Which would you rather, civil union or marriage?

Question

People say that they feel like gay marriage is an insult to erm...regular marriages....

But don't most marriages end in...oh...I don't know....DIVORCE? I like the sound of a civil union better. CIVIL union. Doesn't that have a nice ring to it?

A marriage is between a man and a women, fine. You can keep your stupid marriage. I'd rather have a CIVIL union than MARRIAGE anyday.

You can go singing about what the bible says and how wrong God thinks gays are, but the constitution states we are supposed to keep religion and government seperate.

Yeah, I know I sound a bit bitchy and that not ALL marriages end in divorce, but I just had a really heated debate with my 'father' so I'm not in the best of moods right now...

Answer 1

Honestly I don't need to sign a "legal" piece of paper to 'marry' my partner, nor I need the government to sanctify my relationship. All I want is full marriage rights for same-sex couples

Answer 2

Personally I think that everything (gay marriage, straight marriage) should be a civil union to provide all people the same civil and political rights. Only if the ceremony is done in a church should it be called a marriage.

The reasoning behind is this: civil unions would provide all the rights to all interested parties. It would also be a loop hole around the whole "marriage would be destroyed by gay marriage (which is ridiculous, of course)". Because technically it wouldn't be a marriage by religious means.

Ultimately, this would leave the choice of performing gay marriages in the churches hands. I know some priests, pastors, rabbis, clerics, other religious leaders, already perform gay marriages, so it would be their choice and comfort level with it.

This would provide everyone with the same rights in the eyes of government, and for those people who are religious and want to have a religious ceremony (be gay or straight) can take it up with their religious leader.

Answer 3

As you know, civil unions have significantly a lot less rights than marriage. to boot - each State creates its own version of a civil union. This creates a huge boon doggle. we are in a society with fairly some transferring round. What might want to be criminal in a unmarried State might want to be unlawful in yet another. some civil unions purely enable for a cut up of the civil union in that State and some States might want to or might want to no longer recognized the civil union as something to be able to be damaged up by it. it truly is unrealistic to assume that all 50 States will each write up a civil union which will each have a similar reward of marriage. If homosexuals settle for civil unions they get relegated to 2d type citizenship. that is arbitrary. The definition of marriage is recognized international huge and the rights are all in position. If its no longer broke, do not restore. Homosexuals should be able to apply a similar establishments that our immediately brethren savour. that is about rights, no longer faith.

Answer 4

I'm not going to pretend to be some sort of expert on the matter, but I've been in this debate with public officials, electoral candidates (while discussing their platforms), and various gay people and the impression that I get from the people I talk to who are living this question is that (and I'm not saying this applies to EVERY SINGLE gay person on the planet...just some of the ones I've had the pleasure of discussing this with) it's not the legal recognition that they are looking for. Yes Civil Union will cover all the bases that marriage does for "a man and a woman" but the problem is that by calling it Civil Union we are singling out a sect of society. From what I understand gay couples seek the "Married" title because they want to be "Married" not just because they want the rights and legal recognitions that come with it.

Answer 5

I like the way the situation is handled in France. You go to government and get a legal Civil Union. Regardless of gender. This takes care of all of your legal rights. Then if you want to get married in a church, in front of your god you do so afterward.

As for the difference in calling it "Civil Union" or "Marriage" is all a bunch of crap...Would a rose by any other name, still smell as sweet? Just treat us all equaL. and to me that means seperating church and state.

For any Chistians out there who are still reading this, I spent too many years trying to fit int to a church and a religion who could not accept me... I would have made such a great Christian, but you have made it impossible.

Answer 6

i agree with you about the separation of church and state and that is the rule when it comes to most situations but when the question of marriage comes up that separation disappeared.i vote for marriage the civil union would have been fine i think until it come to this point in the battle i do not need a group of politicians trying to keep what is my right as a American from me.this country fights wars to give other people freedoms that Americans hold dear but then we stand and argue the point of marriage for a large portion of our own people i think the time will come when everyone has equal rights,i don't think it will be in my lifetime but in my children's i hope

Answer 7

"civil unions" is just another way to keep us separate, but not equal. I want the SAME rights as other citizens do....I want marriage!
I mean, considering the divorce rate, and unwed mothers, and cheating and abuse and so many people, especially celebrities, who have such a blase' view towards marriage (like Britney's drunken 55 hour Vegas marriage and, oops! now a divorce!), how could we possibly do any more "damage" to the constitution of marriage?

Answer 8

I think it would make sense for Americans to perform weddings the way they do in Europe. In most countries, there is first a civil wedding at the court house, and then for those who are members of a religion, they have a church/synagogue etc. wedding a day or two later. So everyone would have a civil union, and then have the choice of whether to be married in a their place of worship only if they truly believe in that faith. Then it still becomes up to the place of worship whether they would conduct same-sex ceremonies, but everyone would have the equal rights to the civil union.
Just my opinion after seeing it done in Europe.

Answer 9

Well, looking at it objectively, of course a Civil Union is all fine and dandy, as long as everyone has equal rights, but to be honest, I'd like to be married. I don't want to have to refer to my partner as "my partner". I want to call him my husband, and I want to have a big ceremony that will be honored in the public view as beautiful and as serious and sincere as a classic "marriage"... I also just don't like being sectioned off. I don't like the idea that just cause I'm gay i have to have a civil union. Damnit, I wanna get married! ;-p

Answer 10

1. To create a separate title is to encourage segregation, to designate one "form" of commitment as being less than the other. That is unacceptable.
2. To claim that Marriage is based on the gender of the participants reduces it to be no more than a separate name for state sanctioned breeding rights. To include both heterosexuals and homosexuals changes the status to being an institution of commitment and love instead of a legal status for breeding privileges.
3. Any kind of "holy bond" is superfluous and strictly in the eye of the participants, that title carried no legal rights nor benefits.