Civil Unions for All - A Possible Solution for the Battle Over Gay Marriage Rights
In the SistersTalk mailbox this morning:
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and
In addition, gay marriage foes aren't interested in a reasonable and agreeable solution to the battle over marriage; they're interested in promoting their own homophobic anti-gay agenda. The same men who are disgusted by the idea of two men goin' at it are constantly nagging their wives about engaging in 3-way sexual activity with another woman. They don't mind female homosexuals, just the male ones. If homosexual females were the only ones insisting on gay marriage rights, we wouldn't hear a peep from all the hypocritical homophpbic straight men who voted Yes for Prop 8 - then later indulged in a bit of phoney lesbian porn with wifey.
Originally posted on the SistersTalk blog.
One Nation, Indivisible, with Civil Unions for All "In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other, in the multiplicity of sects." - James MadisonI think civil unions for all is reasonable solution; however, I'd like to point out that even though homophobic heterosexuals do not own exclusive rights to the word marriage, they are insisting that the government grant them exclusive rights to the term. The term can be defined several ways:
Can it be as simple as this, the government would recognize and sanction the union of two adults, with legal and mental capacity to consent to join in a monogamous union obligating to each other legal rights and responsibilities and thus availing themselves to federal and state protection, accommodation and regulation, i.e., a civil union.
Therefore, all government recognized unions be they between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, would be civil unions. The licenses granted to such couples would be civil union licenses. To deny any of the above couples this license would have to be based on a compelling state interest (That is, if the right to form a civil union [secular] is construed as equal to the right to marry [ecclesiastical/coitus]. In reality one has little to do with the other). Out side of religious and optimum child rearing environment arguments, a court would be hard pressed to find one.
Going forward, the concept of "marriage" would no longer be legally operative and could thus safely retain its physiological and biological and/or traditional ecclesiastical and/or spiritual meanings including the union of man and woman during coitus and/or in holy matrimony. Marriage would be a non-legal status and event defined by the couple and/or their religious and/or spiritual affiliation. This will comply with the concepts of freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and public policy considerations.
An analogy could be drawn to Judaism which recognizes adulthood at twelve or thirteen but the state recognizes adulthood at eighteen or twenty-one. Why not a similar understanding applicable to marriage?
By its very definition, marriage (a union of a man and a woman), is an under inclusive legal term for use in a society that strives to ensure due process and equal protection to all similarly situated persons under the law. The term civil union most accurately describes the socio/political construct of a state sanctioned union. It is all inclusive in that it can pertain to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Let's not let this issue divide us. Can we be one nation, indivisible, with civil unions for all? Can it be as simple as that?
Best regards,
Vanessa May
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and
In addition, gay marriage foes aren't interested in a reasonable and agreeable solution to the battle over marriage; they're interested in promoting their own homophobic anti-gay agenda. The same men who are disgusted by the idea of two men goin' at it are constantly nagging their wives about engaging in 3-way sexual activity with another woman. They don't mind female homosexuals, just the male ones. If homosexual females were the only ones insisting on gay marriage rights, we wouldn't hear a peep from all the hypocritical homophpbic straight men who voted Yes for Prop 8 - then later indulged in a bit of phoney lesbian porn with wifey.
Originally posted on the SistersTalk blog.
Tags: gay_marriage, gays, homophobia, lesbians, politics, religion
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Brad Pacalis on -
You said: "Marriage would be a non-legal status and event defined by the couple and/or their religious and/or spiritual affiliation. This will comply with the concepts of freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and public policy considerations."------------
Soo... religion has a monopoly over the term 'marriage?' ....after all it is just a word. Why not call it "'civil' marriage" (as it is already) and religions can consider the definition 'marriage under religion' (as they do already)? Saying that the word 'marriage' belongs only to religions is to say that they have intellectual property rights over the word: marriage. It's like a toddler saying 'MINE!' sooooo.... ookay... To redefine secular relationships as civil unions: would be appeasing to religions--- and I agree with you that there should be a separation of church and state: but, how would the STATE appeasing the CHURCH's wishes be a SEPARATION??
Oh, and by the way- in reality.... I'd like to see you tell heterosexuals that they are not considered 'married' in the state's eyes anymore.... I'm sure that will go over well... !
