POLL: Which is more important: semantics or civil privileges?

[Old_alum]

For at least 2,000 years, the word ''marriage'' has been religiously defined as the joining of one man and one woman in a religious ceremony in order to have and raise children. About 230 years ago that religious word was adopted by state governments in the US as a convenience to foster certain civil rules and laws that promoted such unions. These civil rules did not and could not change the meaning of the word, itself. Now many couples other than one man and one woman seek similar support from civil rules and laws.

 

[Merge]

I have been away from this board for a while because it is busy season and I haven't had the time to post as much, but your question is valid. I do have several gay friends and family members, and I only want for them to be treated equally.

I would have absolutely no problem with what you are suggesting if heterosexual couples can no longer be "married" outside of a church.

As it stands today, anyone can be "married" outside of religion. Whatever the word should be to define the group of people married outside of a church, I don't really care but it should apply to all consenting adults equally.

Would you be ok if religious weddings became "holy unions" and non religious weddings became "civil unions" both to be recognized by the state equally as a union?

 

[Section112]

Merge I would certainly agree to that approach.

 

[SPK145]

Well said, Merge.

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by Merge:I would have absolutely no problem with what you are suggesting if heterosexual couples can no longer be "married" outside of a church.... As it stands today, anyone can be "married" outside of religion.

That is a point I have never heard brought up before. It is excellent!

Originally posted by Merge:

Would you be ok if religious weddings became "holy unions" and non religious weddings became "civil unions" both to be recognized by the state equally as a union?

I would have no problem with that at all. As far as a state granting a ''legal'' commission for any church minister to witness such a Civil Union (there is no ''Holy union'' because no state-authorized civil contract should ever need to be deemed ''holy''), it should be much like a notary public’s attestation role. Priests and ministers would thus need to perform two coincident functions: (1) a sacrament joining a man and a woman in ''holy matrimony'' or ''marriage'' before God; and, (2) notarizing a civil contract between two citizens of majority age which binds each to certain civil obligations and which makes them eligible to share certain civil benefits, such as tax rates and health insurance coverage.

I like it!

There would be some incremental cost to the state for the reprinting of regs, forms, licenses, etc., but this should be trivial compared to the estimated litigation and ancillary cost of various civil actions currently being contested over semantics. As for the alimony and child-support aspects of current civil law, I would merely suggest appending the current adoption language and protocols for any or all progeny of such a civil union. The terms ‘‘child’’, ‘‘son’’ and ‘‘daughter’’, to my estimation, should generate far less religious backlash. I suspect some vetted term other than ‘‘civil union’’ might be espoused, because many Republican gay couples might still bristle if they are described as joining a union. How about a CCCC or 4Cs: certified civil commitment contract or, perhaps, for short, just a ‘‘civil commitment’’ or a ‘‘civil relationship’’? Suggestions welcomed!




In any citizens’ private lives, I would have no problem with anyone casually calling their civil relationship any term they prefer and already seem to do now anyway (e.g. baby mama).




I cannot speak for anyone but myself but this definitely seems to me to render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's.




To SPK's point about there being other interested parties, any citizen seeking to establish more than one civil union at a time would be denied for purely financial reasons.




This post was edited on 2/29 3:28 PM by Old_alum

 

[Old_alum]

On a lighter side, I think The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and SNL would have a field day with this, dramatizing how some young thing would hector her boyfriend because he promised they would get unionized.

We definitely need a different term.

How about signing a ''civil conjunction'' or being ''civilly conjoined'' to your ''conjoined dependent''?

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by Old_alum:
To SPK's point about there being other interested parties, any citizen seeking to establish more than one civil union at a time would be denied for purely financial reasons.

That wasn't my point, my point was why should marriage/civil unions/etc. be limited to only two people, provided of course that it is consensual. Seems awfully discriminatory, as discriminatory as preventing gays from marriage/civil unions/etc. now.

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by SPK145:

...my point was why should marriage/civil unions/etc. be limited to only two people, provided of course that it is consensual. Seems awfully discriminatory, as discriminatory as preventing gays from marriage/civil unions/etc. now.

If I am correct, while the original basis for laws against polygamy was probably Christian tradition, there is little doubt that the primary civil benefit was not a prohibition of sexual promiscuity but the protection of the rights of the wife and children of the first marriages. Since time immemorial women had been treated as second-class citizens. In New York there even had been a law on the books (until c. 1900) which made it a crime for any woman to speak in public.

With new financial independence for many women, this might be of less concern. That said, if the ‘‘civil conjunction’’ we have discussed is to be a mutually binding contract then language could be drafted to specify that it may be either unilaterally or mutually extended to one or more other conjoiners. Presumably, in such circumstances there might be either many bilateral agreements or one multilateral agreement, subject to all third parties implicated.

IMHO the IRS and the insurance companies would (a) refuse this option, (b) drastically reduce the benefits covered, or (c) significantly raise the premiums on any insurance to either the beneficiaries and/or their employers.

If there were to be such statutory renaming of ‘‘marriage’’ as ‘‘civil conjunctions’’ (or whatever) there obviously would have to be some omnibus laws that redefine all the obsolete legal terms into the respective ‘‘civil conjunction’’ terms.

 

[Old_alum]

Bumped up for recent posters to vote / opine