Why is it that in any thread about marriage equality in GD there has to be

a flurry of "I favor civil unions for all and marriage for no one" as if:

a. It would make a fucking ounce of difference
b. They're even addressing the real issue which is inequality before the law

There are well intentioned people I'd like to give a tattoo on their forehead and hands that reads:

"In the United States, we have civil union which are called marriage, which has nothing to do with religion. There is also religious marriage which carries no legal weight. Calling civil marriage something else doesn't change what it is, and it won't make people who oppose any legal recognition of same sex couples suddenly be fine with it. Furthermore, there is no groundswell of people pushing for abolition of civil marriage, but if you want to start that movement go right ahead - just note it has nothing to do with the issue of equality before the law."

that these people are well intentioned. I am not that magnanimous.

Why is this concept seemingly so hard for people to grasp? Like it or not, marriage as it works in this country is an established legal construct, a civil union, with an optional religious overlay.

Marriage as you have defined it above for straight folks and a state-by-state patchwork of varying non-portable statutory contractual arrangements or nothing at all for gays is not equal treatment under the law

When people claim that "marriage is a religious institution," I have started replying with, "Oh? How many other local, state and federal laws regulate who can be bar mitzvah-ed? How many companies give extra benefits to people who have been baptized or entered into some other 'religious institution?'"

It usually (but alas, not always) effective at showing people just how ignorant they are on the subject.

:mad:

:hi:

:loveya:

Bookmark worthy, imho.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/25/1692

Then they act so clever for picking the imaginary "third way."

Your last paragraph is spot-on.

I mean civil unions that are recognized by the Feds as exactly equivalent to marriage. Since a good part of the population seems to have a mental block with the word marriage, then go around them. Take the government out of the marriage business and put it into the civil union business.

Then people with civil unions would be free to call themselves married, just as they already do in countries where all unions are civil unions.

I'm in favor of whatever is fastest.

the only thing that needs to happen is that we be allowed access to it.

In many other countries, the government approves civil unions, and it's up to the individuals to get a religious marriage if they want to. Otherwise, they can just call themselves married anyway.

You're right that the "only thing" that needs to happen is for gays to be allowed to marry. It would SEEM simpler to just allow gay people access to the system already in place. It is a simple, but very TALL hurdle. Maybe it would actually be faster to have a slightly more complicated way to get to the same goal -- just a couple of speed bumps to step over, rather than one tall hurdle to leap in a single magnificent jump.

There is nothing religious about marriage unless one exercises one's option to introduce religion into it. Try calling yourself married if you've only done the church thing and see how far it gets you. But you can call yourself married after you've gone down to the courthouse and paid your money and spent ten minutes with a judge because then you truly are married.

that we are UNABLE to get for the most part. And that do very little for us in the places where they are recognized.

A couple of speed bumps. Uh huh.

"the government approves civil unions, and it's up to the individuals to get a religious marriage if they want to. Otherwise, they can just call themselves married anyway."

"the government approves civil marriages, and it's up to the individuals to get a religious marriage if they want to. Otherwise, they can just call themselves married anyway."

I can hardly think of a taller hurdle than convincing America to abandon civil marriages just to make room for same sex couples to get the same thing.

And it might already be too late. But I think if we had started out 10 or 15 years ago pushing hard and ONLY for civil unions, then we might not have had DOMA. And we might have had a lot more states with civil unions, and even federal recognition of them by now.

I am still concerned that pushing for marriage before key elections -- like this one -- could cause a backlash that could make things even worse. What would be worse? A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Frankly, I think a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage might actually be better than nothing at all. That might wake some of us up, and it would certainly make it VERY clear that we are treated as second class citizens. What's the difference? I haven't been able to marry my entire adult life. What difference would a constitutional amendment make?

Look at the younger generation -- they don't care about keeping marriage to themselves, even most of the young fundies are changing their views on this. So if nothing else happens, gay marriage is almost inevitable just with the passage of time, IMHO. (I'm not saying that we should have to wait, but that it will happen, I'm convinced by the trends.)

However, if a constitutional amendment is approved now, that will lock the current situation into place, making it MUCH harder for the younger generations to enact gay marriage -- or even civil unions.

By the way, there is another key court case in the works that will be popping up before the election. I can't remember which state, but it may have been in California.

In between (like there's any "in between" with the 2-year cycle now), we're ignored.

Many, if not all, of what were considered the '1st tier' candidates were on the stump for almost a year before the NH primary and Iowa caucuses. The GE isn't until November of THIS year, and Clinton, Obama, et al have been 'campaigning' since last spring.

