Why not just call it a "Civil Union"?

[Katzndogz]

If civil unions become "marriage" then marriage itself will become covenant marriage. In some states covenant marriage is already legally recognized. Gays will find their victory no victory at all.

A Covenant Marriage is a Civil Marriage under the laws of the sponsoring state that requires per-marital counseling, restrictive reasons for divorce, and a commitment for the long term maritial relationship.

As a function of law, and in a state where Same-sex Civil Marriage were to be recognized, what would preclude same-sex couples from entering into a covenant marriage under that states laws?


>>>>

Because a covenant marriage is the legal union of a Husband and Wife. A man and a woman. The covenant is not between the parties, it is between the parties and God who is actually a third party to the proceedings. A Covenant marriage is religious in nature, specifically Christian. While all marriages and civil unions are presided over by an officer of the court, covenant marriages are only performed by a Christian cleric. There is a requirement of pre marital counseling, but that counseling is done under Church supervision. And the Church itself can decline to perform a covenant marriage for any reason it deems worthy. Gays would be in pretty much the same position they are now. They can have a civil union. If they find a pastor sympathetic to their cause they can get a marriage ceremony.

Marriage today is nothing but a civil union. There is nothing particularly special about who signs the marriage certificate. It could be a Cardinal of the Catholic Church or a clerk standing behind the counter at a county office. In fact, it might end up even worse for gays who now find themselves really excluded. Imagine going to get your wedding cake and get told "Sorry, we no longer make wedding cakes. We only make covenant wedding cakes". Now they have no place to go.

 

[Gadawg73]

Who does it hurt by calling it a marriage?
We live in a milk weak defensive thin skinned society if folks are upset by what one calls their relationship with someone else.

 

[Katzndogz]

It is HIGHLY unlikely that gays would even want to enter into a covenant marriage that precludes divorce.

 

[g5000]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

The WORD is not the ISSUE.

The issue is equal protection of the laws.

Gays are forced to pay higher taxes than straights. Simple fact. They are taxed for being gay.

THAT is the issue.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/285885-a-constitutional-parable.html

 

[Gadawg73]

If civil unions become "marriage" then marriage itself will become covenant marriage. In some states covenant marriage is already legally recognized. Gays will find their victory no victory at all.

A Covenant Marriage is a Civil Marriage under the laws of the sponsoring state that requires per-marital counseling, restrictive reasons for divorce, and a commitment for the long term maritial relationship.

As a function of law, and in a state where Same-sex Civil Marriage were to be recognized, what would preclude same-sex couples from entering into a covenant marriage under that states laws?


>>>>

Because a covenant marriage is the legal union of a Husband and Wife. A man and a woman. The covenant is not between the parties, it is between the parties and God who is actually a third party to the proceedings. A Covenant marriage is religious in nature, specifically Christian. While all marriages and civil unions are presided over by an officer of the court, covenant marriages are only performed by a Christian cleric. There is a requirement of pre marital counseling, but that counseling is done under Church supervision. And the Church itself can decline to perform a covenant marriage for any reason it deems worthy. Gays would be in pretty much the same position they are now. They can have a civil union. If they find a pastor sympathetic to their cause they can get a marriage ceremony.

Marriage today is nothing but a civil union. There is nothing particularly special about who signs the marriage certificate. It could be a Cardinal of the Catholic Church or a clerk standing behind the counter at a county office. In fact, it might end up even worse for gays who now find themselves really excluded. Imagine going to get your wedding cake and get told "Sorry, we no longer make wedding cakes. We only make covenant wedding cakes". Now they have no place to go.

No, God is not mentioned anywhere in the law or legal description of covenant marriage.
Your definition is opinion only.

 

[Gadawg73]

It is HIGHLY unlikely that gays would even want to enter into a covenant marriage that precludes divorce.

So you speak for all gay folk.

 

[Katzndogz]

A Covenant Marriage is a Civil Marriage under the laws of the sponsoring state that requires per-marital counseling, restrictive reasons for divorce, and a commitment for the long term maritial relationship.

As a function of law, and in a state where Same-sex Civil Marriage were to be recognized, what would preclude same-sex couples from entering into a covenant marriage under that states laws?


>>>>

Because a covenant marriage is the legal union of a Husband and Wife. A man and a woman. The covenant is not between the parties, it is between the parties and God who is actually a third party to the proceedings. A Covenant marriage is religious in nature, specifically Christian. While all marriages and civil unions are presided over by an officer of the court, covenant marriages are only performed by a Christian cleric. There is a requirement of pre marital counseling, but that counseling is done under Church supervision. And the Church itself can decline to perform a covenant marriage for any reason it deems worthy. Gays would be in pretty much the same position they are now. They can have a civil union. If they find a pastor sympathetic to their cause they can get a marriage ceremony.