-
Permalink Reply by Genia Stevens on -
I agree; allowing the church to have exclusivity over the term "marriage" by giving them the term "marriage" and homosexuals the term "civil union" is not a separation of church and state.
In an interview with a conservative blogger, he stated he wanted the state to define marriage as a union between 1 man and 1 woman because marriage is a religious institution. I then told him that was a blatant violation of separation church and state - since he wants the state to define a religious institution. This same blogger wants the state to stay out of people's lives - well, he wants the state to stay out of poor people's lives in the form of welfare and state aid. BUT, when it comes to defining marriage, he wants the state to butt in all day long (unless the state decides to allow gay marriage, then he wants the state to stay out of people's business)
-
Permalink Reply by p.Johanna on
-
i blogged about this, and i agree about the religious zealots not owning the word "marriage". i would like to point out that in religion (bible) two people were considered married when they hooked up and lived together...meaning, they didn't even exchange rings. i had suggested we STRIP the religious zealots from being able to actually marry (they can have their religious ceremonies) but have EVERYONE: gay/straight go to the courthouse= CIVIL UNIONS!
-
Permalink Reply by KJ on
-
I don't give a shit what it is called as long as I have the same rights. I don't need it to be called marriage because it is not as defined in this lands constitution. The constitution governs this land and it also says freedom for all. Just give me he same rights, I could care less what you call it.
-
Permalink Reply by Thomas Leavitt on -
If the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed, as Obama has pledged to push for, and as should be possible with the larger Democratic majorities, then a civil union will be the legal equivalent of a "marriage" in the eyes of the federal government.
But, that still leaves a whole host of other folks out in the cold, and questions about the legal validity of marriages in states that do not have these marriage equivalents.
Further, as the example of Florida's constitutional amendment demonstrates, the right's real goal is to deny us access to any and all marriage equivalents - domestic partnerships, civil unions, what have you.
I've no particular attachment to the word "marriage", vs. the rights granted... but the politics of the situation demand that we not settle for anything less than participation in the exact same institution as our heterosexual counterparts. Otherwise, as we've seen, we'll be vulnerable to having "domestic partnerships" and "civil unions" eliminated as the opportunity arises.
-
Permalink Reply by Ruth Toles on
-
Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships - IF and only if they were the ONLY legally recognized state sanctioned union available for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike would be preferable to the prop 8 discriminatory exclusion of gay-marriages. The goal is equal rights=same rights for all. I do prefer the term posed by Brad Pacalis of "civil marriage" - again only as long as the "marriage under religion" has no legal recognition or benefits other than that granted by the particular religion and apart from any governmental actions.
I am sure that the rants and raves over this, by those who are against gay-rights=equal rights be louder and more aggressive, would be even louder and more aggressively protested than we have heard before. Take away their "Sanctity of Marriage" as a legally recognized union? How dare we... - And I volunteer to tell the judgemental heterosexuals that they are no longer married in the eyes of the government... just as long as I can realize my dream someday and be able to watch my beloved daughter marry the woman she loves.
-
Permalink Reply by Kathy Bessette on -
I would love to think that it could be as easy as this, however all parts of Goverment seem to find a loop hole around these "Laws" and then, well let's not get me started on the religous sectors out there. If it were just this simple, believe me I would marry my partner tomorrow, but until "All Nations" are of one mind and do not judge and find my lifestyle evil and "against the bible" it will never come to be.
-
Permalink Reply by Ringbearer on -
Visit: www.civillywedd.com when you are planning to wed.
-
Permalink Reply by egranlund on
-
Yup. That's exactly as I see it.
Either marriage for all, or marriage for none.
If people are unable to separate a government contract from religious definitions, then we just need to change the name of the government contract, for everyone.
The wouldn't stand for that, cause they like being more equal than others :/ (I guess they get something out of it)
The GayWallet Team
SistersTalk (on Twitter)
JaySays (on Twitter)
Robin45 (on Twitter)
Joanne Kerr (on Twitter)
Please read the community rules.
JaySays (on Twitter)
Robin45 (on Twitter)
Joanne Kerr (on Twitter)
Please read the community rules.
© 2010 Created by Genia Stevens.
