Why not just call it a "Civil Union"?

[Mac1958]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

 

[WorldWatcher]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

I'd have no problem with that. Everyone (same-sex and different-sex couples) would have a Civil Union under the law. All references to "marriage" or "Civil Marriage" would be struck and replaced with "union" or "Civil Union" and then apply the law the same.



(BTW - Many states in the early 2000's passed amendments to their state constitutions barring even Civil Unions.)

>>>>

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

I was going to ask the same question a couple days ago but as things go I didn't want to be called a homophobe.

Regardless it is a very good question.

 

[healthmyths]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

"Civil Unions" exist already.
EVERYONE accepts "civil unions"... but not everyone accepts two men or two women being considered married.

I like everyone have no problem with as a woman caller said she and her female partner for 20 years saw a lawyer and distributed assets, powers of attorney for health etc. even their home.. all under "Civil Union" laws that exist!

So what is the reason for the gay community wanting to change the word to Marriage?

 

[there4eyeM]

That is a very good question to which there is no reasonable response.

It isn't gender, it's semantics.

I'm not going into the street to define a minor word, one way or the other.

This is obviously being kept a 'burning issue' (directly affecting a small group out of a small minority) by forces that either get part of their support from anti-homosexuals of from pro-homosexuals.

It's sort of like religion; to keep going, the end must never be attained. There are directors and workers that derive their being (and their salaries) from the movement/cause/sect existing.

 

[bendog]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

It's an interesting point, imo. And, I've given it some previous thought because this was a divisive issue in the christian denomination that I belong to. It seems to me that the younger a person is, the more they view it as marriage. Of course younger people tend to carry less prejudice about orientation.

But also, they tend to be less attached to organized religion. Or to be more secular, or to subscribe to more spiritual beliefs that are not set in church dogma. And, many tend to come from non nuclear families. Marriage isn't necessaily a one time trip up to the alter in the white dress.

In the end, I decided that to me it's immaterial. I know civilly divorced roman catholics living as husband and wife. I know Jews who have rabbis denying their marriages even though they've been civilly married for decades to the same person. If I were gay, I'd have a hard time calling a partner a husband or wife ... but whatever floats a boat.

ps, but if it needs to be "marriage" to treat everyone equally, fine. I just don't see that ever happening without a supreme court decree, and I'm not sure that's really healthy. It tends to make the "losing side" feel victimized by a looming federal govt. And yes, I think Citizens United was a judicial assault on personal rights.

 

[Antares]

I have many friends in the Gay community including my sister, I have been asking this for years...give them ALL of the same "rights" but continue to call it "civil unions".

They scream no, then it will not be equal.
They are not interested in ANY compromise, just slapping everyone in the face with the demands until everyone just gives in.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

I'd have no problem with that. Everyone (same-sex and different-sex couples) would have a Civil Union under the law. All references to "marriage" or "Civil Marriage" would be struck and replaced with "union" or "Civil Union" and then apply the law the same.



(BTW - Many states in the early 2000's passed amendments to their state constitutions barring even Civil Unions.)

>>>>

No need to strike the term marriage.

That would be like striking the term homosexual and replacing it with heterosexual.

Marriage means between a man and a woman
Civil union means between two of the same sex

Accurate descriptions. Unless you are ashamed of who you are and feel the need to mask it with a different term.

 

[healthmyths]

That is a very good question to which there is no reasonable response.

It isn't gender, it's semantics.

I'm not going into the street to define a minor word, one way or the other.

This is obviously being kept a 'burning issue' (directly affecting a small group out of a small minority) by forces that either get part of their support from anti-homosexuals of from pro-homosexuals.

It's sort of like religion; to keep going, the end must never be attained. There are directors and workers that derive their being (and their salaries) from the movement/cause/sect existing.

So it sounds like a public relations issue...i.e. whoever has the loudest megaphone ,squeakiest wheel, etc. ?

 

[Wyatt earp]

I was never sure why the goverment was in the marriage bussiness in the 1st place?

 

[WorldWatcher]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

"Civil Unions" exist already.
EVERYONE accepts "civil unions"... but not everyone accepts two men or two women being considered married.

I like everyone have no problem with as a woman caller said she and her female partner for 20 years saw a lawyer and distributed assets, powers of attorney for health etc. even their home.. all under "Civil Union" laws that exist!

So what is the reason for the gay community wanting to change the word to Marriage?

Not "everyone" is happy with Civil Unions. Many amendment passed in the early 2000's barred even Civil Unions. Then there was Referendum 71 in Washington State when Civil Unions were passed equal to Civil Marriage. Social Conservatives got a question on the ballot to repeal Civil Unions because they were to much like Civil Marriage.


>>>>

 

[FJO]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

In a marriage there is one husband and one wife.

In a homosexual 'marriage' there are two (for the time being, while poligamy or polyandry being considered) PARTNERS.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I have many friends in the Gay community including my sister, I have been asking this for years...give them ALL of the same "rights" but continue to call it "civil unions".