Marriage today is nothing but a civil union. There is nothing particularly special about who signs the marriage certificate. It could be a Cardinal of the Catholic Church or a clerk standing behind the counter at a county office. In fact, it might end up even worse for gays who now find themselves really excluded. Imagine going to get your wedding cake and get told "Sorry, we no longer make wedding cakes. We only make covenant wedding cakes". Now they have no place to go.

No, God is not mentioned anywhere in the law or legal description of covenant marriage.
Your definition is opinion only.

Covenant Marriage Movement - Restoring the Covenant of Marriage with the Timeless Principles of God?s Word

 

[Caroljo]

I've asked this over the years as well.

If 'marriage benefits' (financial, health, property, etc) are what the gay community wants then why are they fighting tooth and nail to change the term/meaning of marriage? If two same-sex people become civilly unionized they are going to say they are married. Over time, the term marriage will shift to mean two people (man/woman or same-sex). It will evolve, if you will. Instead, they are demanding that everyone else change for the want of a very, very small percentage of the population.

I greatly resent the gay community shoving their blatant disregard for others down my throat.

Ewww, did that ^ conjure up some kind of visual? Sorry 'bout that.

The liberals are always screaming the right won't "compromise". We're never fair....well I don't think we're being unfair about this one! I've always said (and many others have) that WE DON'T CARE what the gays do, we don't care if you have a civil union with ALL the benefits that a married couple would have....just don't call it marriage. That's called compromise, we let you have MOST of what you want, we just want this ONE LITTLE THING (the term "marriage") to stay as it's always been, between a man and a woman. But most won't even consider it....they have to have it all their way.

Hell....they scream that the republicans won't "compromise" with their dear leader. They love that word until it's thrown at them!

 

[g5000]

A married homosexual has to pay income higher taxes than a married heterosexual.

A married homosexual pays into Social Security just as much as a married heterosexual does. Except the married homosexual cannot collect Social Security survivor benefits, while a married heterosexual can.

There are literally a thousand ways a married homosexual is economically penalized by the government JUST FOR BEING GAY.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Great freakin' point. A "Civil Marriage" would not have to be limited to gay couples. Leave traditional marriage to those who either like the term or who attach a religious component or reason to their marriage. A Civil Marriage can be for those who don't.

There. Can we all move on with our freakin' lives now?

.

Unfortunately no. If the gays get civil unions they will demand everyone else lose the term marriage.

This is why I don't believe the fight overall is about rights. It's about forcing others to accept your lifestyle by default

I don't see that as a possible reality. The objection in my religious affiliation was what a priest decided to marry a same sex couple with one of them wearing a tux or white dress not traditionally worn by that sex person. And the answer was obvious that it would be ludicrous for a priest to do that, and if he/she did there would be disciplinary action brought.

However, for the time being we've just gone for a liturgy that is basically a same sex blessing that is to be no more, or less, valid or worthy than traditional marriage. Concerns such as zoom bings deserve accomodation as do the rights of gays and lesbians. (I admit, I'm still a bit confused on the bi thing. I sorta think that if you're doing commitment, you need to make up your mind. Realizing not all people are 100% faithful to vows. But still (-

Make up their minds about what? Bisexuals typically are in relationships with more than one partner. Doesn't mean they are any less committed. Which brings us back to the slippery slope scenario And why marriage Iis currently defined the way it is.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If civil unions become "marriage" then marriage itself will become covenant marriage. In some states covenant marriage is already legally recognized. Gays will find their victory no victory at all.

A Covenant Marriage is a Civil Marriage under the laws of the sponsoring state that requires per-marital counseling, restrictive reasons for divorce, and a commitment for the long term maritial relationship.

As a function of law, and in a state where Same-sex Civil Marriage were to be recognized, what would preclude same-sex couples from entering into a covenant marriage under that states laws?


>>>>

Because a covenant marriage is the legal union of a Husband and Wife. A man and a woman. The covenant is not between the parties, it is between the parties and God who is actually a third party to the proceedings. A Covenant marriage is religious in nature, specifically Christian. While all marriages and civil unions are presided over by an officer of the court, covenant marriages are only performed by a Christian cleric. There is a requirement of pre marital counseling, but that counseling is done under Church supervision. And the Church itself can decline to perform a covenant marriage for any reason it deems worthy. Gays would be in pretty much the same position they are now. They can have a civil union. If they find a pastor sympathetic to their cause they can get a marriage ceremony.