There is the body of common law to consider.

Over the last several centuries, American courts have handed down hundreds of decisions that touch on marriage. Any and all of these decisions can be referenced and cited as legal precedent, giving weight to particular practices or guaranteeing certain rights or enforcing some responsibility. Under our legal system, these precedents affect only "marriage," not "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships." For that to happen, a judge would have to have a case dealing with a not-marriage where the precedent would apply if it were "marriage", and then rule that the precedent does, in fact, apply. This cannot automagically happen, not even if a law-making body declares that it has; legislatures can only change law, not legal precedent. Do you have any idea how many rulings in how many different jurisdictions would have to be given in order to create the change you are proposing? It would be another several centuries before we reached the same point we are now.

All that chaos could be avoided simply by staying with the label "marriage."

Also note that the matter of common law demonstrates why the "civil unions are the same as marriage" crowd are all either willfully ignorant or outright liars. People in a "civil union" do not, and cannot, have the exact same legal rights, protections and priviledges as people in a "marriage."

The government end is 100% civil contract. Any religious service or element is 100% a matter of choice by the individuals, and is in no way required.
Furthemore, there is noting to stop any religiuos body from performing any ceremony they wish, for anyone they wish. Many will and do perform wedding cermonies for same sex couples, the problem is the govenment does not recognize that and make it legally real on the civil side.
Chruch wise, I can have a 'gay marriage' right here and now, with full reglaia and choir, right in the sancturay like anybody else. Then, the govermnet will deny that chruch its freedom of equal practice by refusing to acknowlege that marrigae civily.
The whole thing is about the government. The Churches are now and will always remain free to engage in or not to engage in any ceremony or ritual they wish. Catholics get civil divorces that are legal, but the Chruch will not remarry them, and the government can not make them do so, yet a divorced Catholic can meet another divorced Catholic and remarry legally, as the Government makes it legal, and the church can not stop that any more than the State can force the chruch to hold a cermony for divorced people.

I might support it - but there's not.

There is no movement in overturning civil marriage for something with a different name. It's just a different fight, and one that no one is fighting - least of all those suggesting it.

Eliminating civil marriage is a loser of a deal, and it doesn't get us any closer to equality.

Not that you'll like my other way, either.

I think if we had made the decision long ago to fight for federally recognized civil unions, we'd have had them in a lot of states by now. There wouldn't have been the same backlash (no DOMA). And from there it would have been much easier to get to either civil unions or marriage for everyone.

But I recognize that opinions differ, and I could be wrong. Above all, I want to make absolutely clear that I support gay marriage. I'm just not sure what's the fastest way of getting there.

country. How on earth do you think we could get a FEDERAL civil union through with thousands more rights attached faster than we have NOT gotten ridiculously unequal civil unions at the state level?

We haven't been pushing for them in most places -- how could we expect to get them passed?

is that if you move away you lose whatever rights that state chose to grant you. But married in one state, married in all of the them.

But I think that if, ten years or so ago, we had seriously mounted a campaign for civil unions across the country, we'd be farther along than we are now.

Instead, there was a strong push for gay marriage and we ended up with DOMA.

Look at the number of new amendments/referenda all over the place trying to make sure that nothing that offers the same rights as a heterosexual marriage is offered.

My other issue with civil unions is that it leads to continued fighting. Once you set up civil unions for same-sex couples and "marriage" for straight couples, then every piece of legislation coming down the pike is going to have to fight the same fight of whether it should be for everyone or just the straight couples. Add to that the number of corporations using the civil union/domestic partnership loophole to deny benefits to gay employees, and there's all kinds of mess.

I could get on board with abolishing "marriage" as a civil institution altogether--I just don't see it happening. "Teh evil homos are trying to take away our rights!" would be the rallying cry all over the place.

That leaves one solution to me--civil marriage that doesn't descriminate against the sex of the two participants.

Sorry, I should be more tolerant.

Here is my quote of the day, dedicated to all the loud mouthed GLB, and especially this week T people, who get told to play nicey poo patsy cake with the enemies of justice:

"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standing never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas, and bear the consequences." -- Susan B. Anthony

It's Marriage. It needs to be called Marriage. Everyone deserves the opportunity to be MARRIED to the person they love if they so choose.

Civil rights might be a first step in at least ensuring some partner rights, but anyone who thinks it's the same as Marriage is just kidding themselves. They are trying to justify their own prejudices.

"I want to commitment ceremony you."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE6UtcJtqE4