What would happen if the Supreme Court decided that civil unions must have equal rights with

[CTyankee]

marriages?

That is, everything that married people get, civilly unioned people get?

Is this another avenue that can be explored?

If gay people could get married in, say, their UU church by their UU minister, or get married by a j.p. they would still get the same rights and privileges as the so-called "married" people get?
Would this solve the dilemma?

Just thinking here...if the religiously insane can't give up marriage as their little term, why not just make all civilly unioned equally beneficent to the married status? I am married but would gladly just be civilly unioned if it granted the same benefits.

I know the religious fundies would have a fit. But they haven't stopped people like me from getting married by a j.p. and having my full "married" rights.

And, what is to stop US from saying that people who say they are married, ARE
married and it is just too bad if anyone doesn't like it?!

[ColbertWatcher]

1. If that happens, why use a different term? n/t

[Recursion]

2. One side or the other needs to stop caring about the word "marriage" NT

[skepticscott]

9. If equal civil rights adhere to all such unions

whether between heterosexuals and homosexuals, the homosexual couples can call themselves married and there's not a bloody thing the religious right nutballs can do about it. Much as they would like to, they don't own the word. Only weak-minded or religiously indoctrinated couples need the additional sanction of a corrupt church or a faceless government bureaucrat.

[Hansel]

30. To get the church out of the state's business.

and vice versa.

Churches can own the word "marriage" and define it as a religious sacrament between whomever they want. Marriage alone, however, would carry no legal benefits. In order to have contractual benefits recognized by the state the couple would have to apply for a civil union license just like they apply for a marriage license now. A civil union contract could be activated by either a clergyman or a judge (just like marriages are now).

If the church wants to require a civil union license before marrying a couple that would be their business. If they don't want to perform a marriage ceremony for certain couples that is also their business. But they would have absolutely no input into legal contracts set up by the state, and the state would have no right to tell churches who they can marry.

Civil unions would carry the same weight and have the same privileges and legal rights that marriages now have. But it is solely about the legal contract and not the sexual consummation of the union. There would be no state recognized annulments of civil unions. Once you are in a civil union, it must be dissolved through the courts.

A proposal like this would grandfather in any marriages already conducted under the old laws. All references to marriage in existing legal documents would be understood to mean "civil unions" and evidently the word "marriage" would be eliminated as new documents are printed.

Just because legally the word "marriage" is eliminated from state documents does not preclude any couple in a civil union from calling it a marriage. And the churches can whine about it all they want. But the state would make no opinion on whether it is a marriage or not. Just like it has no opinion on whether or not someone should be baptized, get communion, etc.

[Ayesha]

3. Oh gee

Can I have my own water fountain and lunch counter too? Wow, I'm so lucky to get those separate but equal rights!

[skepticscott]

8. Well, these are rights

not facilities or accommodations. If the rights of inheritance, hospital visitation and everything else are equal, exactly how would they be "separate"?

[NoQuarter]

17. Here, here! eom.

[Jamastiene]

32. Well, for one thing, that awkward phrase you used in your OP would be uttered

to describe our committed relationships. "Civilly unioned" isn't the same thing as "married." Why should we have to have a separate terminology?

[goddess40]

4. It would be a great day - provided:

All "marriages" would be civil union unless sanctioned by a church. But for tax, benefit, child custody, parentage, etc purposes civil unions were the only thing that mattered.

hint: our UU church marries all couples as long as they are adult and free of other commitments.

[BR_Parkway]

5. "civilly unioned" people? that's reason enough for it not to work

now, being serious - i'd rather it be called something simple, like "hitched" for everyone.

Personally, I'd love to see some word be attached to all civil unions (including those that str8 folks get) to separate out that some of us don't really require or desire a religious endorsement, only the legal rights that come with being "hitched"

[peruban]

6. I think a constitutional rights amendment is the right way to go...

though its likelihood is pretty far off. If it's looked at as a civil rights issue it can be justifiable to enact a constitutional amendment to protect the liberties of those in question from state imposed limitations. It will not be an easy road and will require enlightenment and massive support from all sides.

[SoCalNative]

7. There's already an amendment to the constitution that deals with

civil rights:

U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[CTyankee]

15. Yes, this is what I am essentially saying. What if the SCagrees with this interpretation of the 14th

amendment? And justavoids the whole issue of the word "marriage" entirely?

[NoQuarter]

18. Well, the heads of all those fetishists

who worship the word "marriage", would explode. And who is going to clean up all that detritus.

