# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/121 "2004-09-27T17:41:56Z")
What I’m saying is, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. In France (and I believe several other European countries), if what you want is a church wedding, you must go before the _préfet_ and contract a civil marriage, then go before the priest (or minister) and repeat your vows as made before God this time. We have the convenience in America of one-stop shopping – the clergyman is authorized to act as agent for the state in this one circumstance, and subject to the rules of his church as to whom he may and may not officiate at the marriage of. But he’s not an exclusive source – you may contract a civil marriage before a judge or justice of the peace and in various places before other magistrates, like mayors and town clerks. I’ve used the analogy before of having a sports shop sell fishing licenses as agent for the state, or even better, having a small town general store also serve as the post office, by contract between the storekeeper and the U.S.P.S. In each case, somebody whose primary line of work is doing something else is functioning as an agent for the state in one particular element of state activity. The minister can’t collect your fine for a speeding ticket, the bait shop owner cannot arrest you for trespassing, and the storekeeper/postmaster cannot order the National Guard into service in a natural disaster. They have specific tasks to perform which the state authorizes them to do as its agents for the public benefit. And just as the storekeeper cannot refuse you your mail because you drive into town to shop at the supermarket instead of patronizing his wares, the church is not privileged to say who may and may not marry generally, just whom it will permit to marry within its bounds of authority. **Tom~** may not divorce **~debb** and marry **Eva Luna** (picking examples from Dopers at random) within the Catholic Church, because remarriage after divorce in the absence of a declaration of nullity is forbidden. But he certainly could do it if he chose under the laws of the state. And if the Rev. Jerry Bob Pickett of the First Baptist Church (I first typed the “Frist Baptist Church” – which was an unfortunate pun!) does not want to marry Pete and Calvin to each other, that’s his privilege – but it should not affect what the state chooses to do as regards their marriage. And none of the above gives any grounds why the term “marriage,” which is meaningful to those who have chosen to marry, whether they are religious or not, needs to be removed from its normal civil meaning – except that somebody thinks it’s a cool idea to de-fuse the gay marriage issue by doing so. I’m married to my wife. I’m not civil unioned to her. **Scott** and **Jeremy Evil** are married to each other; they’re not civil unioned. (Do we have any Dopers with Vermont unions?) And I’m sick of the whole idea of trying to solve a problem with a pothole in the road by reinventing the wheel. ---
**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, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/122 "2004-09-27T17:51:25Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > What I’m saying is, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And what we’re saying is, it is broke. I think just about everyone agrees that it’s broke, inasmuch as SSC aren’t able to get the same legal rights as ASC; the discussion is around **how** to fix it. There’s legitimate room for disagreement on this issue; turning it into selfrighteous condemnations of folks who disagree with you on the best way to bring equality to the table is unhelpful. 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, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/123 "2004-09-27T18:03:20Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > **Scott** and **Jeremy Evil** are married to each other; they’re not civil unioned. Well, no they’re not. They’re engaged. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/124 "2004-09-27T18:08:32Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I first typed the “Frist Baptist Church” – which was an unfortunate pun! More unfortunate than you realize. Bill Frist is Presbyterian. ---
**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, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/125 "2004-09-27T19:48:31Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > We have the convenience in America of one-stop shopping – the clergyman is authorized to act as agent for the state in this one circumstance, and subject to the rules of his church as to whom he may and may not officiate at the marriage of. But he’s not an exclusive source – you may contract a civil marriage before a judge or justice of the peace and in various places before other magistrates, like mayors and town clerks. This is still unnecessary entanglement of the church and state. Consider this scenario. SSM is a legally valid marriage contract. Church A considers it an abomination and forbids their ministers to perform marriage ceremonies for SSCs. A rogue clergyman performs several SSMs before being found out by church authorities. Church authorities defrock said clergyman. What is the status of the marriages? How would it be