Civil Unions For Everybody - Or I'm Against The State Being In The Marriage Business

http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26947.html

Civil Unions for Everybody
by Steve Swayne

snip

How gay couples suffer from not being able to legally join households:

Property. In San Francisco, a dog mauled a woman to death. Under current law, her female partner cannot sue the dog's owners for wrongful death. Not only is she emotionally upended by this tragedy; she risks foreclosure and bankruptcy because she cannot recover the lost wages that her partner earned and that they shared. ... surviving gay partners have lost homes through estate taxes and relatives of the deceased who have the legal right to move in (figuratively and literally). And forget about transferring retirement benefits. Current law poorly protects gay couples and their property.

Representation. Near Spokane, a 35-year-old man lay comatose. His 32-year-old partner can visit him only because the man's family permits him. The hospital spokesman: "If we have a conflicting interest in patients who can't speak for themselves, we look for legal documents. We follow the state statute." And state statutes do not readily recognize the commitments these men made to each other. Most thirtysomethings know whom they want to speak for them if they are unable to speak for themselves. Many get married in anticipation of this kind of crisis. But current laws hamstring gay couples in choosing who speaks for whom -- and in making these choices stick.

Dependents. Like it or not, some gay couples have children: from previous marriages; by artificial insemination; through adoption. Gay parents, like their straight counterparts, have proven themselves fit as parents. But existing laws make it difficult -- and, in some states, impossible -- for both partners to be legal guardians of children they parent together. Not allowing gay parents to legalize their relationship jeopardizes the children when something happens to one of the parents. And the recent federal decision upholding the Florida law banning gays (couples and singles) from adopting while allowing single heterosexuals to adopt shows how laws that punish gays end up hurting children.


Conservatives intent on protecting the institution of marriage ought to rethink their strategy. Rather than keeping marriage away from gay couples, the federal government should get out of the marriage business. And this is easy to do.

Enact a federal civil union law. Change the laws with property, representation, and dependent protections from "marriage" to "civil union." Eliminate penalties that keep blended families and elderly couples from getting hitched. Make civil unions available to gays and straights alike. And give marriage back to houses of worship. You want legal protections? Get a civil union. You want marriage? Go to your faith community.

This approach upholds "the sanctity of marriage." Churches, for example, determine the distribution of their holy sacraments; who wants a government official dictating who can receive communion or get baptized? But governments have a compelling interest in granting property, representation, and dependent protections to citizens who want and need them. Through court order and legislative action, governments are extending these protections to gay couples. Conservatives here can grant these protections to all couples and turn the sacrament of marriage over to professionals who regularly handle holy things.

:kick:

Makes sense to me.

Either marriage for everyone or civil unions for everyone.

As I said in the other thread, this would assume most people are ok with gays getting civil unions, and then possibly married at a church, at all. The end result is the same.

What you are proposing is changing the whole system of what is defined as marriage in this country and really, it is for the benefit of the gay community. That is fine with me and most people here but is there that kind of support out there for such a change in law?

Yes, I know this would "solve" the problem of mixing church and state issues but remember that for a lot of people against this, it doesn't matter "how" gays get married, they are against it, period. There are plenty of churches out there who will marry gays who have a civil union. So the end result will be, gays getting married, legally and with the State on their side. And the same assholes will fight it. You assume the only problem they have with this is that it may be "in their church". That isn't the case. They go bonkers at the thought of any gay couple getting married in any church.

Like I said, I agree with this in principle for reasons of separating church and state. But it will not change any minds because the end result is exactly the same.

want to form a Civil Union?

As a single woman turning 45 next week, and whose father is aging, I have to wonder who will be my legal proxy and heir etc.

Why shouldn't I be able to name another woman? Even if she and I are not sexually involved but just best friends?

To get MARRIED.

Look, I think this is a great idea but like a lot of great ideas it is way before it's time. People out there voted down even a civil union law for gays, let alone changing the law to a general partnership agreement for everyone and everyone could get "married" too.

They really do believe this is part of our "national culture" and would see this as an even greater attack on it if anything. People could literally get a civil union and with the blessing of the State have a full marriage at their local Church of Satanic Rubber Fetishists. And it would be equal in every way to those upstanding Christian folk.

They would go berserk.

You just have to jump through more hoops to accomplish it.

That everyone would have go through. Making everyone equal in the eyes of the law.

You can get a religious civil marriage, now.

If no one got one, and everyone was equal after that civil union and went to the church of their choice afterwards to "really get married", the people who oppose this would lose their claim that marriage is some sanctified thing, only between a man and a woman, and only in a Christian or grudgingly, other major religious ceremony.

This would take "marriage" away from the law and out of their hands. They don't want that. They don't want an even playing field for all. They want to dictate who can marry who and under what circumstances. They will not concede to equality with gays or pagans or anyone else.

The problem with giving everyone "marriage" or even "civil unions" is that both terms imply intimacy, and (imo) that has not business being in the law. The term "domestic partnership" is more inclusive as it includes the kind of situation you are talking about. I have read that this is something that is relevant to some elderly people - they don't want to get into an intimate relationship but need the legal things that would go along with partnership.

I am 100% for domestic partnerships for everyone without regard to gender. Each person should be able to have a legal partnership with exactly one other person at any given time. That is as inclusive as you can get.

I am a strong supporter of civil marriage equality. Marriage carries a religious connotation primarily because somewhere along the way clergy were deputized to perform a government function. It always sounds wrong to hear a clergy person say "by the power vested in me by the state of........." That is the problem. Same sex and opposite sex couples should be equal before government. In an ideal world, the functions would be completely separate.