You want a Civil Union instead of Civil Marriage?

[Darkwind]

Since many have been talking about it....how many of you would be willing to have your civil marriage license be changed to a civil union license? That the only people with a "marriage" would be those married by religious leaders


Yes or No?

I would be okay with it.

I would also be willing to go through another wedding ceremony with my wife in a church. I kind of feel guilty because before we got married, her sisters tried to talk her out of it and we ended up going to Reno and getting married in "Cupid's Chapel of Love".

My God was that woman beautiful on that day.

And in case she reads this... she's gotten a little bit more beautiful every day of the almost 28 years we've been married.

Note: I would also support the right of any homosexual couple that cared to do so to be married in the church of their choice so long as that church recognized their right.

Immie

South Lake Tahoe for Me.

 

[Immanuel]

The state issues marriage licenses, the church sanctifies marriage. The only debate is what the state does as the church is inconsequential in this argument. No one is calling on the state to force churches to abandon dogma. But citizens should have the right to access the state process.

Not yet. Whether or not it will ever happen is debatable.

Immie

 

[Liability]

Pass a law to make ALL state sanctioning of couples a thing denominated "civil unions."

BUT, no ex post facto. SO, sorry. It will not apply retroactively.

If a couple wishes to be "married" they have to go through the process via some OTHER ceremony. It will probably be some kind of religious institution doing it for them. But as long as it isn't the State, I'm content.

Keep the government out of "marriage" entirely for all future purposes. All future "hitched" couples will be denominated "civil union" couples.

 

[Darkwind]

Pass a law to make ALL state sanctioning of couples a thing denominated "civil unions."

BUT, no ex post facto. SO, sorry. It will not apply retroactively.

If a couple wishes to be "married" they have to go through the process via some OTHER ceremony. It will probably be some kind of religious institution doing it for them. But as long as it isn't the State, I'm content.

Keep the government out of "marriage" entirely for all future purposes. All future "hitched" couples will be denominated "civil union" couples.

I could live with it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No will marriage equality, it probably will make marriage a stronger part of American life.

what makes you think that....?

all it will do is redefine marriage....

and how could you then deny marriage to a bisexual who wants to marry both a man and a woman?

or how could you deny a polygamist or polyamorist...? or other variations of 'marriage'....? once you open the door to redefine it the first time it will get redefined over and over again...

'open' marriages will become much more common.....if only because there are more people involved...or because gay men prefer it that way....

the whole concept of marriage and fidelity will change....

the institution of marriage will be torn asunder and become a patchwork of contracts....and lots more government instrusion...

what kind of effects do you think all that will have upon our children.....? confusion anyone? sexual identity problems? intolerance including against traditional homes? lost children in ever-changing homes? forced schooling against religious beliefs? and so on...

many will probably just get fed up even more with the whole concept of marriage as they are doing today.....pretty soon people will just live together like animals....eventually only a few will have "pedigrees"..... of course this all will make it easier for the STATE to step in and become the controlling influence...as we see already with many fatherless homes today...

It's bad enough now with no-fault divorce, the whole 'sexual revolution' and the resulting out-of-wedlock births....this will only throw more fuel on the fire that is destroying marriage and the basic building block of civilization....the basic family unit...dad, mom, and chlld...

Playing the what if game has little productive value to Me. When people begin that game, it is a flag that no amount of reasoning will reach them with regards to the subject at hand.

I am a conservative. This means that I am opposed to government meddling in the lives of its citizens. It also means I am opposed to government legislating morality, regardless of which side proposes it. Government should never be in someones house, let along their bedroom. It simply is no ones business what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their lives. Hell, if they want to have orgies in their homes, as long as everyone is consenting and over the age of 18, I could care less.

As for your other objections, I find them not to be valid. A man and woman who hold a civil contract and have kids are still called a family unit. They will still be called Mom and Dad. If they have a religious marriage, even more so.

