I’m just curious. If you think civil unions for same-sex couples are okay, would you be okay with opposite-sex couples choosing a civil union over a marriage?
As a heterosexual married person, I’d be happy to trade my marriage in on a civil union with the same benefits. All of the people harping about the sanctity of marriage wouldn’t piss me off any longer. All of the people toting around their “marriage” baggage would have no ammunition against me.
Opponents of same-sex marriage keep harping on the “tradition” of the institution. Frankly, I don’t think that tradition has much to recommend it and would be happy to discard the term in favor of one that’s value-neutral (to me).
After due consideration over the past several years, I’ve decided that “marriage” should be a religious ceremony and “civil union” (or something like that) should be the recognition by the government that two people are a unit.
I support federal civil unions, with these provisions.
Someone cannot simultaneously be in a civil union and a marriage.
Civil unions make no reference to the sexual relationship of the people involved, and
The federal government and the states may decide legally to grant certain benefits to marriages and not to civil unions.
I think there is a legitimate need to correct some longstanding injustices and inconveniences, but I don’t see how radically changing American family life is the way to go here.
If we’re talking about visitation rights in the hospital or extending health benefits to somebody, most fair minded people are okay with that. I certainly am.
What I’m afraid of is an ever-fluid definition of family. We’ve been dealing with that for some years now, with the fallout of single parenthood and divorce. And the results haven’t been great for kids.
Civil unions, to me, is that wonderful American solution - balancing what you’re free to do with what gets government sanction. And that’s where I land.
Marriage is a religious institution and the goverment should stay out of it no matter what the sexual preferences of the people involved are. Civil unions for everyone i say, and pie.
I think distinctions may be drawn, sure. I don’t think it would be politically feasible anywhere for civil unions to have better benefits than traditional marriages.
Well, traditionally marriage has been the root of family life. And study after study shows that kids do better when they’re raised in a home with their mother and father present.
Think about this next time your car stereo is stolen or you’re alone in a dark parking lot at night. It has everything to do with you.
What study after study actually shows is that children do better when raised in stable, two-parent households. The sex or sexual orientation of the parents is irrelevant to the well-being of the child. And if you could offer some support to your implication that gay parenting leads to higher crime rates I’d appreciate it.
Aren’t violent crime rates falling? And that coincides with the " fallout of single parenthood and divorce"?
I’m aware of a study that shows that children in two-lesbian households do just as well as mother/father households. That would appear to contradict your studies. Besides, what has this to do with homosexual and heterosexual people having civil unions rather than marriages? And why should CUs have different benefits than marriages?
I knew for certain that there was at least one study that demonstrated that lesbian-headed households do better than or equivalent to opposite-sex households. Beyond that, I didn’t know for certain about studies, but then I believe that many “scientists” will make sure their “studies” fit their agendas, and I don’t think the rights of homosexuals should be dependent on what’s “best” for the chirrun anyway.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks that’s what Mr. Moto is implying!
God damn, sometimes I really hate these new boards. On the old boards if the “page couldn’t be displayed” then my post still got cached and posted. Not now. Crap.
Anyway, to Mr Moto, rather than retyping everything again, your proposition that it should be lawful to provide marital benefits in excess of those provided to civil unions is called “separate but equal.” It is discrimination. The “study after study” you refer to actually say that children raised in stable two-parent households do better than those not. The sex and sexuality of the parents is irrelevant.
And your implication that gay parenting somehow leads to high crime rates is odd to say the least.
The American Academy of Pediatrics came down in favor of allowing gay couples to adopt kids fairly recently. The studies that have been done have generally shown that kids with gay custodial parents do just fine, on the whole. The AAP points out that they would likely do even better if barriers to obtaining heathcare coverage and parental rights for both partners were removed.
The only major “harm” that anti-gay groups seem to have been able to find in these reports is that children of gay couples have a less negative attitude about homosexuality than average.
While we’re asking Mr. Moto to explain things, could he tell me how closing marriage to gay couples is supposed to reduce the heterosexual divorce and single parenthood rates?
