Newsflash: Civil Unions come to New Hampshire. The Don in full support

:turtle:

Finally, a chance to prove that I'm not a hypocrite. And in a way that makes sense. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267040,00.html

I've been saying all along that I oppose gay marriage but support civil unions, unless they're forced on a state by the judiciary. Here in New Hampshire, I am proud to announce reason has found a home and we have struck the perfect compromise. We will be the 4th state in the Union to offer Civil Unions, and the 2nd to do so without being ordered to by the court.

In a sign of how reasonable this decision must be, both of the more strident camps are furious. Gay rights activists call it a sell-out, saying the Democrats tossed their dream of gay marriage under the bus. And you can only imagine what social conservatives have to say.

Well, now, without a state supreme court dictating to me what my opinion is, I can express it freely, and I say Bravo. No chance of ordering churches to perform gay weddings, but at the same time, all of the benefits and responsibilities conferred upon heterosexual couples will be conveyed (medical decisions, joint mortgages, etcetera). I don't know if Goofy is going to be more shocked that I found this story, or that I'm 100% behind it, but I haven't been talking out the side of my mouth for the past few years. This is how it should happen, IMHO. :bow:

*Note* The turtle smiley at the top has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. I just went looking for a smiley, couldn't find one, and really liked it, so voila.

I was thinking the other day about a way of handling the marriage/civil union thing which might satisfy everybody-

First, everyone who wants to be legally joined together gets a "civil union"-hetero couples, gay couples, close friends, anyone who feels like it. So everyone has the same status before the law. This is a purely legal thing, and just entails going to a registry office.

Then, anyone who wants to get married in the religious sense can attend a ceremony at the church of their choice. This is no longer legally binding, as that's been separated off in the step outlined above, it's simply a religious thing.

Therefore we avoid the unwieldy duality of seperate "marriage" and "civil union" legal status, but don't don't intrude on people's religious sensibilities too much. I think it would work.

Well, I'm not going to throw my support behind this...yet.

It certainly is preferable to gay marriage, and it sounds like it solves the complaints regarding legal and medical decisions.

Any info on just how far these civil unions go? Do they get marriage tax benefits?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

First, everyone who wants to be legally joined together gets a "civil union"-hetero couples, gay couples, close friends, anyone who feels like it. So everyone has the same status before the law. This is a purely legal thing, and just entails going to a registry office.

Then, anyone who wants to get married in the religious sense can attend a ceremony at the church of their choice. This is no longer legally binding, as that's been separated off in the step outlined above, it's simply a religious thing.

---

I've been arguing that this should be the case for years. Marriage as a civil and legal relationship should be handled by the state. Marriage as a holy union should be handled by the church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I've been arguing that this should be the case for years. Marriage as a civil and legal relationship should be handled by the state. Marriage as a holy union should be handled by the church.

---

Is this not already the case in the U.S.? :dizzy2:

Unfortunately, no. Marriage in the U.S. is entirely the province of the state. People choose to get married in churches, but the location has no legal significance. All of the actual, legal meaning of your marriage is determined by the state.

This can lead to interesting situations, especially for people whose religion is at variance with the state definition of marriage. Catholics who divorce and remarry, for example, are only rarely considered legitimate in the eyes of the Church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Marriage in the U.S. is entirely the province of the state.

---

That's what I thought all along. Thank heavens, I was starting to be afraid I had missed something essential.

So, what's wrong with this practice? What would your notion of 'holy union' add in the legal sphere? Do you want to give Churches marital jurisdiction or something?

Quote:

---

That's what I thought all along. Thank heavens, I was starting to be afraid I had missed something essential

---

I think he miss read you. All the legal functions of marriage are imdeed handled by the state. What the church has to say is meangless as far as the law goes. You dont even need a church to get married. Now I wonder what the age restrictions are on these. How about the number who can join the union? Since it isnt about procreation there shouldnt be any stipulation in it about joining relatives. Although I have no problem with it , im afraid it may lead us down the peverbeal slippery slope thats always talked about. It really is a totally seperate matter from marriage. Or at least it should be.

I'm in favour of this. I'm certainly not in favour of homosexual marriage, as that defeats the definition of marriage. It will however irritate me greatly if both camps KEEP going on about this.

Bout darn time. I hope this little idea will migrate to Texas. Keeps the churchy folks from crying about the sanctity of mariage. And it gives homosexual couples what they wanted. Still would like to see the day that it can be called a mariage and not a civil union.

And Don I'm shocked your 100% behind it.

