CIVIL UNION for all... gay straight, black, white, you get the picture

[nadinbrzezinski]

like MANY OTHER WESTERN DEMOCRACIES currently do

Take this away from any kind of religious leader

No, not a license to marry, but a CIVIL UNION for all... granted by the STATE and necessary to pursue that religious necessary if that is your taste?

That will kill this for the fundies... their most critical meme (but that means I have to marry the gay in my church) will evaporate... that POWER will go away as well as the discussion of WHAT IS MARRIAGE which is happening in a civil arena... where religion does NOT belong. Yes this also means that something like this happens... my marriage certificate needs to read civil union certificate. It does not diminish this in one bit.

I know people don't want to get this, but that ceremony, performed by the state, falls under civil law, so calling it a cviil union is not a misnomer and let the churches hold the lilly white wedding they want to do, all the way to sunday... but only AFTER the State has performed its function.

[shadowknows69]

1. That is what all marriages are by definition anyway

They are sanctioned by the State not a church.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Small difference from other nations

I take my license to be certified by a religious leader, since clergy can marry, we even use the language

No, have that license fully enacted by the state... civil officers

Keep the clergy FULLY out of it

That will change the conversation and incidentally it will be fought, tooth and nail, I am betting by the RIGHT WING espeically.. because they realize that ability to certify the license, gives them power.

[Why Syzygy]

22. But, clergy can ONLY perform weddings

based on authority vested in them by the STATE. It's always a state issue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. And I want to take that authority away from them

you were in Cali?

One reason why 8 worked so well, was when the preachers said, they will force us to perform gay marriage

How well will that fly if they actually are not involved in the process?

[Why Syzygy]

58. I'm not in California ...

People aren't going to give up their religion or religious practices, including marriages.

I'm certainly not legally fluent on this issue. The preacher thing looks like a red herring from the other side, to me. That wasn't true was it? Why would ANYONE want to force a minister to perform their service. I wish people would use some LOGIC.

My point was that without the state sanction, the church has no authority in the matter. :shrug:
Maybe I'm missing something.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. It was a red herring, but it worked because of how things are done

and people are not connecting some facts

the preacher has that authority as granted by the state, but here is the logic that unfortunately is at work.

I go down to city hall,

I get my license from them... (who is them is nebulous to some folks even today) and then I take it to the church... and I am not married until the preacher, padre, what have you, performs that ceremony inside a religious temple.

Now in countries where this is not the case, will use Mexico, familiar with the process

I go down to city hall, engage the Family Judge, fill forms and pay fees, so far the same, get license and then the Judge performs a marriage ceremony. I take that document down to the Padre and then and only then can that padre bless my marriage within the church... but the padre has no authority to witness that certificate... and boy they fought against that...

But to me the fact that there is this extra step where a member of the state performs this short circuits how a lot of people think about marriage and the role of the church... mind you, this thinking is misguided, but it does.

There were other red herrings, some involving the Massachussets teaches kids about homosexuality (They don't), and my other all time favorite, involving the church... a couple of teachers in of course San Fran, took the kids to witness ther Lesbian marriage... at the local church... oh the kids,

Now the kids learning about homosexuality goes back to Hawaii back in the 1980s and the No on 8 should have been prepared for that

I am critical of them since they were on the defensive and let the other side set the debate, instead of going on the offensive and connecting dots that removing rights means we can remove somebody else's rights, but that is another rant

:-)

[Why Syzygy]

74. I've been posting

in other places that marriage is really nothing more than a CONTRACT. Hence, the state involvement.
All that is involved in making a legally binding contract is an agreement to give something of value in exchange for something else of value. The problem there would be third parties aren't going to be agreeable enough to use a legally binding contract to divide up an estate, for example, unless it is spelled out in the contract. If I were gay and in a relationship, I would at least enter into a state binding contract with that person to take care of our common responsibilities. As far as insurance, hospitals, children .. maybe not so easily solved.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. That is what the domestic rights legislation tried to do in california

and it is less than an ideal solution, since that is truly the separate but equal

I am saying, everybody is equal under the law.. and if we need to change a psychologically laden term, so be it... but that is exactly what it is, a contract

My hubby and I at times joke... the Ktuvah, the religious document in Jewish weddings, is also a legal document (before a Sanhedrin, aka religious tribunal nothing to do with the civilian world) I mention that since the basis for it goes back to oh the early years of the Common Era... and are probably our last connection in that sense to the Classical World

So we joke about goats and mil, and chickens...

[Luminous Animal]

98. You do not take power away from them...

if you give them the power to redefine what is already a civil institution.

I live in San Francisco. I worked to defeat prop 8. I do not give a flying fuck what worked well for the lying bigots. That they ads appealed to bigots by lying their ass off means absolutely nothing to me. In fact, it furthers my resolve not to cede the low ground.


Here is you:
"One reason why 8 worked so well, was when the preachers said, they will force us to perform gay marriage"

Do you not see what ignorance you are promoting here? Jews are not required to marry Catholics or vice versa. Any clergy of any denomination is not require to marry anyone. In fact, any individual clergy can refuse to marry anyone... even those within their own denomination!

So what you are saying is that they won because they are liars and because they are liars we should capitulate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Do you live in Cali? Did you watch the adds?

If you had, you'd get it

You are all emotion, and cannot think straight, that is the truth

[annabanana]

2. kind of my take too. .

If your church is OK santictifying the union, that's the business of that church..That's a religious matter.

The legal Union is the only appropriate business of the State.

[REP]

3. I'm with ya and have been for a while

Maybe not necessary to persue the religious ceremony - hell, let people get "married" all they want in any kind of religious ceremony, but don't give it any legal standing. Civil unions should only be legally recognized for all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Thanks and that is what the fist bump means? COOL

[marmar]

5. Agreed. Either marriage for everybody or civil unions for everybody.....

Make marriage a ceremonial thing, and civil unions the actual law.

