3rd poll finds voters want civil unions, not marriage, for gays

By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press Writer
Published: Wednesday, November 8, 2006
MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. (AP) - New Jersey voters support granting gay couples the benefits of marriage but do not want their unions to be called "marriages," according to .... The Quinnipiac University Poll, conducted Oct. 30 through Nov. 5 .... The New Jersey Supreme Court last month ruled that gay couples should have access to all the benefits of marriage, but .... left it up to the Legislature to decide what to call the unions .... Lawmakers quickly said they would likely approve civil unions, with all the rights of marriage .... Voters seem to think that's the right course. Fifty-six percent said they thought gay couples should have the same rights as married couples. But they favored the title of civil unions over marriage by a 51-28 percent margin, with 21 percent undecided.

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/newjersey/story/6916057p-6779959c.html


I oppose treating non-traditional couples as second-class citizens. Unfortunately, every poll I remember seeing for the last several years suggests that the US is very touchy about the label "marriage."

Perhaps the right approach is to emulate the Europeans: "marriage" is a ceremony performed by clergy (rabbis, priests, gurus, &c) do, while "civil unions" are the province of the state.

Although currently, as a relic of our frontier days, people can still get their civil state-sanctioned contract through a purely religious ceremony, there's really no reason nowadays that clergy should certify the existence of the state-sanctioned contract; similarly, there's no reason for the state say it is "performing marriages" when it is merely recording civil contracts.

On separation of church and state grounds, perhaps we should hand over all responsibilities for marriage to the religious organizations, and reassign all responsibilities for civil unions to the state. Thus, a religious ceremony would become nothing more than a blessing and would confer no change in legal status and would create no contract rights. A civil union, on the other hand, would bring tax benefits, clarify inheritances, and provide hospitalization and visitation rights.

Want the blessing? Go to your church or temple. Want the legal benefits? Go to the judge. Want both? Do both. Want neither? Do neither ...

and outside the bounds of what government can or cannot decide. Let the religions handle marriage and let ALL contracts between domestic partners be "civil unions."

How hard is THAT?

Because they're linked right now. A "civil union" would've suited us just fine. We could've gone through a handfasting ceremony for the "religious" aspect, had we wanted to.

I'd never been there and going places I've never been is one of my favorite things.

called "the biggest day of her/his life" (versus the 'second-class' version); not to mention suffered the enormous discrimination visited upon not-married people, and fiercely more on not-married people who also are not hetero; not to mention suffered the enormous economic discrimination in the denial of the thousands of rights and privileges endowed by marriage, and so on...

you simply can not possibly know what it is like. easy to say you would do without it, when you chose not to do without it, for reasons *other then to go to vegas* (you know that). be honest, at least.

please be honest. it will help us define things so that you can really see what the difference is.


(off soon. will check back tomorrow night.)

and the only way to clear the air so gays can achieve equal rights in this arena is to level the playing field...to eliminate the whole religious connection to what is, essentially, a contract between two people ratified by the government.

This is EXACTLY how they're doing it in parts of Europe. Let the religions determine who and who they will not marry--the government itself will determine what individual contracts between people it will ratify.

Splitting the two parts of this is the only way, in my opinion, gays will get what they deserve out of the deal. It renders the religious argument completely moot. Evangelical fundies do NOT get to decide what other churches do. They do NOT get to decide whether the state can ratify the contract between consenting adults.

See, I'm an ordained minister. And I'd happily marry two men, or two women, or even a group (that sort of thing doesn't bother me either). But because of the interlaced conflicts of interest between religion and government in this country, I could perform the ceremony, but the government would not ratify the contract.

THAT'S the problem.

structure would be a waste of revenue, but pander to those obstinately opposed to us being RECOGNIZED AS TRULY EQUAL.

i wonder, would your wife agree you married just to get a trip to vegas? honest...
or just for the legal contract?

it is about formally making a new family for yourself, and it is THAT that phobes want to deny us.

it is all really about creating substitutes for true community, collective economic endeavor, etc., but 'they' have even more reason to fear that.

