Why not civil unions?

[judecorp]

Okay, so when I was in yoga and I was supposed to be clearing my head and visualizing white healing light, I started thinking about the recent rhetoric surrounding the whole same-sex marriage brouhaha and how the new hip thing to say is that 'marriage' should be reserved for churches and 'civil unions' should be reserved for government and how the whole debacle would just go away if we could make this semantic shift, say, right now.

Formally, I call bullshit.

Even if we ignore the fact that terminology and process that has been in place for a bazillion years can't just be changed on a whim, what about the fact that 'marriage' has been a government institution all along? I mean, even if a church official or religious representative bequeaths the sacrament of marriage/matrimony on a couple, it is only a legal marital union if said religious official uses the power of Greyskull vested in him/her by the State to legally join the couple. Doesn't that make 'marriage' a civil term and a civil contract?

Churches have had long-standing (and oft unwavering even in the face of changing times) beliefs and policies on whom they believe should be married, and our freedoms allow them to withhold the sacrament of marriage from anyone they see as unfit. This has always been the case. Churches don't have to marry non-members, they don't have to marry those whom they perceive as sinners, and they don't have to marry anyone they just plain don't want to. Most church officials interview couples before marriage, or make them take classes, or go through other hoops to prove their worthiness to be married in a particular church. No big deal, right? So why is it a big deal now?

When interracial marriage was illegal in many (if not all) states, was there talk of allowing 'interracial civil unions,' or did we just kick the country in the pants and, one by one, force states to abandon their bigoted ways? Why eff up a perfectly good (and delicious rebellious) system?

Personally, I don't want to be 'civil unioned.' I want the whole she-bang, the M-word, the same sealed, stamped official document that my grandparents have, that my neighbors have, that some minister miles away has. Anything else is a bogus imitation, a pussy-footed compromise, a second-class attempt at a first-class procedure. And I've never been one for second best.

Comments

[gabriellag.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with what you say. The terminology, though, is a sticking point with those moderate conservatives that are our age.

I have had so mnay conversations where "marriage" is the sticking point. It's illogical, ill founded, and completely prejudicial.

It's a choice for you. Do you want to get civil unions in the next five years or do you want to wait twenty years for marriage.

Unless you live in MA where YOU CAN GET MARRIED. I'm so glad some are sane.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Well, I /do/ live in MA and will be getting married. And while that is fine and dandy in MA, it's bunk in the rest of the country and that is ridiculous, because we have that handy-dandy Full Faith and Credit clause in our Constitution. (But who pays attention to that thing these days?)

The thing is, though, is that those "moderate conservatives" are going to be just as cranky about civil unions if indeed they are "equal" to marriage. Because the reality is that they want to keep marriage from people, and that is not going to change - not in five OR twenty years. Besides, the Feds are going to push through civil unions any more than they're going to stop drilling for oil in the Middle East. They're hip to telling people they'll install civil unions if the public will pass through a discriminatory Marriage Amendment. And I think it's a bold-faced lie.

Since when did the government cater to the scared majority rather than upholding the rights of the minority? THAT'S what's really messed up.

[gabriellag.livejournal.com]

I know.

I do agree with you. I suppose I'm looking at the possibilities and being discouraged. It's sad.

My focus at this point is Issue 1 here in Ohio. I'm a legal aid attorney and work with DV victims. The PD's office in Cleveland has challenged DV charges against non-married parties saying the law is designed only for married couples, and that anything else is giving non-marrieds the benefits of marriage, allowing gf-beaters to get off with assault charges (which is a big deal as the second DV is a felony, but the second assault is not). That prohibition is the second sentence of the law.

I'm just so disheartened and discouraged. While I agree with everything you say, I'm not sure we'll ever get there, especially when seventy percent of Ohioans passed Issue 1.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Good luck with the Issue One thing. I admit that I was at least a /little/ glad that we left Ohio when I heard that Issue One passed by such a wide margin. I even wrote in my journal about it, and I don't write political posts much anymore. (Too busy, yo.)

Keep up the good fight. You're doing valuable things.

[cfred.livejournal.com]

it's bunk in the rest of the country and that is ridiculous, because we have that handy-dandy Full Faith and Credit clause in our Constitution.

What scares me at some level is that we're going to have the next Civil War break out in the aftermath of this. Not over gay marriage directly, but eventually a pissing contest is going to start between two states: "You won't recognize all our marriages? We won't recognize any of yours?" Or, "We won't recognize any of your contracts." And at that point, the lines start getting drawn.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I really hope things don't come down to that. I loathe tension.

[mostlyhere.livejournal.com]

When interracial marriage was illegal in many (if not all) states, was there talk of allowing 'interracial civil unions,' or did we just kick the country in the pants and, one by one, force states to abandon their bigoted ways?

Alabama didn't legally allow interracial marriage (or civil unions) until 2000. I wonder how long before homos can get married?