[Ms. Toad]

7. Legally, marriages exist throughout the world

and a marriage entered into in one political subdivision is recognized by virtually every other jurisdiction. Civil unions exist in isolated states and are entitled to NO recognition beyond the borders of that state.

To change that, you would need to enact the basic civil union statute in each of the 50 state, amend each of the laws using marriage or a marriage derived word (spouse, wife, husband, etc), retry every case which interpreted one of the statutes. Once it was established in each of the 50 states, then you need to re-litigate every case which worked out the details of reciprocity between states, between the state and the federal government, and then between nations. All to cater to the selfish whims of religious bigots who want to capture the word "marriage" (and family, and values, and how many other words) for their own personal use.

No.

I don't particularly care whether legal recognition of sacramental marriages is stripped from the marriage statutes, but it is not practical or appropriate to re-invent the marriage wheel just to appease religious bigots.

[gollygee]

8. You need to copy and paste this in about a dozen threads

My god this is getting old.

[Ms. Toad]

49. I know.

I get so tired of it - but there are people who are beginning to get the picture because I (and others) keep repeating it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. You are not appeasing them, in fact they will fight harder to keep it

the way it is

They get it

Why many religious denominations have gone to WAR when this has been done in other countries

Also you are confusing the civil ceremony, with the religious one

Is this not a civil affair managed by the state? Then why pray tell me should we have clergy involved in this AT ALL?

[Ms. Toad]

48. Clergy is not the issue,

Removing clergy from those authorized to perform marriages would not require a massive rewrite of the law in 50 states, the federal government, and other nations. There is no legal reason why it could not be done relatively simply. (And I don't particularly care one way or the other.)

Creating a new legal status of civil unions would be a far more complex process. Aside from having to create new civil union statutes in each state, you have to re-litigate every marriage decision from decades of case law interpreting marriage, and the relationship between marriage and each of the rights and privileges associated with marriage so see whether those rights and privileges would be associated with the new stats of civil union. That is not a foregone conclusion - from a legal perspective, if you create something different the presumption is that you intended there to be a difference.

Once you get things settled within the state that created it, you then have to re-litigate reciprocity with other states, the federal government, and the governments of other nations.

The complex set of laws which define marriage are not at all dependent on who performs the marriage - taking clergy out of those eligible to perform marriages would require perhaps 1% of the legislation and none of the litigation that would be required to create a new status.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Take my word, the moment you start the process to remove clergy

from this ... the fights will become legendary

And you would see this litigated, wanna bet?

You can keep marriage if you want... but you truly do not understand the history when this has been done in other places

They are destroying the institution of marriage will grow by leaps and bounds

They know that this authority allows them a wedge into the whole issue in the civil side of the house... just listen to your local Right Wing Fundy

Now some clergy will not give a rats ass... but the right wing... oooh boy

[Ms. Toad]

68. This has not been done in other places

In other countries, statuses other than marriage do not grant the same set of rights (with perhaps the exception of Iceland, Sweden, and the UK), and the relationships in those countries are separate statuses available only to same gender couples, and the legal status of the couples is not recognized beyond the borders of the country that granted the status except at the whim of the other countries.

In the US there are civil unions. They are not valid beyond the borders of the state that created them. This is not an equal status.

Those countries which offer gender neutral marriages (including at least Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, and Spain), the rights are equal and marriages are recognized by every state/country which permits same gender marriages (and by some which do not - including New York).

It will require litigation, regardless of the path to equality. For people who are adamantly opposed to same gender marriage, the name is not really the sticking point, so they will fight us in court regardless.

The question is whether you want a few cases (going the marriage route - establishing that certain state constitutions require equality, then establishing that reciprocity is required), OR whether you want to have to write or amend literally tens of thousands of laws just to create the new status and then fight the religious bigots in court IN ADDITION to all the work that was done to create the new status.

I do understand the history. I also understand the law and the intricate interrelationships that took decades to create and tweak to the point that, for example, if my spouse dies and a second "wife" pops up there are rules for sorting out (1) whether the first marriage was legally valid - even if it was created in a country that has very different marriage laws (2) whether the first marriage was legally ended - even if it ended in a country other than where it was created - or where the estate is being settled and (3) how the estate is distributed based on the rules that determine which (if either) marriage was valid. None of those rules apply to civil unions.

Half the cases in any trust and estate casebook are cases that individual families paid to litigate to sort out rights arising out of marriages, the termination of marriages, the presumptions related to children born in or out of marriage, etc. Creating a separate legal status of civil unions places the burden for the litigation that will be required with respect to civil unions on the individual families who will be forced to go to court to reinvent the marriage wheel with respect to civil unions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. I understand but at the very least we need to completely remove the

clergy from the process... above I explained why... and it has quite a bit to do with perception

After all many folks do not get it... at multiple levels

No, you are not married until the certificate is witnessed

And to many the fact that the Padre married them makes this a church function, never mind that the padre got his authority from the state

If we have a CIVIL officer do the civil ceremony well before the church gets involved, it will short circuit a lot of this, why they will fight it. Why it matters to them to keep this power, which is a wedge into influencing the public sphere, as the founders would talk about it

[Ms. Toad]

103. I don't care if you remove the clergy from the legal process.

My concern has been the attempt to create a different legal status from the legal status that already exists and is recognized across state and national borders.

As to when you are married, that depends on whether you are speaking about sacramental marriage or legal marriage. Beyond that, the moment a marriage begins and ends is defined by the many respective church and state laws. Depending on how well they are reconciled, your legally recognized marriage may not coincide with your sacramental marriage. The clearest example of that is a Catholic marriage which continues beyond a legal divorce - or a anullment, the granting of which means the sacramental marriage never existed even though the marriage was legally recognized.

In my faith community, I am married the moment I exchange vows with my partner. Witnessing the ceremonial certificate and state license have nothing to do with whether or not I am married in accordance with my faith. I don't know the specifics of other faiths, but I suspect some treat marriage as occurring when the clergy pronounces the couple husband and wife, and I suspect others make the beginning of their sacramental marriages coincide with the legal one.

