# Let's just call them all civil unions. If you want to get married, go to a church. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [August 3, 2012, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326 "2012-08-03T17:58:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/61 "2012-08-04T01:38:55Z")
If the religious right wants to define marriage, than any two people shacking up should be able to receive the benefits of a legally recognized union. That’s biblical marriage right there. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/62 "2012-08-04T01:55:19Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > Who said anything about forcing bigots to think like us? What would that even mean? And what’s the point of your proposal, if it isn’t to be more appealing to the other side than our current goal (gay marriage) is? Just to make our side less happy? To score a meaningless rhetorical point against the other side (“You said you didn’t want the government to recognize gay marriage and it doesn’t! But we still won, mostly! Ha ha! In your face!”)? [/QUOTE] From your quote: > [@](#): > > Sure, but it would also do nothing to bring bigots (or even people on the fence) over to our side We don’t have to _make_ them embrace gay marriage. Just accept the fact that the government will not take part in your religious agenda. It’s a compromise. I know it leaves a bad taste in our mouths to compromise with bigotry, but if it helps, neither side usually gets 100% of what they want in a compromise. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/63 "2012-08-04T02:10:40Z")
I will say the same thing to Shakes, Aruqvan, and anybody else who is after this utterly ridiculous semantic business – if you do not want to be ‘married’ then don’t enter into a ‘marriage’. But don’t deprive those for whom the word has meaning of using it for whatever silly reason you have. So far, I’ve seen Shakse insult Miller, an atheist gay man who wishes to enter into a marriage, by accusing him of wanting to placate a 'nonexistent sky wizzard [sic]" And I am getting very uncivil, and fairly ionized, in wishing to defend my marriage, and those of atheists, gay coupies, and all and sundry, from people who cannot grasp the idea that language is meaningful to people, that words carry connotations that matter to people. Further, just “running global search and replace” and “slapping stickers on things” without amending each and every one of the thousands of statutes that reference marriages, surviving spouses, etc., and promulgating and holding hearings on the regulations that authorize those forms, is quite literally a criminal act. ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/64 "2012-08-04T02:40:12Z")
> [@Mama\_Zappa](#): > > 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). That is how it is done in the Netherlands. The courthouse offers some marriage venues that offer the festivity and practicality of a church. In my hometown Maastricht, the county official can perform the marriage ceremony in either [the old county hall](http://www.maastricht.nl/web/Home/Home/M_e_d_i_a_i_t_e_m-tonenop/De-Prinsenkamer-Stadhuis.htm), the [modern City Hall,](http://architectuur.pronamic.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/15830_fullimage_01doc-maastricht-3-HR.jpg) (the ceremony is done for free on Monday mornings) [a theater](http://www.maastricht.nl/web/Home/Home/M_e_d_i_a_i_t_e_m-tonenop/Het-Generaalshuis-Edmond-Hustinxzaal-Theater-aan-het-Vrijthof.htm), [an resort](http://www.maastricht.nl/web/Home/Home/M_e_d_i_a_i_t_e_m-tonenop/Kasteel-Vaeshartelt.htm), a museum, [a castle](http://www.maastricht.nl/web/Home/Home/M_e_d_i_a_i_t_e_m-tonenop/Chateau-Neercanne.htm)or [another castle](http://www.maastricht.nl/web/Home/Home/M_e_d_i_a_i_t_e_m-tonenop/Kasteel-de-Hoogenweerth.htm). . For a small additional fee, the county marriage offical will come to another venue of the couple’s choice. The county marraige offical will do the stuff a priest wil usually do, like meeting with the couple beforehand and holding a little festive speech at the ceremony tailored to the couples histories and circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/65 "2012-08-04T02:56:24Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > We don’t have to _make_ them embrace gay marriage. Just accept the fact that the government will not take part in your religious agenda. If it wasn’t going to take part in their religious agenda, it would simple let homosexuals get married and be done with it. > [@Shakes](#): > > It’s a compromise. I know it leaves a bad taste in our mouths to compromise with bigotry, but if it helps, neither side usually gets 100% of what they want in a compromise. Bigotry _shouldn’t_ be compromised with, ever. Both from a moral perspective, and because it just doesn’t work. This idea will strengthen the bigots, not weaken them. Pushing it would be more likely to result in something like an anti-same-sex marriage Amendment to the Constitution than it would be to give same sex couples anything they want. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/66 "2012-08-04T03:33:52Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > It’s a compromise. I know it leaves a bad taste in our mouths to compromise with bigotry, but if it helps, neither side usually gets 100% of what they want in a compromise. It’s not clear to me why bigots should get more than 0% of what they want. