“Civil union” is the term that the VT legislature came up with to describe its court-mandated extension of equivalent rights to same-sex couples (although there is debate as to whether the civil union law actually does so). It’s usually “domestic partnerships” that are the piecemeal arrangements.
Well, like I said, the state leg. is now compelled to choose between calling gay marriage a “marriage” or a “civil union”. Whatever they call it, in all respects but possibly that, it’s an equivalent legal status.
I guess many people there regard the granting of a choice a defeat for gay rights. I don’t, but that’s because I don’t attach the depth of meaning to the term “married” that many people do. I really could care less what one wants to call it, and use the term only out of convention. So, again, it’s “What’s in a name?”, and the answer depends on who you ask, I suppose.
I guess the silver lining, if some are inclined to see a cloud here, is it’s not yet officially “gay marriage” in name, and that might make it a bit less of a mobilizer for the right-wingers leading up to the midterms.
I stand corrected.
Which is a good thing, because after time goes by and the public at large realizes that the country hasn’t been consumed in the fires of Hell, everybody will start using “marriage” and “married” in their daily language when referring to same sex unions. What else are they gonna say, “are you two civilly unionized”?
Hey, just two weeks, I’d be tickled pink (ahem) with “marriage” or whaterver they decide. Just…don’t rile the fundies quite yet, please!
I don’t get this. What’s so hard about thinking up a real phrasal verb for this? It’s not “civilly unioned” or anything like that, just “civilly united”. Granted it still sucks and nobody would use it, but that’s not my point.
What if everyone swears during the ceremony? 
Yay! 
Formalistic defense against accusation of “legislating from the Bench”.
As long as they keep those promises, I don’t see the problem.
Yes, the timing of this makes me rather ambivalent about the ruling. Three weeks from now, I would have been delighted. Right now, I hope it doesn’t turn into some sort of Pyrrhic victory that re-energizes voters on the Christian right that might otherwise have been demoralized by the shenanigans of the GOP that lost them their supposed moral high ground. The USA Today headline, “Ruling on gays may echo at polls,” made my tummy hurt, quite frankly, as I’m getting sick to death of gay rights being the scapegoat in the GOP’s bid to shore up their power base.
In my opinion, the term marriage is mostly a religious term that’s been “generalized” like “kleenex” and “Q-tips”. Gay folks should take it up with their church. When you get down to it, we’re all in a civil union. The religious thing is an optional overlay to the laws that join a couple together contractually. Civil law trumps religious law every time.
I tend to agree, but others feel very differently, as I’ve discovered right here on the Dope. It seems they want the state to put the official seal of approval on not only their legal union, but spiritual one as well. I’m torn by this, as, on the one hand, I’m all for equal treatment, but on the other, I consider equal treatment in this sense to be contrary to my desire for the hardest wall between Church and State possible, barring outright proscription of expression of religious convictions by public figures, or anything else blatantly unconstitutional. It’s a bit of a Catch-22 for me.
It would be illegal for them to do that. It will never happen.
What I mean is, as I see the “marriage” vs. “civil union” issue to be rooted in the spiritual significance of the former term to those who fervently wish for it, they feel the state is somehow validating their spiritual union, even if there’s no official language as such.
As I noted in the GD thread on this subject, it’s not quite an analog to Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, the legislature had 180 to amend the law to permit same-sex marriage. Period. Here, the legislature has 180 days to either amend the marriage law to permit same-sex marriage or craft a parallel, Vermont-style “civil union” law for same-sex unions.
I don’t understand. The state can never validate or invalidate what a church does. It’s the church’s business whether or not to recognize a union in the eyes of a god. But that recognition (or lack of it, as the trend seems to be) has nothing to do with your rights as a citizen bound by a family contract. The state never recognizes religious unions as a legally binding event. That’s why marriage licenses are required. The religious aspect is just optional fluff. It means nothing to the state and never will. And the religious folks should be glad for that.
Right. So why does it matter if it’s called a marriage, civil union, or Fred? That’s precisely my point.
Oh…I agree. I think the gov’t hesitates to call it marriage because it can be interpreted as meddling with religion. I think it’s great that they call it “civil union” to distinguish between the two.
I use the word “married” even though we did a civil union. I’m sure gay couples in Massachusetts do, too. Just like “Q-tips.” We all know what they’re talking about.
As a clearing house for this popular issue: Four threads concerning it in three forums.
NJ Supreme Court allows gay marriage by **Oakminster ** in Great Debates
NJ has joined the ‘axis of evil’ on rights for same-sex couples. by What Exit? in IMHO.
I hate being a political football. by **Jeeves ** in MPSIMS.
NJ Supreme court approves gay marriages by **Antinor01 ** in MPSIMS
Jim