Oh, sorry. I didn’t know that was disallowed!
Why am i not surprised? Neither that you would do so, or feel the need to say so.
But do you have any actual data to support this? What I see is:
Some portion of the population who are dead-set against the idea of homosexuals having any sort of legal and social recognition of their committed relationships. This segment of the population fortunately seems to be declining, if not as quickly as we might like.
Some portion of the population who are okay with some sort of separate but allegedly equal solution: “marriage” for straights, “civil unions” for gays. It’s probably true that in some jurisdictions these voters could tip the balance between a narrow-defeat for “same-sex marriage” and a victory for “separate-but-equal civil unions”. (Whether, in terms of political tactics, same-sex marriage supporters should accept these various half-a-loaf, a couple of slices of bread, the whole loaf except for the heel notions of “domestic partnerships” and “civil unions” and so on while still working for full-fledged equality I couldn’t say.) I will note that this is not what you are advocating here.
On the Internet, I see fairly vocal support for various notions of “let’s just get the government out of the marriage business altogether” or “let’s just rename them all civil unions”. I’ve never really encountered this idea much outside of places like Internet message boards and maybe meetings of atheist societies or college dorm-room bull sessions. I would really like to see some sort of data to back this idea that this would be more palatable to people generally than SSM, let alone “separate but equal” marriage for most/civil unions for the minority schemes. “Marriage” tends to be a pretty emotional topic for most people, and while it may be true that changing everyone’s “marriages” into “civil unions” would be a purely semantic change, all of this is purely semantic, except maybe for the diehard minority who still pine for the days of sodomy laws. You will not overcome people’s reluctance to accept purely semantic equality between them and gays by forcing them to accept a purely semantic change in an area of their life of enormous personal and emotional significance.
One serious problem with substituting “civil union” for “marriage” in law is that we have over a thousand years of common law and over two hundred years of statutes and case law that employ the word marriage. It sounds nice to say that we can just write a law to substitute one for the other, but the reality–as anyone involved with the Law can attest–is that such a substitution would open the courts to a hundred years of wrangling over whether the law or court decision that originally employed the word “marriage” was really applicable to some new situation. That is not how we have ever legislated or adjudicated any of our laws and I have no belief that we would miraculously do it under the proposed conditions.
And I would like to see some data that supports your position that people would fffffreak out if their marriage was, for the purposes of law, renamed a civil union.
But, of course, we can beg to differ. But i’d just point out that terms like “Divorce” are routinely bandied around by the public, when in fact in some jurisdictions they’ve been renamed to “marital dissolution”. It doesn’t change the quality of what has just occurred to the people themselves, but it’s a close example of a change in the semantics of a transaction that has enormous personal and emotional significance where the semantic change hasn’t impacted anything else to these people.
As to why this is, according to you, a fringe viewpoint, I have no clue. And I would need a cite.
It would absolutely not create any wrangling whatsoever if worded properly. I’m involved with the Law and I will attest to this.
Besides, most laws involving domestic relations are codified with modern statutes. I would really like to see a family law practitioner case cite something from 1913.
Your second sentence is contradicted by your first. 
It is the “properly worded” stumbling block that would prevent your solution from working.
Untrue. but go on thinking you have a point.
When you get through with that chip on your shoulder, we could use it for our Yule log. 
But there are, as has been unfortunately amply demonstrated by referenda in several states, many people who seem to care all too much whether other people’s unions are called a marriage or a civil union. It stands to reason that these people either see the choice of terminology as being important for some reason, or that they just want to use terminology to discriminate against gays. In either case, they are opposed to your proposal. So, if your proposal is only supported by a subset of the people would vote for full marriage equality, why not just pass full marriage equality?
Maybe I’m missing something, as I’ve never really quite “gotten” the arguments against using the word marriage for everyone, and certainly people are capable of holding opinions that contradict each other, but I can’t see how your plan gains any votes for equality. It’s a compromise that looks neat on paper, but couldn’t be achieved unless you can just go ahead and win outright.
Neither of us has any cites for the popularity or unpopularity of “Let’s just do away with the word ‘marriage’ altogether!” because such a thing is never even proposed outside of Internet message boards.
Logically speaking, some pretty large chunk of the population seems generally supportive of equal rights for gays but resistant to calling those equal rights “marriage” on some sort of emotional/semantic “But marriage is special” grounds, and it seems sort of improbable that making an even more sweeping semantic change to the “special” status of marriage would somehow make these people happy.
But, hey, knock yourself out–commission Gallup or someone to do a poll and you can see if the idea will fly or not.
Something that has always bothered me about the ‘you can have civil unions with all the rights of marriage, but you can’t be married’ position is that it makes absolutely no sense as a language issue.
Call me crazy, but no couple is going to send out civil-union-ceremony invitations; they’re going to send out wedding invitations. They, and pretty much everyone else, are going to call the couple married. And there’s absolutely nothing the language police can do about it. Hell, they do that even without legal recognition.
Civil-unions-with-all-the-rights-of-marriages seem to be either pandering to the homophobes or trying to trick gay couples into accepting a lesser civil-unions-with-some-of-the-rights-of-marriages. And I see no reason for the gay community to accept it as anything but stepping stone at best.
Well put. Why is it that same-sex marriage advocates are the ones accused of wanting to destroy the institution of marriage, when it’s our opponents who are proposing doing away with the entire thing rather than letting us in?
Excellent idea. Abolish all special privileges for ‘married’ status, as indeed many have been, and if people want ‘marriage’ leave it as a private affair between them and their lawyer or religious organisation with no State recognition.
It’s only because you’re forcing their hand, of course.
That’s fine in theory, but a non-satarter as a real implementable public poicy position. The best and fairest solution is also the easiest, just let same sex couples get married. The inmsitution already exists, there is a long documented history of law governing marriage, there is no reason other than discrimination to disallow it. The so-called sacred-ness of marriage does not support not allowing it by the state, and historical ideas about what marriage are also do not constitute a reason to disallow it. Bigotry and discrimination are reasons…very bad and backwards reasons.
Why?
What is the point of eliminating a specific legal situation that already exists in every society–regardless whether or not there is a religious association with the act? What does elimination do (besides creating a market for more lawyers to need to be involved in more people’s lives)?
Currently, the single act of marriage provides the mechanism for inheritance, assumption of debt, limited power of attorney, an agent to provide permission for medical emergency procedure, responsibility for child rearing, and a host of other actions without requiring the involvement of a lawyer or contracts. Abolishing that serves no useful purpose other than to require hundreds of millions of people to engage lawyers to approve contracts to replace that function. There are far more responsibilities than privileges associated with marriage and society currently provides them in a way that is easily understood by virtually all participants with a single registry at a single government entity, backed up by established law. Eliminating that is a lot of trouble with no benefit to society.
Does your involvement with the law prepare you for an interracial couple being denied a marriage license in 2009? The “wrangling” you dismiss need not be some major battle among legislators, but just small-minded bureaucrats who see a chance to follow the letter of the law when it matches their bigotry: “I’m sorry, but paragraph six, section 2, subsection C says that benefit extends solely to the person ‘married’ to the policyholder, not ‘civil unioned’. I’m afraid my hands are tied and there’s nothing I can do for you, you filthy faggo-, err, sir.”
Yeah. Neither side would want that. Then people would complain about that, and gays for doing away with it altogether anyway.
(not that the gays would be the ones ‘doing it’, but the blame would be there)