/stray thought

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I know - scary, isn't it? But the point still stands that when they were trying to bring about global marriage reform in this country the /last/ time, they didn't try making a whole new terminology for it. They just kicked everyone in the pants and said, "Shut up. This is the right thing to do."

(Some people just started kicking sooner than others.)

I wonder if something like "civil unions" wasn't proposed because the "separate but equal" myth was so totally debunked during the civil rights movement and it was all so fresh and raw? I think we as a country have forgotten what it's like to have separate institutions.

[mostlyhere.livejournal.com]

I totally hear you on the terminology. As for forgetting what it's like to have separate institutions... Well I could go on for a while about that. Do you really think we have forgotten? Or have we become so stripped of power that we just don't see it for what it is?

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I think the majority of people in the US have either forgotten or honestly don't care. I don't know which is worse.

re: civil unions

[etherial.livejournal.com]

At first, the idea of civil unions becomes a matter of appeasement (either for us, or them, depending on your perspective). But then one might consider the possibility that the word marriage really does contain too much religious/cultural connotation to be a legal institution.

I mean, the Church also used to be a part of the state, but our Forefathers and FMILFs knew that it shouldn't be. Maybe we're just figuring out that marriage doesn't belong on the legal side of the church/state fence.

After all, you CAN go to a church and have the priest marry you and everyone but the law will agree that you're married.

Re: civil unions

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

If it contains so much religious connotation, why does no one seem to balk when straight people get married by JPs? I mean, it's not like church people are up in arms about /that/.

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

According to my dad the DEMOCRATS in Alabama are right now calling for a special election to pass a new law. You guess what the subject is.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Ugh.

[mayna.livejournal.com]

I notice that with politicians, either they are against gay marriage (period), or they are against gay marriage, but... (insert some phrases such as they think it should be up to the states, or civil unions would be OK). They're so afraid of the majority that no one wants to admit that they don't feel threatened by gay marriage and the US citizens shouldn't get all up in arms about something like that...

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. It made me so mad during the presidential election, that no one (except Kucinich and Cobb because THEY ROCK) dared to say that they supported same-sex marriage, because that would be a bullet to the head in terms of having a chance to win the election.

What is with the majority of people? What is so effing threatening? I just don't know.

[livinginfits.livejournal.com]

i think you're wrong.

i also fucking hate churches.

we should go get some custard.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Oh my god I want some freaking custard SO BAD now.

[livinginfits.livejournal.com]

you could always come to visit our backward state :)

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

It's in the works, now that I have a teensy little bit of vacation time. I just need work to chill out a little bit.

So when I come visit, are we going to have lots of bessert?

[livinginfits.livejournal.com]

you bet your sweet bippy!

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Yessssssssssssssssssssssss!

[thinksnow.livejournal.com]

Funny, I was thinking about this on my drive to work this morning: I wish someone would call their bluff on the civil union thing.

Liek you mentioned, you know that about .015 seconds after someone says "Fine, I'll take a civil union and all the benefits that entails, please." that the PTB will start hemming and hawing and suddenly they didn't really mean civil unions, they meant something more like nothing for you queers.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

EXACTLY.

If this country was so in favor of "no marriages, but civil unions," why aren't all of the states clamoring to recognize all of the civil unions performed in Vermont in the last bunch of years?

[hopemcg.livejournal.com]

Amen!

(Oh, and I love it when you get all He-Man on me)

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

37 is a prime number.

[hopemcg.livejournal.com]

hey! That's *my* line.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I know, I know.

*fans self*

[carina-s.livejournal.com]

I think people just don't realize that churches won't have to marry people unless they want to, and marriage still counts under the law if a judge does it. Bleh. I hate this. It makes me want to punch someone. I wish we would just go legalize marriage for two consenting adults, period.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I do, too.

I just wish I knew what was so threatening. I mean, I want someone to intelligently type it up and explain it to me. How is it threatening? What is the problem? SOMEONE LET ME KNOW!

[rebasayre.livejournal.com]

when i was doing my yoga this am i was thinking about how i should have a blank mind but think i was thinking about how you had such productive thought during your yoga time and how you'd probably think it was funny that i was thinking about your thinking during your yoga while i was yogaing, that i kinda was laughing and had to really try to refocus. but it made it a lot more fun. so thanks! :)

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's so awesome! I'm glad we were psychically linked, even for a minute. And that I could somehow make you smile through the distance.

Love you.

[juliann.livejournal.com]

I'm in favour of removing all legal provisions related to marriage. Civil unions for everyone! Do away with the pre-nup and make it a "union contract" that should be mandatory and should serve as living wills, and everything else that might be needed in case of the death or incapacitation of a partner. (But you should be able to modify them as life changes.) This is actually the old old old way of doing it, with dowry, dower lands, property rights in case of death, etc etc. Civil unions should not be restricted to two people and should be available for any people who want to combine their households and legal rights together. Like how sometimes two gay couples live in one house and jointly raise their children (who are the biological offspring of one of each couple, at least in the case where one male couple and one female couple doing this but that shouldn't matter, people should be able to co-parent however they want. Three men and a baby. Whatever they want!). Let anyone get into whatever sort of arrangement they want, as long as anyone they are already in a civil union with agrees to the new arrangement (well and is a signee of the new contract).

