Let's just call them all civil unions. If you want to get married, go to a church.

Maybe, it’s an over simplification, but I can’t see how anybody on either side could make a rational debate against it.

So, preclude ‘married’ from the government’s vernacular. From now on let’s call them all CUs. CUs would still provide all the same benefits marriage currently does.

If you want to get married, as in, the ‘eyes of god’, go to a church. And if the said church doesn’t want to marry you because ‘gay’ makes baby Jesus cry, the government should should be hands off.

It should be known that if you do get married in a church, the government does not automatically recognize you as a CU. You still need to go to a court house to do that.

I think, this way, conservative Christians couldn’t whine: “You can’t redefine marriage. Only god can.”

There are a bunch of people that have thought of this before including me. People still manage to get pissed off about it for reason. I don’t know why. It makes perfect sense to me.

How many billions of dollars would it cost to rewrite all of our laws and forms to say “Civil Union” instead of “Marriage?” How is that better than just telling the religious holdouts out to get over themselves?

I used to espouse the same idea, but it’s just not politically feasible, especially when there’s a much, much simpler solution on the table.

Yep. Hell, a lot of countries do it this way routinely. You go to some kind of government office for the legal portion, then have the “real” wedding at the church (if you like).

So, you think the solution to marriage discrimination against gays is to replace it with marriage discrimination against atheists?

How is there any discrimination here at all? Atheists and gays get a civil union. If religious people want a church-sanctioned marriage, then they get a civil union and go to a church. Seems like the perfect solution to me.

Atheist here: I have no affinity for the word marriage. That word means nothing to me. As long as I can get my government benefits; I’m good.

Probably not much…I imagine you could have a single bill that says that any references to marriage in previous laws will be treated in the future as if they were civil unions. But I’m not a lawyer.

Fine with me. Government shouldn’t have been in the marriage business in the first place.

But some folks aren’t just against the use of the word “marriage”. They also don’t want gays to get the benefits that come along with marriage. You need to fix that problem first before any of the naming matters.

I support this 1000% as long as it’s the religious people who have to come up with a new name. The concept of “marriage” is universally understood. It does not mean a Christian virgin man and Christian virgin woman coming together to create a family. Let the religious people call their marriages “god unions” instead.

Intellectually, I got no problems with civil unions being the legally protected term and if you want to be married go talk to your priest/rabbi/imam/teddybear. But I also understand how pushing that angle could be conceived as 'destroying marriage" which might result in bad publicity for the equality movement.

No, just change the official word for it. “Civil union” (or whatever) would be the official gov’t name and “marriage” would be a word you can use for any non-governmental purpose.

As an example, the government refers to the Internal Revenue Service, but that doesn’t stop you from calling it “the taxman”.

What about atheists, like myself, who want to get married?

standing ovation

Then get a Civil Union and then invent your own little atheist ceremony to make it a marriage. That is idea behind it for everyone. The government wouldn’t be concerned about how your marriage gets created as long as it works for you.

Hold an atheist service at your local Unitarian Universalist church, perhaps.

No, fuck that shit. “Marriage” has always been a civil matter so long as there have been civil matters. I’m not surrendering it to the goddists.

I’m with this.

Why do the religious deserve a monopoly on the word marriage? It isn’t theirs to claim. The government has a tradition of using the term as well.

People keep offering this as if it is some reasonable compromise for bigots. They don’t want gays to have civil unions either. How about as a ‘compromise’ we just exile all the gay people then we can allow everyone to get married!

Really, why would you want to hand the anti-gays the ammo of “The homosexuals have destroyed marriage just like we said they would!”?