Civil unions for everyone, gay or straight, as far as legal status goes. Civil union is a legal status, marriage is a religious/ethical status. The state should only be involved in the legal side of things, not religious. Fine if you want to get married too, as sanctioned the religious or ethical group of your choice, but that should have absolutely nothing to do with legal status.
Hey, if hetero people want civil unions, I say more power to them. I’m not especially interested in trading in my marriage for one (there’s a reason we didn’t have a civil ceremony, after all), but if that’s what someone else wants for themselves, it’s certainly no skin off my butt. That would be pretty much what we already have, except now they use the same name for unions at the courthouse and unions at the church. It’s already quite possible to have religious wedding ceremonies without the legalities, or to have legal wedding ceremonies without the religion, it’s just that they’ve streamlined the process to have both by giving religious leaders the power to join people legally as well as spiritually.
Personally, I feel that if we’re going to go the civil union route, then civil unions ought to be the equivalent of getting married at the courthouse in a civil ceremony now. Exact same rights, exact same protections, exact same responsibilities, the only difference is the name, and it ought to apply to hetero couples as well as homo couples. Of course, I also think they ought to just legalize same-sex marriage and shut up about it, but that’s just me.
A provision which would immediately be used to render civil unions for gays sub-equal and second rate, just as they are in Vermont (though due mostly to the bigotry of the Federal government, not the efforts of Vermont). What an enlightened idea.
I was going to post a long missive on church, state, and marriage, but Colibri said exactly what I was thinking using 90% fewer words than I would have used.
Oh, I think they should, too. I just think that if gay couples are only given one choice, I’d rather hang out in the civil union camp with them than in the marriage camp with the bigots. No, not every married person would be a bigot, but it would be a tacit support of the bigots’ claims, I feel.
So, you think that if same-sex marriage is illegal, gay people are more likely to marry someone of the opposite gender and raise children?
I don’t care what you call it, marriage or civil union, but I think any two consenting adults should be able to enter into the same legal union irregardless of their gender. Individual religions can impose further restrictions on marriage within the context of their beliefs if they want, but the government has no business doing so.
I guess my wife and I have a civil union. Neither of us are religious, we were bound by a county auditor (who, in retrospect, I hope was legally qualified to do the deed…he was pretty eccentric) in the presence of his wife and their neighbor, Floyd. God was not in the room, nor any of our family.
We reap the tax and insurance benefits of a married couple. Different gender is merely a coincedence (albeit a mighty satisfying one) in our relationship.
As far as sanctity of marriage and all that, that was shovelled out of the stable 40 years ago when divorce became an acceptable alternative to cooperation & sacrifice…but that’s another thread. Religion in general has f-all to do any more with teaching people how to get along and behave morally.
For the government to take a legitemate stand for or against civil union, it must do so on purely emperical grounds (show some statistics of failed SS marriages–how does this impact the rest of the nation? increased crime, unemployment, or other social blight that is more prevalent than healthy unions). If anything, DIFFERENT sex marriages ought to be banned given their abysmal failure rate of the last 40 years. Bring even a whiff of incense into the discussion and the separation of church and state has been violated.
Married hetero here - and I have a strong faith in God and I am christian but not a church-goer.
I’d like to see the US take the approach that exists (or existed) in some other countries where the civil and religious ceremonies are separate. That way every marriage would be a “civil union” and some would also be blessed by the couple’s choice of clergy. I believe that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
When the current Mr.Broad and I married, it wasn’t to raise a family - we’d both done that. Our marriage is a statement of our public and binding commitment to one another. As a benefit of having made that commitment, we get certain legal status. Why should any couple who are commited to a life together be denied whatever legal advantages accrue with the official marriage stamp of approval?
If the sanctity of marriage is reserved for male-female couples on the grounds of “family” considerations, i.e. the raising of children, then married status should also probably be unavailable to those of us who marry without the intention or ability to produce a family.
