Since that proposal would essentially grant the same thing as just legalizing gay marriage, the only reason to do it would be if it were more politically tenable. Except it isn’t. First off, there’s more of an inertial issue–instead of changing the possibilities for a group of people, you’re changing everyone’s possibilities, and quite a few people’s current situations. Secondly, this is most definitely an attack on marriage, no matter how small. Thus, anti-gay marriage people would have more ammo than before on that front. So…it’s a bad idea, not because it’s non-nonsensical or wrong, but because it’s counter-productive.
But hey, if, in 40 years after gay marriage is legalized, you want to crusade against government sanctioned marriage, be my guest.
I just thought of a nasty possibility. Suppose there’s a church that says that kidnapping creates a valid marriage, even without the consent of one of the parties.
If we’re turning marriage over to the churches, what about divorce? Judaism has a religious ceremony for divorce. Are marriages in religions that don’t permit divorce unable to be dissolved? Could you get into a civil union with a third party even if a church says you’re still married to someone else?
Church law isn’t legally binding in the state justice system.
This all seems kind of moot in relation to gay marriage/civil unions though.
Basically, it boils down to republicans not wanting to lose their bible belt votes, so they make it a hard line issue to maintain support (and distract from all the ridiculous things they do).
Like Voyager said, once it becomes a more socially acceptable idea (or politics shifts another issue into the spotlight to distract from the awful things politicians do), it won’t even matter anymore.
It just seems to be taking a long, long, long time. In terms of civil rights movements though, it hasn’t been that long and they’ve made a substantial impact, just on cultural awareness if nothing else.
I’m not sure if I understand your question. There is no concept of “your health insurance” when we’re talking about public health care in NZ. I think it’s available to all citizens and legal permanent residents. I don’t think there’s any concept of “family coverage” like insurance policies in the US.
Do you mean if the civil union partner is from another country? I think the immigration situation for a civil union partner is the same as for a married partner so health care would be available to them once they become a permanent resident. I think that’s reasonably easy for genuine couples who do the immigration stuff correctly.
But historically, religion wasn’t a religious institution (and I don’t think most people think of it that way now, even if the wedding ceremony is a religious ceremony—that’s a different matter). It wasn’t a matter of the church but of the community. It was about officially belonging to one another and being a union in the eyes of the village or tribe or whatever society you lived in. The “church” and the “state” have just been the authority through which society makes such things official.
Yeah, I hear you. It’s frustrating for me sometimes, because my spouse and I disagree about this topic (which was part of the reason I posted this in the first place, honestly). I’m 100% pro-gay marriage. I have no issue with calling it “marriage” or whatever else people want to call it. I have zero moral or religious differences with it, and I think the sooner gays can get married everywhere, the better. We’re here a short time, and anything that prevents consenting adults from being happy together (as long as it doesn’t infringe on others’ rights–and the right not to be offended doesn’t count) is A Bad Thing in my opinion.
The spouse, on the other hand, thinks like my OP. He has no issue with gay partnerships. He has no issue with gays having every right that current straight married couples have, in civil terms. He’s just hung up on the term “marriage” because he keeps arguing that marriage is a religious institution. We have fun discussions about it. He’s not homophobic, he’s just…religious. Ah, well. We’ve agreed to disagree on the subject.
The only things we agree on are that gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples in a civil sense, and that churches should not be forced by the government to marry anyone they don’t want to marry because they don’t follow their tenets. And to answer a previous question, no, I don’t think churches should be able to legally marry anybody they wish (underage kids, pets, etc.)
It wouldn’t be if those in civil unions had truly equal rights. That’s what would drive the bigots crazy, and that is why they are against them. It’s just the same as separate but equal never being equal because that set of bigots didn’t want it to be equal.
I’m not saying civil unions would be the perfect solution, but the lack of support for truly equal civil unions showing what the anti-SSM crowd really believe.
That’s a good one, especially because we are pretty lax in who gets to start a church. That’s a good rule now because the state only loses a bit of money, and it is fine to let any sucker who wants to join do so.
As for divorce, I’d assume that there would be a way of dissolving civil unions. If people are in one civil union at a time, no one should care how many supposed religious marriages they are in. Only the churches would care if religion A divorces someone married in religion B. These people could be sent to hell, but not to jail.
We do, but as with most countries with universal health care, you can still choose to have private healthcare insurance if you prefer (and can afford it).
I’m an atheist. Would he refuse to call my wife my wife, because I’m not religious?
My mom and her husband were married in a courthouse by a judge, with no religous trappings whatsoever. Would he refuse to call my mom and her husband married, because of that?
I have the feeling he’d say that I’m married to my wife, even though I’m an atheist. He’d probably say my mom is married, even though no religous ceremony marked the occasion. So where does that put us?
Where that puts us is that according to his beliefs, marriage is between a man and a woman (religious belief notwithstanding, apparently). That doesn’t preclude (in his mind, anyway), gay partnerships that are the equivalent of marriage. And honestly, I’d really rather not argue his position because I don’t share it. Every couple has things they disagree about philosophically. As long as he’s not homophobic (and he’s not) then I’ll just have to agree to disagree with his view, just like he has to do the same with mine.
We had the same situation in the Netherlands between 1998 and 2001; same sex couples could get civil unions but not marry. Since april 2001, marriage is open to same sex couples, providing a way for same-sex couples to get exactly the same rights as hetero couples.