In the USA, marriage is a dual institution. THere is the legal aspect: you're entering into a legal contract in the eyes of the state. You now have certain responsiblities and certain rights. At the same time, you have the eclesiastical marriage. This is what Americans typically call "The church wedding".

Now, when you get married, you sign a contract called a marriage license. YOu apply for it at your local town/city hall. If you're not planning on getting married in a religious ceremony, the local judge or other officer of the court administers the contract and voila, you're legally married.

If you want to get religiously married as well, the contract remains completed but not yet validated. You present it to your minister/priest/rabbi who becomes an unpaid employee of the state for about 2 minutes during the course of the relgious ceremony when he administers your state's particular vows. Then the minister/priest/rabbi signs the contract and poof you're legally married AND religiously married.

In all but name, civil unions mirror legal marriage almost perfectly. There is no difference in rights or responsbilities between being legally married only and entering a civil union.

Which has led me to question the motive of homosexual groups that refuse civil unions and want to hold out for full-fledged marriage. I believe, and have stated whenever it comes up, that the reason gay lobbyist groups have taken this stance is they want to use the institution of marriage to force religions to formally accept homosexuality across the board. Since they are now legally entitled to the sacrament of marriage, they can then claim that the minister/priest/rabbi is discriminating against them by not performing the service. This is why I'm in favor of civil unions. I think we should change legal marriage to a civil union for straight couples as well, and voila, problem solved. Marriage is a religious institution. It shouldn't be enshrined in law. That's what a civil union should do.

Quote:

---

In the USA, marriage is a dual institution. THere is the legal aspect: you're entering into a legal contract in the eyes of the state. You now have certain responsiblities and certain rights. At the same time, you have the eclesiastical marriage. This is what Americans typically call "The church wedding".

---

It can be a dual institution but its not always . Legaly only the state marriage is binding. Many an american never has a church wedding. The state doesnt need the church to conduct marriage ceremonies.

I'm pleased to hear the news and agree with the sentiment that this approach should spread. I'm dubious about how soon such an idea may take root here in Utah, though. We have a very strong conservative bent, and one that's not to welcoming to homosexuality. Regardless of how reasonable the approach is, I fear many would oppose it just for the sake of opposing anything that might improve the condition of homosexuals.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Bout darn time. I hope this little idea will migrate to Texas. Keeps the churchy folks from crying about the sanctity of mariage. And it gives homosexual couples what they wanted. Still would like to see the day that it can be called a mariage and not a civil union.

And Don I'm shocked your 100% behind it.

---

I agree, except I hope it is called marriage and I don't care much for this civil union talk.

Wait, we all agree ?

~:grouphug:

EDIT: so what were those endless debates about the issue we've had here about then ???

Quote:

---

EDIT: so what were those endless debates about the issue we've had here about then ???

---

I guess you missed the post before yours

Quote:

---

I agree, except I hope it is called marriage and I don't care much for this civil union talk.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I guess you missed the post before yours

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

I agree, except I hope it is called marriage and I don't care much for this civil union talk.

---

Honestly, I didn't quite get this post. I figured IrishAmermenian was just questioning what it should be called, which is really only a secondary issue, as long as there is technical or legal definition, people can call something what they want in every day use.

Or am I totally missing the point here ? :huh2:

Quote:

---

Or am I totally missing the point here ?

---

Totally.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Totally.:laugh4:

---

Hey I'm just a dumb foreigner. Need a cab ?

I really don´t get it either.....

this entire thing was about semantics??? what was all the arguing about then?

anyway...it´s a good thing it´s going forward....if they call it marriage, civil-union, bag-of-figs....whatever....it doesn´t change what it is.

I'd rather they call heterosexual unions Civil partnerships than vice versa. I don't want homosexual presure groups to have any leverage they can use to try and twist the arm of religious institutions. For one thing all those institutions are "locked in" to their beliefs and trying to force change against scripture just won't work.

The reason the C of E backs the Conservatives these days is because it has been shown that parishes with over-liberal bishops will just go and find a bishop in conservative Africa.

The American Episclocle (sp?) Church will almost certainly be ejected from the Anglican Union at the next Synod because they are flouting not just Dogma but the Bible by blessing homosexual unions.

So, in summery, I agree with Don.

It's not just semantics. By keeping the contract defined as a 'civil union' there is no presumption, legally, into the religious sphere of marriage. When the state allows homosexual marraige, those institutions (such as most Christian churches, orthodox synagogues and just about any mosque) that won't perform the service are considered in violation of the law. Trust me, there'd be a 14th ammendment equal protection class-action suit faster than you can say "Lambda".

