Prop 8 Nov. 15 Protest

[LightBulb]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I think we need to get rid of the term marriage altogether, except as a religious ceremony. Make the license for EVERYBODY say "Civil Union License" and make the rights the same as they are for marriage currently.

Why argue for a separate but (allegedly) equal system?

Originally Posted by AGDee

This would be your legal version of marriage. The religious version would be up to the churches entirely, just like Baptism or other ceremonies are.

Opposite-sex couples can get legal marriages (e.g. at the courthouse) without getting religious marriages (e.g. at the church); why shouldn't same-sex couples have this same opportunity?

Originally Posted by AGDee

Take the religion completely out of the legal aspect of the whole thing. Then the government is allowing the same thing for any consenting adult and the churches can do what they want.

The government cannot force a church to marry a couple for any reason! However, it can do its citizens the justice of allowing them legal marriage.

ETA: Sorry, I misread your post the first time. I thought you were saying for only same-sex couples get civil union licenses. My bad. Please disregard this post.

[LightBulb]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Yep. But I ask, what interest does the state have in civil unions either, especially ones without kids?

Why not do away with it all from a civil perspective and offer government benefits of union only to those with children currently living at home?

This discriminates against couples with no children. Rights are not given in the interest of the state; they are recognized in the interest of the individual.

Additionally, couples who are not married (or only married on a state level) miss a lot of benefits that are completely unrelated to children. For example, when a gay married couple joins the Peace Corps, the two are not placed together because their marriage is not federally recognized.

Originally Posted by KappaKittyCat

I second the motion for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely.

Civil/legal marriages have an important role for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. For example, an atheist couple would likely prefer to be married outside of religious institutions.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I think we need to get rid of the term marriage altogether, except as a religious ceremony. Make the license for EVERYBODY say "Civil Union License" and make the rights the same as they are for marriage currently. This would be your legal version of marriage. The religious version would be up to the churches entirely, just like Baptism or other ceremonies are...Take the religion completely out of the legal aspect of the whole thing. Then the government is allowing the same thing for any consenting adult and the churches can do what they want. The more I think about this, the more I think this is the way to go. It seems ridiculous to have to spend the kind of money it would take to do this when there is already a legal institution in place, but the term "marriage" has too many religious connotations to too many people at this point. This would better solidify a separation of church and state.

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

SECOND!!

Hear hear!!

ETA: I had a civil marriage and began to make a point about calling it "legally joined." When I was "married" in my church, I considered that the date of my marriage.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by LightBulb

This discriminates against couples with no children. Rights are not given in the interest of the state; they are recognized in the interest of the individual.

Additionally, couples who are not married (or only married on a state level) miss a lot of benefits that are completely unrelated to children. For example, when a gay married couple joins the Peace Corps, the two are not placed together because their marriage is not federally recognized.Civil/legal marriages have an important role for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. For example, an atheist couple would likely prefer to be married outside of religious institutions.

Only allowing benefits to couples with children wouldn't discriminate against childless couples anymore than marriage benefits today discriminate against the unmarried. Do you think offering marriage or civil unions unfairly discriminates against those without partners?

There ought to be a good reason that the state is involved in marriage or civil unions at all; otherwise the whole thing ought to be left to individuals to decide the terms of. The well being of children may be the only area in which I think it makes sense to offer a different tax rate, health benefits, automatic assumption of shared property, etc. Otherwise, why should the state be in the business of dictating the terms at all?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

There ought to be a good reason that the state is involved in marriage or civil unions at all; otherwise the whole thing ought to be left to individuals to decide the terms of. The well being of children may be the only area in which I think it makes sense to offer a different tax rate, health benefits, automatic assumption of shared property, etc. Otherwise, why should the state be in the business of dictating the terms at all?

It's actually cheaper for my husband and me to have two separate individual health insurance plans than to have a single married plan. That particular "benefit" is not as shiny as people want to make it.

Why should the state be involved? Money. That's the bottom line. Married couples consistently show higher rates of income/wealth accumulation, lower healthcare costs, etc. It is to the state's benefit to encourage and recognize legal unions.

[Jimmy Choo]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I think it's going to be some time before the majority of the people are willing to consider the idea of gay marriage in most localities. In 2004, Michigan voters passed the amendment to define marriage as "between one man and one woman" and we're a very blue state too.

