Should NJ Hetero couples have "Civil Unions"?

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

Would such an action show solidarity with their gay/lesbian brethran? The new NJ law creates a "Civil Union" which creates all the sames rights as a married couple would have, but not the name. Shouldn't straights opt for this "civil union" alternative as a protest against this still second class treatment?

[Counciltucky]

1. It'd make for an interesting and enlightening discussion.

I say yes. See what happens then. If the right-wing nutbags throw a fit, then we know their job is segregation. As shown in Brown v. Board, separate but equal is not truly equal.

[helderheid]

2. YES.

[Selatius]

3. Civil unions should be the only thing recognized by a state.

Traditional marriage in terms of the church is something between the couple and the church only, not the state. The state shouldn't stand on that ground, period.

[SmokingJacket]

5. I agree with that. One hundred percent. nt

[helderheid]

8. Yes, absolutely, YES. That's how it's done in the Netherlands. Marriage is a Church matter.

[sbj405]

17. I agree. Marriage is a religious concept.

States and/or feds have no business dealing with marriages.

[LiberalFighter]

24. I agree

Make it mandatory to have a civil ceremony with JP or other government employee.

Churches have the right to dictate who they will marry in their church. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with churches dictating who can get married outside the church.

Civil weddings are mandatory in most European countries.

From Sources:
As one person stated "A church wedding cannot have legal consequences, it is a promise before God".

Every country has two wedding ceremonies, as far as I know. The only legal one is the one which is sanctioned by the state. The church wedding may be more meaningful to people, but it does not give a marriage legal status. I Canada, every minister is authorized to perform both ceremonies, because he is licensed by a church to be a minister and by the state to be a justice of the peace. The government ceremony is usually performed in the church office immediately after the religious ceremony while the congregation is being entertained by music. When the couple steps out of the office, they are then really married.

People can choose to forgo the religious ceremony and be married by a justice of the peace who is not a minister. I know of people who knew a justice of the peace personally and had a civil ceremony performed in their home or in a hotel room.

In Germany, as in other countries, the minister is not a justice of the peace, so the couple has to go to city hall for the civil ceremony. Because of time constraints, the two ceremonies are normally scheduled for different days.

So really, the practice is not that different in Germany.

[Dorian Gray]

27. I was going to say the same thing

but you beat me to it. Marriage should be a religious ceremony. Civil unions should be what the state recognizes.

[LiberalFighter]

29. A marriage performed by the clergy must be recognized by the state

The only way it is recognized by the state is if the clergy person has filed the proper credentials with the state as required by law.

[LiberalFighter]

31. Not being familiar with current marriage forms...

In Wisconsin the marriage certificate provided a space to check whether the marriage was a civil ceremony or religious ceremony. This was from as early as about the 1870's to 1950's. In all probability still included on the marriage certificate.

There is nothing that requires the marriage be performed in the church or by a clergy of a church.

In most if not all of the European countries now and in the early years a marriage had to be performed by the local govt to be recognized. They could also have a ceremony in the church.

[Critters2]

30. I've been saying this. I don't believe I should sign marraige licenses

because that is a state matter, and I work for the Church. I firmly believe it is a violation of the Establishment Clause for clergy to sign wedding licenses.

Now I just need to get the courts on board!

[Ayesha]

4. Yes

I would love to see a hetero couple apply for a civil union and then go to court when it is denied.

[Crandor]

6. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

The new NJ law creates a "Civil Union" which creates all the sames rights as a married couple would have, but not the name.

So they do have the same rights, but...

...still second class treatment?

How is it "second class treatment" if they have the same rights?

[helderheid]

9. they don't have the right to have it recognized as a marriage.

[mondo joe]

18. The back of the bus gets you where you're going just like the front does.

But we have established that "separate but equal" is not truly equal.

[Crandor]

22. "separate but equal" isn't equal when you're talking about services

like schools, where the white school will not necessarily be of the same quality of the black school. We are not talking about schools however, but legal rights. There is no difference unless people in the government fail to honor the law in the case of gay civil unions - which they could do even if it was called marriage.

[annabanana]

7. absolutely. .

States have no business in the Marriage game.. Let the churches/synagogues/mosques/ashrams etc confer the sacrement..Let the states deal with the legal aspects.

[Warpy]

10. In states and countries with civil union laws

heterosexual couples have opted for them. It's all the benefits of marriage without all the religious and social baggage.

[KamaAina]

11. Absolutely. It's the only fair way.

I admit it. I used to be part of the "just shut up and accept civil unions because it's costing us elections by giving the wingnuts a hot-button wedge issue" crowd. But no longer. A fellow Evil DUer who is in a long-term same-sex relationship enlightened me. Why, she asked, should she have to sit back and watch Britney Sperars marry her high-school friend just for a lark, when if she and her partner of 20 years went to apply for a marrige license, they'd be turned down? And you know what? She's right. It's a basic issue of fairness.