By keeping the term 'Civil Union', you make it abundantly clear that it abides in the legal domain only (should a church CHOOSE to allow for gay marriage, such as the Episcopal church, they can, but those that don't are under no requirement to do so).

This is what I've tried to say all along, every time this issue comes up. I agree, if any further compromises are required, it's changing the term for a legal marriage (as opposed to a religiuos one) between straight couples to civil union as well.

This thread needs some dissention... and fast!

Those nasty queer-folk need to take their homo lovin, guy on guy.... ahh, I cant even be bothered.

Ya, sounds fine to me. Nice explanations Don, but I dont understand the turtle. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

It's not just semantics. By keeping the contract defined as a 'civil union' there is no presumption, legally, into the religious sphere of marriage. When the state allows homosexual marraige, those institutions (such as most Christian churches, orthodox synagogues and just about any mosque) that won't perform the service are considered in violation of the law. Trust me, there'd be a 14th ammendment equal protection class-action suit faster than you can say "Lambda".

By keeping the term 'Civil Union', you make it abundantly clear that it abides in the legal domain only (should a church CHOOSE to allow for gay marriage, such as the Episcopal church, they can, but those that don't are under no requirement to do so).

This is what I've tried to say all along, every time this issue comes up. I agree, if any further compromises are required, it's changing the term for a legal marriage (as opposed to a religiuos one) between straight couples to civil union as well.

---

but how could there ever be a concern for a law that would FORCE a church to allow a specific group?

certainly you couldn´t put in the law that a church HAD to marry gay ppl.....that´s just too insane....it wouldn´t happen.


:idea2: wait....we´re talking about america.........uhm....:dizzy2: maybe it would be a cause for concern...


over here the discussion was always should gays be allowed to marry (be it by state or church) it´s the civil tie itself that is discussed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

but how could there ever be a concern for a law that would FORCE a church to allow a specific group?

---

Slope. Slippery. It's an argument that I've only heard put forward by extremist radio shock jocks, such as Michael Savage.

And I know exactly what that turtle's about. Oh yeah. Hell yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

This is what I've tried to say all along, every time this issue comes up. I agree, if any further compromises are required, it's changing the term for a legal marriage (as opposed to a religiuos one) between straight couples to civil union as well.

---

Sure. We've separated state and church marriage (sorry...civil unions) ages ago, isn't the separation of church and state one of the pillars of (western) democracy ?

I honestly don't get what the big problem always was if we all agree on this (except perhaps IrishAmenian, but I'm not certain what he meant by his post). I distinctly remember some people here arguing that it was about health benefits and costs for companies and whatnot, and other people arguing that they had the same rights already, to marry someone of the opposite sex, so they shouldn't complain.

Now you're telling me this was all because of how it was worded ? :huh2: :huh2: :huh2:

Seriously, you (USians) should have been able to settle this long ago then...

I don't really care about the semantics of it myself, but I can see that it's a good solution for the reason Don mentioned.

Frankly, homosexual couples who'd actually go as far as court to get their union sanctioned by a church should consider changing their religion instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Ya, sounds fine to me. Nice explanations Don, but I dont understand the turtle. :inquisitive:

---

https://img249.imageshack.us/img249/2980/photoswu2.jpg

:inquisitive:

Why not call the government thing marriage? That's what it is. There's no religious ceremony involved in a common law marriage.

Quote:

---

but how could there ever be a concern for a law that would FORCE a church to allow a specific group?

---

People try to have laws forcing Catholic churches to provide for contraceptives in their insurance programs for employees. Others try to force them to let homosexuals use Catholic adoption agencies/abortions.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Which has led me to question the motive of homosexual groups that refuse civil unions and want to hold out for full-fledged marriage. I believe, and have stated whenever it comes up, that the reason gay lobbyist groups have taken this stance is they want to use the institution of marriage to force religions to formally accept homosexuality across the board. Since they are now legally entitled to the sacrament of marriage, they can then claim that the minister/priest/rabbi is discriminating against them by not performing the service.

---

There was a good south park parody on this in the episode called follow that egg in which the same problem was posed and the same answer came up except instead of calling it civil unions, everyone became but buddies.

What the episode said basically was that if civil unions and marriage was essentially the same things, why can't homosexual couples get married? It is not like there is anything different between the two so why are people still against have homosexual couples getting married? Is it just the word that the people like which allows them to support civil unions and not marriages?