# The states should not grant marriages and all unions should be "civil unions"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 21, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-states-should-not-grant-marriages-and-all-unions-should-be-civil-unions/275992 "2004-11-21T22:45:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-states-should-not-grant-marriages-and-all-unions-should-be-civil-unions/275992/1 "2004-11-21T22:45:56Z")
This is not directly about gay marriages although the issue got me thinking about it. I would believe the same way even if there were no gay people that were fighting for marriage rights. It is also not about bringing all people down to the lowest common denominator. As I see it, marriage is composed of two parts. One is the religious and/or symbolic piece and the other is the legal part granting certain rights by the state. Even today, the religious component can be performed by a Catholic Priest or a friend that got his credentials through mail-order. The legal component is given by getting a “marriage” license through the state and in some states, signing papers after the ceremony is completed. I propose that states should only be in the business of civil unions. That is, a legal contract between two people to have legal rights that union affords them. However they want to do the marriage/symbolic part is up to them. Realize that this is strikingly similar to what happens today in practice but the philosophy is very different. States should not be in the business of granting marriages in the religious/symbolic sense because of the separation of church and state but should recognize it as a legal matter parallel but not synonymous with that joining of people. They should only grant it as legal privileges and these should be called civil unions according to the law. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2004, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-states-should-not-grant-marriages-and-all-unions-should-be-civil-unions/275992/2 "2004-11-21T23:07:53Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I propose that states should only be in the business of civil unions. That is, a legal contract between two people to have legal rights that union affords them. However they want to do the marriage/symbolic part is up to them. That is in effect what we have now except we call it a marriage license not a civil union license. So far as the state is concerned a marriage performed by a Catholic Priest, a Wiccan Whatever, and a Justice of the Peace are all equally valid and pretty much identical. > [@](#): > > Realize that this is strikingly similar to what happens today in practice but the philosophy is very different. States should not be in the business of granting marriages in the religious/symbolic sense because of the separation of church and state but should recognize it as a legal matter parallel but not synonymous with that joining of people. They should only grant it as legal privileges and these should be called civil unions according to the law. States do not grant marriage in the religious sense. The state simply recognizes that many people get married in religious ceremonies and clergy are permitted to officiate weddings. Changing the name of marriage to civil unions is a matter of semantics and will not change anything. Marc ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-states-should-not-grant-marriages-and-all-unions-should-be-civil-unions/275992/3 "2004-11-23T15:06:46Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > One is the religious and/or symbolic piece and the other is the legal part granting certain rights by the state. One is called **Holy Matrimony** , and the other is **Marriage**. Holy Matrimony takes place in a House of Worship, and Marriage is a contract of civil union through the State. Religious Wingnuts don’t know the difference; they think State Law should be based on their Religion. Separation of Church and State evidently does not apply to _all_ Religions. Peace through Liberty rwjefferson