I think we need to get rid of the term marriage altogether, except as a religious ceremony. Make the license for EVERYBODY say "Civil Union License" and make the rights the same as they are for marriage currently. This would be your legal version of marriage. The religious version would be up to the churches entirely, just like Baptism or other ceremonies are. The only thing is, I don't like the term civil union itself because I'm not sure what you would say "We're getting unionized" doesn't seem like a logical term to me. "We're getting civilized" doesn't work either. "We're being civil unionized"? "We're being partnered" ??? I just don't know what to really call it so that it makes sense. Take the religion completely out of the legal aspect of the whole thing. Then the government is allowing the same thing for any consenting adult and the churches can do what they want. The more I think about this, the more I think this is the way to go. It seems ridiculous to have to spend the kind of money it would take to do this when there is already a legal institution in place, but the term "marriage" has too many religious connotations to too many people at this point. This would better solidify a separation of church and state.

EXACTLY!!! This way the churches that want to recognize it can and the ones that don't want too can keep on doing that.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Here is where I see the issue getting iffy... Ok, one of the big propaganda things during the yes on prop 8 campaign was that Catholic Adoption Agencies pulled out of Mass, because they were required to allow same sex marriages to adopt. Here we have the government forcing themselves on to religious beliefs, while the other side argues that religious beliefs should stay out of the government... I believe in gay marriage and gay rights... I believe it is their civil right to be recognized by the government. I ALSO believe in separation of the church of state, meaning that if a Church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, or provide them with adoption, they shouldn't have to... it gets iffy when you think about however, how far the church then would be allow to discriminate, and that is where I get perplexed

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Yep. But I ask, what interest does the state have in civil unions either, especially ones without kids?

Why not do away with it all from a civil perspective and offer government benefits of union only to those with children currently living at home?

I fail to see what kids have to do with 1) being able to provide health benefits to your spouse, 2) community property laws, 3) inheritance laws or 4) right to visit a loved one in ICU and make medical decisions for them. Most first marriages don't involve children until after people are married. I don't understand what kids have to do with marriage or civil unions. You can certainly have a child without being married and you can be married and not have children.

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

They should have put these resources into lobbying and campaigning instead of protesting after the fact

That would have been the logical thing to do.


I support the ban, but I think civil unions should be allowed in every state.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Yep. But I ask, what interest does the state have in civil unions either, especially ones without kids?

There are many legal rights that spouses have that simply do not exist without marriage/civil union, or that can be very complicated to replicate through other documents (powers of attorney, wills, etc.)

Many countries follow the pattern that has been suggested above -- a civil marriage (conducted by a civil official) is required; it can, if the couple want, be followed by a religious marriage ceremony/blessing. I know many members of the clergy who would love to see a similar pattern here.

[LightBulb]

Prop 8 is evolving... No on Shrimp

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

They should have put these resources into lobbying and campaigning instead of protesting after the fact

I guess you're not familiar with the insane amount of lobbying, campaigning, and grassroot efforts that took place in California prior to the Prop 8 vote. Unlike Amendment 2 in Florida, which was obviously going to pass, polls taken about this were pretty much at a dead heat.

[KSig RC]

There's a fine line between "civil unions" and:



. . . and that's precisely because of the societal connotation. I'd love for the doctrine of separation of church and state to rule the day here, because obviously using a religious term for a social contract is a massive annoyance and pure silliness, but the fact is, we do. Why should the connotation and societal importance be legally denied (or, more precisely, hindered)?

There really has to be a better way.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

There's a fine line between "civil unions" and:



. . . and that's precisely because of the societal connotation. I'd love for the doctrine of separation of church and state to rule the day here, because obviously using a religious term for a social contract is a massive annoyance and pure silliness, but the fact is, we do. Why should the connotation and societal importance be legally denied (or, more precisely, hindered)?

There really has to be a better way.

What's your point here?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I fail to see what kids have to do with 1) being able to provide health benefits to your spouse, 2) community property laws, 3) inheritance laws or 4) right to visit a loved one in ICU and make medical decisions for them. Most first marriages don't involve children until after people are married. I don't understand what kids have to do with marriage or civil unions. You can certainly have a child without being married and you can be married and not have children.

My point is marriage or civil union isn't really required to deliver any of the things you listed, other than providing the terminology of "spouse." We could just decide to let people develop their own contracts for these things if we wanted to.

With health care, why does it make more sense to offer health care benefits to a "spouse" than a roommate or best friend?

When children enter the picture, it changes things to me because instead of individuals with a responsibility only to themselves and each other, you have people connected with the obligation of providing for the children so it would make sense to me to have some default legal standards. But for the rest of us, why elect to privileged one relationship legally above all others?

What interest does the state have in regulating that at all?