# Civil Union This! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 26, 2004, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091 "2004-09-26T00:10:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/101 "2004-09-27T02:16:28Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Precisely my OP. **My** marriage is something important to me – I’d venture to guess that on the order of 99% of married Dopers would say likewise. I do not want to hear that “legally it ought to be a civil union, because marriage is a religious institution” Good thing I’ve not said that. **My** marriage is important to me. Emotionally it’s important because of the support of my loved ones; legally it’s important because of the bundle of rights it confers. My loved ones are the ones that make it a marriage; the government just makes it so our finances are combined on tax returns. People keep saying that what I’ve proposed is unrealistic, and then skewing what I’m saying to some bullshit “Just grin and bear it!” nonsense. So let me ask this: If what I proposed came to pass, would you be satisfied with it? Don’t answer right away. Imagine living in a world in which people set up their own marriages without either government approval or disapproval; in this world, people petition the government for a set of administrative rights. Is there something specific about this world that bothers you? If so, what? And please don’t answer with another question; please answer with something specific. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/102 "2004-09-27T02:21:15Z")
Also, since you’re the one who thinks we need to present our plan so as to appeal to those who don’t support same-sex marriage, it seems to me that any plan that takes the right to marriage away from everybody would be even _worse_, considering that the primary charge against us is that we’re “destroying the institution of marriage.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/103 "2004-09-27T02:29:05Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Also, since you’re the one who thinks we need to present our plan so as to appeal to those who don’t support same-sex marriage, it seems to me that any plan that takes the right to marriage away from everybody would be even _worse_, considering that the primary charge against us is that we’re “destroying the institution of marriage.” Huh? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/104 "2004-09-27T02:44:22Z")
Let’s try again, then: Since doing away with legal marriage would give lots and lots of ammunition to those who think we’re trying to destroy the institution of marriage, it is probably a bad tactic for winning hearts and minds. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/105 "2004-09-27T02:49:04Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Let’s try again, then: Since doing away with legal marriage would give lots and lots of ammunition to those who think we’re trying to destroy the institution of marriage, it is probably a bad tactic for winning hearts and minds. Perhaps. If it happened, would you be satisfied with the results? I’m not asking whether it’s worth trying for; I’m asking whether its success would be a good thing, from your perspective. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/106 "2004-09-27T02:53:40Z")
If what happened? Removing marriage for everybody and replacing it with civil unions? I would much rather marriage be _implemented_ for everyone, as you well know. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/107 "2004-09-27T02:55:31Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Perhaps. If it happened, would you be satisfied with the results? I’m not asking whether it’s worth trying for; I’m asking whether its success would be a good thing, from your perspective. > > Daniel If it happened, it would equalize the situation, which is preferable to the status quo. It will never happen, however, and if it did, the backlash would be 1000 times worse than any backlash against marriage integration could ever be. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/108 "2004-09-27T03:02:30Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > If what happened? Removing marriage for everybody and replacing it with civil unions? I would much rather marriage be _implemented_ for everyone, as you well know. I know you would **prefer** that. Would you consider the replacement of the word “marriage” with the phrase “civil unions”, and having the rights referred to by the latter phrase be available to all adult couples, satisfactory? It seems like a simple yes-or-no question to me. The only complicated part is the follow-up question: if it wouldn’t be satisfactory, what specifically would be wrong with it? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/109 "2004-09-27T03:04:04Z")
What’s wrong with what I propose? **Any two people can establish a domestic partnership, and they get a choice of names for same: marriage, civil union, domestic partnership (perhaps others).** Wouldn’t that satisfy everyone? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/110 "2004-09-27T03:08:16Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > What’s wrong with what I propose? > > **Any two people can establish a domestic partnership, and they get a choice of names for same: marriage, civil union, domestic partnership (perhaps others).** > > Wouldn’t that satisfy everyone? I’d be thrilled at that: as long as all three sets had identical rights attached to them, it’d be the perfect solution. I do think it’d be harder to achieve than anything else suggested, but it’d still rock. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/111 "2004-09-27T03:14:14Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > What’s wrong with what I propose? > > **Any two people can establish a domestic partnership, and they get a choice of names for same: marriage, civil union, domestic partnership (perhaps others).** > > Wouldn’t that satisfy everyone? I’d be perfectly fine with that. I don’t believe that will ever happen, because there are too many people opposed to the idea that I’d be calling my “domestic partnership” a “marriage,” or else this never would’ve been such a hot debate point in the first place. I’ve simply heard too many people tell me that homosexual marriages are an “insult” to heterosexual marriages to believe that there’s anything going on here other than homophobia. But hey. That proposal, if implemented, would completely float my boat. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/112 "2004-09-27T03:15:54Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > What’s wrong with what I propose? > > **Any two people can establish a domestic partnership, and they get a choice of names for same: marriage, civil union, domestic partnership (perhaps others).** > > Wouldn’t that satisfy everyone? Would the difference of name result in any sort of difference in rights conferred? If not, I would have no problem with it. I doubt you’d get such a response from those who, as **Sol** said, consider two gay people joined together to be an insult to their marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/113 "2004-09-27T03:20:36Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > That’s an excellent point, **matt**. > > At the moment, SSM is the great scary unknown. It hasn’t been done before here! Society will fall! Dogs and cats will sleep together! > \*. Hate to tell you, but this is already happening-and I have the pictures to prove it! Damn you, you evil homersexshuls!!! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/114 "2004-09-27T03:26:04Z")