Religious terms are not defined by civil statute. Marriage is. Religious institutions have no place in common law. Quite a bit of US court precedents and judicial rulings deal with marriage. It is forbidden by the First Amendment to give legal standing to religious ceremonies; a wedding ceremony has no legal standing unless accompanied with civil marriage documents filed in accordance with civil law with the appropriate civil authorities.

How the bloody hell can anyone say that legal marriage is "clearly religious?"

If neither side will bend on this, we're going to be going around about it for the next hundred years.

So eliminate the source of the fucking argument. Change the rules.

rights. not even a majority.

it will be decided by fair court decisions.

the right wingers would just roll over. They oppose ANY LEGAL RECOGNITION of same sex relationships.

Political fights are hardly ever won by converting one's most extreme opponents: you aim for the people whose minds can be changed.

Just because you and so many other people are incapable of distinguishing between marriage (the civil contract and the thousands of laws and tens of thousands of legal precedents therein) and wedding (the ceremony) is entirely beside the point. Marriage is a civil matter defined by civil law and non-existent in the eyes of civil law until and unless filed with civil authorities in accordance to civil law. End of story.

Come on, people, this isn't a difficult concept. :eyes:

ceremony performed by a judge: in such circumstances, clergy rather than state officials are certifying unions.

I merely propose to take this certification-for-the-state role away from clergy and to replace everywhere the statutory and regulatory instances of "marriage" with "civil union."

A wedding ceremony has no legal standing unless accompanied with civil marriage documents filed in accordance with civil law with the appropriate civil authorities. No state will recognize a marriage as legal and valid until and unless it has been filed in accordance with civil law. No ceremony is required, not before clergy and not before a judge. At the most, clergy are allowed by law to act as a notary public with regards to witnessing the vow made by the married couple to be. In Florida, Maine and South Carolina, marriage is a jurat and can be done by any notary public.

Removing the authority of clergy to act as an agent of the court would be as simple as changing whichever statute gives that authority to clergy. That would be far, far easier than trying to turn marriage into something it is not.

a section on "solemnization" which must either be before "an ordained minister ... a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate" or else a "mode of solemnization" recognized by a religious denomination or an Indian nation or tribe. Thus, in fact, here one either has a religious ceremony involving clergy or goes before a magistrate or engages in some other recognized ceremony.

Solemnization is the act of taking an oath to be a married couple in the presence of witnesses and in the precence of someone legally authorized to take such an oath. All judges have that authorization. In Florida, Maine and South Carolina, all notaries public have that authorization. In all states, clergy are given that authorization by statute. Different states also give that authorization to others.

But the solemnization of a marriage is not what creates the marriage itself. Solemnization is, if you will, an oath to keep a contract rather than the contract itself. Legal marriage still requires the filing of civil documents with the appropriate civil authority in accordance with civil law, no matter what form is used to solemnize it.

The very fact that marriages can be solemnized by magistrates in North Carolina proves the fact that there is nothing inherently religious in marriage, as the First Amendment prohibits allowing judges to have religious authority as part of their legally empowered judicial duties.

by .. consent .. freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either: (1) .. in the presence of an ordained minister .. or a magistrate; and with the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife; or (2) in accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe."

A license is required and contains the language: "To any ordained minister of any religious denomination, minister authorized by a church, any magistrate, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage ... You are required within 10 days after you shall have celebrated such marriage, to return this license to me at my office with your signature subscribed to the certificate under this license, and with the blanks therein filled according to the facts, under penalty of forfeiting two hundred dollars ($200.00) to the use of any person who shall sue for the same."

Note that the failure of the officiant to return the completed license does not affect the creation of the marriage but renders the officiant liable to forfeit $200.