determined? Clearly the church would say the marriage was void because the clergyman was working outside his scope of authorization. The civil paperwork was already filed and the marriage a done deal as far as the state was concerned. What are the grounds on which a court could settle this matter without intruding on internal church affairs? Can you see the problems inherant in this system? Can you see that this is not all that farfetched given that we already have people working outside the system to try to grant licenses to SSCs or performing marriages for SSCs? Would it not clearly offend the establishment clause if church authorities could nullify the civil portions of a marriage through their internal channels? [The Legal Marriage 101 website](http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/alternative_lifestyles/unacceptable_marriages_/marriage_101/index.shtml) says(emphasis mine) > [@](#): > > What if the license was obtained, but it was somehow defective, invalid or improperly obtained? The usual rule in these cases is that the marriage is still valid, but criminal sanctions may be applied for fraudulently obtaining a marriage license (although there are seldom any prosecutions for this offense). Likewise, failure to obtain a physical when one is required will not usually invalidate a marriage, and **a marriage performed by an unauthorized solemnizing person would likewise probably not invalidate the marriage unless the parties knew of this disability.** There may be caselaw to back this up, I’ve got a nagging memory of something but I could just be remembering an old Gilligan’s Island episode. In any event, my point stands. Grant religious figures state authority or impose requirement on religious authorities to ammend their rites to acknowledge state authority(power vested in my by the state of …) and you’ve got unnecessary and I would argue excessive, entanglement. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/126 "2004-09-27T19:59:40Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > This is still unnecessary entanglement of the church and state. Consider this scenario. SSM is a legally valid marriage contract. Church A considers it an abomination and forbids their ministers to perform marriage ceremonies for SSCs. A rogue clergyman performs several SSMs before being found out by church authorities. Church authorities defrock said clergyman. What is the status of the marriages? How would it be determined? Clearly the church would say the marriage was void because the clergyman was working outside his scope of authorization. The civil paperwork was already filed and the marriage a done deal as far as the state was concerned. What are the grounds on which a court could settle this matter without intruding on internal church affairs? Can you see the problems inherant in this system? Can you see that this is not all that farfetched given that we already have people working outside the system to try to grant licenses to SSCs or performing marriages for SSCs? Would it not clearly offend the establishment clause if church authorities could nullify the civil portions of a marriage through their internal channels? It’s a legal civil marriage; the officiant is recognised by the state as a legitimate witness (through whatever paper-filings are needful for that), and the civil paperwork is filed appropriately. The state has no legitimate interest in whether or not the officiant is in good standing with a particular religion; the state only has interest in the civil paperwork that makes the officiant a legitimate state officiant and establishes the contract. It’s not a marriage recognised by the religion in question. What’s the difficulty? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/127 "2004-09-27T20:08:38Z")
**Mtgman** , I got entangled in this same debate a couple months back here in the pit. (shudder) Here’s what I found out: > [@stpauler](#): > > I talked with a close friend during lunch. He’s a catholic. :eek: His father is a former priest in the state. The interesting thing that I did find out was that his father did have to become a justice of the peace while serving as a priest in order to make the marriages official in the state’s eyes. I was under the erroneous assumption that a priest was by default able to marry when in fact, they have to go through the same channels as any ordinary citizen to become a JotP… **Polycarp’s** calling it “one-stop shopping” could be a little misleading not knowing that the above is the case. A priest who is a JotP has no legal authority to issue illegal marriage licenses than any other JotP. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/128 "2004-09-27T20:10:40Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > This is still unnecessary entanglement of the church and state. … A rogue clergyman performs several SSMs before being found out by church authorities. Church authorities defrock said clergyman. What is the status of the marriages? There is no entanglement. There are 2 ceremonies occurring simultaneously _but separately_ in a typical church wedding; you’re mixing them up because they have the same name. If the civil marriage met all the \*legal \* requirements, then the couple is still \*legally \* married, just as if they’d had a judge do it instead of a “rogue clergyman” who was also deputized by the state, which again is the typical practice. The church can sanctify, or not, whatever it wants for whatever reason, and the state does not get involved. Consider the splinter Mormon sects that sanctify bigamistic marriages that the state never would. Consider conversely all the legally-divorced Catholic couples that the church still considers married. The legal marriage establishes legal rights. The church marriage establishes religious status. > [@](#): > > Can you see that this is not all that farfetched given that we already have people working outside the system to try to grant licenses to SSCs or performing marriages for SSCs? There are lots of couples, even straight ones, who are married in the eyes of their church but still have no legal standing in probate court. What’s the difference? > [@](#): > > Grant religious figures state authority or impose requirement on religious authorities to ammend their rites to acknowledge state authority(power vested in my by the state of …) and you’ve got unnecessary and I would argue excessive, entanglement. You’ve also caused newlywed couples excessive bother in making 2 trips to get it all done. It’s much cleaner to know _when_ you’re “really married”, isn’t it? Believe me, at my wedding, we certainly knew which certificate we signed in front of the priest went to the parish files and which one went to the town clerk. We also knew what “By the power invested in me by the State of Wherever” meant, and what the Biblical references in the Mass meant, and that they weren’t “entangled” with each other at all. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/129 "2004-09-27T20:13:50Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] > [@](#): > > 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. **Polycarp,** I have just scanned this thread so forgive me if this has been addressed. What do you mean by recognition of legal validity? Does NC recognize gay marriage? Didn’t Jimmy Cheek get into a lot of trouble for performing such? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/130 "2004-09-27T20:14:15Z")
Oh, here’s your difficulty: > [@](#): > > a marriage performed by an unauthorized solemnizing person would likewise probably not invalidate the marriage unless the parties knew of this disability. “Unauthorized” here means unauthorized\* by the state\*, not by the church. ---
**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, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/131 "2004-09-27T20:21:26Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > What I’m saying is, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I think it is at least injured, though, if so many people (not just here - the number of people who think that marriage is a purely religious institution and that therefore there is no SOCAS is absolutely baffling) either do not realize the separation or have such trouble grasping it\*. See **stpauler** ’s post for a more specific anecdote. \*“This is a Christian country with Christian principles etc.” becomes something of a moot point once the issuer learns that there is a difference between a wedding and a marriage - I just had to look it up again because I’m forever conflating the two. [Marriage](http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage&x=0&y=0) and [wedding](http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=wedding&x=0&y=0). The specific legal aspect of the one is the important part of the definition; the whole gender-specificity of language will be done away with before long;) ---
**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, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/132 "2004-09-27T21:17:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Oh, here’s your difficulty:“Unauthorized” here means unauthorized\* by the state\*, not by the church. This varies from state to state. Note the Texas statute I quoted above. Church authorization = state authoriztion in Texas. Apparently where **stpauler** is one must obtain seperate authorization in the form of a Justice of the Peace comission to be “authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony”. I’m not sure if Texas is unique in this formulation of the authority to solemnize a marriage, but I doubt it. Enjoy, Steven ---
**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, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/133 "2004-09-27T21:27:57Z")
Heh. Y’all inspired me to look at [North Carolina’s marriage laws](http://www.ncleg.net/statutes/generalstatutes/html/bychapter/chapter_51.html), and check out the gem that I’ve found: > [@](#): > > § 51-3. Want of capacity; void and voidable marriages. > All marriages between any two persons nearer of kin than > first cousins, or between double first cousins, or between a > male person under 16 years of age and any female, or between a > female person under 16 years of age and any male, or between > persons either of whom has a husband or wife living at the time > of such marriage, or between persons either of whom is at the > time physically impotent, or between persons either of whom is > at the time incapable of contracting from want of will or > understanding, shall