I want to expand on the question a bit. If government only concerns itself with civil unions, and churches only concern themselves with marriage, then people would be free to choose either one, or both. My assumption is that subsequently–
*Most people who object to gay marriage do so on religious grounds.
*Churches would soon begin sanctioning gay marriage.
*People, being free to choose which church to attend, would gravitate towards those that match their beliefs.
*The matter would then become one of religious preference.
*Govermnent, inasmuch as it concerns itself at all with the subject, would treat civil unions and marriages the same.
What say the Dopers? (Miller, please consider this a request for information/opinion, and not a challenge to your response. At betenoir’s request, I did not want to derail the thread.)
I say it is in essence the government taking its ball and going home. It is a slap in the face to gays and still sends the message that gay unions are still less worthy than straight marriages. The biggest problem, in my opinion, of the gay marriage issue is not the associated legal rights, although those are important, but that one of the strongest influences on social thinking is saying that gay marriages are less important and valuable than straight marriages. To change all marriages to civil unions so that the government won’t have to call gay people married will enshrine this inequality in a way that simply can’t be undone. That is unacceptable to me and I would rather wait the 5-10 years it takes for gay marriage to become legal.
I will admit that I am not gay so for these laws for the most part have no effect on me. Since it is the gay community that is most affected it should ultimately be their decision on how to proceed but I strongly think that it would be wrong to advocate the scenario in the OP.
If “civil unions” are only possible via government and one needs a religious element for “marriage”, I’d better tell my wife we are no longer married but merely civilly united. I suspect that her reply will be anything but civil.
Can I assume then that you believe that it should be the business of the government to sanction marrige? How does the law read concerning gay marriage in Cardiff?
Why would all marriages have to be changed to civil unions? Marriages would still be marriages. I do not see it as an end run around calling gay people married, but as an acknowledgement that it is not the business of the government to comment on marriage.
I would still call myself married, though I would legally be “civilly unioned.” And I would call gay couples “married” though they would be “civilly unioned.” I think most people would continue to use the word. The word would come to mean both things. That might not be a bad thing.
Yes, since I got married in a medieval hall with no religious element.
You can get married. That MP’s partner will have the same legal status as my wife. You might choose to call theirs, or mine, not a “marriage” but a “civil partnership”. Make whatever sounds, or shapes on a monitor, you like.
And to further clarify, it seems that the government are weaseling with the word “marriage”, saying that the precise timeline of actions somehow distinguishes the two. Still, it’s marriage if everyone calls it marriage and the legal status is the same as marriage, AFAIC.
There are two institutions of marriage. There’s a legal institution (let’s call this “legal marriage”) and a religious institution (let’s call this “religious marriage”). Each of these carry with it it’s own set of rights and responsibilities. The rights and responsibilities of a religious marriage are enforceable in court only as much as they overlap with the rights and responsibilities of a legal marriage.
It seems to me what you are proposing is to change the name of “legal marriage” to “civil union.” I don’t really have a problem with that (legal institutions change names from time to time), but I don’t really see the point either. Is this really what all the opposition to gay marriage is about - the name of the legal institution? I always thought it was about extending the rights and duties of legal marriage to gay couples.
Your cite refers to a ‘civil partnership.’ Is that what hetero marriages are called in Cardiff? Just so you understand, in the U.S. a major element of the controversy is what the unions are called by the government. Ownership of the term ‘mariage’ is extremely hot button.
So everyone will know where I am coming from–I am an unmarried atheist who would not care where he is married or what it is called. I strongly believe that gays should enjoy equal protection and equal entitlement under the law. I am just not convinced that marriage is the business of government
I am also a minister in the Universal Life Church and as such am empowered to marry people in my home state. Consider the irony of an atheist who is sanctioned as a minister by an internet based religion being able to perform a marriage ceremony that has full legal weight.
No, oddly, they are called “marriages”, pure and simple - the religious element or absence thereof doesn’t matter. I suspect that these new whatchamacallits will just be called “marriages” also, with the only people ever using the whatchamacallit being politicians and those who consider homosexuality a sin - ie. almost nobody.
What is special about marriages made without religous involvement made before the change that exempts them from the changes?
You seem to be assuming that all marriages currently have a religous component.
How is the government sanctioning civil unions any different than sanctioning marriages? If there are no differences between a marriage and a civil union why are you complicating things by adding two classes of marriage?
I agreed with Miller in that thread for the simple reason that, much as I’d like the gov’t to get out of the marriage business, if it actually did, too many Americans would view this as “gays taking marriage away from them”. It just ain’t gonna happen. I think it would create more of an uproar than if the SCOTUS ruled that SSM was mandated by the constitution.
As for the OP, it’s unlcear to me why you think “Churches would soon begin sanctioning gay marriage.” I don’t see why any Church which doesn’t already sanction gay marriage would be motivated to do so just because the gov’t was no longer in the marraige business. There is nothing stopping Churches from sanctioning SSM now, except the tenets of that particular Church.
My thinking was that most of the people who object to gay marriage do so on religious grounds. They would still be able to be married, so they would have nothing taken from them.
There is little point to it, since in most states those marriages are not recognized. Taking the government out of the business of recognizing marriages solves that problem.
I agree that religious marriage is a religious construct, but non-religious marriage is a non-religious construct. Marriage isn’t dependent on religion. I think every culture known has marriage. I could be wrong, but would welcome enlightenment.
I cannot comment on every culture known, but I strongly suspect that, at least initially, every form of marriage was performed under the aegis of religion, if only because religion is such a large aspect of primitive culture.
They don’t want the state calling their union the same thing that a gay union is called. Doesn’t matter how it gets that way.
No. The large Christian Churches make their own rules about marriage. If they portray homosexuality as a sin, they aren’t going to allow gays to marry. If they don’t portray it as a sin, they’ll recognize gay marriage now. Doesn’t matter what the government’s stance is.
Name one mainstream Christian denomination that would change it’s rules as you predict and tell us why it would do so.