Marriage vs. Civil Unions

[gloriann]

I was disappointed that my state- California- upheld Prop 8. I had hoped that the Court would have rejected it so that my SO and I could have gotten married.

The option left in this state is civil union.

My question: as a gay person, would participating in "marriage-lite," aka- civil unions- be succombing to the oddly right-wing conservatism that currently pervades this state? Opinions?

 

[John Doe]

I think most people who oppose gay marriage would rather keep gays from having anything even resembling marriage, including civil unions. At least they do in my experience.

 

[gloriann]

I think most people who oppose gay marriage would rather keep gays from having anything even resembling marriage, including civil unions. At least they do in my experience.

While I agree with you in general terms, this state does allow civil unions.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I was disappointed that my state- California- upheld Prop 8. I had hoped that the Court would have rejected it so that my SO and I could have gotten married.

The option left in this state is civil union.

My question: as a gay person, would participating in "marriage-lite," aka- civil unions- be succombing to the oddly right-wing conservatism that currently pervades this state? Opinions?

Actually, California offers Domestic Partnerships which is kind of like Light Marriage-Lite.

My first question to you is do you plan on having kids anytime soon?

If not, fly to Iowa, get the license and then tell everybody to kiss you asses.

If you do plan on having kids or if either of you have health issues, you need a domestic partnership to force the asshat insurance companies, the asshat bureaucrats and the asshat medical establishment to give you both rights regarding each other and your children.


P.S. I'm not disappointed in our state, I'm flat out disgusted!

 

[gloriann]

California does have the domestic partnership act, yes, which allows this. The Attorney General likened domestic partnership to civil unions, and I think, the difference, if any, is minor.

However... my SO put it succinctly: "if we do that (get a civil union) it's like saying, oh, well, we tried, they told us no, so we'll just settle with what 'they' allow and call it quits."

 

[Etoile]

I can definitely see where your SO is coming from, gloriann. But telling her my perspective might be enlightening: at least you HAVE domestic partnership as an option. My wife and I don't have that. As you know, we got married in Connecticut anyway, but it's not worth anything here. I would say that if you want to legally establish your relationship, definitely go with the domestic partnership. It's not "settling for less" - it's taking as much as you can get! And it is perfectly easy to get married when that becomes available...when we were filling out the CT marriage license, there was a section for marking that you were "converting" your civil union into a marriage. So there's nothing related to "call it quits" here...you are taking the best you can get and later you'll get an upgrade!

Do you want me to move this to News/Issues?

 

[Bystander]

Yep I was bummed by that too, though I was expecting it. For a supposedly progressive state we sure took a giant step backwards during that vote for this thing. Hopefully we overturn it in 2010 when they put the counter-measure on Ballot. Either way it'll still be a very close vote.

 

[John Doe]

While I agree with you in general terms, this state does allow civil unions.

I know. My answer to your question was no.

 

[infinity706]

I can definitely see where your SO is coming from, gloriann. But telling her my perspective might be enlightening: at least you HAVE domestic partnership as an option. My wife and I don't have that. As you know, we got married in Connecticut anyway, but it's not worth anything here. I would say that if you want to legally establish your relationship, definitely go with the domestic partnership. It's not "settling for less" - it's taking as much as you can get! And it is perfectly easy to get married when that becomes available...when we were filling out the CT marriage license, there was a section for marking that you were "converting" your civil union into a marriage. So there's nothing related to "call it quits" here...you are taking the best you can get and later you'll get an upgrade!

Do you want me to move this to News/Issues?

Well, that is a cool way to think about it. I always did like upgrades. Now, if only I weren't against marriage in general. Of course, I was actually hoping that the whole issue would have gone a different direction and just lead to the abolishment of marriage, totally. The way I see it, marriage offers so many benefits that it looks like a necessity to many people even if they aren't anywhere near ready to handle the responsibilities and all the shit that's going to happen when it ends up blowing up on them. Sure, it works really well for some people, but, if nothing else, some of the protections need to be expanded past marriage/civil union or whatever. It really just seems like a way to force conservative morality on people and it's not working in a lot of cases, except in the favor of lawyers and those out to legally commit extortion.

 

[HornyTeenBoy]

I'm very disappointed about Prop 8 myself. This is one of those times when I'm very proud to live in Canada - our Prime Minister once decided to "revisit" the issue of same-sex marriage (which was allowed at the time, and as a Conservative, he wanted that changed), and we basically told him to eff off and the issue was dropped. It never used to be a personal issue for me (I considered myself straight, but I always strongly supported gay rights issues), but now that I'm with the man I hope to marry one day, it is. I hope you guys find the right answer for you. And if not, come on up to Canada. It's a great country, I promise.

 

[gloriann]

Thanks for the invite! I'm seriously considering it.

 

[kaas]

no offense but...

Just thought I'd come in as a Devil's Advocate...

I myself am against gay marriage. Now, let me say that I have absolutely NO problem with gays having a civil union nor do I have a problem with them recieving all of the benefits that a marriage between a man and woman entitles them to. The only reason, and this may seem silly to some, that I don't agree with gay marriage is the "marriage" in its true form and definition is solely belonging to the catholic church. No Justice of the peace or civil servant can actually create a marriage, only a civil union. Only by a priest can a legal marriage take place. And, considering our seperation of church and state I feel it is an infringement on that seperation for the government to destroy what has been a religious event with specific meaning since before our government was created.