Marriage today is nothing but a civil union. There is nothing particularly special about who signs the marriage certificate. It could be a Cardinal of the Catholic Church or a clerk standing behind the counter at a county office. In fact, it might end up even worse for gays who now find themselves really excluded. Imagine going to get your wedding cake and get told "Sorry, we no longer make wedding cakes. We only make covenant wedding cakes". Now they have no place to go.

A Covenant Marriage is nothing then a more restrictive type of Civil Marriage requiring premarital counseling, a commitment to the long term, and restricitive divorce.

There is no requirement for a religious component. I've posted the Arizona law which establishes Covenant Marriages. Note that they can receive the premartial counseling from a member of the cleargy **OR** another marriage counselor.

The only states (Louisianan, Arkansas, and Arizona) that have Covenant Marriage, none of those 3 state recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage. It is logical to assume that if Maine (which does have Same-sex Civil Marriage) were to implement Covenant Civil Marriage, then it would include provisions for same-sex couples.


*********************************************************

25-901 - Covenant marriage; declaration of intent; filing requirements

25-901. Covenant marriage; declaration of intent; filing requirements

A. Persons who have the legal capacity to marry pursuant to this title may enter into a covenant marriage by declaring their intent to do so on their application for a license obtained pursuant to section 25-121 and by complying with the requirements of this chapter. The returned marriage license shall be recorded as provided by section 25-123 with an indication that the marriage is a covenant marriage, and the declaration shall be filed by the clerk.

B. A declaration of intent to enter into a covenant marriage shall contain all of the following:

1. The following written statement:

A Covenant Marriage

We solemnly declare that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman who agree to live together as husband and wife for as long as they both live. We have chosen each other carefully and have received premarital counseling on the nature, purposes and responsibilities of marriage. We understand that a covenant marriage is for life. If we experience marital difficulties, we commit ourselves to take all reasonable efforts to preserve our marriage, including marital counseling.

With full knowledge of what this commitment means, we do declare that our marriage will be bound by Arizona law on covenant marriages and we promise to love, honor and care for one another as husband and wife for the rest of our lives.

2. An affidavit by the parties that they have received premarital counseling from a member of the clergy or from a marriage counselor. Premarital counseling shall include a discussion of the seriousness of covenant marriage, communication of the fact that a covenant marriage is a commitment for life, a discussion of the obligation to seek marital counseling in times of marital difficulties and a discussion of the exclusive grounds for legally terminating a covenant marriage by dissolution of marriage or legal separation.

3. The signatures of both parties witnessed by a court clerk.

C. A notarized attestation that is signed by the clergy or counselor must be submitted with the application for a license and shall confirm that the parties were counseled as to the nature and purpose of the marriage and the grounds for its termination and that the counselor provided to the parties the informational pamphlet developed by the supreme court pursuant to this chapter. The clerk shall document that the attestation was submitted.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is HIGHLY unlikely that gays would even want to enter into a covenant marriage that precludes divorce.

Whether they choose to enter into one or not is up to them. If Covenant Marriages were offered in a state that has Same-sex Civil Marriage, they wouldn't be excluded from that choice.


>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

Because a covenant marriage is the legal union of a Husband and Wife. A man and a woman. The covenant is not between the parties, it is between the parties and God who is actually a third party to the proceedings. A Covenant marriage is religious in nature, specifically Christian. While all marriages and civil unions are presided over by an officer of the court, covenant marriages are only performed by a Christian cleric. There is a requirement of pre marital counseling, but that counseling is done under Church supervision. And the Church itself can decline to perform a covenant marriage for any reason it deems worthy. Gays would be in pretty much the same position they are now. They can have a civil union. If they find a pastor sympathetic to their cause they can get a marriage ceremony.

Marriage today is nothing but a civil union. There is nothing particularly special about who signs the marriage certificate. It could be a Cardinal of the Catholic Church or a clerk standing behind the counter at a county office. In fact, it might end up even worse for gays who now find themselves really excluded. Imagine going to get your wedding cake and get told "Sorry, we no longer make wedding cakes. We only make covenant wedding cakes". Now they have no place to go.

No, God is not mentioned anywhere in the law or legal description of covenant marriage.
Your definition is opinion only.

Covenant Marriage Movement - Restoring the Covenant of Marriage with the Timeless Principles of God?s Word

Thank you for proving my point. That is a religious site.
I believe this to be a good thing but NO definition under the law or government concerning covenant marriage mentions God.
And respectfully, we are speaking in terms of THE LAW, not men/women and their various and changing like the wind RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

 

[Gadawg73]

The demonstrators are out against gay marriage today and I just saw them on TV.
Take a good look at these folks and see the hate and anger in their faces. Read the hate on their signs.

Either you stand up to these folks or you don't. There is no in between or BS that we see here.