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/67 "2012-08-04T04:06:31Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > Great. Why are we arguing semantics? I’m not arguing semantics. I’m saying that rewriting (rephrasing) every state and federal law is not necessary. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/68 "2012-08-04T05:38:18Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > 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… It took the Church a 1,000 years to make up it’s mind whether marriage was a divine sacrament, a civil contract, or just a way for fornicators who couldn’t stand celibacy to channel their urges. The Western wold’s concept of marriage owes alot more to Roman civil law than it does the Bible. > [@steronz](#): > > Did you not read the OP? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Or internationally. If Bob and Carol get a civil union in one country, that union isn’t going to be recognized in many if any other countries, even those with civil unions of their own. Marriages are recognized everywhere. This idea would mean that Americans would no longer be married in the eyes of the rest of the planet, which would no doubt be constantly irritating to any couples that travel out of the country… Yeah, there’s the distict possiblity, however remote, that this might put heterosexual Americans traveling abroud in the same nasty situtations that same-sex couples can find themselves in. The OP’s suggestion is completely idiotic and without merit. It’s playing in to every insane reactionary argument that the gays are trying to destroy marriage. It solves nothing, there’s no possibilty of any jurisdiciton on the planet adopting it, and if one did somehow it would probally result widespread ostracism and violence against gays & lesbians. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/69 "2012-08-04T08:30:20Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > And what’s the point of your proposal, if it isn’t to be more appealing to the other side than our current goal (gay marriage) is? Just to make our side less happy? To score a meaningless rhetorical point against the other side (“You said you didn’t want the government to recognize gay marriage and it doesn’t! But we still won, mostly! Ha ha! In your face!”)? From your quote: We don’t have to _make_ them embrace gay marriage. Just accept the fact that the government will not take part in your religious agenda. It’s a compromise. I know it leaves a bad taste in our mouths to compromise with bigotry, but if it helps, neither side usually gets 100% of what they want in a compromise. [/QUOTE] I can see the point of compromise if it gets you something you wouldn’t otherwise get. What do non-bigots get out of this that they don’t get by sticking to their guns? I’ve repeatedly pointed out that the answer is “nothing” and you haven’t argued the point, yet you keep calling this a compromise. A “compromise” that doesn’t gain your side anything isn’t a compromise, it’s a unilateral concession. Why suggest that? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/70 "2012-08-04T08:42:07Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Yeah, there’s the distict possiblity, however remote, that this might put heterosexual Americans traveling abroud in the same nasty situtations that same-sex couples can find themselves in. Not that remote; I’ve already heard complaints about their relationship not being recognized by people in civil unions traveling internationally. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/71 "2012-08-04T12:10:41Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Bigotry _shouldn’t_ be compromised with, ever. Both from a moral perspective, and because it just doesn’t work. This idea will strengthen the bigots, not weaken them. Pushing it would be more likely to result in something like an anti-same-sex marriage Amendment to the Constitution than it would be to give same sex couples anything they want. When Blacks were emancipated, how many hurdles did they have to leap before they got all the rights that they have today? I could ask the same question about women’s rights. Or heck, how about gays being able to serve openly in the military? Did we just go from ‘No openly gays in the military’ to ‘OK, it’s cool. Openly gays in the military’? No we did not, first we had to go through that whole stupid phase of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ It was stupid, but look where it got us. Gays can now openly serve in the military. And as far as I can tell, the bigots were NOT empowered by DADT. In fact, they were weakened by it. