Since our Constitution was founded on the principle of separation of church and state, maybe we should let marriage belong to the realm of the church and civil unions belong to realm of the state.
Civil unions would be obtained between any two consenting adults (and only two at one time) with defined legal rights and responsibilities recognized by all states and the federal government. Likewise, dissolution of civil unions would follow uniform rules.
Optionally, couples with civil unions also could decide to be married at the religious institution of their choice. Any church, synagogue, mosque, or religious organization could decide on their own criteria for marriage . . . as well as divorce.
Should we separate civil unions from marriage?
Recommend
Comments (51)
No. Marriage existed long before the Church and they don't have the right to claim it. I refuse to satisfy the homophobic complaints of my fellow yet silly "Christians" (I use that term very loosely since I can't believe such hateful people call themselves Christian) because they believe they are entitled to the institution of marriage. Also, civil unions do not carry the same legal benefits.
Marriages for EVERYONE, not just straight people.
no. civil union couples don't have the same rights as married couples.
when they're legal, then maybe.
I believe so, but that's just my opinion.
@salvatruca_stalking_havok13@xanga -
I don't believe this post is about homosexual marriages, although I agree with you on that topic. I do believe the poster is trying to say that marriage is a "church" term and by the laws of our constitution church and state are seperated, so marriage in any form should be done away with.I think it's an interesting concept, but like communism - in practice it would be faulty.
btw, i believe new Zealand has put this into practice if I'm not mistaken? Peter Jackson has a civil law wife.Hmm dunno. I think it doesn't matter much either way really.
@ConfusionwithaK11@xanga - Yea, I know it isn't on gay marriage, but a lot of people use this argument in order to appease the religious who feel the term "marriage" belongs to them. To me marriage doesn't belong to the religious though. After all, atheists still get married and I don't see the (widespread) outrage over that.
They're not the same thing.
And at the same time, marriage is not a religious thing either. It's a love thing. Thus why atheists, like myself, marry. There is such a thing as a wedding without religious stuff thrown in and when you think about it, it's pretty pointless to have it in general. If a couple is expressing their love for each other, why throw god in there?
Seems to me like that's just a poor excuse to not let gays marry. Get a good excuse, they are out there believe it or not.
Actually, that's a brilliant idea!
A thousand times yes. The fact is, civil unions make a lot more sense. Hell, in my state, as a hetero couple, me and my girlfriend can't even get a civil union if we wanted to. It's too clear that we, as a people, are driving too big of a wedge between homosexual relations and heterosexual relations.
I think this whole gay right thing has gone too far...my reasons:it is now some kind of thoughcrime to criticize gays, I suppose now it is okay for gays to criticize people who are straight..
I think marriage is just between a man and a woman... It has always been like that..for thouands of years. That is the definition most people still go by...even in their minds.
I just think this whole gay, contraception, pro-life/pro-war thing is bullshit. As George Carlin once said...scantity of life = death penalty (because the government gives a shit before you actually come out, don't give a fuck when you do come out, then only gives a flying fuck when you are of military age - so that you can kill and be killed).
Lord X
Absolutely, but I see it as more of a separation of civil marriage/unions and religious marriage! I have always admired how most (or all) European countries have civil marriage/unions first, before allowing a religious service. I have several US friends in France and Germany where this is the standard. I definitely think this a better way to go, even before I am married, as it truly separates church and state. Additionally it would have marriage is different stages. From what my friends in Paris told me, I really like how there are different types of civil unions as well, each with different types or levels of legal commitment or obligations.
@MattFreakinNix@xanga - totally agree with you! It shouln't be that only homosexuals have civil unions and then heterosexuals not.
yes please! i don't believe any special rights should be given to "married" individuals
does it matter what we call it? if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck. Then what is it?
What exactly is the difference between a marraige and a civil union? It's all the same regardless of what we call it.
I like the way things are.
How funny, I'm actually giving a presentation on this very subject.
C. S. Lewis and I agree with you.
as long as you didn't get special privileges for having a church marriage then why not? and then at that point, we might as well let the state keep calling it marriage, because changing the name doesn't actually mean anything.
so in short: no, this is a dumb idea because we already have it. right now two atheists can get married and get all the same legal benefits as two Catholics, and those Catholics also get the religious ceremony and the feeling that their marriage is a covenant with God or something like that. All you're suggesting is changing the name, and our congress has bigger problems to deal with than semantics
@ConfusionwithaK11@xanga - Matrimony is more of a Christian term, marriage itself is a social concept that existed before churches were established. Marriage is an overall term for the union of two people over various aspects ie social, economic, legislative, religious, etc therefore it can not be taken out of the civil union context unless emphasized.
I think it is a good idea to differentiate marriage from matrimony. It would cause less controversy regardless of whether it is the union of a same sex couple or a religious union between man and woman.
i've thought about this as a solution to the gay marriage issue. It might work. The question is whether traditional marriage activists are willing to give up legal recognition of marriage and relegate it to within religious circles, and whether gay marriage activists are willing to stop the push for the term "marriage" to define their union. I consider this a nuclear option, and as of right now, it won't go well with a good majority of Americans, liberal or conservative.
Something else that bugs me a lot. People, stop using the term "separation of church and state." The US Constitution never says anything about separation of church and state. What it says is this:
"Congress shall not establilsh a state religion."
"Congress shall not restrict the practice of any religion."
That's the only time in the entire Constitution does it mention religion.
@salvatruca_stalking_havok13@xanga - Hate to break it to you but Marriage is not a Universal Right, all sorts of alternative relationships don't have the Universal Right to Marry Each other.
Interesting thought...
@salvatruca_stalking_havok13@xanga - Exactly. Perfect.
@Parsimony@xanga -
I agree, I'm sorry if my point didn't come across clearly. That's what i meant by "church" term, I'm just not as eloquent. But you do make a good point. I'm still unsure of your statement "etc therefore it can not be taken out of the civil union context unless emphasized." because how can marriage be taken out of a civil union context when it was never in one, I would say marriage has a very heavy connection with the church. Considering before separation of church and state was the "social norm", marriage was only based on the ideals of your religion.You promised to honor yourselves and god, produce children etc. etc. ( i am purely speaking from a Catholic/ Christian point of view because that is my only perspective) So I think we have to look at it in that context - the religious context. and What I'm saying is, when we take it out of the religious context we are now looking at a civil union which i believe should be equal to the status of "marriage" (I am using the term marriage in the religious sense, like you used matrimony) So i guess to answer the OP's question - yes we should define the differences because people might prefer to be defined differently, but both cases should have equal benefits and tax breaks.@L_O_R_D_X101@xanga - "I think marriage is just between a man and a woman... It has always been like that..for thouands of years. That is the definition most people still go by...even in their minds. "
People used that same arguement of 'its just tradition' to defend slavery and to deny women the right to vote. Change is progress.
@ConfusionwithaK11@xanga - Marriage is a general term for all aspects of a couple's union therefore civil union is implied. Civil union however only defines marriage in a legislative term.