Why Don't We Just Have Only Civil Unions For Everyone?

[mondo joe]

Kidding.

Just kidding.

Honestly, I'm more sick of that uninformed and unfeasible "suggestion" than anything else that gets said on DU with regard to marriage equality.

And the part that makes me want vomit in the face of those who keep saying it is this: They're not going to do a lick of work to make it happen. I have tried to ask every person who insists we should just turn all marriages into civil unions and then everyone will have them, including same sex couples, and everything will be peachy, "What are YOU going to do to make that happen?"

And not a one of them has said they'd do a damn thing.

I place a pretty low fucking value on uninformed "idea people".

[NMMNG]

1. rAmen

They know darn well that's not the issue. It's that the churches think they own marriage and have the right to dictate to everyone what they can and cannot do. We need to put an end to that notion, not feed into it. Saying "everyone's going to have civil unions" would only feed their persecution complex anyway. They'd be screaming that we really did "destroy marriage" for them.

[Zuiderelle]

2. Yeah, that is the single most frustrating "argument" we have to deal with.

It's so damn annoying.

I'm now convinced that anyone who uses that argument is stupid or a troll. Either way, there's no way to educate them. And I'm tired of bowing and scraping for equality. I'm demanding it now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Written to my congress critter regarding this

in fact

Of course my definition of a civil union is not exactly that pushed by most

It is marriage, as in CIVIL MARRIAGE with no role for clergy... like oh in places like oh Canada, Mexico, France... places with a harder separation of church and state.

And since the term is used in some of these countries, while others call it civil marriage... I don't care what term you use

It is time to get the clergy out of the business PERIOD

So what nave YOU done?

[AntiFascist]

10. I think the law already calls it a civil marriage...

but I'm not a lawyer. In California, the clergy does not need to be involved - you can have a civil ceremony or some secular person can officiate. The clergy is not necessarilly involved to begin with, and there's no justifiable reason for claiming that the churches own the institution.

[Maat]

13. "Civil marriage" is a good term because the Code begins with ...

"Marriage is a civil contract." Emphasize that period to the left, there. That's all the law considers it.

I put an end to that 'civil union' b.s. with an acquaintance today. I told her, "The term 'marriage' is everywhere in our caselaw, or case precedent. We don't want to have to reevaluate all of that. We are going to get 8 struck, and 'marriage' for all it will be. Now, if you want to differentiate between 'church marriage' and 'civil marriage,' please feel free."

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. But they can be involved, something that does NOT happen in the

countries I mentioned

At one time it made sense to do that... in 19th century US finding a justice of the peace could be a pain... but in the 21st century we really do not need to even consider giving them that power.

In fact that is the reason why they get a foot in and claim ownership and many folks think they own it.

[bluedawg12]

4. It's a good red herring - throw out something that isn't going to happen

and if it Gert's enough play - which it won't - then they could throw THAT back at GLBTQ's, "Here, here is something for you to work on quite y'er carping."

[Fearless]

5. HERE'S WHY IMHO...

We also have to understand that this issue is not a reason to argue whether or not marriage should exist in government at all. But, on this issue, I'd like to put the whole religion/government argument to rest. It is in some opinion that marriage is a religious institution and because they don't like religious institutions (as I don't) they believe that marriage should not exist in government because it is a violation of the separation of church and state.

The fact of the matter is that marriage existed well before Christianity, which is the religious affiliation with which most people have a problem with. Marriage existed in Ancient Rome and Greece, hundreds of years before the Christian Church's inception. Likewise, marriage existed in places other than the later Christian Europe. It existed in East Asia, a place with no connection to Christianity. It existed in the Americas, a place with no connection to any of the modern big religions. It crosses all religious barriers because it predates all of them. Why? Because people like to feel loved and they like the security of knowing that they will continue to be loved.

So, to say that marriage should be done away with is a capitulation of a natural human desire to the powers that be in the religious communities of the world. Sounds a lot like the idea of getting rid of same-sex marriage rights in the first place. Hmm... How ironic.

---

http://unwilling-dystopia.blogspot.com/2008/11/my-take-after-prop-8.html

---

NTF

[mondo joe]

6. I'm more inclined to chalk it up to a personal style.

The "Oh, I didn't say I was going to do it. I'm more of an idea person." style.

[Fearless]

8. Indeed, some are that way too... frustrating...

:mad:

[mondo joe]

7. Dupe

Dupe

[bluedawg12]

9. I wonder if people actually get "weddings" and marriage mixed up?

I see marriage, as it is today, as a legal contract about property, rights, inheritance, parental rights over their kids.

