We COMPLETELY ban marriage in America?
Everyone just go to having civil unions or better yet just live together and get rid of the whole marriage idea completely 
That would really lower the divorce rate . . .
That’s ONE advantage. Might open up the courts for more “pressing” problems. Like murder etc.
And what would be the difference between what is now marriage, and what would be a civil union? Apart from applying it to gay relationships.
Also, would there be any way to distinguish between those who lived together on a platonic basis (like roommates of the same sex now), and those who lived together in your sense? Could anyone who lived in the same house inherit from anyone else? Would you need a divorce before moving out?
Who would be considered the next of kin - a platonic roommate, or a parent? What if it could not be determined whether or not roommates had had sex with each other?
Regards,
Shodan
I’m a pretty hardcore conservative, but I think that wouldn’t be that bad of an idea. Not banning marriage completely, but getting rid of government’s involvement in the whole thing. We could still have “marriage”, but it would be strictly a religious union, not a civil one. Religion A can only have marriages between a man and a woman if that’s what they want, while Religion B recognizes marriages between a man and a monkey, and so on. I think it would be a great idea, after all, why should someone who is married get any additional benefits (such as health insurance through their spouse, lower auto insurance rates, etc. ) than someone who is not married? This solution would seem to satisfy everyone: people who want to keep marriage between a man and a woman, fine, join the church of your choice that only accepts those. If you want a homosexual marriage, fine, go to a church that accepts those. No problem, no one gets hurt.
would there be any way to distinguish between those who lived together on a platonic basis (like roommates of the same sex now), and those who lived together in your sense?
If you want to change your name then the only thing you have to do is go to the courthouse and apply for one. This would solve at least THAT problem
Could anyone who lived in the same house inherit from anyone else? That’s what wills are for.
What if it could not be determined whether or not roommates had had sex with each other? Where did sex come into this?
I’ve proposed something similar to this, although I wouldn’t ban marriage so much as get the government out of the marriage business. Churches, synagogues, philosophers, and random wild-eyed guys on the street would still be free to wave their hands about and proclaim a marriage; it’s just the government would no longer concern itself with such proclamations.
The differences would be not only that gay people could get married, but also that siblings, parents and kids, best friends, etc. could enter into a civil union and gain the parcel of goverment rights that are currently very difficult to get unless you’re married. Obviously, laws about sex would have to be completely separated from civil union laws, and civil unions could only be attained by two competent adults.
All these questions would be resolved by asking another question: did the people in question obtain a civil union? If yes, then you’d resolve them in the same way you’d resolve them if the folks were currently married; if not, then you’d resolve them the same way you’d resolve them if the folks were currently not married. Very simple.
Daniel
Actually, my mother was pushing this stance on me just this weekend. She thinks that married people are given special treatment by the state that is unfair to people who aren’t married. (BTW she’s not gay, she is divorced.) I was arguing against the proposed amendment, and she put forth the idea that marriage should be a non-issue to the state. I almost have to agree. It makes sense on many levels. Just because I’m unwilling to say “I promise to wash your socks forever” to some schmuck or to parade my cleavage on national television to win an engagement to “the Bachelor” shouldn’t doom me to a life that lacks the priveleges that married people enjoy.
:rolleyes: Sex laws are ALREADY completely different than marriage laws and are already in place so there would be NO WAY that siblings, parents or interspecies Unions could take place. Let’s get a grip on reality here and stay in the here and now. 
Why did you put ‘pressing’ in quotation marks? Is it a joke? Do you murder people by pressing them really hard? Or do you have disdain for the idea of pressing issues? Have you read this thread?
DaLovin’ Dj
What the heck are you talking about here? I think you massively misunderstood what I was saying.
The only compelling interest a state has in this matter is recognizing that humans often like to pair up and handle their lives together. The fact that this is often accompanied by a sexual or emotional relationship is no concern at all to the state. As such, the state should be willing to grant civil unions to siblings, to best friends, to parent and child (assuming the child is old enough to enter into a contract), etc.