I have fairly radical views on marriage (that it should be indissoluble, but that you should be able to have more than two partners in a marriage) and think that anyway, the LEGAL aspects of domestic partnership should be entirely separate from the SPIRITUAL aspects of it. It's just bullshit that the government should have ANY say in a person's spiritual life choices. If a man wants 4 wives (as permitted under the Koran), so be it, assuming all 5 people are in agreement about it.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

That's certainly very interesting. But how would one realistically and logically complete a total overhaul of the marriage system as we know it in the developed world? Do you really have any plan for how such an abrupt shift could be feasibly managed?

I'm curious.

[juliann.livejournal.com]

Well duh, they make me emperor of the universe (and all universes we colonize) and I just say "Make it so"!

In the US it would be hard but in the UK I believe an Act of Parliament (or three, because we currently have different marriage laws between the kingdoms) would be able to change everything at once.

My actual practice is to ignore the laws as much as possible and only use them when necessary (like for visas since we had not cohabitated for two years -- but if you have cohabitated for two years you can get a spousal visa, no marriage required. Yes, the UK rocks).

The whole UK culture is different, unmarried partners get a lot of rights that they don't have in the US (right to be next of kin or notified in an emergency/be in the emergency room with them, etc.). In our current lifestyle the ONLY thing that is different between being married and not is my visa. If we were filthy rich or something it might be different as far as taxes but marriage of lack thereof does not affect any other aspect of our lives, legally/financially. We don't even file taxes -- I don't even think it's possible to file jointly. Maybe it is. But generally most people don't file taxes and of those that do it's as an individual since there aren't any dependant deductions or marriage penalties. We used to have a marriage bonus but they did away with that two years ago. (£15/month off t's taxes, or we could have taken 7.50 a month each) Uhm, we don't have health insurance because it's crap but if we wanted it through t's company it is available for partners not just spouses. (As it was through the law firm I used to work at -- and that included gay partners.) But everyone has to pay extra for partners, I've not heard of anyone getting it free for the partners. That pre-empts some of the moral qualms about "but I don't want to have to take a financial hit for people living in sin" or whatever that people whine about in the US. Because you have to pay whether you are married or not, the employer doesn't pay for the non-employee. Same if you want your kids on the health care plan. So the employer really doesn't care.

Therefore it wouldn't be that big of a deal to change it here. What it would do is make divorce a whole hell of a lot easier, as right now there are only two grounds for divorce: adultery and separation of more than two years. But you have to have grounds to get separated, like lack of conjugal relations etc. (So you can eventually get divorced -- stop having sex and then get separated and THEN divorce -- but it's a lengthy process not just a few months of filing papers like in the US.) Because it's harder to get a divorce, fewer couples get married, which I think is why we have strong rights for unmarried partners.

As far as what the crazy people do in the US, well they're all weird anyway ;) Europe is the new America! or something ;)

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

This is all very interesting. I think I'm still digesting it. I'm not sure how it would work with the tax codes or whatever, but maybe that's because I'm thinking like an American.

[juliann.livejournal.com]

Tax codes: Do away with joint filing. Everyone files for themselves. If a couple have made donations, or have a child, they decide who to give that to for tax purposes. (Same as if you have four parents with one child, etc. Or for a divorced couple with joint custody -- people in nontraditional arrangements already have to do that sort of juggling. So do you!)

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Well yeah, but how do you go about implementing massive tax changes? (Especially when the people who benefit from the current tax rules a) don't want them changed and b) have the power.)

[juliann.livejournal.com]

Considering how many people complain about "marriage penalties" I would think that bit should be easy.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I don't mean the individual taxpayers, I mean the asshat government.

[juliann.livejournal.com]

Well, if the grumbling on my friends list is accurate, the more you earn/own the more the marriage penalty bites. So really uber rich people suffer most (in terms of dollars, not in terms of whether they'd even miss those dollars). Bush loves to help his rich friends wriggle out of paying taxes, so he'd be all for it. And the sheep that are in Congress will follow along.

(I don't mean to imply that all Congresspersons are sheep, but the majority needed to pass a law are :P )

[thelastbard.livejournal.com]

YES! Thank you -- marriage IS ONLY A CONSTRUCT OF CIVIC LIFE. The religious implications have been stripped from it for some time now. That is why I don't understand why the states (and our re-elected president) percieve it to be such a problem. If marriage was such a relgious function, why is there such a magnitude of laws governing divorce and end-of-marriage statutes? The vast majority of modern religions FORBID divorce -- that would preclude any need for litigation limitations, and end the question once and for all.

Marriage as a civic institution is all that it is -- individual couples decide what, if any, religious significance to attach to the act. Tha's why judges are allowed to perform the act.

I'm done ranting now. :)

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

You can rant all you want because you agree with me and because I love you, B!

p.s. You stinkum!