I see weddings as being the religious side of it, the sacrament, or the acknowledgment between a couple and their reference group/culture, family and friends.

Maybe the term marriage should reflect the civil contract, where as, being "wed" and weddings should be used for the religious/cultural term?

[AntiFascist]

11. There can also be gay weddings, of course...

and there are churches which are fine with having gay and lesbian weddings. The real issue is, should we let the Religious Right dictate the law for eveyone, even if there may be a slim (but questionable) majority on this one in CA?

[bluedawg12]

12. It is the religious right that wants to conflate

the legal contractual aspects of marriage and the notion of religious wedding ceremony and they work very hard to get that across.

That's what made me wonder if marriage should equate to the civil exercise and call the religious ceremony a wedding?

In another words, gays want equality in marriage and that does not impact on anyones' idea of being wed.

So much linguistic acrobatics, to really hide two things:

The quest to maintain political power and a base by the right, "wedded" (LOL) to homophobia.

[Psyop Samurai]

15. If it's any consolation...

...I'm reading these threads and educating myself. I would have to believe others are as well. You guys that are steeped in the topic are representing well and dispelling a lot of misconceptions. I think you may be underestimating the impact you're having.

I can see how it's frustrating that people aren't up to speed (nevermind the trolls), but there have been threads that were very educational that started out with a stupid question.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

16. My other favorite: "I'm against marriage for everyone."

Fine, you think marriage is a bad institution? THEN DON'T GET MARRIED! How about agreeing that I should have that choice, just like YOU.

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

17. Another classic, typically followed by "Single people should have the same rights as the

married."

[WhollyHeretic]

18. Civil unions for everyone has to be one of the most idiotic ideas out there

People who propose this don't have the faintest understanding of people in this country. People would freak out if this were seriously proposed. It would also reinforce the idea that "they are trying to destroy marriage"

[mondo joe]

19. I'm going to suggest we call civil unions "Arriagemay". Because, y'know, if we just had

Arriagemay, conservatives would never object to gays getting the same thing heteros get.

[TechBear_Seattle]

22. Aside from the fact that such a measure would be redundant

Legal marriage in the United States is already a civil union, and has been since ratification of the First Amendment more than two centuries ago.

I say: since religious groups are the folks pissing off about marriage, let THEM be the ones to implement a name change. Leave the centuries of law and judicial precedent alone.

[Ian David]

20. Agreed 100%! n/t

[FreeState]

21. Bumping n/t

[Amimnoch]

23. I don't give a fuck what language is used.. Civil unions for all, marriage for all, whatever.

All through this post, I've seen references about church appeasement.. far religious right appeasement..

I'm sorry if it sounds "stupid" as some claim, but I really don't give a fuck if it's marriage for all, or civil unions for all, or civil marriage for all.. i really just don't care what the language used is, or if it also makes church people happy either.

The ONLY thing I give a rats ass about at this point in time is getting EQUAL rights. Despite our having last wills, living wills, power of attorneys, medical power of attorneys, and second parent adoption of my daughter by my partner, we still face such a huge disadvantage when it regards our rights to have our wishes respected should the unfortunate happen.

Despite having last wills in place bequeathing all of our worldly belongings to each other, we both know darn well that upon either of our deaths our families are going to be jumping on a legal challenge (and a rough, long, and expensive challenge should it be me who passes first). Challenges that would be summarily dismissed were we given the rights of the married.

Despite having a notarized, and filed power of attorney for each other, every time we've had occasion to use it, we've had to fight tooth and nail, and resort to legal threats to have it honored.. again, something that just doesn't happen with marriage.

Luckily we've had no occasion to use our medical power of attorneys, or living wills yet, but as has been seen in other cases around the country (the one in florida just a few years ago with the lesbian couple on vacation comes to mind), it's much more possible that the wishes stated, notarized, and filed may not even be recognized by the hospital, or legally contested by our families.

Edit: sorry Freestate, was meant to be a reply off of the topic. and replies throughout the thread, not directed at your bump ;)
I haven't a doubt in my mind that should the worst happen to me, my own mother won't hesitate a minute on sicking her bastard lawyers on my partner to fight and contest the second parent adoption paperwork we filed so my partner could have legal parenting rights over my biological daughter.

Maybe it's "stupid" but some of us cannot afford to be picky about how we get legal rights or if it will make obnoxious bastards on the far religious right side happy, it really just matters that we get them.

[Toasterlad]

24. That's Just As Helpful As "It Shouldn't Matter If It's a Choice"

Stupid non-gay people.