts take on cases and then rule that yes, precedents regarding "marriage" do apply to whatever marriage has been renamed.

How the bloody hell will this "avoid endless conflict?" If one state -- one city -- does not follow this game plan, chaos and nothing but chaos will ensue.

Again: the religious bigots are the ones with the problem, so let THEM be the ones making the compromises. LEAVE CIVIL MARRIAGE ALONE!

[SidneyCarton]

17. You're right, it probably would never work.

[SidneyCarton]

22. In fact upon closer reflection, let me revise my previous statement, It is unworkable.

[SidDithers]

7. Why not make the civil union the "private marriage"...

and let the "public marriage", which bestows all the rights and obligations under law, be called Marriage?

Then, churches can perform civil unions until the clouds fall from the sky, and the state can sanctify legal marriages between consenting adults, whether they're mixed or same sex couples.

Sid

[SidneyCarton]

11. Because the religions won't go for that.

As part of the compromise, we give up a name, which is all they get. Religions get semantics, and Same-Sex couples get equal rights, it's a trade off.

[SidDithers]

13. I'm not interested in appeasing the religions...

I'm interested in full and equal civil rights for GLBT citizens.

Sid

[SidneyCarton]

15. And if you could do both?

Wouldn't it be better to do so? Or is conflict so sacred to you that it should be sought no matter what?

[SidDithers]

18. Religions should get no say in the matter...

marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one. The churches have done a wonderful job of co-opting the term, and have convinced millions that they somehow "own" the institution of marriage. But in reality, it's the state that grants marriage rights.

Churches have always had they freedom to decide who gets married in that church. What they seem to want to do is to also determine who gets married anywhere.

Why are some religions so threatened by the idea of two loving, same-sex individuals joined in the institution of marriage? Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized here in Canada since 2005. And, amazingly, our churches seem to be operating in exactly the same fashion as before the Civil Marriage Act was passed.

Religions need to get this through their collective heads. Not a fucking thing will change in their homophobic little congregations if same-sex individuals are granted full and equal marriage rights under law. They will not be forced to perform a wedding ceremony between two dudes. The can continue to be as bigoted and irrelevant as they were before same-sex marriage rights were granted.

Sid

[SidneyCarton]

20. You're right.

Yet until peoples perceptions line up with this reality, one must overcome what people believe will happen.

That said, As Tech-Bear Seattle noted up thread, these scheme is unworkable due to legal complexity.

[gollygee]

19. Is this the 150,000th time this has been brought up here?

1. The right-wingers big issue is that they claim gay people want to "destroy marriage". If marriage were done away with, it would be quickly and easily spun as marriage being destroyed, and guess who would take the blame? It would make things worse for gay people, not better.

2. The right-wingers don't want gay people to have any rights. In fact, strike that. They don't want gay people to exist, period. If a few have to exist here and there, they want them to be quiet and without rights in the closet. Some states have even passed laws that not only can gay people not marry, they can't do anything that looks anything like marriage no matter what you call it. Yes, some anti-gay people are ok with gay people having civil unions, but that's because it's something less than what they have. They don't want gay people playing their reindeer games, no matter what the games are called. If marriage were called "civil unions", only straight people would be able to have "civil unions".

3. There has been a huge change of public opinion on this issue. Several years ago, anti-gay marriage ballot proposals won by ridiculous margins, including in blue states, with no real advertising from the right-wing. But the proposal in California came very very close to not passing and required a huge amount of advertising money from the right wing to pass. Gay marriage will happen before too long. If Obama replaces a conservative Supreme Court justice or two, it's potentially one Supreme Court case away from being a reality. The current way of fighting for gay rights is making huge progress. Why should gay people change a winning strategy?

4. It's insulting to say, "Well then we won't let anybody marry!" Because that's really how it comes off.

[SidneyCarton]

21. I have already admitted upthread that this is unworkable.

That said, if this is such a worn out meme, why did you post here? Wouldn't it be better to let it sink?

[gollygee]

23. We aren't having 20 threads a day suggesting it

but it still comes up very regularly. Lots of people haven't thought it through. I'm not annoyed by you so much as the hundred or so people who have suggested this. And will continue to post this suggestion. You are willing to listen to reason, so I'm not really annoyed by you at all. Most of the people who post this suggestion are not willing to listen to reason.

[SidneyCarton]

26. Reason is not terribly popular on DU.

It doesn't get many recs, is usually too long for a quick scan and doesn't try and start flamewars. Hence it rarely gets on the Greatest page.

[LostinVA]

24. Marriage already is only a civil institution

it's a legal construct, a contract. Marriage is NOT a religious institution. Vows can be religious and a religious ceremony certainly is religious, but that isn't marriage. We already have Civil Marriage in this country, so we don't need to change anything except discriminatory laws.

[SidneyCarton]

27. Ahem.

1. I did not suggest defining marriage as a religious institution, I suggested defining it as a private institution.

2. I have already admitted upthread that this suggestion is unworkable due to the legal hurdles of redifining marriage in this manner in each and every state.

[Cupcake1728]

28. Civil unions

are qual in everything but name.

[SidneyCarton]

29. qual?

typo, or cutting pun? Sorry, a little dense on this monday morning, so I may be missing something.

If you are arguing that they are equal, this is not actually true, there are numerous rights, privledges, etc... which Same-Sex couples who are granted Civil Unions must apply for separately. In it's current state CU's are "marriage lite"