Not me.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

10. Marriage - in civil terms - is nothing but a contract

between the couple and the state. That's it. You make a deal with the state to do certain things - sign certain forms, stuff like that - and the state promises certain things, like your children will automatically be legitimate, should you have any after you marry - and you get the license, which is proof of the contract.

That's all it is - a civil contract. No magic about it. And, like all contracts, it can be a real pain in the ass if you want to get out of it.

Religious ceremonies called "weddings" or "marriage ceremonies" are meaningless in terms of the law. They're fancy rituals with a good party attached, but there's no legal union until the civil marriage license is signed.

That simple.

All these people howling about "gay marriage" might want first to look at The Defense Of Marriage Act signed by our beloved Bill Clinton, and then understand that your "gay marriage" is mostly meaningless except as a symbol.

Smart money is on getting that Defense Of Marriage bullshit repealed, and then going after the states.

[haele]

12. As long as we don't have to change the tax forms to reflect civil unions rather than "married"

That or put a rider in recognizing civil unions and marriages both as a form of domestic partnership. That's what I'm hearing a lot of people in this and other threads trying to do. Sort of a "we don't care what you call it, but you have the license and you're a legal union" strategy, which doesn't work.
Of course, once you start there, you have to go through all the federal laws that deal with marriage and divorce, custody and joint property, etc and insert that rider in every statute that applies.
But that won't happen not only because the time and costs would be astronomical, but that the definition goalposts will keep moving because some people equate marriage with sex rather than the lifetime commitment. And they're so fearful of people that aren't like them that they have to make up all sorts of sins to legally bury "the other" out of sight.
Just "legally calling it something else" won't work, not when having to change over 200 years worth of laws and statutes. Far easier to, as you say, repeal DOMA and enforce both the 1st and the 14th.

Haele

[CTyankee]

19. Yes, I understand what you are saying, that the definition of marriage is

enmeshed in myriad federal laws. However, can't it be done more efficiently by government recognition of "married or civil union" redefinition?

I was just reading an article on Melissa Etheridge where it noted that she is split from the partner who bore their two children. Melissa now has joint custody. That tells me that the state of CA has recognized her partnership in much the same way as it would view a marriage between a man and a woman where the marriage and in her case partnership has been dissolved. I doubt if a law had to be changed. It was just adapted to fit the circumstance.

[CTyankee]

20. Yes, I understand what you are saying, that the definition of marriage is

enmeshed in myriad federal laws. However, can't it be done more efficiently by government recognition of "married or civil union" redefinition?

I was just reading an article on Melissa Etheridge where it noted that she is split from the partner who bore their two children. Melissa now has joint custody. That tells me that the state of CA has recognized her partnership in much the same way as it would view a marriage between a man and a woman where the marriage and in her case partnership has been dissolved. I doubt if a law had to be changed. It was just adapted to fit the circumstance.

[aquart]

13. Civil unions can also have good parties.

[PennyP]

11. I've always thought that recognizing marriage is against separation of church and state.

Marriage is a religious sacrament, so why does it get more state recognition than say, my confirmation when I was a teenager (also a sacrament)?

I've always thought that all folks should get civil unions, and that with the civil union comes all the legal rights and privileges given to married couple now (including the rights of divorce or maybe they'll call it "union busting" har har). Then, those who want to get married can, in whatever church or ceremony makes them happy, but it should mean nothing in the eyes of the state, just as baptism or other religious rituals mean nothing in the eyes of the state.

Don't know if this is the way to go though, it'll really make the religious howl more, but it serves them right-- they fight gay marriage, fine, no marriage for anyone in the eyes of the law and civil unions for all.

I hope the courts have the guts to stand up for either gay marriage, or my option. The idea that they need public consensus to protect civil rights is silly. There wasn't consensus for any other group that had to have the courts step in to protect their civil rights, the Gov't said tough shit. They need to do the same now.

[CTyankee]

22. I think the objection there would be "why does one class of people have to give up the right to

'marry' on an equal basis with straights?" I used to make the same argument you are making but found myself defending "separate but equal" which I abhor. The point of this post was to seek an efficient change that is airtight in terms of equal protection of the laws as stated in the 14th amendment.

[PennyP]

31. I think my point of view is not one of having seperate but equal

situations for gays and straights, but of one uniform civil union for all, as the ONLY form of union that is legally recognized.
Marriage would mean squat in the eyes of the law, it would only have value as a religious sacrament for those people who value the sacrament-- and those who want it, gay or straight, could go the church of their choice to get one.

