If it’s all the same legally I’m for it.
Gee, what a surprise.
This thread is being repeated again on the SDMB for oh, I don’t know, about the 200th time. It is already following the accepted form.
- Setup. “Oh, how can anybody be against gay marriage?”
- Self congratulatory backslapping amongst enlightened liberals.
- Objection of some point, even by somebody who may not necessarily be a raving homophobe or bigot, followed immediately by:
- Dogpile.
This isn’t an honest poll at all, just “trolling for bigots,” since, obviously, anybody who supports civil unions instead of single sex marriage automatically falls into that category, according to holy dogma as it’s interpreted here.
Well, to all of you supposedly enlightened folks who lament our nation’s supposed backwardness, I have two questions.
If gay marriage is such an obvious, natural right, why hasn’t Western Civilization instituted it, or even debated it until now?
And likewise, if our country is so backward and unenlightened, why have only two nations on the planet, the Netherlands and Belgium, chosen to implement same sex marriage?
I have stated that I want to make things easier for gay couples through civil unions and eliminate some inequalities in American society. For this I get called a bigot and a homophobe. This is the attitude that is creating the massive backlash against the Massachusetts court decisions and the San Francisco marriages of dubious legality. It is dividing America instead of creating compromise.
Can anybody tell me this is a good thing?
Well, clearly someone hasn’t read the thread. Mr.Moto, we’re discussing whether or not civil unions should be open to heterosexual couples, as well as to homosexual couples. Nobody was discussing whether civil unions should be exactly like marriage until you hijacked the thread. There was no setup of being for or against gay marriage until you brought it up. And now you’re throwing a hissy because someone has dared to disagree with points you drug into the discussion. Grow the hell up, why don’t you?
On topic, of course I would be okay with MOTOS choosing civil unions, but I am not against either gay marriage nor civil unions.
But let’s test out that dogpile theory and see what happens when I say this: I am not FOR a differently-termed marriage between MOTOS versus MOTSS, but I am against those who are against it.
In other words, IF marriage matters to you so much that you insist on at least limiting the term to describe legal MOTSS commitment as “Civil Unions”, even if they are legally the same, I would consider your opinion somewhat suspect, from a homophobic standpoint.
BUT, I will not wail if legally-equal civil unions are enacted. I won’t complain that it is not called “Marriage.” Now, if the “dogpile” theory is true, people should jump on me for that starting…
now! 
If they are legally the same, I don’t object to civil unions either. But, as you said, the people who insist that it be given a different name are suspect.
Mr. Moto, you are the one who hijacked this thread by implying that children of homosexual parents would end up stealing my car stereo.
My question was simple: If you are going to insist that gays can’t be “married” but can have the “same thing” in a “civil union,” will you allow that “civil union” to be open to people who would be eligible for “marriage.”
If so, I think I wouldn’t be the only “married” person who’d love to abandon that title for something more in keeping with my morals (and also because the civil union people would be, obviously, more fabulous).
Julie
Legally married here, as well as married in a nondenominational ceremony.
I wouldn’t give up the ceremonial marriage for the world; it’s very important to me and to my wife that we exchanged vows in the presence of our friends and family.
But I absolutely wish I could exchange the government marriage license for a civil union license. The government has no more business knowing about my love life than they have knowing about my religion. They don’t issue baptism licenses, bar mitzvah licenses, or funeral licenses, do they? Why should they issue marriage licenses?
Get them out of the ceremony business. Issue civil union licenses for any two people that want one, and attach all the rights to it that traditionally get attached to marriage licenses. Do away with marriage licenses entirely.
That’s a simple solution that separates church and state, doesn’t dilute any religion’s concept of marriage, doesn’t remove anyone’s rights, and satisfies equal protection and due process considerations.
Daniel
I’d like to ask a turnaround question to those that oppose marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples: from a legal standpoint, which specific rights granted by marriage do you think ought to be withheld from same-sex couples?
For example, Jeff and Tony are a couple who have been together twenty years.
They want to purchase a house. Should they have difficulties getting a loan together?
Jeff is in the hospital. Should Tony be denied visitation rights?
Jeff is hit by a car and dies. Should Tony be kicked out of the house they’ve lived in and denied inheritance rights?
What specific rights are granted by a marriage that you do not think same-sex couples should have?
Daniel
And there’s one in the net!
Married Hetro here - supportive of whatever will practically work to grant partners equal rights, open to finding compromise to make progress but wary of “separate but equal”.
Mr. Moto - let’s be careful, there appear to be more issues with communication than intent. Please note that your comment about kids stealing radios COULD be interpreted as anti-two-gay-parent. If that IS what you intended, please clarify (and expect a dogpile - but that wouldn’t be surprising would it?). If you INTENDED to come across as “pro stable-two-parent household-regardless-of-gender”, please just clarify that and I think the dogpile could easily be averted.
Furthermore - you state that “The federal government and the states may decide legally to grant certain benefits to marriages and not to civil unions.” It SEEMS like you INTEND to be saying that civil unions should be structured to be separate but equal, and that they may not even be equal, since marriage may convey more rights. If that IS what you intended, again, please clarify and brace yourself. It might also help, as other posters have asked, if you could clarify what rights SPECIFICALLY you might think a marriage could convey that a CU might not. As I stated in my intro, I am wary of “separate but equal” but open to hearing about practical compromises that enable progress. What’cha have in mind? If you did NOT intend to take a “separate but equal” approach, please clarify that…
Mr. Moto you appear to want to check in on this very important issue - I hope you can see that language can reflect intent and often, people are reacting far more to language. Please help us understand your intent.
I stated that civil unions should be open to anybody.
However, I also see no problem with government favoring traditional marriage over civil unions in some ways. I would leave this to individual states to decide.