They scream no, then it will not be equal.
They are not interested in ANY compromise, just slapping everyone in the face with the demands until everyone just gives in.

Not all gays are this way. My oldest daughter is bi and she doesn't believe marriage is the appropriate term for gay couples. She recognizes the traditional values and meaning of the word.

When the topic first came up I feared her being upset with my position but to my surprise she agreed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

I'd have no problem with that. Everyone (same-sex and different-sex couples) would have a Civil Union under the law. All references to "marriage" or "Civil Marriage" would be struck and replaced with "union" or "Civil Union" and then apply the law the same.



(BTW - Many states in the early 2000's passed amendments to their state constitutions barring even Civil Unions.)

>>>>

No need to strike the term marriage.

That would be like striking the term homosexual and replacing it with heterosexual.

Marriage means between a man and a woman
Civil union means between two of the same sex

Accurate descriptions. Unless you are ashamed of who you are and feel the need to mask it with a different term.

Sure there is, "separate but equal" was a concept stricken down as legally valid a long time ago.

Civil Marriage (Marriage as a function of law) is defined by that law, there are 10 legal entities right now that define Civil Marriage as between two consenting adults.



>>>>

 

[bendog]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

I'd have no problem with that. Everyone (same-sex and different-sex couples) would have a Civil Union under the law. All references to "marriage" or "Civil Marriage" would be struck and replaced with "union" or "Civil Union" and then apply the law the same.



(BTW - Many states in the early 2000's passed amendments to their state constitutions barring even Civil Unions.)

>>>>

No need to strike the term marriage.

That would be like striking the term homosexual and replacing it with heterosexual.

Marriage means between a man and a woman
Civil union means between two of the same sex

Accurate descriptions. Unless you are ashamed of who you are and feel the need to mask it with a different term.

I don't think so. What about a hetero athiest couple who don't want any relgious overtone to their civil union? What about a very traditional religious women who happens to be born, or be nurtured, towards being a lesbian? Maybe she wants the white dress thing with a cleric of some kind.

Equal protection isn't about fitting round pegs in round holes, or classification. It's not allowing governments to irrationally deny something available to others. That is, gay marriage somehow has to infringe of the rights of people not in gay marriages. I just don't see how I'm hurt by it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'd have no problem with that. Everyone (same-sex and different-sex couples) would have a Civil Union under the law. All references to "marriage" or "Civil Marriage" would be struck and replaced with "union" or "Civil Union" and then apply the law the same.



(BTW - Many states in the early 2000's passed amendments to their state constitutions barring even Civil Unions.)

>>>>

No need to strike the term marriage.

That would be like striking the term homosexual and replacing it with heterosexual.

Marriage means between a man and a woman
Civil union means between two of the same sex

Accurate descriptions. Unless you are ashamed of who you are and feel the need to mask it with a different term.

I don't think so. What about a hetero athiest couple who don't want any relgious overtone to their civil union? What about a very traditional religious women who happens to be born, or be nurtured, towards being a lesbian? Maybe she wants the white dress thing with a cleric of some kind.

Equal protection isn't about fitting round pegs in round holes, or classification. It's not allowing governments to irrationally deny something available to others. That is, gay marriage somehow has to infringe of the rights of people not in gay marriages. I just don't see how I'm hurt by it.

You're talking about religious overtones which are not part of the gov't description of marriage.

You're free (or should be) to get married or civilly joined in any courthouse. All the rest is or should be the right of the church to decide based on their beliefs. No church should be forced to recognize something which is counter to their beliefs.

 

[bodecea]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

For EVERYONE who gets a civil marriage license? OK, but now you have to change HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of laws and statutes to change the legal word "marriage" to "civil union".

 

[Zoom-boing]

I've asked this over the years as well.

If 'marriage benefits' (financial, health, property, etc) are what the gay community wants then why are they fighting tooth and nail to change the term/meaning of marriage? If two same-sex people become civilly unionized they are going to say they are married. Over time, the term marriage will shift to mean two people (man/woman or same-sex). It will evolve, if you will. Instead, they are demanding that everyone else change for the want of a very, very small percentage of the population.

I greatly resent the gay community shoving their blatant disregard for others down my throat.

Ewww, did that ^ conjure up some kind of visual? Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Katzndogz]

Pastors, priests, rabbis, imams, do not perform civil union ceremonies. Unless it is referred to as marriage, these religious officiants cannot be forced to perform civil ceremonies.

 

[Mac1958]

What about a hetero athiest couple who don't want any relgious overtone to their civil union?

Great freakin' point. A "Civil Marriage" would not have to be limited to gay couples. Leave traditional marriage to those who either like the term or who attach a religious component or reason to their marriage. A Civil Marriage can be for those who don't.

There. Can we all move on with our freakin' lives now?

.