As it stands right now, co-habitation is not against the law. A civil union would eliminate no fault divorce because divorce would be defined in the contract, and would have to be granted or denied on the basis of what was agreed to when signed. In fact, a Civil Contract would eliminate much of what is wrong with marriage laws in this country by pre-defining the boundaries and limits each person is willing to accept from the other.

All the way around, it would be a win-win for this country.

conservatives support the age-old form of marriage......you sound more like a libertarian....

all you have to do to do is look around to see that my objections are quite valid.....these things are already happening to marriage....for example the out-of-wedlock birthrate is up to about 33% in the U.S....you see lots of unmarried mothers on the government dole....not exactly a win-win...

why would people want to redefine marriage to a mere contract.....? that would inherently ignore the rest of the family involved which is part and parcel of marriage....

 

[Darkwind]

what makes you think that....?

all it will do is redefine marriage....

and how could you then deny marriage to a bisexual who wants to marry both a man and a woman?

or how could you deny a polygamist or polyamorist...? or other variations of 'marriage'....? once you open the door to redefine it the first time it will get redefined over and over again...

'open' marriages will become much more common.....if only because there are more people involved...or because gay men prefer it that way....

the whole concept of marriage and fidelity will change....

the institution of marriage will be torn asunder and become a patchwork of contracts....and lots more government instrusion...

what kind of effects do you think all that will have upon our children.....? confusion anyone? sexual identity problems? intolerance including against traditional homes? lost children in ever-changing homes? forced schooling against religious beliefs? and so on...

many will probably just get fed up even more with the whole concept of marriage as they are doing today.....pretty soon people will just live together like animals....eventually only a few will have "pedigrees"..... of course this all will make it easier for the STATE to step in and become the controlling influence...as we see already with many fatherless homes today...

It's bad enough now with no-fault divorce, the whole 'sexual revolution' and the resulting out-of-wedlock births....this will only throw more fuel on the fire that is destroying marriage and the basic building block of civilization....the basic family unit...dad, mom, and chlld...

Playing the what if game has little productive value to Me. When people begin that game, it is a flag that no amount of reasoning will reach them with regards to the subject at hand.

I am a conservative. This means that I am opposed to government meddling in the lives of its citizens. It also means I am opposed to government legislating morality, regardless of which side proposes it. Government should never be in someones house, let along their bedroom. It simply is no ones business what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their lives. Hell, if they want to have orgies in their homes, as long as everyone is consenting and over the age of 18, I could care less.

As for your other objections, I find them not to be valid. A man and woman who hold a civil contract and have kids are still called a family unit. They will still be called Mom and Dad. If they have a religious marriage, even more so.

As it stands right now, co-habitation is not against the law. A civil union would eliminate no fault divorce because divorce would be defined in the contract, and would have to be granted or denied on the basis of what was agreed to when signed. In fact, a Civil Contract would eliminate much of what is wrong with marriage laws in this country by pre-defining the boundaries and limits each person is willing to accept from the other.

All the way around, it would be a win-win for this country.

conservatives support the age-old form of marriage......you sound more like a libertarian....

all you have to do to do is look around to see that my objections are quite valid.....these things are already happening to marriage....for example the out-of-wedlock birthrate is up to about 33% in the U.S....you see lots of unmarried mothers on the government dole....not exactly a win-win...

why would people want to redefine marriage to a mere contract.....? that would inherently ignore the rest of the family involved which is part and parcel of marriage....

No, a libertarian is an anarchist. I do have some use for government.

This is not redefining marriage to a contract. Marriage would still be defined as a religious institution and governed by the couples religious beliefs.

Quite simply, all the things you listed have more to do with the personal values of the people doing them, than with some notion of marriage. Again, you cannot legislate morality. Either people will believe that marriage is a good thing, or they won't. Laws giving legal privileges to married couples will not solve out of wedlock births, divorce, or unwed mothers on the dole. Its a strange way of looking at life to say that because you get tax breaks for being married, society will lower unwed mothers on welfare.

In the eyes of the government, marriage IS only a contract to begin with.

Personally, if you want to call it marriage, knock yourself out. I simply do not want government involved in it. Anything government touches, government destroys or corrupts.