Before around 1991, my state recognized marriage would also have begun immediately upon exchanging my vows because that would have created a legally binding common law marriage - even if the state license was never signed and returned to the state. Some states still recognize common law marriages, which require no license or formal notification to the state, and no clergy (although they can be created by a religious ceremony).

Other states, just like other faith communities, have different laws than mine. That (the moment marriage begins) is not a question I have particularly researched - or come across in the hundreds of marriage related cases I have read. My guess, from my general familiarity with statutory timing, is that the marriage is created in most states when the license is returned to the state and is made retroactive to the time certified by the marrying entity (which may or may not coincide with the date the license is signed). If you are really serious about understanding when legal marriages are created, I would suggest looking for an estate question in which inheritance depended on the marital status of someone who died without ever having their license recorded with the state (either because they died before it could be recorded, or because the marrying entity forgot to record it).

My agenda - and yes, I do have one - is to make sure people understand that creating an alternate "civil union" status that is truly equal and universal is far more complex than the steps that are necessary to ensure that all couples, regardless of gender composition, have access to the existing legal status. To intend to be equal within a state (like Vermont intends to be equal), it will take about the same amount of time either way - hearts and minds will need to change regardless of what we call it, and the issue of reciprocity will need to be litigated in one case that reaches the federal level regarding state reciprocity and one regarding international reciprocity.

To become truly equal (Vermont is not equal, nor are any of the various registered partnerships that currently exist) will require all 50 states (and every foreign country) to create a civil union status, then potentially additional decades of litigation to establish the reciprocity of this new status - and that all of the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage are also associated with this new status.

If someone else wants to create an isolated pocket of civil unions that are intended to be equal - more power to them, but it is NOT equal (even when it is the only status available to any couple within the state) because it is not recognized beyond the borders of the state, nor is it a substitute for marriage equality.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. This should be a state matter from start to finish

and this is what you are mistaking

In a SECULAR STATE, religious law has no place in it

I'll give a concrete example of the way it works in Mexico... I am familiar with that case

My cousin married under civil law and that is when before the state him and his wife were married... when they married at the temple with a Rabbi, that is when both of them were married before the Jewish Community, never confuse the two. They had been married before the state for two weeks and had all the rights and obligations conferred by the state.

When their two kids were born, they were born to a married couple before the state. The state only cared for the usual things, date of birth, weight of the live product and who the parents were... and that they were married

Recently they divorced, as far as the state is concerned they are no longer an item. It affects their relation with the state, and if they choose to marry somebody else fine, they are free to now. But under religious law he has not conceded her the divorce, that is a Get. Under religious law, which goes back centuries if not millennia, he is free to marry, just has to claim she abandoned him, but she can't. See the little difference?

She can marry before the state.. but until my lovely cousin (there are days it is a soap opera all on its own) she can't before a Rabbi

Now to things like money to feed the kids, that is not determined by the Shahedrin... visitation rights, are not determined by the sanhedrin, inhertinance, not determined by the shanherdin... all these things were ONCE determined by the Sanhedrin, but due to that pesky separation of the civil sphere and the religious sphere all this is left down to the Family Judge... and the estate judge, secular officers of the state.

Now if folks want to keep telling me that the churches should have any role in this very civil contract, then as far as I am concerned that separation of church and state is not complete... why? I have seen what it looks like... And don't be too shocked if those folks continue to influence policy and to keep the favorite group of the week from marriage. They have done it between blacks and whites, Hispanics and whites and so it goes... and the same language was used. It is time to fully secularize the institution and separate it.

[Ms. Toad]

117. I am not mistaking it at all.

This country has are both civil marriages and sacramental marriages. Some marriages qualify for recognition under both sets of laws, some only under religious "law," and others only under secular law. Sometimes they two happen simultaneously, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it requires two acts, sometimes it doesn't.

The religious right is trying to claim, and far too many of us are willing to forfeit, legal recognition of marriages merely because the religious right has decided that it owns the word "marriage" (and "family values," and all sorts of other words or phrases they claim then throw at us etc.).

Currently, the law permits some sacramental marriages to also be recognized at law. I do have not strong feelings as to whether that should continue. Even if it does continue, it does not require the forfeiture of marriage as a legally recognized relationship. Nonetheless, the confusion as to the authority under which sacramental marriages are recognized at law is not necessarily a reason to prohibit legal recognition of sacramental marriages - a good dose of education could cure that.

My comments were directed to your apparent confusion that all states define the moment a marriage is created identically (i.e. when the certificate is signed). They don't.

As I pointed out, there are some legally recognized marriages for which neither a marriage license, nor a witness were required. Some of those legally recognized marriages were created in the context of a sacramental marriage because when a SACRAMENTAL marriage satisfies all of the LEGAL requirements for a common law marriage, the creation of that common law marriage is automatic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. And all I am saying is that at this point sacramental marriage

should not serve as recognized common law

They are separate matters and should be treated as such

The churches want to marry people in a lilly white marriage, fine... AFTER the state plays its role. That is TRUE separation.

[Ms. Toad]

121. No objection from me for that change...

(not advocating it either, it is just not an important issue to me).

You'll need to change the statutes in each of the 50 states to remove the authority of the clergy to act on behalf of the state to perform statutory marriages (what most people think of as legally recognized marriages - those performed by someone authorized by the state).

In addition you'll need to find out which states still recognize common law marriages (marriages which gain legal recognition based on the behavior of the couple and the perception of those around them, rather than by obtaining a license and going through a state authorized ceremony).

That will be more challenging. Typical common law requirements include (1) holding yourself out to be married, (2) being perceived as married (3) being legally eligible for marriage, and (4) living together (sometimes - but not always - for a period of time). Virtually every sacramental marriage would satisfy the first two conditions.

As to the third condition - you just can't use the common law process to get around prohibitions on marrying your sibling - or a same gender partner, for example.