I think, though, discretion should be removed from the states in the federal benefit in the areas of:
Inheritance
Federal taxation
Health coverage
Medical consent and visitation
Property rights and the establishment of a household.
I didn’t mean to imply that children of homosexual parents would be stealing car stereos. My assertion was that the children coming from single-parent and divorced households are currently stealing stereos.
The radical redefinition of family life in America so far has had its greatest impact on the poor. Single parenthood and divorce has had a direct impact on poverty and crime in these communities. Further radical transformation of family life in America may have unintended consequences here as well.
That’s fine and well; what areas, however, WOULD you think unproblematic for government to favor traditional marriage over civil unions?
Am I reading you right that you would be fine with states giving preferential treatment to TM in the areas of state taxation, for example? If so, why would you be okay with this?
I think people are having the most problem with your suggestion that there are some areas in which the state could favor traditional marriage; perhaps if you expanded on this, giving specific examples, we could have a conversation instead of a namecalling match.
Daniel
I fall into the camp that says, EVERYONE gets a civil union, domestic partnership, or whatever you want to call it, and then you and your church (if any) decide on what ceremony (if any) is appropriate for you.
I’d get justices of the peace, judges, city clerks, etc., out of the ceremony business altogether. As soon as your application for CU, DP or whatever is approved, signed, and sealed, you are as joined as the state is ever going to make you. Whether or not your mother (-in-law? -out-of-law?) consideres you living in sin is her problem.
Some churches would probably insist on a valid civil union certificate before performing a marriage, some might prefer NOT to have a domestic partnership as an indication of the purity of your intent (ie: you are getting married for the right reasons, not just to get a better deal on health insurance).
Inherent in this is that, as long as you do not have an existing civil union, the state doesn’t care what (if any) marriage or marriages you may have or may have had. (Of course, the next question is, should domestic partnerships be limited to only two people…)
The ramifications are interesting…
So you think the increase in single-parent households and the rise in the divorce rate are bad things. Fair enough. I think they’re bad things, too. But how will allowing same-sex couples to marry impact either of those things? Do you really think that many married couples are suddenly going to choose to break off their marriages if marrying a same-sex partner becomes legal?
The increase in single parenthood and divorce has not been caused by the advances in gay rights. Its roots lie elsewhere: liberalized divorce laws, unwillingness to stigmatize children born illegitimately, widespread availability of birth control, and most significantly, the women’s liberation movement. When women are no longer economically dependent on men, they’re more likely to leave a bad relationship. If you are serious about decreasing the number of single parent households, you’d do better to focus your energies on lobbying for more restrictive divorce laws so that heterosexual couples CAN’T easily leave their marriages, rather than engaging in handwaving about the supposed evils same-sex marriage is going to promote. Telling gays they can’t marry does nothing to keep straights from wrecking their own marriages or producing children out of wedlock.
I would favor this primarily in the area of income taxation, though not property taxation. In other words, people who buy a house won’t be penalized through double taxation on property transfers like they are now.
I also think the debate is far from settled on adoption, but I’m not going into that debate now.
The reason I favor a disparity is to give benefits to people who don’t fit the mold for traditional marriage, yet make traditional marriage the preferred lifestyle for heterosexual couples. They will still be free to enter a civil union, but the traditional marriage would be preferred if they are in fact “married”.
If they aren’t married, but are, for example, a brother and sister who want to share a household in their declining years, the civil union would be a good fit. That’s why I believe this benefit should be wide open, and make no reference to the sexual relationship, or absence thereof, of the participants involved.
This could work wonders in our country. It could restitch some of the social safety net. It could give wide benefits to people who really need them. It can reconnect people with the political process that right now feel shut out. But it won’t happen with an all-or-nothing, scorched earth attitude. There has to be some compromise.
Which is why I oppose no-fault divorce laws and support the covenant marriage movement as well.
But how exactly does this civil union benefit you’re describing differ from marriage? Marriage as it’s currently structured makes no presumptions of a sexual relationship, although it now requires the participants be of the opposite sex; you’re not required to show you have plans to sleep with your marriage partner before you’re issued a marriage license. In fact, you can state up front that you and your prospective marriage partner are going to remain celibate and still be issued one! Marriage has no specific religious connotations, either - a pair of athiests can go down to the county courthouse, be issued a marriage license, and be married by a justice of the peace in a 5 minute “ceremony” that makes no mention of God or holy vows, yet legally they’re just as married as a devoutely religious couple whose union has been presided over by a priest, rabbi, or minister. I think that’s what puzzles a lot of the people in this thread who’ve been replying to you; you seem to be arguing that marriage is very different from the civil union you’re proposing, but unless the definition of marriage you’re using differs significantly from the commonly accepted one, there doesn’t seem to BE a difference between the two apart from mere semantics.
I’m afraid I understood very little of this post.
So you’re saying you’re okay with het married couples paying less in income tax than anyone else? Why? And what does “double taxation” have to do with matters?
You’re wanting to achieve this effect through giving preferential treatment to het couples above all other partnerships. Why not achieve it by making civil unions not as powerful for het couples as for same-sex couples – that way, if het couples want equal rights to same-sex couples, they have to get a special permit for it?
Personally, I don’t see any reason for the difference, but if you really want it to exist, you can achieve it without relegating non-het-couples to second-class citizens.
Daniel
Marriage actually does presuppose a sexual relationship.
If it didn’t, several of the grounds for divorce in fault states would be essentially meaningless, including:
Adultery
Natural impotency
Pregnancy of the wife by another person at the time of the marriage, if the husband did not know of such pregnancy.
Now we are getting somewhere. I guess the question would then be… What is it about TM that makes it deserving of more benefits, and makes it off limits for gays?
To what purpose?
Julie