The main argument FOR gay marriage is that gay couples desire the same rights and benefits as a straight couple. So if the government grants them that then why does it matter what it is called? By making that demand you are simply trying to take something sacred away from the church, even if it is just a word. Now, you can make the same argument against the church, "well if its just a word then why not share it with all unions?" but the fact is that it is sacred to us so if you have all the rights and benefits why must you have the word as well?

Sorry for my rant not trying to step on toes just showing the other side

 

[HornyTeenBoy]

The only reason, and this may seem silly to some, that I don't agree with gay marriage is the "marriage" in its true form and definition is solely belonging to the catholic church. No Justice of the peace or civil servant can actually create a marriage, only a civil union. Only by a priest can a legal marriage take place. And, considering our seperation of church and state I feel it is an infringement on that seperation for the government to destroy what has been a religious event with specific meaning since before our government was created.

This is a tricky argument to use against same-sex marriage, and may actually backfire on you in a place or two. First off, it's important to understand that marriage has two components - a religious one and a legal one. Usually these ceremonies are combined into one, if they're both present, but they are distinct. You know how, in a catholic marriage at least (I've never been to any other variety, so I can't speak for them), part of the ceremony involves the husband and wife (and I believe the bridesmaids and groomsmen) signing the marriage document? That's the legal part of the ceremony: the husband and wife and their witnesses signing the legal contract of marriage. It's just wrapped up within the religious ceremony, which is the meat and potatoes of the whole thing.

In these cases, the priest, rabbi, or what have you is essentially acting as an agent of the state insofar as overseeing the legal portion of the ceremony (the signing of the document). Without that, the marriage is not "legal". It may be recognized by the church, but not by the state. Likewise, if two people just have a marriage at City Hall without the religious trappings, it won't be recognized by the church but will be by the state.

Now, when we talk about separation of church and state, why is it that the lega definition of marriage (as opposed to the religious definition of marriage) is allowed to be swayed by religious arguments such as those that were absolutely pervasive during the "Yes on 8" campaign? It seems like a no-brainer that the state's definition of marriage should include same-sex couples. What the church decides on the matter is entirely their own business.

Sure, same-sex couples have civil unions in the US. But these are not the same thing as marriage; if you ask me (and I'm not the only one), that reeks of apartheid. "It's the same thing, it's just... not!" Kind of like when blacks were expected to use different washrooms, sit in different sections of the bus, go to different schools, and sit in different parts of the restaurant if they were allowed in at all. Sure, they got to use all those facilities just like everybody else - just so long as they weren't using the same ones as everyone else. It's the same thing here. "We'll give them something that's pretty much the same, as long as we don't call it marriage, because that's ours."

Either give same-sex couples the same marriage that all the other couples are allowed to have (religious portions notwithstanding), or stop calling the non-religious unions "marriages" for straight couples, too. Anything else is really just segregation.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Just thought I'd come in as a Devil's Advocate...

I myself am against gay marriage. Now, let me say that I have absolutely NO problem with gays having a civil union nor do I have a problem with them receiving all of the benefits that a marriage between a man and woman entitles them to. The only reason, and this may seem silly to some, that I don't agree with gay marriage is the "marriage" in its true form and definition is solely belonging to the catholic church. No Justice of the peace or civil servant can actually create a marriage, only a civil union. Only by a priest can a legal marriage take place. And, considering our separation of church and state I feel it is an infringement on that separation for the government to destroy what has been a religious event with specific meaning since before our government was created.

The main argument FOR gay marriage is that gay couples desire the same rights and benefits as a straight couple. So if the government grants them that then why does it matter what it is called? By making that demand you are simply trying to take something sacred away from the church, even if it is just a word. Now, you can make the same argument against the church, "well if its just a word then why not share it with all unions?" but the fact is that it is sacred to us so if you have all the rights and benefits why must you have the word as well?

Sorry for my rant not trying to step on toes just showing the other side

You aren't stepping on my toes, you are just incorrect about a couple of things is all.

1. If you read your history, until the middle ages even catholics didn't get married. You just used to stand on the steps of the village church and announce that you were married. Done. It didn't become a "holy sacrament" until the church discovered that it gave them additional power over people and would be a source of income.

2. ALL marriages are civil unions (just different kinds for different orientations) Even if you are catholic, you need a marriage license from your state or YOU ARE NOT FREAKIN MARRIED, DUDE! Even if you walk out of the middle of your catholic wedding ceremony, if you signed the papers at the marriage clerks office, you are freakin married. Period. Maybe not to a few fundie asshats, but to the REST of the world you are (BTW, I find it hilarious that you are basically saying that NOBODY but catholics are legally married. That might come as a shock to a few god fearing Calvinists)

3. Speaking for myself, you can keep ALL of your religious mumbo jumbo. I want the same rights as anybody else. I have no desire, nor should I, to intrude on what you do in your church (as YOU have no right to intrude on what I do in MY life). Keep your fundie ass out of my bedroom and I'll keep my heathen ass out of your church, k?

 

[scotsmitch2001]

make the most of a "bad lot" glo riann marraige -lite is better than no marraige at all.
As someone who got married ina registry office purely for legal reasons,cant say i hold with the churchy side of it