As to the 4th, the "living together" requirement can be satisfied instantaneously in some states (so assuming the couple was not living together before the ceremony, they would be legally married the instant they returned to their (new) joint home following the ceremony; if they were living together before the marriage it would become a legal marriage the instant they exchanged their vows); others "living together" requirements have a time requirement - so the marriage would be instantaneously recognized once the couple with the sacramental marriage reached the magic "living together" period. To avoid these sacramental marriages being legally recognized, you'd probably need to abolish common law marriage in the states in which it is still recognized.

My only beef is the constant agitation to substitute to "civil union" for the legal relationship of marriage. As long as we are working toward marriage for everyone, I don't care whether people have to go through a one step process or a two step process if they want to have a church wedding and legal recognition of their marriage.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. Then we fundamentally agree, we are working for equality

under the law.

Now social equality takes longer, every time... but that too can and will be achieved

:-)

Thanks for a fruitful discussion

[Ms. Toad]

126. You're welcome.

Thanks to you, too.

[Luminous Animal]

57. Marriage is a civil affair...

it is also an institution given special consideration by the religious. What you are proposing is to capitulate to the religious. To give over to the civil institution of marriage. That is you seek to nullify my marriage in order to let the fundies appropriate a word for themselves.

[IndianaJones]

9. I'd rather get rid of it all together than have gays participate? nt.

[DrZeeLit]

10. Funny... that's what I was thinking this morning. Why not? The whole "union" thing is for taxes,

anyway... right?

Or for property rights, estates, trusts, and legal matters.

"Marriage" is a church union.

Maybe the idea of separation of church and state is the way to go?

You think?

Duh.

[kdmorris]

16. Marriage is not a church union

Damn, why do people keep saying that?

You can't just go to a church and get married. You have to have a license. And before you start the whole "it started as a religious thing", marriage did NOT start as a religious thing. It started as a "property" thing. Marriage came WAYYYY before Christianity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. It is not but the clergy has the RIGHT to officiate marriages in the US

given by the state... why does taking this right away from clergy scare people?

I mean this implies joining the rest of the world.

Oh and civil union in the way intended is exactly what it is when the justice of the piece does it... or a family judge in Mexico.

Funny down there you first go to the civil union ceremony, and then and ONLY then can you go see the Padre, Rabbi or what have you

The Church NO LONGER carries any ceremony that has any legal weight.

Care to tell me why the Catholic Church fought a couple civil wars over that? The last at the beginning of the 20th century

Hell, if something like this is actually put through ANY legislator, you will see them mobilize in ways you have never ever seen them mobilize... they want that power since it allows them to DEFINE the term in the CIVIL arena

[kdmorris]

36. I understand what you are saying

And perhaps I'm still just a little pissed about the whole thing. It feels a LOT like giving in to the assholes in control of the Southern Baptist Convention. THEY defined marriage in these terms (a religious institution) and saying "sure you can do that" really makes me mad. For centuries, marriage WAS a civil union and they went and kidnapped it for their own purposes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Actually marriage was not a civil institution until the Enlightenment

and not even then... the US... led the way to a POINT and for very good reasons in an agrarian society we took a critical step back by allowing the clergy and the justices of the peace to perform the ceremonies... mostly local clergy were easier to get to than the justice of the peace

France followed after the Revolution... for other systemic reasons, and they never gave back anything to the clergy

But marriage has been controlled by the church for centuries and the best place to find marriage and death records even in recent US history are local churches. Not local county halls, but churches.

It is time we take that next step... that is all... I think this will help break (in the long run) the impasse.

[kdmorris]

50. Are you just talking about US history?

Because "marriage" happened a long time before there was even a church. Look up Greek and Roman civil law.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Yes marriage happened also in 7th Century BCE judea... but I am talking RECENT

as in RELEVANT, to the average folks, history... which includes the middle ages (church) and the Enlightenment

People forgot that the Romans and the Greeks had something AKIN to civil marriage during that period, as the Church did all, from keeping records of deaths and births, to who lived where, Those duties were taken away from churches AFTER many a revolution, (including in the US) during the Enlightenment, all the way to the Positivistic period.

But in the US specifically we returned this through granting the ability to witness the license, by clergy, and during the 19th century, and even parts of the 20th, we didn't issue birth certificates, especially in places like the deep south. The best records of all this are in churches.

For the record Greek and Roman institutions have a little in common with the Enlightenment and Positivistic period, but just a little. Just like the US Constitution has a little in common with the Laws of Solon... and that is very little... more in common with Seneca, but just in ideas.

[DrZeeLit]

116. I think I'm following everyone, but if not.... (not being dense, just tired, I guess)

I am a Baby Boomer, and what I as visualizing as I took a shower the other morning was...

Princess Grace. Her nuptials with Prince Rainier.
I remembered all the pictures -- they flashed through my head.... (little though it may be).
And there she was... sitting in on the Civil Ceremony BEFORE the big ol' Catholic mass.
And the state considered them officially "married" as of the civil ceremony -- which, by the way consisted of (if my mental images are correct) just a signing of the register, with witnesses. No real ceremony at all
Every person who wanted to be considered "wed" only really needed to do the registration.

That was the first thought I had the other day.

Why not EVERYBODY has to get a license... and that's it... you're "wed" -- for the official, state info.
(which is why I said... TAXES... in my first post... since it always seems to come down to MONEY)

And then... the church(es) can do whatever. Who cares?

Personally, it's ALL bullshit. I just cannot get my mind around the fact that soooo many people think they have a right to have a say in everyone's business.
I mean... aren't these the same exact people that WANT government OFF THEIR BACKS?????

The Mormons, of all people.... with their history of marital craziness broken up by government.
You'd think....
But no...

I guess it's sort of like the first time I studied child abuse. I was AGHAST that many of those who had been abused, go on to become abusers. I was young and naive and thought -- if anything the abused would be crusading for penalties or laws or rights. Boy, was I surprised.

So, I guess, I should never be surprised.
But... oh well....

And... btw... I do have a degree in History (with an emphasis on European). Marriage is tricky stuff -- and a Church that once had married priests and popes really is not in a place to issue edicts.