Some folks hate gay folks and some do not hate.
Choose a side, this is a free country but quit BULL SHITTING why you are on the side of anger and hate.

 

[bendog]

It is HIGHLY unlikely that gays would even want to enter into a covenant marriage that precludes divorce.

Whether they choose to enter into one or not is up to them. If Covenant Marriages were offered in a state that has Same-sex Civil Marriage, they wouldn't be excluded from that choice.


>>>>

Conceptually I agree. However, since all forms of covenant marriage that I'm aware of must include a cleric, and since these clerics tend to be of more conservative persuasions - as I cannot see a Methodist Minister or Episcopal Priest of Reform Rabbi consigning a woman to such an archaic, mysoginistic life - I think gays and lesbians wouldn't be involved.

But katz' notion seemed to me to be that having all civil unions be called marriages would cause a lot of people to opt into these .... things. I dunno. Seems to me, anyone woudl be a bit off the garden path to go this way anyway.

 

[g5000]

The demonstrators are out against gay marriage today and I just saw them on TV.
Take a good look at these folks and see the hate and anger in their faces. Read the hate on their signs.

Either you stand up to these folks or you don't. There is no in between or BS that we see here.

Some folks hate gay folks and some do not hate.
Choose a side, this is a free country but quit BULL SHITTING why you are on the side of anger and hate.

I saw some children of gay couples on TV speaking out in favor of gay marriage. Surprisingly, they did not have horns or third arms growing out of their chests.

One of them was wearing a suit jacket about five sizes too big, though, which told me he was raised by two lesbians. No way two gay men dressed that kid so horribly.

Maybe the jacket was hiding a third arm...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Conceptually I agree. However, since all forms of covenant marriage that I'm aware of must include a cleric, and since these clerics tend to be of more conservative persuasions - as I cannot see a Methodist Minister or Episcopal Priest of Reform Rabbi consigning a woman to such an archaic, mysoginistic life - I think gays and lesbians wouldn't be involved.

See post #51 above, I posted the Arizona law (1 of only 3 states with Convenant Marriages) it specifies the requirements for a Convenenat Marriage.

No cleric or religious component is required.

Since Arizona doesn't have Same-sex Civil Marriage, the designation for "Man and Woman" is understandable. If a State were to have Same-sex Civil Marriage and passed Covenant Marriages, then their language would logically include "spouse" instead.


>>>>

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

Because equality is the issue.

It would be like saying that adoption is legal but you can't call the adopted children your sons and daughters because adoption isn't 'natural'.

 

[bendog]

Conceptually I agree. However, since all forms of covenant marriage that I'm aware of must include a cleric, and since these clerics tend to be of more conservative persuasions - as I cannot see a Methodist Minister or Episcopal Priest of Reform Rabbi consigning a woman to such an archaic, mysoginistic life - I think gays and lesbians wouldn't be involved.

See post #51 above, I posted the Arizona law (1 of only 3 states with Convenant Marriages) it specifies the requirements for a Convenenat Marriage.

No cleric or religious component is required.

Since Arizona doesn't have Same-sex Civil Marriage, the designation for "Man and Woman" is understandable. If a State were to have Same-sex Civil Marriage and passed Covenant Marriages, then their language would logically include "spouse" instead.


>>>>

You are correct, and I'd actually looked at that statute. But, I didn't notice that despite being religiously motivated, the statute was drawn to avoid equal protection challange.

http://www.smartmarriages.com/hawkins.html

But I guess if a gay couple really wanted to go to the trouble and expense of counseling and getting the papers drawn up, they could. What's odd, to me, though is that every religious entitiy I know of will only do a "marriage" if a cleric has counseled a couple, and done some inquiry into the craziness factor. The motivation for the thing seems to me to just be keeping marriages together.

One one hand, one of my great uncles decided to abandon his family in Nebraska back around the turn of the century. His four brothers decided that supporting his family wasn't to their liking, and they literally saddled up and brought him back. He supported his family.

On the other hand, my mother who was born in the 1920s had tales of lonely and beaten women living hellish lives with no way out.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

I'd have no problem with that. Everyone (same-sex and different-sex couples) would have a Civil Union under the law. All references to "marriage" or "Civil Marriage" would be struck and replaced with "union" or "Civil Union" and then apply the law the same.



(BTW - Many states in the early 2000's passed amendments to their state constitutions barring even Civil Unions.)

>>>>

No need to strike the term marriage.

That would be like striking the term homosexual and replacing it with heterosexual.

Marriage means between a man and a woman
Civil union means between two of the same sex

Accurate descriptions. Unless you are ashamed of who you are and feel the need to mask it with a different term.

Fortunately, you theocrats don't get to make those determinations. ​