Laws about sex – such as laws against incest – should be handled separately. That’s all I was saying. Currently, you’re absolutely wrong that sex laws are already completely different from marriage laws; there’s a lot of overlap currently.
Daniel
No I don’t murder people by pressing really hard lol. I used the quotation marks because some people think their divorces are much more important than traffic tickets or murder trials. I believe that there are MANY more divorces than murders so removing the divorce factor would open the courts to more important things.
Cite? 
And how is that different from things as they are now, since any two people can change their names, make a will in someone else’s favor, and either have sex or not as they like. So we haven’t really gained much from your proposal.
Left Hand of Dorkness - I would like to respond to your post a little more seriously than I did the above, but I don’t have time right now to read it carefully. What I would really like is a detailed description of the distinction between marriage and civil union, and especially the basis of any limitations the State could put on it. If you care to take the trouble.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, the proposal I’ve outlined in another thread is this:
- Immediately start issuing “civil union licenses.” These licenses are available to any two adults that jointly request such a license, and in all other ways confer exactly the same set of rights and responsibilities as those granted by a marriage license.
- In twelve months, stop issuing marriage licenses. (These twelve months give folks who are currently planning on getting married a chance to get the word “marriage” on their piece of gubmint paper)
- Grandfather in all existing marriages, such that all existing marriages are treated as also being civil unions for all laws.
What I’ve not outlined is a procedure for enacting this plan; I don’t know whether it’d best be done on a state or a federal level, or anything like that. I propose it more as something for us Internet junkies to discuss, and ideally for legislators to chew on.
Daniel
I’m confused by the difference you seem to make between the word “marriage” and “civil union”.
Can someone explain what exactly the difference is between both?
Salaam. A
Sure. Marriage is a word fraught with multiple conflicting definitions, many of which have strong traditional and/or religious meanings. The government, by dint of being in the marriage business, has to choose one of these definitions, and necessarily gives short shrift to the other definitions. Currently, it’s choosing the definition that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and is giving short shrift to the definition that marriage is between two adults that love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Some folks are proposing flipping that situation.
Civil union is a dry phrase devoid of religious, cultural, or political entanglements. People don’t really have a strong concept of what a civil union should be, outside of the bundle of rights the government grants from it; as such, the government could define it pretty much however it wanted to, and could define it in a much more efficient fashion, not having to deal with religious, traditional, etc. connotations and emotional baggage. It’d be less like getting a Baptismal license and more like getting a conditional use permit or driver’s license.
Obviously, this is a biased explanation of the differences between the words; just as obviously, I can’t give an exact explanation, since the words themselves don’t have exact definitions. For my purposes, a civil union would consist of nothing except the legal rights and responsibilities currently granted by a marriage license; marriage would then consist of whatever two or more individuals wanted it to consist of.
Daniel
A marriage here in the US allows for certain benefits such as tax filing status, allows for ones partner to be eligible for medical coverage from one’s work and other things such as protection of those involved if the couple splits. Benefits are currently recognized by the government.
What a civil union would be, would basically allow for the sharing of resources within a couple and be recognized by the government, without any religious ties. Therefore, it would allow all of the benefits of marriage and not piss off the religious ones.
If I understand it well, there is for the moment no such thing as a legal “civil union” in the US.
So what I consider to be a “civil marriage” = being married but without also being married in the rites of a religion is what you call “marriage”.
What is then the legal difference in the USA between this marriage and being married also following the rites of a religion?
Other quesiton: Can you be married legally when only following the rites of a religion?
Thank you for explaining this further.
Salaam. A
What we “gain” from this proposal are as follows :
-
No more clogging up the judicial arena with divorces which IKFE can take YEARS and THOUSANDS of dollars to resolve. Saves space better left for more important things judicially.
-
Remove the religious zealots from other peoples bedrooms.
-
It would give numerous persons the ability to care for their beloved without regard to the gender of said beloved.
I know there are a number of things to be gained from it but I can’t think of them right off. Kids are driving me nuts right now