I've held this position for years, long before I heard that gays were fighting for the right to marry. My position is NOT an equivocation of separate but equal, but a hardcore atheists view of resenting that ANY religious sacrament should have legal status.

So while I'm sorry to hear that some have used this position to try to angle for a separate but equal type of situation, for me, it is more that I frankly want to get rid of marriage completely as a legal institution, for Gay people AND Straight people.
As far as I'm concerned, it goes hand in hand with taking "In G*d We Trust" off our money, and "One Nation Under G*d" out of our pledge of allegiance.

I hope folks see where I'm coming from, because I am not against GLBT civil rights, as long as marriage is available to straights, it should be available to gays, but if I had my way, it would mean nothing more than a spiritual milestone for BOTH groups, and the only legally recognized unions would be civil unions.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. I think civil unions should be the only legally recognized ones

I was joined in a civil ceremony by a judge. Later, I chose to have a religious ceremony--but it had no legal ramifications. The ones who presided did not have to be registered by the state where I lived.

To my mind, requiring all those who wish to have the legal benefits of union to go before a judge in a civil ceremony is the way to go.

[fed_up_mother]

16. From a constitutional point, I wonder about this, too

Marriage, by definition, has always been the union of a man and a woman - not the union of two people in love. In fact, love really didn't have much to do with the actual definition of marriage. Looking at it from that perspective, I don't see a constitutional "right" there as far as actual "legal marriage" goes.

However, I believe the Supreme Court will eventually afford full rights to gays, but I'm not 100% convinced how that will happen constitutionally. And regardless of what the court eventually calls it - union or marriage - folks can refer to their union however they want!

[kevinbgoode]

21. Unless you are advocating that religious doctrine is part of our

Constitution, we already have something called "civil marriage." In fact, ALL marriages are CIVIL marriages. Changing the name is another exercise in separate but (allegedly) equal.

What is the government doing endorsing one religious group over another anyway?

[mondo joe]

23. There are only a few states with civil unions anyway.

At the most practical level it still leaves most gays with no protection.

[QC]

24. Bigots would mobilize to ban civil unions.

That's what they did here in Florida.

Can we please stop pretending that the answer to the whole question is to change a word? For the bigots, the very fact that we live and breathe is an affront.

[mondo joe]

25. How do we get well-meaning but naive DUers to get this?

[QC]

26. I don't think we can. We have said it over and over, but every five minutes

someone pops up and starts another "I know! We can just call it civil union and everything will be OK!" thread, as if nobody had ever talked about this before.

[CTyankee]

29. No, it needs refinement. But I believe in the strongest possible

interpretation of equal protection of the laws. You see, that covers EVERYBODY. It needs to be said out loud and with additional language pointing out how "separate but equal" is wrong and destructive to our constitutional rights. As long as this is played out as a zero sum game, we (all of us) lose, because we are ignoring the durability of the 14th amendment. We all share that same constitution.

[Le Taz Hot]

27. What about

separate is inherently NOT equal. What the hell is so difficult to understand about that?????? Honest to goddess how many ways can it be said?

[salguine]

28. Didn't you know? All straight peoples' marriages would be ruined.

[FreeState]

33. Bogus argument - Civil Unions will never grant all the rights of Marriage

Marriage comes with a social belonging and structure that can never come from Civil Unions. Thats THE reason the California Supreme Court ruled it had to be marriage. Its insulting and disturbing to me that we keep having to explain this to people - even if you are well meaning. Im sorry but I will never be satisfied with anything short of Marriage Equality - including the word.

Here is the ruling, please read it:

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-05/38894545.PDF

[Manifestor_of_Light]

34. Gay marriage is already LEGAL in California.

The CA Supreme Court ruled on it. Prop. 8 CANNOT reverse or invalidate the 18,000 gay marriages already performed in CA. See Article I of the Constitution which says that no ex post facto laws (retroactive) shall be passed, and that no STATE can pass an ex post facto law.

When a case gets to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage is legal, it will be legal in all 50 states due to the full faith and credit clause.

In fact, I wonder what the legal status is of people who are legally married in CA, MA or CT, and move to another state. A gay marriage contracted in one of those three states where it is now legal should be legal in any other state under the full faith and credit clause.

Then there is the 14th Amendment. The privileges and immunities clause, the due process clause and the equal protection clause.

That's six different clauses: 2 ex post facto, 1 full faith and credit, 1 privileges and immunities, 1 due process, 1 equal protection. All those would be valid reasons to make gay marriage legal on a Federal level.


I am a lawyer but I don't play one on TV. :D