Rather than argue whether marriage is "really" religious or not, which is a nonpolitical question for which I think the sort of arguments you raise give an entirely defensible answer, I would say that the point of my OP is simply that polls in the US indicate that most people react as if marriage were to them a religious matter, although civil unions little bother many of them. My suggestion was simply to address this psychological split directly, by generally recasting the legal term "marriage" as civil union. Absent such a change, it seems to me likely that "gay marriage" will gradually become acceptable in a growing number of jurisdictions, but only under the modified name "civil unions," creating a two-tiered vocabulary which invites constant legal distinction, even if the statutes governing "civil unions" largely parallel those governing marriage.

As this issue doesn't actually affect me, the approach adopted must be chosen by others, of course.

The enactment of any ritual or ceremony is irrelevant: without a civil license filed with the appropriate civil authority in accordance with civil, secular law, the marriage does not exist in the eyes of the law.

This should not be a difficult concept to grasp.

I was married for 8 years before I came out. I honestly can't figure why we're banging our heads against the wall for the right of "marriage." It's by FAR not an ideal institution, legally anyway. I see it as an opportunity to break new ground...

that bestows legally recognized marriage.

It's all about the word "marriage." Breeders (and I'm one of them, so don't get mad, heteros!) have a weird psychology on this. I have friends who are very supportive of legal protections, anti-discrimination protection, hate crimes laws and adoption rights for gays and lesbians, but oppose equal marriage. And when I quiz them on it, they support all the tenets of marriage for gays and lesbians, but just not "marriage" itself.
I think that embedded somewhere in our straight psyche (hopefully not mine, I'm completely supportive of equal marriage), that media-imprinted fairy tale image of a man in a tux and a woman in a flowing white dress getting married is hard-wired.

And symbols are the basis of language. When people say "marriage" they think of the whole deal--church ceremony, the ring, etc...etc...

I don't think "marriage" is the government's business. The government's end of it is ratifying the contract symbolized by marriage. The domestic partnership agreement. Let the Churches "marry" whoever the hell they WANT to marry, and let the government ratify ALL legal contracts between domestic partners.

If the word "marriage" is the only thing blocking this whole damn thing, let's define it realistically and fix the problem.

Creating a "marriage that is not called marriage" is not possible, as has been explained many, many times. It comes down to bigots who want to keep marriage as the exclusive special right for heterosexuals ONLY.

What I suggest is exactly what they've done.

Take the whole religious argument out of the equation.

http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/switzerland/marriage/marriage.php

Furthermore, same sex couples in Switzerland do NOT have the SAME rights as married couples. Exceptions include:

# adoption of children
# fertility treatments
# taking the same surname

are fine with "civil union."

But saying "The state will marry straights but civil-unite gays" seems obviously a verbal discrimination, and verbal discriminations lead to uglier kinds.

So there's a political problem to be solved. I think entirely splitting "marriage" from "civil-union" and reserving "civil union" for the state-contract side would be progress. Then, those who want to get "married" go church-shopping. Freedom of speech, of course, would ensure that those with state-sanctioned "civil unions" would still be able to say defiantly, "Judge so-and-so married us" if they so choose.

A whole lot of people who in the past have, in an attempt to sound reasonable, graciously allowed that they wouldn't be opposed to civil unions as long as marriage stayed the property of divocred Catholics and other heterosexuals- ultimately turn against civil unions as well.

Look at Florida's new aholist governor elect. He was for civil unions in th beginning of the campaign, but by the end he had spent too much time kissing cracker butt and had turned against civil unions and gay Floridians.

Marriage, married, husband, and wife are words shot through the laws of this nation. Unless you pass a federal law that says that civil unions are the equivilent of marriage under the law (like that won't be fought hard) , then "civil unions" helps, but doesn't accomplish much unless you never intend to move and you wouldn't benefit from being legally married un terms of SS retirement and federal taxes.

... in terms of "civil unions."

The anti-gay forces know that the Supreme Court will eventually strike down all the discriminatory laws in one fell swoop, including amendments to the state constitutions, because they are a violation of equal protection and freedom of religion. This is why they want to get an amendment to the US Constitution. But such an amendment would itself be unconstitutional, and there would be a constitutional crisis. In the past this has been avoided by a remedy or repeal, but those were slower times. IF the US Supreme Court rules that an amendment to the Constitution is itself unconstitutional, then Congress will have to either acquiesce or defy the court.

