If using the term "civil union" got us full legal rights and privledges of marriage, would it be smarter to wait for another day to battle the social implications of "separate but equal"?
I ask because I suspect that there are many who simply oppose the term "marriage," and because progress is often more effectively made in baby steps than one giant leap.
Your thougths?
2006-10-05 17:30:09 · 12 answers · asked by Alex62 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Skeff, I agree entirely. A marriage license granted by the government is a legal contract. It makes incredible sense that all would be considered civil unions. Marriage can be conducted by churches and those that don't want to marry gays should be allowed to do as they please. Unfortunately, that change seems a bit too radical for the time being.
2006-10-05 17:42:51 · update #1
Ashley - a lot of gay men would disagree with you. Besides, gay marriage is not about men, it is about homosexuals - which most definitely include women! Please don't become one of those gays guys that denegrate lesbians as of less importance or lesser people! That's just plain ignorance.
2006-10-05 17:58:07 · update #2
I just want equal rights. I don't care what they call it.
2006-10-06 03:02:13 · answer #1 · answered by Yikes! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually if and only if it contained the exact same rights and privileges it would be acceptable. The separate but equal issue becomes a non-issue if the rights and privileges are actually equal and honestly at that point people WILL refer to it as marriage regardless of the "proper" name in the same way that a Civil marriage and a religious one are both simply called a marriage.
Ashley is COMPLETELY wrong, he speaks for a narrow little group that he sees as being the entirety of gay men and gay life when the actual truth is the exact opposite. I know there are actually millions of gay couples, both male and female, who do have relationships, live together and love each other and long for the day that their rights to legally bind their relationship into a legally recognized union.
2006-10-06 06:31:58 · answer #2 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ashley, as a gay man who has been with his partner for over 30 years, I can tell you that your description of "gay men" is dead wrong. It may describe SOME gay men - and probably a lot of young gay men (as it describes a lot of young straight people), but it doesn't describe the gay men I know.
As far as the question, we have civil unions in CT - and though we are part of the political fight here for marriage, we have also gotten a civil union to take care of a few legal rights until we can get legally married. The problem with civil unions is that they only confer the STATE rights of marriage - and, frankly, those aren't the most important ones. State rights do give you right of inheritance, right of survivorship, durable power of attorney, child custody, etc. But it's the federal government (and the word marriage) that gets you the financial benefits and rewards (and often necessities) that straight couples automatically enjoy.
edited to add: when we had our civil union ceremony, the word 'marriage' was used by our family, friends, the justice of the peace that performed the ceremony, our minister who was in attendance, and our city's mayor and city attorney who attended. Not one person ever said that we had just been civil unionated.
2006-10-06 08:45:32 · answer #3 · answered by tristanrobin 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i do agree with you and also disagree with you
I feel the only reason gay and lesbian marriages are not law is because of the religions in the world
i might sound like a broken record saying this again but
i believe the bible was only written as a law book over years
the book /bible was only written so the king of the day could rule the kingdom with out hassle
the kings appointed a pope or someone in the top job of religion to infect a law at first it only worked for a while
so thy wrote the book i am gong to call the first law book
it had family values making things like steeling as a bad thing after a while they found it did not work so many people did not care if they lost there life for some thing like that as they would go to heaven anyway
so the king not saying it would be the same king
told his pope that he need something that starting the people from fearing death
so hell then all of the sins came in to play like it was a sin to steal so this worked for a while as many people started to care
then they got all of the laws in a book written down
see at the time a king could use the pope and make him self a god or a saint meaning he is thee ruler not only of his Kingston but of the world
and as many other kings did the same that is how wars continued
OK to the point
the Bible says marriage can only be between a man and a women so why are we still using the laws that are thousands of years old it is now we need to wake up god dose not excised
he is just a rummer that started many years ago
popes and kings just use god to brain wash there kingdoms
So i think get with the program government and piss off the churches they are the only thing standing in the way of true pieces only when that happens will we get some where towards equal
2006-10-06 07:48:29 · answer #4 · answered by Zara3 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Good question. That said, I'm not sure of the answer myself. Is it better to insist on the "whole enchilada/full marriage" or accept "civil unions" and wait (and show the society at large that we can function in relationships) for a place at the table. Of course, many in the gay community (whatever that means) feel that the question of marriage is secondary to other issues like protection in the work place, housing, parental rights, funding for AIDS....etc. Personally, I feel that the whole marriage issue is not secondary to anything. Marriage is so fundamental to our society (now I sound like a republican) that if we have that right others will, by implication, follow.
I came out in 1979 (ouch). I am still amazed at the changes I have seen regarding attitudes toward gay people since then. Despite everything, the fact that "gay marriage" is even considered is astounding to me. Damn, I'm old. Remind me to tell you of the time when the police used to beat us up and arrest us just because we were dancing together or holding hands ("lewd and lascivious behavior") in a GAY BAR.....and we had no legal recourse. Damn, now I really sound old.......
2006-10-06 00:50:04 · answer #5 · answered by Mark 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm answering before reading what's there so sorry if i repeat something.
I feel that all marriage is personal. It is between the two people in the union, and maybe their God(s). If the government is going to offer tax breaks and other legal benifits to those in a commited relationship, then those should be available to any couple that qualifies, regardless of orientation or gender.
If I fall in love with someone, and we want to get married, I will not consider us married just because we have a little scrap of paper from the feds. We are married because we want to be together, and define ourselves that way. On the other hand, just because I legally marry someone, doesn't mean I have to define our realtionship as a marriage.
2006-10-06 08:36:35 · answer #6 · answered by big_bookworm 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i am not Gay, but i support Gay Marriage. I think that if the Civil Union term would get you the rights of marriage and all states would have to recognise it as such. then that would be a good starting point.
once you have the legal right then the name becomes a simple matter to adopt.a name.
it really sucks that in this day and age people cannot simply keep their noses in their own business and not worry about what their neighbors are doing.
Rev. Chris J
2006-10-06 00:59:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
People accept things in baby steps. You can't change people's beliefs overnight, especially those ingrained in them since childhood. Let society get used to the civil union thing, then tackle "real" marriage. It's human nature. We don't change quickly, and really - should we? Should societal changes take place in the wink of an eye? Of course not. People need time to digest it, debate it, make sure it's right. Not all new ideas are equal and we need time to sort out what makes sense and what is bizarre.
2006-10-06 01:08:56 · answer #8 · answered by PDY 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I think all marriages as recognized by the state with full rights of marriage under the law should be considered civil unions. Marriage can then be a choice to pledge your commitment to one another - spiritually, religiously or secularly.
2006-10-06 00:36:11 · answer #9 · answered by Skeff 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is a good first step, but plenty of religious nuts don't think gays should have any form of union...Which becomes a problem!!!!! I think that civil unions are a nice way to start, because baby steps help on this issue.
2006-10-06 00:34:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Agreed.
There are states, such as Arizona, however , that are so backwards that they have specifically written laws that prohibit anything resembling marriage! Worse, this coming election, there is a proposition on the ballot that could eliminate domestic partner benefits anywhere they exist in the whole state! That's the mentality we are up against!
Hang tough!
;-)
2006-10-06 00:36:01 · answer #11 · answered by WikiJo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