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/72 "2012-08-04T12:24:39Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > 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? How many billions of dollars will be spent on ballot measures as this issue see-saws back and forth? No one is going to just “get over” themselves just because it is the sane thing to do. Time for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/73 "2012-08-04T13:22:01Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > When Blacks were emancipated, how many hurdles did they have to leap before they got all the rights that they have today? I could ask the same question about women’s rights. Which demonstrates my point. All “compromises” ever did was write discrimination into law, so the fight had to start all over again. It just drew out the oppression and tyranny. “Compromise” often meant they lost rights, not gained them. > [@Shakes](#): > > Or heck, how about gays being able to serve openly in the military? Did we just go from ‘No openly gays in the military’ to ‘OK, it’s cool. Openly gays in the military’? No we did not, first we had to go through that whole stupid phase of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ > > It was stupid, but look where it got us. What it “got us” was many years of worse treatment for gays in the military. It was a speedbump, not a stepping stone; it was put there to slow progress, and it succeeded. > [@](#): > > And as far as I can tell, the bigots were NOT empowered by DADT. In fact, they were weakened by it. Hardly; it gave them greater power to drive military gays into hiding and ruin their careers if caught. It gave them many years of fun tormenting their victims, and did irreparable damage to the lives of thousands of people. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Time for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. Why should everyone else suffer in a futile attempt to placate the bigots? If anything it’s religion that should get out of the marriage business, since it’s so addicted to using it as a weapon. ---
**Author:** ![midnight-dreary](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@midnight-dreary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/midnight-dreary)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/74 "2012-08-04T13:24:01Z")
Can you not understand this is segregation? ---
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/75 "2012-08-04T13:38:06Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Do we have to retroactively change all the songs and poems and movies and stuff? “Peggy Sue Got Civil-Unioned,” etc. My Big, Fat Civil-Union. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/76 "2012-08-04T13:40:23Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Why should everyone else suffer in a futile attempt to placate the bigots? How does getting government out of the marriage business hurt anyone? > [@](#): > > If anything it’s religion that should get out of the marriage business, since it’s so addicted to using it as a weapon. Perhaps if you stamp you foot harder. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/77 "2012-08-04T13:50:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Which demonstrates my point. All “compromises” ever did was write discrimination into law, so the fight had to start all over again. It just drew out the oppression and tyranny. “Compromise” often meant they lost rights, not gained them. > > What it “got us” was many years of worse treatment for gays in the military. It was a speedbump, not a stepping stone; it was put there to slow progress, and it succeeded. > > Hardly; it gave them greater power to drive military gays into hiding and ruin their careers if caught. It gave them many years of fun tormenting their victims, and did irreparable damage to the lives of thousands of people. I couldn’t disagree with you more. You see them as speed bumps, I see them as a necessarry process of the evolution of equal rights. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/78 "2012-08-04T14:09:11Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > How does getting government out of the marriage business hurt anyone? It forces people to give up being married, which is what they want, for a “civil union” that they _don’t_ want and which will be inferior. It demonizes homosexuals even more than they already are, inflames the homophobes even more than they are, and solves nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/79 "2012-08-04T14:15:13Z")
[QUOTE=Shakes] Great. Why are we arguing semantics? [/QUOTE] Because that’s all there is. Either a civil union is less than a marriage, or it isn’t. [ul] [li]If it is less, then the anti-SSM people are correct that SSM proponents want to denigrate marriage by degrading it into a civil union.[/li][/ul] [ul] [li]If a civil union is the same as a marriage, then it doesn’t do any harm to have “marriage” for heterosexual couples, and “civil union” for gay couples.[/li][/ul]ISTM that the insistence by SSM proponents on the term “marriage” to refer to SSM is based on two things - [ol] [li]An attempt to get SSM thru the back door by pretending that SSM is in the law already, and[/li][li]An attempt to force everyone to agree that SSM is just as good as heterosexual marriage by forcing them to use the same term[/li][/ol] Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326/80 "2012-08-04T14:19:51Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > An attempt to get SSM thru the back door N/M, too easy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-just-call-them-all-civil-unions-if-you-want-to-get-married-go-to-a-church/630326.md?page=5)