The critical difference is that “civil union” doesn’t use the word “marriage”. (There are also matters of portability that relate to marriage and not necessarily to other formulations.)
The word “marriage” is one that has intrinsic value. (If this were not the case, there would not be so much enthusiastic bickering over its ownership.) It is the term for a recognised, real relationship contracted according to the principles of the society. (There is a significant amount of cultural subtext that leaves a lot of people with the imprinted belief that a relationship that does not end in marriage is not a “real” relationship. I have even seen this used as an argument against gay marriage, and the promoters of the argument didn’t seem to notice that it was circular: “There’s no reason that gays should be allowed to get married.” “Why not?” “Because they don’t have a real relationship.” “Why do you say that?” “They’re not married.”)
Basically, the concept of “civil union” was created so that gay couples could have access to the legal rights (which are harder to justify denying under equality-before-the-law principles) without having access to the word that carries the weight of genuine relationship. Because such things as societal cohesion and continuity of ritual are difficult to quantify in legal terms, it’s difficult to frame the difference in legal discourse.
Thanks to those who tried to explain it…
but still it does not answer my quesiton.
Maybe I can’t make the question clear. Maybe I can do it with an example of other an Western law system. I have family from mother’s side in a few EU nations but since I’m the most familiar with Belgium and its laws I shall give you the case of what “marriage” means there. (I think the same counts for most - if not all - of the nations in the EU anyway).
Since the French Revolution Belgian Law knew two different marriages: Civil and Church marriage. Civil law regulating the civil marriage, Church Law the Church marriage.
Nowadays the Belgian Law does not give any significance anymore at the Curch marriage. Yet the Constitution (art. 21) and the Criminal Law Code (art. 267) stipulates that Civil Marriage always needs to precede a Church Marriage. (This now counts for every religious ceromy declaring persons married under the particular religious law).
So you can not be married under religious law only, yet you can be married under Civil law and after this decide to also get married under religious law, the latter having no significance under the Belgian juridical system but only counting for your religious juridical system. Which has absolutely no impact or influence on the legality of your Civil Marriage at all. If you have no Civil Marriage, you are not married for the Belgian Law.
I’m not informed on the regulations about civil unions, but in any case it is something entirely different then marriage. That is why the decision to permit people of the same gender to have a Civil Marriage received so much applaud from the persons involved.
Now back to my question:
Since Civil Marriage in the US can not be the same as “religious” marriage since it is a secular nation under secular laws, then why do people opposing marriage for homosexuals hijack this word that much as if religious marriage is in the US the same as civil marriage.
I don’t think the same gender couples explicitely demand to be able to also get married under religious law, no? So where is all the religious based commotion surrounding this issue coming from and where do these religous people find in the US secular laws any legal foundation that supports their argument?
I found out after 8 years of marriage that my wife is gay. With her strong baptist upbringing, she fought it her whole life and finally couldn’t anymore. My life has been seriously impacted and our kids will experience difficulty as well with the aftermath. There are many, many gay people who are in straight marriages because they couldn’t be who they are and it robs not only them but their spouse as well.
Gay people exist…for whatever reason. Therefore, it is important that people allow them to live as they are and legal marriage is an important step in making them more acceptable as they are.
Many people mistakenly think of the gay people in our country as a single, close-knit group and the reality isn’t so. Those are just the ones you hear more from. That are probably as many or more that are hidden away and that fact is harmful to them as well as those that they are decieving.
Being incredibly close to a gay person’s struggle will change the way you look at it. I guarantee it.
I think that is a good enough reason…but I am very biased
What about the “marraige penalty” conservatives are always harping on about? (In some cases, married folk have a higher tax burden than they would if they filed separately.) More married people -> more married couples falling under the marraige penalty -> more money in the gov’t coffers, without having to raise taxes! Hurray!
While the US’s foundation invokes a separation of church and state, the population as a whole is in no way “secular”. Witness the large fights about what to do about religious influences in many civic institutions, such as fights over the Ten Commandments displays (“I am the Lord thy God” doesn’t strike me as secular.) and references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The argument about what to call these unions is wholely in the minds (hearts?) of the population. Most Americans consider homosexual relations to be sinful, and recognizing those as marriages, in their minds, tears down the whole institution of marriage. To them, it’s the homosexuals and supporters who are hijacking the term. They feel that God created the institution of marriage to be one man and one woman. While others might argue that point, keep in mind the words of former Texas Governor Miriam ‘Ma’ Ferguson: “If English was good enough for Jesus Christ then it’s good enough for the children of Texas.” Folks feel they know what God wants, facts be damned.
Aldebaran, we do have the idea of civil marriage firmly in place, and the separation of church and state (SOCAS) is meaningful to the majority of the population, though some of the minority are quite vocal about it.
But what we have is a sort of “one-stop shopping” arrangement where both civil officials and clergypersons are authorized to solemnize a marriage and witness vows in a capacity that satisfies both the civil requirements and, for the religious folk, whatever their church may deem essential or appropriate.
In other words, if you’re a Catholic or Calvinist Frenchman or Belgian, you need to have two separate weddings – one to satisfy the state and one to make the marriage valid in the eyes of the church. Here, we permit it to be done with a single ceremony that meets both standards – and allow equally valid civil weddings for those who do not believe in a religious marriage.