Under my proposal, each partnership would get the exact same rights. The choice of names is there not only to satisfy those who wish to call their partnerships “marriage,” but also because certain partnerships would be explicitly _non-sexual_ in nature (since _any_ two people, related by blood or not, would be eligible). ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/115 "2004-09-27T03:47:50Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Hate to tell you, but this is already happening-and I have the pictures to prove it! > Damn you, you evil homersexshuls!!! > > 😛 Yes, but it’s only being implemented in one (two, if you count civil unions) relatively small state. The vast majority of the US population won’t ever even meet a married gay couple for years. So it’s still the Great Unknown. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/116 "2004-09-27T03:54:06Z")
I suspect she was referring to cats and dogs sleeping together. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/117 "2004-09-27T04:06:03Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Under my proposal, each partnership would get the exact same rights. > > The choice of names is there not only to satisfy those who wish to call their partnerships “marriage,” but also because certain partnerships would be explicitly _non-sexual_ in nature (since _any_ two people, related by blood or not, would be eligible). OK then. Where are you running for political office, so I can move there and vote you in? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/118 "2004-09-27T16:38:33Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I call out: > > [ul][li]Those who would convert all marriages to “civil unions” as a way to get out of an argument[/ul][/li]I am fortunate that my church and the state I live in recognize that what Barb and I said and meant to each other has religious and legal validity. > > Others are not. > > That needs fixing. > > But not by abolishing marriage in favor of “civil unions.” And not by legislating your own favorite definition to the detriment of others. Texas Family Code Chapter 2 > [@](#): > > § 2.202. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT > CEREMONY. (a) The following persons are authorized to conduct a > marriage[0] ceremony: > (1) a licensed or ordained Christian minister or > priest; > (2) a Jewish rabbi; > (3) a person who is an officer of a religious > organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a > marriage[0] ceremony; I’m not sure if I was implicated in the above list of people being called out, but I have expressed a preference for civil unions for all and marriage being given over to the churches because I’d rather not fight religious fanatics for the word. Acting on the assumption that I was included in the OP’s calling out, here’s my statement. Get the church out of the state or get the state out of the church. That’s all I care about. Now if this means civil unions for all(accept “marriage” as the province of the church and get the state out of it) or if it means get the church out of the state(no ministers performing legal ceremonies and define the word along the secular, gender-blind rules the state operates by) I don’t care. But one of the two needs to happen. Absent a theocracy(which I realize would be some people’s preferred solution) Church and State are not compatible. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/119 "2004-09-27T16:40:14Z")
New Improved version with WORKING LINK! > [@Polycarp](#): > > I call out: > > [ul][li]Those who would convert all marriages to “civil unions” as a way to get out of an argument[/ul][/li]I am fortunate that my church and the state I live in recognize that what Barb and I said and meant to each other has religious and legal validity. > > Others are not. > > That needs fixing. > > But not by abolishing marriage in favor of “civil unions.” And not by legislating your own favorite definition to the detriment of others. [Texas Family Code Chapter 2](http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=VPIMIDNFXPKQ&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=124096&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=28&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES) > [@](#): > > § 2.202. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT > CEREMONY. (a) The following persons are authorized to conduct a > marriage[0] ceremony: > (1) a licensed or ordained Christian minister or > priest; > (2) a Jewish rabbi; > (3) a person who is an officer of a religious > organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a > marriage[0] ceremony; I’m not sure if I was implicated in the above list of people being called out, but I have expressed a preference for civil unions for all and marriage being given over to the churches because I’d rather not fight religious fanatics for the word. Acting on the assumption that I was included in the OP’s calling out, here’s my statement. Get the church out of the state or get the state out of the church. That’s all I care about. Now if this means civil unions for all(accept “marriage” as the province of the church and get the state out of it) or if it means get the church out of the state(no ministers performing legal ceremonies and define the word along the secular, gender-blind rules the state operates by) I don’t care. But one of the two needs to happen. Absent a theocracy(which I realize would be some people’s preferred solution) Church and State are not compatible. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/120 "2004-09-27T17:14:42Z")
Of the two options, I would prefer the latter, which is what they have in Belgium. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091.md?page=7)