[Gwendolyn]

11. I must be dense, cause I still can't wrap my head around it.

:D

The rest of the world offers civil MARRIAGE to anyone who wants to be one with his/her beloved. To them civil UNION implies limited benefits.

We would be the only country in the world to abolish the word "marriage" in favor of "unioning," although it would still confer the same rights?

Would that be sort of like Europeans using the metric system while we employ the American system of measurement?

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. not quite, from personal experience the civil union in Mexico is exactly that

a civil union

The people may call it a cvil marriage, but it is a civil union

And taking this out of the clerics and other religious leaders (who certify your license) takes a lot of power away from them

[Gwendolyn]

37. What in your mind is the diff between civil marriage and civil union?

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Word simply... very technically the civil union is economic and civil in nature

calling it a civil union just removes some of the baggage that the word marriage brings.

In some countries these are called civil unions, in others civil marriages, so same diff... different day

But the baggage is such, thanks to the usual suspects, that I want to take the weapons away from them... completely

Then again I am not married to the term as it were, just trying to see how to defang the taxonomy of hate.

I need to go get the damn adds to start working on that, by the way

[JackBeck]

14. If there was any time in our history to capitulate to the fundies

That time would be now.

[gollygee]

15. ROFL!

:D

[JackBeck]

75. Glad to see someone could appreciate the nuance. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. By taking away their power by influencing the way we speak of this

in the secular world? One reason this went ahead in Cali was the plea from clergy that if gay marriage was legalized they'd have to marry the gay in their churches

Pray tell me how exactly taking away their power to marry (certify the license) is actually surrendering to them?

Or perhaps I have missed the wars fought by religious people to KEEP control of marriage even if at the small level they have here.

[JackBeck]

18. Gay marriage WAS legal in California.

And it didn't change a thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. It will be legal again, simply put, their overreached and this will have to go to

the courts, in the end, both and state and federal

But... we need to take the power away from ALL clergy to even get involved in the discussion

On a side note, the initiative process in Cali has to be scrapped as it exists right now... that is another rant.

But if we have separation of church and state... well then lets demand the church (clergy) has zero role in the execution of this.

I know why people are saying but this is separate but equal... no it is not... it is giving absolute party to ALL under civil law... the problem is the baggage that comes with marriage and you know what.. once you have that civil union certificate I wish you to find a clergy that will celebrate this in the religious way you may want to

Marriage, as in the civil kind, has nothing to do with religion or the sanctity of such. It is purely an economic and legal union... civil union is just an accurate term under law

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

24. Marriage is a legal term in this country

Straight people aren't going to want their marriages DEMOTED to a civil union, and I agree with them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. I will... my marriage was performed by a rabbi and it is

written into a Ktuvah... which ONCE was a religious and civil contract... these days it is just a religious contract, unless you are in Israel, where mine would not be recognized anyway... yes there are fuck ups every where

But my wedding certificate... call it blue if you want... red certificate.. the union certificate...

It is not a demotion, but an accurate description... this is a union recognized by civil authorities for secular ends

In fact, depending on the religion (Catholics comes to mind, even Jews) If I divorce my husband the civil process is ONE thing, the religous process is another and I am not granted a divorce by the religious court... then I cannot marry again under that faith... even if I can marry and divorce as many times as I want under the civil courts, why do you think catholics in particular fought this in the secular world? And you can bet they will fight this change as well

[kdmorris]

19. No

Marriage is a civil term that everyone in the world understands. Being "married" confers certain rights upon the individuals that are in that "marriage". Redefining it all as a Civil Union just because a bunch of religious right nutballs redefined "marriage" is stupid and is caving in to them.

Marriage for everyone. Period.

[gollygee]

21. Fundies do not want gay people playing their reindeer games

They don't care what gay people call the reindeer games, because they know reindeer games when they see them. They don't want any reindeer games played by gay people, and will try to stop the reindeer games from being played even if they are called "caribou games" or "fun times for elk".

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Yes you get it, why they will FIGHT this change and removal of all clergy

from the civil marriage business.

They have in every other country

So I expect them to fight it.

It removes all kinds of power and sends them squarely back where they belong...

[gollygee]

27. Proposal 8 almost passed

It came really really close. Compare that to how similar proposals fared 4 years ago. They lost by TONS. Same-sex marriage is almost here. Why on earth start a new (and probably harder) fight when the original fight is almost won?

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Because this is not starting a new initiative. This will have to be done at a

NATIONAL level... and it will have to be done to the point that clergy have NO SAY over civil affairs

We have a separation of church and state... so that is not a new fight, it goes back to 1782 by definition

For many complex reasons clergy were given the right to perform ceremonies, remind me, are we still an agrarian country where going to the county head takes days?

It is time, in my view, we take that last step... and completely remove them from the picture

Never mind my rabbi would have married gay, straight, mixed couples...

[gollygee]

32. You are kidding yourself if you think that will ever pass

People will see that as a destruction of marriage. Which is what they claimed gay people would do all along. What has been happening has been working well. It's almost here.

It sounds like your agenda is something other than gay rights, and won't happen within the next 50 years anyway. Gay people want to get married sooner than that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. MY AGENDA? okie dokie....

MY AGENDA....

Pray tell me, is this country a secular state or not?

No, it sounds that the word has far more power over all concerned than it should

By the way you know why they hate gay and marriage in the same sentence? I'll tell you why. SEX

Oh and one last thing... this will take less than a generation to be accomplished by law, many of these laws will be stricken by state courts, and sooner or later it wil reach the USSC. It falls under the 14th amendment

But it will take at least 25 years to get accepted... by the society

Never, EVER confuse legal status, with popular acceptance

By the way your argument that this will destroy marriage was used in.... drum roll, MEXICO back in 1857 by the Catholic Church, at the HEIGHT of the War of Reforma... them ungodly secularists you know... old canard, new target

IT was also used by .... DRUM ROLLL the Southern Baptist to keep the black and the while from marrying... old canard new target

It was also used by the traditional churches in California to keep the hispanic and the white from marrying.

