Question for heterosexuals who are/were/are-planning-on getting married:
Would you mind if all references to marriage in the text of laws gets changed to “civil unions”?
Would it make you feel like the government is going to invalidate your marriage?
Of course, you can still call yourselves married. It’s just that in legal terms the bond will be called a “civil union” and not a “marriage”.
I’m not planning on getting married, but… I would be in favor of this. Let the religious institution be called “marriage” to placate popular feeling–& the legal form of marriage be “civil unions,” construed to include same-sex unions. Of course, I favor common-law marriage laws & the like as well.
Absolutely I would mind.
No, it would not make feel that my marriage was invalid. It would make me feel that the government has caved in to a very vocal special interest.
I would very much support this.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
No. Because marriages are civil unions. You can’t get legally married without a license; the ceremony only formalizes it and there is no requirement it be done by clergy.
No.
Nope.
Nope.
As a heterosexual (Christian) woman who has been married for almost 14 years, I fail to see how changing the verbage of my legal union would change anything about my family or our life.
If this simple change would allow couples who are in love and want to commit themselves to each other, no matter their sexual orientation, I am all for it.
I have to suffer marriage, why shouldn’t my gay friends be as (un)lucky.
No and No.
I think it would be an interesting idea for the state to offer paperwork for a “marriage license” or a “civil union license” and allow people to choose which they prefer.
Yes, exactly. I am all for this. Why is it that very religious people insist that the government can control who can participate in a sacred ceremony?
Traditional marriage has been pretty much shot to heck anyway; pre-marital sex, cohabitation, no-fault divorce. Not to even mention things like open marriage, bisexual spouses, etc. Contraception making children completely optional. Hollywood marriages that last eighteen months, and movie stars on their sixth spouse. Pre-nup agreements that read like corporate merger contracts. At this point separating the civil legal aspect from the religious aspect just makes sense.
How about if, in changing the nomeclature, you lost many of the rights associated with marriage (filing a joint return if so desired, hospital visitation, etc.)?
I rather think I’d prefer it: it has the word ‘civil’ built right into it, whereas all-too-frequently, marriages are anything but civil.
In all seriousness, though, I’m quite happy for my legal relationship to be re-designated as a ‘civil union’: our marriage ceremony was performed by a celebrant at the Births, Deaths & Marriages Registry Office - it doesn’t get much more ‘Civil Service’ than that, does it? 
Lumpy, how does a partner being attracted to both sexes “shoot a marriage to heck”?
I have recommended this solution for a long time, but it doesn’t seem anyone wants to listen. Maybe because it disarms both sides and what they would really rather do if argue :dubious:
For civil recognition - civil union
if the couple then wants to follow up in their place of worship of a secular ceremony - have at it, but the only one recognized by governing body is the civil union
Yes to both, although with the caveat on number 2 that I’m not currently married.
You took the words out of my heterosexual (agnostic) married 10 years mouth.
My husband, however, says Yes, it would bother him because he’s “sick of all the nitpicking over it.” But, no, it wouldn’t make him worry about our marriage being invalidated.
FWIW, I argued with him about #1 at length. The irony is not lost on me. 
Personally I find it offensive that married folks get any special recognition at all. If we dumped all the bogus benefits that married people got, which we absolutely should do, then the gay people would stop giving two shits about the whole situation. They could have their ceremonies and so could the fundies, and in the end it’s a ceremony and that’s it. Why is it ok for the single people to get fucked over? I have a hard time feeling too much sympathy for the gays when my single straight self isn’t getting any of the shit they seem to be barking about.
Stop giving the perks of being married and limit it to a lifestyle choice, then no one has a cause to complain about anything.
Do you think you should be able to add your girlfriend to your insurance? Allow her to make medical decisions for you? Inherit your joint belongings? Is that the special recognition that irritates you? Why do you see these benefits as bogus? They are based on real life cases.
Why throw out the rules (perks, call it what you will) that make things less complicated and more equitable for married people, just because some schmucks are offended by someone else’s choice of life partner?
Church marriages aren’t recognized by law anyway. If you need the added layer of recognition religion requires, that’s cool. But the “civil union” part is the only part that actually counts. We’re all civilly united…some with church, some without.
I wouldn’t mind my status being officially called a “civil union” and in fact would strongly prefer it.
I see no reason in this to fear the government invalidating my married or civil union status.
I surely wish the government, as custodian of civil law, would recognize unions under civil law and use these terms to identify it. Any discussion of “marriage” being somehow sacred seems to me to require the government to stay out of it and let churches, the custodians of the sacred, take control. The fact that some people use the sacred status of anything that is managed by government to try to dictate how it should be managed seems, to me, to drive this point home.
Moreover, I would be personally pleased to think of myself as part of a “civil union” and to practice complete and absolute direct uninvolvement with any church conceptions of “marriage”, and perhaps occasionally visit discussions (like this one) that consider the concepts.
1 - No
2 - No
3 - I can understand why the gay community doesn’t want this solution, because it will “validate” the Religious Right’s claim that “Gays want to destroy marriage.”
Omniscient, the vast majority of marriage benefits involve nothing more than state recognition of the relationship between the two parties, if you’re single, and have no such relationship to anyone, you aren’t being denied anything. If you do have such a relationship you can get those benefits by getting married (as long as you’re not gay).