That being said, there exists a sizable chunk of America, not just the wingnuts, that simply isn't ready to accept gay marriage. What to do? Get the state out of the marriage business altogether. Civil unions for everyone! And then each individual church can decide who they wish to marry. Unitarian Universalist, (at least some) United Church of Christ and others might well choose to marry gay couples; many other churches would not. That's called freedom of religion.

[LiberalFighter]

32. There is nothing to prevent churches from marrying same sex

As part of their practice. At least there shouldn't be.

The state can't force the churches to perform these marriages but the churches aren't needed to perform the marriages.

But churches have the option of performing these marriages and the state should not be dictating whether they can or can't perform the ceremony.

But the state should continue to require clergy to register with the state so that marriages performed by them will be recognized by the state. Regardless of the sex involved.

[cally]

12. civil unions do not have the same rights as marriages

A state can not change federal law. A marriage has more rights. I would never opt for a civil union and I don't think anyone else should because it implies that it is the same.

I think the final resolution to all this is that the religious institutions will offer marriages but we will all need state recognition through civil unions to get the state benefits. Until we get there, I don't think we should endorse needless compromise of rights.

[philosophie_en_rose]

13. Works for me.

Civil Union --> legally binding contract

Marriage --> personal ceremony

[Kahuna]

14. Yep!!! I've always felt this way.

:thumbsup:

[Redstone]

15. Why not, if they want to?

Redstone

[bullimiami]

16. the state has no business being in the 'marriage' business.

leave it to the churches, synagoges, mosques and anyone else who wants to do it.

the state should just be in the civil contract business.

'we 2 people agree to share our profits and expenses and to be responsible for each other and any children we may have as we do for ourselves."

[mondo joe]

19. That's what marriage IS.

State marriage is simply that: a civil contract.

[bullimiami]

21. thats what it should be. its gotten confabulated with religion.

[mondo joe]

25. Only in some minds. But the fact remains, civil recognition is limited to those

marriages with civil approval. Purely religious ceremonies have no legal weight.

[Crandor]

23. Marriage far predates the US government. nt

[mondo joe]

26. And that has nothing to do with legal status of marriage in the US.

[LiberalFighter]

33. I wonder what marriage opportunities were available prior to 4000BC

I wonder what marriage opportunities were available during the Roman Empire.

Governed by law

For this reason, there were specific laws governing marriage. A proper Roman marriage could not take place unless bride and groom were Roman citizens, or had been granted special permission, called “conubium.”

At one point in Roman history, freed slaves had been forbidden to marry citizens. This restriction was relaxed by Emperor Augustus who passed a reform in 18 BC called the lex Julia so that, by the first century, freed slaves were only prohibited from marrying senators.

Augustus insisted on other restrictions on marriage. Citizens were not allowed to marry prostitutes or actresses and provincial officials were not allowed to marry the local women. Soldiers were only allowed to marry in certain circumstances and marriages to close relatives were forbidden. Finally, unfaithful wives divorced by their husbands could not remarry .

Sealed with a kiss

Assuming that a proposed wedding satisfied these demands, the process itself was simple. The prospective bride and groom were committed to marry each other at the betrothal, a formal ceremony between the two families. Gifts would be exchanged and the dowry agreed. A written agreement would be signed and the deal sealed with a kiss.

Wedding traditions

Unlike today, marriage had no legal force of its own but was rather a personal agreement between the bride and groom. As a result, the wedding itself was a mere formality to prove that the couple intended to live together, known as “affectio maritalis.”


Nothing about a priest performing the ceremony.

[LiberalFighter]

34. Ancient Egyptian Marriages?

The Egyptians held marriage as a sacred bond. This has been made clear in the many statues and writings that depict men and women in a relationship where both depended upon each other. The basic family unit in Egypt was the nuclear family. For all that religion played in ancient Egyptian life, there was one place it had no role at all was marriage.

Source

It wasn’t necessary, but most marriages had a contract drawn up between the parties. The poorer classes probably did not do this because they probably had few possessions to consider and also the cost of a scribe would have been prohibitive.

[Gormy Cuss]

20. No.

Civil marriages should be open to any two adults who meet the standards currently in law for a man and woman. Religious marriages are now and always will be defined by the sect and their rules are utterly irrelevant to the civil contract.

My pragmatic side says that if avoiding the word marriage expedites legal recognition for same gender couples, I'd live with that rather than continue with the current exclusion.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. I Have No Problem With It. If They Are Afforded The Same Rights That's All I Care About.

[alarimer]

35. It sounds like they are trying to be "separate but equal"

Which, as we know, is not equal. Honestly I do not understand the hesitancy to use the word marriage for what is the same thing for gays or straights: a contract between two people that describes certain rights and obligations. I can't understand the argument over a word.

On Edit:

I have read some of the replies and think I get it. I think I agree with those who says church ceremonies should not carry legal weight. Then everyone can be equal under the law and the church can do whatever it wants.