[Gormy Cuss]

26. It's a civil marriage now. Changing it to civil unions for all wouldn't appease the nutjobs.

In most Christian faiths if one is married only in a civil ceremony then that couple aren't recognized as married in the eyes of the church -- there needs to be the sacred rite. Similarly, if a couple has only a religious ceremony without the legal paperwork, they're not married in the eyes of the state.

People who are arguing against a broader state definition of marriage don't care what it's called --- they don't want recognition of same sex partners period.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. But they have the power to actually influence the civil world since

they have the right, given by the state, to certify licenses. This does not happen in other countries.

[Gormy Cuss]

33. No, people think there is a power attached to it. Each state determines the qualifications

and clergy are only a subset of those qualified. Judges, justices of the peace, and others can be qualified too. Regardless of whether they are affiliated with a religious group all officiators are required to abide by the laws of the state.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. And if this is a secular state, so they tell me, why should clergy even

be involved?

[Gormy Cuss]

105. It's nothing more than a convenience

born out of a tradition of the majority of couples choosing a religious rite.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Sometimes conveniences have more into them than people realize

and that is the point

And at times we need to move on...

[Gormy Cuss]

119. I don't argue that clergy should continue to get this convenience.

just that civil marriage is already separate and there's no need to change the term to appease the pinheaded, narrow minded types who can't see the difference. What irks me is they're the same type of shallow thinkers who in an earlier generation would have fought against the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. Perception is reality

how many people don't think they are married until a RELIGIOUS officer officiates the ceremony?

Now think, HOW MANY of these folks really understand that this was a civil affair?

THAT is the point

To make it crystal clear and take this away from the clergy

The fact that folks really cannot understand how this matters boggles the mind. You and I get it... but we are a little more educated. Many folks don't get it... and you need to hit them besides the head to make them realize that the marriage in the church is separate from that granted by the state.

[Gormy Cuss]

122. I think most people who've been married know that the state paperwork is needed.

The breakaway fundamentalist Mormons get it. They have many wives within their faith but only one in the eyes of the state.

The religious types who tell those of us married people only in civil ceremonies that we don't have a real marriage get it. They just don't like it, just as they don't like it if the marriage was done under a different faith and ultimately that's what it's about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. I am talking about people, the average joe

and given that this is a secular country taking the extra step of actually performing a civil ceremony with officers of the state will neutralize some of this... they will force us to marry the gay inside our churches, if not all

What do you mean we can't carry that duty anymore? We cannot certify the marriage LICENSE? Why do you mean I need to have a CERTIFICATE in my hand issued by the state before I can do any religious service?

Trust me, they will scream harder than they are screaming right now

Why? historically this has happened in every other country where that final step has been taken

ed for clarity

[Gormy Cuss]

124. Again, every person married in a religious ceremony know that state paperwork must be signed.

In nearly every state the couple must present themselves to a civil authority in order to obtain a license to marry. The average Joe does get it.

I agree with you that they will scream harder than they are right now -- "they" always scream pretty hard when rights are extended outside of their narrow little playgrounds.

[kenny blankenship]

30. Most of the countries like that had revolutions fought in large part against their churches

There is civil marriage in Mexico. That is the result of a revolution. After that revolution the state took marriage registry, birth registry, and cemeteries away from the Catholic Church.

There is civil marriage in France-thanks to the French Revolution. That was a national convulsion which resulted in the Church losing possession of millions of hectares of land, its dominant position within society, and quite a few heads.

There is civil marriage in Spain. That improvement was instituted by an elected Socialist government, which also liberalized divorce. Because of things like that there was a subsequent revolution - in that case by the rightwing traditionalists, and there followed 4 decades of Fascist military dictatorship.

I'm not saying civil marriage is bad. It's good! But I do think history is telling us something about how such changes come about. Usually civil marriage is preceded by the overbearing presence of --and the nearly totalitarian regimentation of daily life by-- a state recognized church, acting inseparably from the state. And those states were usually pre-democratic or at least very weakly democratic. We don't quite have that overbearing ingredient in the United States pushing huge masses of people to resist it. Which is why it has taken so long, probably, to secularize marriage, even though we have the democratic means to do so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. I know the history and in mexico it was not one but three civil wars

Just to keep the record straight

That said, the fundies are pushing for a civil war, where they can return the country to the wonderful and enlightened rule of Leviticus... after all this is a Christian nation, so they tell me

I take their intent seriously... and the dominionist movement is a clear and present danger to this republic

And I fear we will end fighting that war sooner or later anyway. I hope it never comes to the force of arms by the way

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. Petty Semantics. There Is No Need. Marriage Is Already A Civil Law. Gay People Should Be Able To

take part. End of story. Fuck the semantics. Support gay marriage with all your heart, lest you condone discrimination.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. The semantics have meaning, and I support it, but I also understand

the power clergy have, which in a SECULAR state, they should not have

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. They Have No Power That Differs From The Power Anyone Else Can Have.

If you want to be licensed by the state to marry people, you can. The clergy apply just like anyone else.

You are acting as if they have some exclusive right. That is false.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. It is HOW they act

and some of the words used

"they will force me to marry the gay..." my all time favorite in the taxonomy of hate in the commercials

I want to take that air from them, that is all

So to you it might be semantics, but to them it is a weapon, and we are taking of a very small group by the way... but boy are they noisy

[Luminous Animal]

59. You are capitulating to the fundies...

You are giving them the power to control our language. I do not want to be civil unioned. I want to be married.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. No I am not, I am short circuiting them out of the system

and as far as I am concerned, you can be married by any religious (very liberal) priest right after.

[Luminous Animal]

78. Marriage is already a civil affair....

You propose to bar the nonreligious from participating. You propose to turn my marriage into something that it is not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Wait, you telling me that your marriage, would not involve

the same rights and obligations that exist today?

Is that it?

WOW.