Then it all really comes down to the essence of law and government- who will the army support?

with uncertain allegiances, and since SCOTUS has traditionally kept an ear to the ground on political matters, for most of the country's history, I doubt your prediction, though of course I cannot be certain.

Unfortunately, as a little thought should suggest, an amendment to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional, according to any reasonable definition -- and SCOTUS certainly would not rule an amendment unconstitutional, not merely for logical reasons, but because the court, in power at the time that such an amendment passed, would have political ties to the existing political groups responsible for the amendment and hence would largely share existing political understandings.

One can certainly contemplate the possibility that the Constitution might be amended in a manner that dishonored the original intent of the document and that completely disregarded mutual understandings, which have for two centuries allowed people of goodwill to assent to the general flavor of the document, if they did not always agree on the particulars.

Finally: I, for one, am not interested in raising the question "Who will the army support?" insofar as it suggests a permanent end to civilian government.

I am open to how you see otherwise. It seems to me that given the wording "Congress shall make no law........." , that Congress is forever forbidden from repealing the First Amendment. Thus if Congress did make an amendment which did that, such an amendment would be itself unconstitutional.

It seems to me that you even if you could enlarge a pretty absolute right, that it would include the right as previous understood and would not be a repeal.

not Congress

I would say that that is like saying that the President makes laws, not Congress. The states ratify amendments but those amendments are first made by Congress.

You could well be correct. I have never been able to get a satisfactory answer to this because the argument is usually dismissed by arrogant lawyers.

so in essence, he does make the bill a law

Congress can pass all the proposed amendments it wants onto the states but if the states don't ratify them, like the ERA, they don't become part of the Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress ...

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Most marriage laws exist on the state level, not federal. And rewriting statutes will do nothing to change the centuries of judicial precedents and court rulings (ie the common law) which touch on the very specific, legally defined term marriage.

as difficult as you would make it.

But if I take your view, then it seems to me the problem remains as suggested by the poll in my OP, and it further seems to me the effort to obtain equal rights will be indefinitely delayed.

"Civil unions" is politically doable now; "marriage" is not; and I personally think using different legal language for different couples invites endless discrimination ...

I can not and will not support separate and unequal.

Vermont and then Massachusetts (which though called marriage is bereft of federal recognition). I asked myself, if I lived in those states would I take them up, unequal as they are. And my answer was yes.

I have a hard time with it, but I'd take any ground we could get, knowing that equality is the ultimate goal and this is an interim step.

are you all familiar with the concept of "tyranny of the majority"? it does not matter what number of people vote to revoke equal rights, it just can not be done. well, without being tyranny.

That's my take on it.

marriage-church
civil unions- state

.. contrary to the principals upon which our political understandings are said to be based. But in fact, not only has "tyranny of the majority" been common enough in US history, a certain equally ugly "tyranny of the minority" has also been very common, in the form of Southern slavery (in which vastly outnumbered slave-holders brutally controlled large numbers of people) and in the form of anti-democratic elites limiting political expression by jailing unionists, free-love advocates and others.

The task, therefore, is to craft the political environment that prevents such "tyranny of the majority," for example, from preventing non-traditional couples from exercising the same rights as traditional couples.

In my OP, I am simply describing my reading of the political climate, which I expect will change only slowly, and I am suggesting a work-around. I do not claim it to be a perfect solution, and I certainly will not call you an idiot if you choose not to support it. Nor am I suggesting that I personally oppose non-traditional arrangements being called marriages.

As for what can be done, and what "just can not be done," I defer completely to Frederick Douglass: Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

couples' - eg., the right to marry the person of choice.

next, of course it's happened, as tyranny, and been corrected each time it is exposed, which is what we are doing in this case. please help.

i wrote it can not happen without being tyranny. any here advocating tyranny? no? well then, why would heed polls of tyrannical majority??

clearer?