be void. (emphasis added) Whaddya know? Marriage 'round these parts really IS for the issuance of offspring! Somehow, I’m guessing this section of law doesn’t see as much enforcement as an earlier section: > [@](#): > > § 51-1.2. Marriages between persons of the same gender not > valid. > Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or > performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the > same gender are not valid in North Carolina. (1995 (Reg. Sess., > 1996), c. 588, s. 1.) I have no idea how anyone can claim that the current system “ain’t broke.” In North Carolina, > [@](#): > > A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent > of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to > take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and > plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either: > (1) a. In the presence of an ordained minister > of any religious denomination, a minister > authorized by a church, or a magistrate; and > b. With the consequent declaration by the > minister or magistrate that the persons are > husband and wife; or > (2) In accordance with any mode of solemnization > recognized by any religious denomination, or > federally or State recognized Indian Nation or > Tribe. Note that the “magistrate” option is tucked away at the **end** of the list of options, all the rest of which are religious. Note that the marriage is “sufficient” if a religious figure is involved, that it doesn’t need to be a justice of the peace at all, from how I read it. Note that this is the context that frustrates me, and that this is the system that I think is broken beyond just its forbiddence of SSM, and this is the system that **Polycarp** is so stridently defending, except for the SSM bit. Daniel ---
**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, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/134 "2004-09-27T21:33:00Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Note that the marriage is “sufficient” if a religious figure is involved, that it doesn’t need to be a justice of the peace at all, from how I read it. Slight correction: although the marriage itself is lawful at that point, the religious figure is breaking the law if they haven’t made sure the license exists. I should’ve read the whole section before posting; that tidbit was later on, under 51-6. My apologies. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/135 "2004-09-27T21:52:51Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > This varies from state to state. Note the Texas statute I quoted above. Church authorization = state authoriztion in Texas. Apparently where **stpauler** is one must obtain seperate authorization in the form of a Justice of the Peace comission to be “authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony”. I’m not sure if Texas is unique in this formulation of the authority to solemnize a marriage, but I doubt it. > > Enjoy, > Steven Here’s a [website](http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/officiants_requirements/index.shtml) that gives a breakdown by state of what’s needed. Here’s Texas for instance: > [@](#): > > Ordained Christian ministers and priests; Jewish rabbis and persons who are officers of religious organizations and who are duly authorized by the organization to conduct marriage ceremonies may perform marriages. — Ministers must complete the marriage license and return it to the county clerk who issued it within 30 days after the marriage. — For questions see the county clerk. Whereas Minnesota, where I’m from and my friend’s ex-priest father: > [@](#): > > Any licensed or ordained minister of the gospel in regular communion with a religious society may perform marriages. — Ministers must file a copy of their credentials of ordination with the clerk of the district court of any county. — Ministers must give a marriage certificate to the bride and groom and also file a certificate with the clerk of the district court in the county which issued the marriage license. — For questions see the clerk of the district court. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/136 "2004-09-27T21:55:22Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Well, no they’re not. They’re engaged. 🙂 I was under the misapprehension that they’d had the ceremony already (and didn’t invite me :(). But that being the case, and since you rarely provide me with that good a straight line, I’ll respond with the old gag: **In what?