NO it will not... insofar as your obligations and rights before the state they remain as they are... and you know what my civil marriage certificate, does not change at all if it is titled civil union...

by the way, here is a free clue... down south it has one name, but people still say they were married...

Nobody is too bothered by the WORD used by the state.

[Luminous Animal]

90. WOW!

Imagine this!

"Hello Mom!" Guess what? I'm getting civil unioned!!!


Bullshit.


The bigots cannot take for themselves what already belongs to us all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Actually the conversation will go like this

Hello mom.

I am getting married

What the state calls it matters little. That is the way it works in the real word where I have seen this at work

Your rights and obligations granted by the contract remain the same

[Luminous Animal]

96. What the state calls it means a lot.

The state is, after all, the center of power. You propose granting the state the power to rename a common legal contract to assuage the sentimentalities of the religious bigots.

You propose that they rewrite every legal document and every legal form to accommodate bigots.

When I got married at city hall the judge called all of us who were getting married to follow her. Bullshit to those who advocate barring that word being used by the state.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. I am told that people are not married until they have a religious ceremony

then you tell me it matters

I guess equality under the law does not matter as long as we get what we all want

I want these idiots out.

You don't get why I am saying this

They have that power because we have given it to them

I want to take the candy away

I don't care what you call it

But from the REAL LIFE... where CIVIL UNIONS are called CIVIL UNIONS by the state... for everybody... everybody still says, I am getting married

Now some folks are using their heads, not emotion, and for LEGAL reasons the word marriage will have to stay, but it should be preceded by the word CIVIL... get it now? Or are you that dense?

[WhollyHeretic]

42. IT WOULD NEVER PASS. No one would go for it and there is no need

marriage is not a religious institution. It is an absurd idea that has zero chance and is a distraction from the need to give everyone equality.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. civil rights should never be left in the hands of the mob

but to say it would never pass... is absurd beyond belief

As is in a very technical sense what you described as a civil institution is an economic union.

What the right describes as marriage is very different

They use this small window to argue that marriage performed by the state is religious, or should reflect religious values. Why do you want to keep having that power?

on and marriage has only been a civil affair for two hundred years... or so

[WhollyHeretic]

46. To say it would never pass is living in what I like to call "reality"

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Yeah well, in that same reality I would not have been able to

marry my hubby 40 years ago, and the black man would never be a president... of this country

How's that going

I am married and didn't we elect a black man?

Things change, even those hard core realities.

Why I know this equally under the law will happen, historically in a blink, but damn too long for those trapped in the process

It might involve the final removal of clergy from the process or not... but at this point given how many times clergy have used their ability to marry or not marry people... it is time we take that away from them and make this FULLY a civil institution

If we can keep the words that are so psychologically laden, by all means, but I fear we may have to get away from them

[Maven]

64. You could get married because of a court decision which included you in the EXISTING INSTITUTION

of marriage.

It didn't overturn the institution, it just broadened the definition of who could participate.

Please stop this foolishness about changing the term we use to describe CIVIL MARRIAGE.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. It is not foolishness, or if it was... pray tell me why

many religious institutions have gone to war over this? LITERALLY, not metaphorically

[Maven]

79. because they are hate groups

they despise our very EXISTENCE, and they would not have us be equal in any way. it isn't the word, it's the acknowledgement that we're human and that our relationships are equivalent to straights'.

believe me, if straight people had civil unions, they wouldn't want us to have those. they DON'T want us to have those now! why do you think they word these propositions so that we can't even have EQUIVALENT rights?! they are against any recognition for us, including domestic partnerships.

please see the bigger picture and just support equality under the existing institution of marriage.

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. Wrong... they don't hate you

they hate anybody who is different from them

They have gone to war over this, to arms, because of real and perceived loss of power

That is why.

And they have used EVERY TIME, the same canard, this is destroying traditional marriage by (insert target here, could be blacks, could be gay, could be secularists, hell could be communists) you are just the target of the moment.. to defend "traditional institutions" And you should look on the bright side... there are many of us, who are STILL on their shit lists, that will stand side by side with you.

But you know when you will won you won? When things become easy.

[Luminous Animal]

60. You are the one ceding power.

The power of language. I suggest that we retain the right to marriage and that the fundies can create their own language to define their unions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Once again, what you call this varies from country to country

south of the border, civil union, up north civil marriage

What part of I want to take POWER< REAL POWER away from them are you missing?

[Luminous Animal]

99. Ceding language is ceding power. (n/t)

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. Yep that is why the catholic church went to war in many places

over this

Because we were ceding power to them by using words they didn't like and actually took their right to decide who marries, who divorces and to keep records

Okie dokie

I suggest you go ahead and read the histories of many of these conflicts.

Why the protestant churches resisted this in the streets in many places of Northern Europe.

Yep, I am sure they thought they were winning the game :sarcasm:

The problem in the US is that people are IGNORANT of how things work OUTSIDE her borders, or of their own history, let alone other histories

And are proud of it!

[sakabatou]

52. And all benefits from marriage should come with civil unions

if it should go that way,

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Exactly

[FreeState]

61. Including the benefit of calling it what it is? A civil marriage? n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Some nations call it a civil marriage, see Canada

others call it a civil union, see Mexico

Why the term chosen does not bug me at all

[Luminous Animal]

63. This is so fucked up...

Is this where it goes? That only the religious will be able to get married? That we will totally cede the definition of marriage to bigots?

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. You are telling me that you cannot find a preacher that will marry you in

a religious sense?

Is that it?

The religious ceremony, with the exception of the Jewish Ktuvah, is not a legally biding contract

(And the ktuvah is only biding within the Temple)

We are talking here of a civil institution, not a religious one... and perhaps we need to do this to emphasize to the community that this is part of the civil community

And if you think this will please the religious right, no it wont, once they figure what this is about to take from them

[Luminous Animal]

97. I do not want a goddman preacher.

I want what is already legally granted to me as a straight couple. That is, marriage. Plain and simple marriage as it is commonly known. Whether it is a ceremony in front of a judge, a county clerk, a justice of the peace, or a clergy. Marriage plain and simple. Marriage that is already a civil contract and need not be ceded to the religious.

