Not sure how much this has been discussed in GD, but what about the following solution to the “gay marriage” issue:
The state should not recognize marriage for anyone. Both heteros and gays should be allowed by the state to enter into “civil unions”, with the same legal rights as current marriages have.
Religions are welcome to define marriage however they please. If Religion X wants to allow only heteros to marry, and if Religion Y wants to allow both heteros and gays to marry, it is their choice.
So, two people who want to pledge a life-long bond to each other go to the state to get a civil union recognized and then go to their religion of choice to get married.
The benefits of the above
It helps keep the state out of religious issues
It keeps gays on an equal legal footing as heteros, wrt the state
It should keep the religious people happy, since their religion can keep the “real” definition of marriage and uphold the “sanctity” of marriage.
AFAIK, polls show that even people who are opposed to “gay marriage” are OK with civil unions. Of course, people will be up in arms about removing the term “marriage” for heteros from state laws. But, overall, I think this is the best long-term solution.
Of course; that gives them an opportunity to officially write the second class status of same sex relationships into law. Second class ghetto-marriages for second class citizens. Just a form of segregation; the point of “civil unions” is to relegate same sex couples into something inferior to marriage. Which is why it will never be acceptable for the general population, but just for those disdained homosexuals.
That it will be taken and used as “proof” that homosexuals are out to destroy marriage.
It’s been explained ad naseum on these boards. The legal institution of marriage is completely distinct from the religious institution(s). They just have the same name. The state is currently not involved in your religious marriage–it doesn’t care whether or not your religious marriage is valid. From a legal perspective, your proposal simply changes the name of a legal institution. If we lived in a perfect world, where everyone executed everything perfectly, it probably wouldn’t be a big deal. But in the real world, changing the name of a legal institution is prone to mistakes and errors, and will cause a lot of people problems. It would be much simpler if people could accept reality and acknowledge that the today, in the US, the state’s definition of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with your church’s definition of marriage.
All the state does is decide legal rights attributed to couples who get married. The point is that gays couples should have the same legal rights.
I think the problem is that so many people link the legal rights of marriage to the religious aspect of holy matrimony and the morals police who don’t really know what they’re talking about come out to object. If civil unions give couples all the same rights it doesn’t matter what the state calls it. The argument against gay marriage has no legs to stand on and will eventually fall. I predict it will be soon, say within 10 years.
I’ve always liked the idea in the OP since it made sense to separate the legal aspect of civil rights from the concept of holy matrimony. I don’t see it as a real solution because of what** BrightNShiny ** explained. Civil rights will be gained a little at a time until the general public just accepts it.
If we keep pointing out that the opposition has no reasoned arguments or facts on their side to keep other human beings from having equal rights eventually the wall will crumble.
Non-religious people can form a club that marries them.
The legal system will not favor religions. It will say: “You two are in a civil union under the law. If you want to go to some other organization (religious or secular) and have that organization call your union by another name (e.g. “marriage”), it is up to you”
Do we have to change the legal term “annulment” too? Do we have to change the name of every legal term that happens to be the same as a religious term?
If there were a legal definition of “Bishop”, “baptize”, etc, then yes, we should change those terms in the text of laws. But we can’t change every generic-sounding term just because it happens to be used in a religious context, and “annulment” (with a straightforward, non-religious meaning) is, of course, something that shouldn’t be changed.
Can’t they just go around saying, “we’re married” or “this is my wife”, etc.? What are the ramifications of failure to appear before the sort of organization that you describe?
It’s what we have now. The civil and religious versions of the institution are already distinct, just as you describe. The only difference is the verbiage.
So what purpose is there to denying straight couples who are married according to the law the use of the word “marriage” except to deny it to gay couples as well?
Well, sometimes “verbiage” matters to people. If you call some people “Negroes”, it may mean the same thing as “African Americans”, but that doesn’t mean that our society can’t prefer one “verbiage” over the other.
What I propose would not deny anyone the use of the word marriage. Under the law you are in a “civil union”. Under your own religion/club/organization/family you can be “married”.
BTW, can’t gays do that even today? That is, if they are in a civil union, no one is preventing them from telling everyone they meet that they are married, “this is my wife”, etc. I don’t know if there are laws against that, but I assume there aren’t or they are not enforced.
Exactly. Which is why I support same sex marriage, and not civil unions. The word “marriage” means something to me. The words “civil union” are essentially meaningless.
Why do you need the state to recognize your marriage as “marriage”? If “marriage” means something to you, then that’s fine, use it in day-to-day life. Why does it need to be called “marriage” in the text of the law?
I’m pretty sure there are many cases where the legal term for something is some obscure word that is different from the word used in day-to-day discussions, and people don’t get all up in arms about it and demand that the legal term match the day-to-day term.
I’m all for marriage being reserved exclusively to religion, but the problem is those religious types are such hypocrites. Sure, they’ll grab a priest and get married “in the church.” But, five years later when they want a divorce they don’t go back to the priest, they go to the divorce lawyer.
That’s what marriage really is. Lawyers. Sure, get married. Don’t even think about divorce without lawyers and the government telling you exactly what you may or may not do.
It’s all about divorce, really.
I can’t figure out why straights want to deny gays the right to divorce, and line lawyers’ pockets. I can’t figure out why lawyers aren’t fighting tooth and nail for gay marriage, because that’s huge divorce bucks.
Because that’s what people want; they have a strong attachment to the word. And if you pass a law saying all marriages are now “civil unions”, you’ll convince most of the population that gays really have stolen their marriages.
That would keep Rush and Hannity busy for years to come
Actually, it could go either way. Some anti-SSM people might see it like you say, but some might see it as “At least the law doesn’t recognize gay marriage. The sanctity of marriage has been preserved”.
It would be interesting to hear from any anti-SSM people we may have here on the SDMB.