** 😉 > [@trandallt](#): > > I have just scanned this thread so forgive me if this has been addressed. What do you mean by recognition of legal validity? Does NC recognize gay marriage? Didn’t Jimmy Cheek get into a lot of trouble for performing such? Well, yeah. My wife and I have a perfectly valid marriage, the ceremony instituting which was performed in New York State 29 years and change ago. It’s portable – North Carolina recognizes New York marriages. Jimmy Creech is from around here – he’s living in Chapel Hill, the last I heard – but the church where he got in trouble for performing a SSW was somewhere in the Midwest, not here. And no, gay marriages are illegal here – in fact, our church, which was performing extralegal hearing of vows from gay couples, has ceased that since it is now illegal for a clergyman to receive “marital” vows, even when the couple realizes there is no legal force behind them, from couples who cannot contract a legal marriage. (IMO, there’s a bit of SOCAS violation there, but that’s the law.) I was rather surprised to find that in Minnesota you needed to be a JP to solemnize a legally valid marriage – in most states, a legally recognized ordained clergyman can do so by virtue of his religious office alone (and there’s usually technical statutes on how to recognize a minister as such for this purpose without violating SOCAS). And **Lilairen** makes precisely the point I was going for. ---
**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, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/137 "2004-09-27T22:05:13Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > And no, gay marriages are illegal here – in fact, our church, which was performing extralegal hearing of vows from gay couples, has ceased that since it is now illegal for a clergyman to receive “marital” vows, even when the couple realizes there is no legal force behind them, from couples who cannot contract a legal marriage. (IMO, there’s a bit of SOCAS violation there, but that’s the law.) One hopes the next step will not be to prohibit playground marriages;) ---
**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, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/138 "2004-09-27T22:23:12Z")
> [@Lilairen](#): > > It’s a legal civil marriage; the officiant is recognised by the state as a legitimate witness (through whatever paper-filings are needful for that), and the civil paperwork is filed appropriately. The state has no legitimate interest in whether or not the officiant is in good standing with a particular religion; the state only has interest in the civil paperwork that makes the officiant a legitimate state officiant and establishes the contract. > > It’s not a marriage recognised by the religion in question. > > What’s the difficulty? Any caselaw to back that up? I’m not saying you’re wrong, and that would be my interpretation of the situation as well, but I’m not the controlling legal authority. Ministers which were defrocked(for whatever reason) who performed marriages and the validity of those marriages were later challenged(for whatever reason)? I found a couple hits looking for “defrocked marriage invalidate” on google, but only a couple hits regarding a couple who had not filed their paperwork correctly and the marriage was still considered valid, but that isn’t exactly binding. As far as I can tell, and the Legal Marriage 101 site backs this impression up, this is not a settled question. In a state where the religious authorization is considered the same as the civil authorization it would still seem to be a potential issue. The state has vested authority in the church and they can grant it, withhold it, or revoke it. This means some poor couple may get jerked around by the church even if they are legal as far as the state is concerned. Then we’re in a quandry as to the legal status of the marriage because it was a church authority which revoked authorization to perform the ceremony. “Well, you recognized him at the time, so it stands” “But we wouldn’t have recognized him if we knew what he was up to! We’re making his defrocking retroactive for five years past, as our bylaws allow” “We won’t let you do that.” “You can’t make rulings that force us to leave some guy frocked when we want him defrocked!” Blah, blah, blah. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/139 "2004-09-27T23:04:15Z")
**Poly** please know that you have a _lot_ of support out here. Especially remember this when individuals with bigoted bias seem to shout louder than everyone else. Love is a _good_ thing. Passing laws that foster loving relationships between consenting adults will make this world a better place. Why is there dissent then? Surely everyone wants a better world. Could it be that people who use the term “marriage” to cover their ‘sacred love’ have a hard time believing that your love is as sacred as theirs? Will they feel ‘sullied’ because someone who believes drastically differently from them gets to do the same thing as they do? No matter what legalisms or logic they try to cover it up with, I think the fact remains that those people want to put a class of people into a special category and deny them something that is otherwise universally enjoyed (or not enjoyed 😉 ) by everyone else. No matter how you explain it away, that is bigotry. There are numerous benefits to marriage, both social and legal. There is no reasonable reason to deny these benefits to a certain class of people. Hang in there. It will be a long, uphill battle, but we will win. We will win because it is right. ---
**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, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091/140 "2004-09-27T23:24:58Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I suspect she was referring to cats and dogs sleeping together. > Daniel Thanks. Indeed it was a joke that fell flat. (I have pictures of our old dog, Lassie, sleeping on the couch with my Buffy.) Never mind. :o [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-union-this/266091.md?page=6)