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. So why are you so afraid of removing clergy from the equation?

Boggles the mind.

[Siyahamba]

62. Marriage for all is working fine in Canada.

The government grants a civil marriage. If you want a religious marriage, you go to a religious institution. Religious institutions have no obligation to marry anyone for any reason they deem fit.

[SidDithers]

67. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best ones...nt

Sid

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Which is EXACTLY what needs to happen here

I hope we can keep terms, but I fear we may not be able to.

[Why Syzygy]

65. I was searching Obama's new site for some good news on this issue ..

but didn't find it. It did strike me while browsing, that IF the fundies were right, and IF homosexuality were a question of deviancy or however they phrase that .. someone who is "mixed up", then that would fall under the protections in place for people with DISABILITIES. The fundies claim it is not "Normal", therefore all the rights afforded disabled people should apply!
That's a little out there, I know.

Really, all marriage/civil unions are is a legally binding CONTRACT. Any consenting adults can enter into a contract. There has to be something given in exchange for something received. That's it!
That could be something of a solution on the micro level, but of course enforcing the contract with third parties (insurance for example) would be impossible. Wouldn't it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. that's why you need the little piece of paper

it will come, I know that, in historical terms in the blink of an eye... but 25 years (for it to be accepted by society) and five to ten legally, yes this will end up in the courts. sounds like too long to wait, and I understand that

[Luminous Animal]

66. We already have that. It is called marriage.

I am getting fucking sick and tired of people advocating a capitulation of our language to appease the fundies.


I AM NOT CIVIL UNIONED. I AM MARRIED.

[Luminous Animal]

81. I am straight. Quit trying to take my marriage away from me.

I was married at city hall. What you are proposing would mean that I would no longer be married.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Before the state, absolutely, your rights are not affected

your duties are not affected

Get it now?

[Luminous Animal]

88. No. You are proposing that I would no longer be married.

That I would have to cede my married status to the fundies and refer to myself as civil unioned.

This is bullshit.

Marriage is already, currently, (that is, NOW) a civil ceremony. The fundies cannot have it. It does not belong to them. It belongs precisely where it has always been... an interest of civil society.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Whatever dude, you are too married to the language and do not want to even

understand what this will do to the fundies and their perceived and REAL power

And how it will advance equality

In reality for complex reasons the term marriage may have to remain... but that is another matter

And unlike the person who explained this above from a LEGAL point of view, you are using EMOTION to drive your thinking

I am trying to use reason here.

And at least for me, the wedding band in my finger means I am married, no matter what the state calls it.

But then again, there is a certain level of realization that this will have to happen, in one form or another if we are to remove the power from the right wing fundie wacko fringe.

[piedmont]

87. Not just no, but FUCK NO.

Your proposal, if I understand you, would deny the rite of marriage from being performed by religious organizations, a practice that's gone on from the dawn of mankind. That would be prohibited under the 1sr Amendment, and would drive the party that tried it probably into non-existence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. you misunderstand, they can marry

no problem, but only after a civil union, marriage whatever you want to call it is performed by the state

IN the modern context this works VERY WELL in Canada and Mexico, just to give you two examples

You are married by the state and if you want to have a religious ceremony go for it... but the clergy have no role in the civil ceremony.

[piedmont]

95. There may not be a difference to you, but I think most...

will see it as rendering the religious service meaningless. As it stands now, your binding, legal marriage can be performed in either a non-religious civil ceremony or in a religious one. What you propose erases the right to a binding, legal marriage performed by a priest, rabbi, etc. There's no way it would survive a court challenge, if any legislative body were dumb enough to pass it.
I'm 100% for extending marriage to gays and lesbians. This is not the way to do it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. It works in many other countries

and people see it as another excuse for a party quite brutally honest

Oh the jokes

that surround it.

But it works... and exactly what you described is the problem, The rabbi, priest, what have you, should have NO ROLE in the civil process

And it is precisely because of this that the Freaky Religious Right has been able to insert the language they have into the whole process, and why this is a wedge.

We are a secular country, with separation of church and state, but in this matter, we are not truly separate and still allow clergy a role... it made all the sense in the world in an agricultural society.... where getting to the justice of the peace was NOT easy. But in the modern world, it doesn't.

[Gwendolyn]

100. Canada allows a choice, as we do.

I told you people wouldn't like the idea of downgrading. :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. That is because people think of civil union the way that many a states

have used it... not the way that I am defining it

Which is Marriage by another name... emphasizing that this is a civil event

You want to call it civil marriage, fine... you want to call it civil whatch-makaloit, fine

EMPHASIZE CIVIL on it... and keep the clergy out

[ContinentalOp]

93. If marriage is a religious thing then I want a divorce. I would gladly take a civil union tomorrow.

Saying that marriage has anything to do with the church is an INSULT to millions of atheists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. Yet we have granted them the right to perform this civil ceremony

for good historic reasons, but that are no longer at work

:-)

Thanks for getting it

[Luminous Animal]

101. Clergy is not the only ones empowered BY THE STATE

to perform marriages. And if they are having an issue with following through their duties granted by the state then it is them who should redefine the ceremony.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. The point is CLERGY should not be empowered, get it now?

[Independent_Voice]

102. That's pie-in-the-sky thinking

There are too many heterosexuals who cling to the word "marriage." They wouldn't stand for it.

What needs to happen is that civil unions must be granted in all states (overturning the bans on same-sex civil unions that some of the states have passed), which will protect same-sex couples in the short term while reducing the hostility toward LGBTs from the so-called "fence-sitters" in the long run.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. You can call it civil marriage if you want to, or pink tutu

but it has to be the same for all concerned, gay, straight, whatever,

And this pie in the sky thinking is called equality under the law

Civil Unions as conceived right now are separate but equal

[aikoaiko]

104. Makes sense to me, Government has no place in "religious marriages", but rather civil unions