Civil Unions For All.

[zaj]

Anyone here interested in the idea of "Civil Unions For All"?

I personally think it's the best way to take the issue of gay marriage away from the RWers as a political tool. Take the government out of the business of casting any moral judgement through the use of the term marriage. That's not their business anyway.

They should leave that up to Churches to define. Government should be in the business of granting civil unions anyway. Not moralizing what is or is not marriage.

If anyone is interested in helping out, I'm willing to throw up a site (I've already registered www.civilunionsforall.org) with a nicely worded petition, blog, whatever.

I don't really have the time to manage the campaign, and given that I'm not gay, I don't really have a hugely vested interest in this directly, but it just seems like common sense and that's something that appeals to me.

Anyway, that's my plan. Anyone care to comment?

[Norrin Radd]

1. Nope. Sorry. I'm interested in equal rights for all.

What churches do you mean? What religions? Do religious organizations own a copyright on the term "marriage"?

[zaj]

4. I'm suggesting that we let Religion own the word marriage

Not in a literal sense; I'm not saying let it be trademarked.

Look at it this way... it's the Judo of political tactics instead of Boxing. Use their agression, their momentum, their language, and their ideas against them.

I'm saying let's take away a wedge issue by using the same method they've used to create a wedge issue. If they want to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, let's give them the authority to do so, but returning the word to a religious term and mandating the federal government issue only Civil Unions For All.

Let churches fight among their members about whether or not to sanction a civil union between two men as a "marriage".

Politically, it seems like a smart move.

Practically, it seems like the right position to take.

[Selatius]

6. Civil unions are equal rights for all.

Whether a church recognizes a union between individuals is the issue of "marriage." Few churches, if any, will recognize a marriage between gay people. It's not going to happen.

However, under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, if the government recognizes the fact that two people are living together for the issue of taxation and other legal issues, then it stands to reason the same recognition should apply in cases where those individuals are of the same sex.

The government should not be in the business of issuing marriage certificates. That's up for the churches. Rather, the government should be in the business of issuing civil union licenses. If the churches won't issue a gay couple a marriage certificate, fuck 'em, but that shouldn't stop that couple from seeking the same legal protections and legal recognitions afforded to straight couples.

[zaj]

7. Anyone interested in helping on this project?

I can setup the site, but I'm looking for someone with stronger writing skills than I have.

[HockeyMom]

2. I have said this too

A civil marriage license is a contract. It is not holy. A marriage license issued by a court clerk is certainly not a SACRAMENT as our stupid President keeps calling it. Holy and sacraments are for CHURCHES, not the GOVERNMENT.

I agree with this. Let all licenses issued by the state be a civil union. If a couple wants to have a church ceremony, let that be called a holy sacrament of marriage. The churches can then make their own rules for who they wish to "marry". They do this NOW. The Catholic Church will not marry a divorced person, yet the government most certainly WILL issue a marriage license CONTRACT to a person with a LEGAL DIVORCE, even if a particular religious organization will not recognize that marriage.

However, I doubt the majority of the public will go for this. The legal and the religious aspects have become far too blurred in their minds.

[zaj]

5. I think the key to success with this is in the framing and langauge.

As I said before, the way to win this battle is through Judo rather than Boxing.

Use their agressive demands for a clear definition of the term "marraige" against them. They've hitched their political wagon to that term and a fight over it will do nothing but hurt us. So surrender it.

I will be very important to avoid reframing as "They are trying to 'get rid of marriage'!" It's imporant to introduce the idea as a common sense approach to a common sense problem.

To that end, it's all in the language.

I'm looking for a speech-writer to help bring these ideas into a clear first message for a petition and a website.

Anyone interested in helping with this?

[annabanana]

3. Makes sense to me...

The Civil Union license from City Hall.. The Marriage Certificate from your favorite local House o' Worship..

This is the only workable solution, as far as I'm concerned. This way people won't be deprived of stuff that married people get from the state (automatic survivor bennies, access to a dying loved one, etc) And it doesn't step on any church or temple or mosque's idea of what "Marriage" can or can not be.

[sproutster]

8. Jeeze it's a flipping contract! wtf is their problem - SOME people

leave all their wealth to their pets. It's a contract - a legally binding contract of a partnership.

[SPKrazy]

9. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes!!!!!!!!

I have been saying this for a couple of years

didn't know there was anyone else who thought it was a good idea!

Thanks for the link

Government shouldn't be involved in a moral/religious institution!

[zaj]

10. kick for any monday morning interest in helping...

[bleedingheart]

11. I have a technical question...

when couples get married they must get a marriage license from the secular state office that registers marriages. They issue you a piece of paper and you have between 30 and 60 days to get the marriage officiated because technically you aren't married until someone who is authorized to marry people signs off on it...

So couples that go the justice of the peace route have a truly civil marriage in that they don't get any religious body involved...those who get married by priests/rabbis/ministers still have a civil license but it is officiated by a religious person....

so all marriages are technically civil but how they are officiated or sealed is the difference???