The two problems with "civil partnerships for all".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Most DUers seem to firmly support the right of gays to marry, as opposed to enter into civil partnerships.

A non-trivial minority, though, advocate "civil partnerships for all" - they claim that marriage is a religious thing, and the state has no business getting involved in this. I don't think this position is in any way bigotted or offensive, but I do think it's foolish, for two reasons:

1) All the people who oppose "marriage for all" will oppose "no more state sanction of marriage, civil partnerships for all" even more strongly - it would finally lend truth to the old "attack upon the institution of marriage" canard.

2) Most of those who support "marriage for all" would prefer that to "no more state sanction of marriage, civil partnerships for all". "With this ring I thee take into partnership" just isn't as romantic...

"Marriage" is a word, and like all words it's slightly ambigious, but in America today the word refers primarily to the civil legal process, not to anything religious.

And most people, straight or gay, would rather the state recognised their marriage than that it recognised their civil partnership, for a variety of reasons, both religious and secular.



So "no more state sanction of marriage, civil partnerships for all" as a proposal has all the drawbacks of "marriage for all", and then some, but not all of the advantages.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

1. Yep...you pretty much just summed it up

K&R

[frogcycle]

2. You miss the point entirely

State sanctioning of anything smacking of "With this ring I thee take..." is wrong. Period.
Of COURSE this "attack on marriage" would drive the fundies berserk. It would be exactly what they have been moaning and groaning about all along. First we took their god out of the classrooms and now we want to take it out of legal contracts. And its about damned TIME!

Then we'll get it off the money.

The big problem I have with all the wrangling over same-sex marriage is NOT an objection to folks of any mutual combination of body parts being able to say "With this ring I thee take..." in any church they want to. It is having states intruding into religion, and ENFORCING religious taboos. What the hell is wrong with bigamy, or polygamy anyway? All those hated LDSers should be able to marry several of each other, shouldn't they? Give me one legitimate reason the state should limit a man from having legal contracts with two women.

[wryter2000]

3. "With this ring..."

That's part of the religious ceremony, no? If everyone had a civil union, you'd still go to a church for a wedding, if you wanted one. At that point, you'd use "with this ring, I thee wed."

You're right about 1), though.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Pass, I'm afraid.

I've only ever attended one wedding, and that was in a church. I *think* that they use rings in civil ceremonies too, but I can't swear to it.

[wryter2000]

7. They probably do use rings

But I doubt they use the standard wedding ceremony.

I'm afraid this is a question of separation of church and state, but you're right that if you tried to get government out of the marriage business, the haters would scream "they're taking away my right to get married."

[originalpckelly]

5. Let's not forget that these people don't just want to outlaw gay marriage...

they want to outlaw domestic partnerships and civil unions, and have succeeded in doing so.

[rucky]

6. One thing I don't think the other side understands...

is that nobody is trying to force any churches to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies if that's not their thing.

[NorthCarolina]

8. The fundies know that for the simple fact that it is common sense. Acknowledgement

of that fact however does not help their case, and in fact it is their public outcry to the contrary that helps them achieve success. I have mentioned before, and I'll mention again, the fundies entire argument rests on "Nuture not Nature". Challenge that notion successfully and their entire anti-gay house of cards will collapse.

[rucky]

10. true dat.

I've had the discussion several times w/ fundies and other phobics, and learned to go straight for the DNA.

[NorthCarolina]

12. Yes, that is the achilles heel of the Fundies whole argument

Nurture not Nature is the sole reason for the existence of ex-gay ministries, to lend credibility to this claim.

Nurture not nature is the salve that remedies the soul for their reprehensible actions perpetrated upon the gay community.

Yes there is no doubt that finding a gay genetic marker is their worst nightmare. Consider their dilemma should this happen. How would they reconcile their vile actions taken against the gay community in the name of God? How would they deal with members who discover through DNA testing that their unborn is (what to them would be) the "Demon Seed"?

Nature not Nurture would signal the end of their campaign of hate campaign.

[Poseidan]

9. wrong

Your personal ideas are irrelevant.

On the other hand, Constitutional law is relevant. Free religion dictates clearly, a religion may marry or not marry anyone it chooses.

The State, on the other hand, clearly dictates people are to be treated equally.

Unless, by some magical order, you wish to abolish the 1st amendment?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. I don't think I said what you think I said

I'm not quite sure what you *do* think I said, but your response is a non-sequitur.

[mondo joe]

13. You seem confused. That's not what the OP suggested. NT