Why Push for Gay Marriage and NOT Civil Unions

[Rusty5329]

Run time: 02:49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt4KhuFHVvE   Posted on YouTube: April 27, 2010 By YouTube Member: SumOfChange Views on YouTube: 35   Posted on DU: May 03, 2010 By DU Member: Rusty5329 Views on DU: 418

 
For more, visit http://sumofchange.com

[laconicsax]

1. K&R for marriage equality.

The "why not civil unions?" argument is very well laid out in the video.

[damntexdem]

2. Push for what can be achieved in a state, but ...

unless civil unions are for everyone and the state gets out of the marriage business, a simple civil-unions reform, although it will help many, falls far short of equality. And we should never give up on equality.

[Jokinomx]

3. I am all for equality... however

for me I say...The government should get out of the marriage business all together. From the government standpoint, they should allow for civil-unions only. In my opinion, that could be any two people that want to legally bind themselves together for the benefits it could entail. Having a person recognized to make decisions for the other if one should become incapacitated or unable to make decisions on their own. For ownership and beneficiary to land and other items to be passed on after death. Let the churches worry about marrying people. Then any individual organization can marry whoever they feel fit. So... I agree with the advocates in the video wanting equality..but it can be done with civil unions for all.

That is my humble opinion.

:toast:

[mitchtv]

4. getting out of the marriage business would be

a heavier lift than equality. I can hear them now " teh Gays want to take our marriages away" the reverend had it right. Civil unions require the whole body of law be changed to effect equality

[Capitalocracy]

5. I disagree and here's why

I don't believe marriage is a religious institution. I consider myself to be married, and I have no religion. I understand the push for equality and I'm pushing for it too, but "marriage" should be synonymous with "civil union". Marriage is cultural, not religious. I want the government to recognize my marriage. I demand that of my government, it's my right, and like many same-sex couples, I don't want them to call it a "civil union" when I consider it a marriage.

I totally agree with you that it should be equal for everyone, but I think that changing the name to "civil union" is giving in to the talking point that marriage is a religious institution, when that's clearly not the case.

[Jokinomx]

6. Your point is very well taken. I agree

that marriage isn't just a religious concept. If a civil union gave you all the rights you need... such as right to visit your partner... as I said above, deal with all the legal issues involved... why do you need the "Government" to be anything other than that. If they don't do any marriages then all would be treated equally. You would be more than free to have your own ceremony that doesn't have to have any religion involved.

Heterosexual couples wouldn't be treated any differently. This would in my opinion solve the problem.

[laconicsax]

7. Here's where you wrong:

Marriage is, and always been a civil institution. Religious institutions are given permission to officiate over a joining ceremony. There's nothing religious about the institution itself--marriage is licensed by the state, granted rights by the state, and regulated by the state.

Changing the name because certain religious institutions object to the regulation is nonsense.