Prop 8 Nov. 15 Protest

[PhiGam]

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

[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.

[moe.ron]

agree with you totally. what if another church want to marry gay couple? isn't it their right to follow their own doctrine as a religion. one church do not want to marry gay couple, it's also their right to follow their own doctrine.

government and religion should not be in one camp, government should only recognized civil union for administrative purposes.

[AGDee]

The Roman Catholic Church refuses to marry people for all sorts of reasons. I understand that one of the big issues people had was that they were worried that churches would be forced to marry gay couples or face law suits. If the RCC can deny people getting married because they are divorced, pregnant, not members of the church, etc, then they can deny it for people who are gay.

I keep hearing people say that civil unions do not carry the same rights as marriage but where do civil unions even exist to make that statement? I've heard of states that are allowing gay marriage. I've heard of states that do not. I've not heard of any states that have civil unions. Perhaps it's my own lack of research/awareness. It just seems like the most logical thing to me, to have the government recognize civil union for legal/administrative/tax purposes and have marriage remain solely in the church.

[DSTRen13]

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. 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.

SECOND!!

[DGTess]

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.

Hear, hear!

Why can't we have a "civil union" between members of opposite sexes? (In fact, that's what my "marriage" is - we were married by a Judge in Colorado, in a "civil service").

No religious organization that I know of will perform "marriage" ceremonies without a civil license.

Look how many companies will allow an individual to provide "same sex domestic partner" benefits, yet my office mate cannot cover her long-time live-in boyfriend, because he's not same-sex and they're not married.

Recognizing marriages/unions for what they are -- contracts -- would go a long way.

[KappaKittyCat]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Look how many companies will allow an individual to provide "same sex domestic partner" benefits, yet my office mate cannot cover her long-time live-in boyfriend, because he's not same-sex and they're not married.

My company does the same thing. I don't have a problem with it because if my state recognized gay marriage or even civil unions (which we don't - our ban prohibits both actual marriage and "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage"), my company would require that same-sex couples be married or in a civil union in order to have the partner receive benefits. As it is now, they have to have been in a committed relationship for >1 year and sign an affidavit stating more or less, "We'd be married if we could." Our HR folks were talking about rewriting the policy if our ban failed and gay marriage or civil unions were legalized. Alas, even my blue state is full of bigots.

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

[UGAalum94]

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.

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?