One of the things I read said that civil unions are only recognized in the state that performed them... implying that that state's laws impact and recognize the union but federal laws do not.
Before we ask, "What is marriage?", there is an even more basic question that needs to be addressed: Spoiler <object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6zlViU5PBPY?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6zlViU5PBPY?version=3&hl=en_US&autoplay=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
When a man and a woman decide they are tired of having freedom, and instead commit themselves to a life of arguing about budgets and mowing the lawn.
Giddy, if there is no fuctional difference then are you suggesting we should fully legalize gay marriage? What's the difference?
I have long been a proponent of gay marriage in the sense that two individuals should be allowed to form an economic and legal partnership. That would mean gay couples have the same kind of economic and legal rights as straight couples do. I don't know if that is stabilizing but heterosexuals have long-ago trampled on the sacredness of "marriage" so they have little to defend. Maybe gay couples will do better, but it is really about giving them equal footing in the crunch time of life: major purchases, health issues, retirement et al. Where I would draw the line is compelling any religious institution to perform any marriage that is requested of it. I can't really say what the difference IS except to say that from the little I've read civil unions are offered state-by-state and have no federal rights. For some reason I thought that if Harold and Susan ran off to the Justice of the Peace (not a licensed wo/man of the cloth) and got married then they had a civil union... even though they might casually speak of getting married. I always thought that a marriage had a religious aspect to the union whether it be Christian, Jewish, Muslim... or whatever.
..but if a religious institution wanted to perform the ceremony then should they be prevented from doing so?
You would be mistaken, Giddy. Marraige doesn't require a "religious component." People can and do have non-denominational marriages, which can essentially be two people getting in front of a bunch of other people in a nice setting, like a nondenominational church on a college campus, to exchange vows, exchange rings, and become "Mr. and Mrs." so and so. Religion is not required. If a "minister" is involved, it is more for the need to have someone "perform the ceremony." I know a little about this, having gone through just that kind of ceremony over 30 years ago.
Where is it? Who performs it? That's not religious? Please explain. My daughter got married in a park.... but the marriage was performed by a minister. Is she half-married? :grin:
A university campus at a non denomination "church." A minister who knew ahead of time that the two people being married were "nonbelievers." As far as we were concerned, it wasn't religious. Why did we do it? For a variety of reasons, but it boils down to "we felt like it." I think you can safely assume your daughter is married, Giddy, and if her spouse (or her) are ever critically ill in a hospital, and "only close family members are allowed," she won't be turned away, and if she has the insurance through her work, he'll be covered. Now you'll ask why it's different from a "civil union." Why is it different? Society, and often the law as currently practiced in much of this country, view it differently, and in the case of the Gay community, they want to be able to do all the things in life that heterosexuals do. I find that an honorable and compelling argument.
Pardon me if I am mistaken, but I don't ever recall anybody suggesting all churches should be required to perform ceremonies. Am I mistaken?
You are not mistaken. This is one of those straw men righties frequently throw out though no serious person has ever suggested a church should have to do that. It reminds me of Bill Hicks' old bit on flag burning... Imaginary rep for all the people that were frightened by that particular straw man - But I don't want to burn my flag! Hicks - Then DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON'T!!!
Married people and people in civil unions should not have benefits under the law that two single people do not. Government has no place in marriages or civil unions or just two people hanging out.
No. The county clerk performed my marriage as me and my (now ex) wife wanted to save the money from having a big ceremony to working on house repairs. I thought about this today and as most know, I rarely venture into this forum; but marriage is really a dying institution. Other than benefits that were spelled out by across, there is no point in it. Of course, I am jaded because I got burned by it and now have to spend a ridiculous amount of time to make up for those mistakes. But if I ever do find someone, we will live together for at least a year, maybe even longer. And if gays want to get married - let them - it doesn't affect me. I might be thinking wrong here but if we allowed civil unions, both heterosexual and homosexual, wouldn't that help decrease medical insurance premium rates?
I wish I could rep this twice because I never even thought of such a thing and I love this idea. I have lived with my girlfriend for almost six years, unmarried, though we are probably considered common law married here in Texas where we've lived for five of those years. I absolutely agree it is not right for married couples to have rights that others don't. And suddenly it is an antiquated idea in my mind. Thank you for the enlightenment.
Not sure if you are confused about this, giddy, but a JP can perform a marriage ceremony. Just because it is a JP does not mean that the resulting contractual joining is a civil union. Deck, I got married at a university (faculty club) by a religion professor so sounds kind of similar to yours. Our ceremony was about 5 minutes. God and Jesus were mentioned briefly I think but he knew we didn't believe any of that. He wore his academic robes. It was funny.