The problem is that, having done this, the meaning of the two separate concepts – the civil contract or covenant, and the religious covenant – becomes intertwined in the minds of many of those who hold to religious beliefs, so that what violates their idea of what a proper marriage under their religion becomes also something to be opposed on a civil ground as well. The fact that many of these people do not see SOCAS as valid adds fuel to the flame.
As a Christian myself, I see marriage as something more than a civil contract – but as a liberal Christian, I don’t see it as being confined to the one man/one woman traditional standard. So I’m in an extreme minority – one that sees gay marriage as a right to be recognized, but one that sees marriage as religiously important and also not to be refused them if that’s what they want.
How about if we re-phrased the question so that it is about religious freedom. Why should the state prohibit churches from making decisions on who they can marry? Marriage is a sacred institution and the state has no more right getting involved in it than they would on deciding who can receive communion.
The state doesn’t prevent churches/synagogues/etc. from recognizing SSM. There are a good number of congregations that already do, albeit far in the minority. The argument is about having the government grant the civil rights that people get from being in a state-recognized marriage, and exactly how to phrase the legislation if homosexual unions are granted some subset of those civil rights.
That is where I was going. Rather than saying we should remove the religious aspect of marriage, we could say we are removing the secular aspect of marriage; i.e., churches define what marriage is and the state is just involved with the civil aspect of taxes, etc.
Yes. What I am getting at, in my circuitous fashion, is that a case can be made from a pro-religious freedom standpoint rather than an anti-religion standpoint. Specifically, having the state decide who is eligible for the sacred institution of marriage is an intrusion into matters that are best left to the churches. So, rather than fight the idea that marriage is a “sacred institution”, embrace it and say that “you’re right, the state has no business restricting who can be married and under what circumstances”. Cede “marriage” to the churches and institute a civil union that must be done by a couple to get the civil aspects, such as tax breaks, of what we now call marriage.
A reasonable goal, but the point I am trying to make is that about 40% of the US falls somewhere between, “What you suggest is nothing less than a secular-humanist attempt attempt to turn the US towards Satan!”, “Slippery slope! Soon you’ll have us legalize bigamy and bestiality!”, and “Lalalanothearingyoucan’thearlalalalala!”
All of which is beside the point; the OP is asking how SSM will benefit heterosexuals.
My thought was that they would benefit from having the government stay out of what is a religious issue.
Imagine if a Moslem and a Jew wanted to be married by a catholic priest and he refused. Under the current system, could they sue for religious discrimination? After all, the priest is serving as an agent of the state.
The Moslem and Jew have a right to be married; they do not have a right to be married by a specific individual. Those people who are performing religious marriages are doing so according to the strictures of their religion, and do not have to perform marriages for people who are not qualified according to those strictures; those people can go to officiants of other religions or a secular party, and are thus not denied access to marriage.
And I, who have a religious position (yes, I mean that) that marriage is a civil contract, not a religious ceremony, also have the right to be married, and not to have to participate in someone else’s religious ceremony in order to have a marriage. I am married, and according to the rites that are appropriate to my religion – the officiation of a Justice of the Peace and the registry of the marriage certificate at City Hall.
Marriage is neither an invention of religion nor the sole property of those people who subscribe to religions which consider it a religious ritual. The fact that some religions have additional aspects and the United States has what Polycarp calls one-stop shopping does not change that.
I don’t think anybody is saying the a religious marriage would not be possible anymore.
What I don’t get is why religious people insist that the word they use for that religious union can not be used for the non-religious union under civil law.
If you insist that you have the exclusive right to used the word “marriage” solely meaning the religious marriage, then you deny the right of non religious people the use of that same word to describe their marriage under civil law.
I’m sorry, but if that is where this whole debate about “maariage” originates, I must say that a child of Kindergarden age has more ability to logical reasoning then all these religious people together.
And yes, I too have to ask: Are all the couples in the USA who did not get a religious marriage then not married?
I must say that I find the regulation where a religious cleric can also perform civil law required administration for a marriage is asking for trouble and misundersandings.
So if I want a civil marriage in the USA, I can go to no matter which religious cleric and ask to be married by him under civil law or what?
And someone who goes to a civil law authority can ask him to perform also the religious ritual?
You can ask any cleric; but he doesn’t have to perform the ceremony is he doesn’t want to. Anyone can get a judge or Justice of the Peace to perform the civil ceremony; but not the religious one. In some jurisdictions, a mayor can also perform the civil ceremony, which is nothing more than signing the papers. Let me try to make it more clear for you.
As far as the government is concerned, there is only one kind of “marriage” and that’s the civil kind. To get a civil marriage requires a marriage license (there are also common-law marriages in some jurisdictions; but that a whole 'nuther ball of wax). That license has to be signed by the parties marrying, a witness (or two) and a designated official. The designated official can be a judge, Justice of the Peace, mayor, etc. Religious leaders have also been designated as an official allowed to sign the license.
Churches have their own requirements for what constitutes a “religious” marriage. A couple getting married in the church have their religious ceremony, but to be offically married in the eyes of the state, they must have obtained the marriage license. The cleric is performing the religious marriage in the ceremony. After the ceremony, he then performs the civil duty by signing the license and submitting it to the government.