(sorry i was just going offline. i will check back tomorrow night)

.. through the civil war to reshape Northern opinion of the war, not as a dispute over secession, but as a decisive duel over the fate of slavery.

Gotta confess: I just love that quote myself. :)

would accept an open, clear tyranny of the minority. i am certain we all feel strongly that minority rule is wrong.

the problem with taking polls, or votes, on equality marriage is that it is asks for a majority decision on abridging *equal* rights. the supreme courts are about stopping such tyranny of the majority.

this thread is ABOUT a majority wanting to limit my rights to less-than-equal. there are people here at DU who are falling for the deception that the majority decision on this matters AT ALL.

i mean, yes, of course the majority of this country could decide to become an open tyranny, and often steps into being one, and hopefully back out of it, but people here surely do not want this country to become a tyranny of the majority!


peace

*edit spelling

tyranny "just can not be done" in America, whereas I think history shows tyrannical conditions -- imposed by a majority, or by an armed minority in collusion with the so-called "lawful political nostrums about "what America is," and I expect that you are right to think no one on this board supports tyrannies, but I worry when I think I hear people proclaiming that such things just cannot happen.

why it is important here is that many people on DU are hearing polls such as the OP one as having a bearing on the legal outcome.

it is vitally important to equate such deceptive, "so-called 'lawful political nostrums'" with the tyranny they intend, so that DUers are not deceived. i only fear they might be when i see a subject line like that, then see people buying into the intended distortion of fact.

yes, i said, "it just can not be done."
i said that it just can not be done in the country we choose this to be; that is, except by this becoming a different country, a tyranny.

yes, DUers do not want tyranny.
majorities can not decide to abridge equal rights, then have government implement it, without becoming tyranny of the majority.
letting them do so would also be tyranny.

we agree. i have gone on about it because this thread must have those facts stated explicitly, to offset the actual tyranny of the majority visited upon us by that misleading (not you being misleading, but the use of such polls to affect opinion being) subject line.


peace!

It absolutely has to be called "marriage", and there can be no compromise on this particular point. Any other "equal but separate" designation is unjust and tantamount to Apartheid. Equal marriage for gay people is the pound of flesh we are owed after all the centuries of shit we've put up with. And it will be yours, as it is now in Canada. To quote Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, "If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?"

Don't make it separate for gays and straights...strip the religious language from the domestic partnership contracts ratified by the government. Make them ALL civil unions.

People can be married religiously, or contracted with government sanction, or both. I understand that parts of Europe do this already. We can argue the necessity and MAYBE get a lot of evangelicals on board. Just say that we don't expect their churches to have anything to do with marrying people they don't believe they should.

People can go to a liberal denomination church for the ceremonial stuff, and go to the government for the contractual stuff.

I think these rules should apply for EVERYONE.

since I find it an entirely understandable view, and a view that is entirely acceptable to my eyes. All I say is that anyone advocating such a view has a significant task ahead of them, trying to convince the Yahoos and Neanderthals, who will loudly oppose it, and the mushy muddled middle, who will wring their hands interminably and not know what to say.

interracial couples. Could you imagine?

as long as everyone has the same rights

Civil unions are the "Colored Only" drinking fountains of the 21st century. They're better than no fountain at all, but the water tastes awful and you're treated as a lesser person because you drink from it.

As long as the equal rights are there, who cares what it's called? I don't.

without the rights they need NOW.

I'm arguing that if the state will only recognize "civil unions" for gays, then in fact it should only recognize "civil unions" for everyone.

As long as gay and straight partnerships are called the same thing under the law, I don't care if it's marriage or civil union.

as long as it's equal. I think it should be the same for everyone. I think the state should issue civil unions for everyone, gay or straight, and then anyone who wanted to be married in the eyes of God, would have to find a willing church/minister to perform their "wedding" ceremonies should they choose to have them. That makes the most sense to me. No church would have to perform ceremonies for couples they didn't approve of, and everyone would have the same rights and protections under the law.

fuck what voters want. What do gays want?

Somebody needs to show these gladyskravitzes the door - get out of our fucking lives! And stay out!