Are Civil Unions Enough?

Now I've voiced my opinion a lot on this. Yes I want to have equal rights on this issue, whether Lee and I do walk down an aisle is entirely a different matter. But having the choice to do it is my main point of contention.

One good point that the article Rainey first posted is that civil unions are not recognized outside of the state - in this case Vermont. In Vermont, at the moment, a couple in a civil union has all the same rights as a ‘married’ couple, on the state level (and only in the state).

At first we were fighting for legal acknowledgement of our unions from the states. While the word marriage wasn’t in play (but assumed) at the time, many seemed willing to take this route. It wasn’t until the Massachusetts court deemed there is a difference between a ‘civil union’ and a ‘marriage’ that the word ‘gay marriage’ was thrown into the mix here in the US.

I’m not talking about the politics at the moment, the candidate’s opinion or the farce of a constitutional amendment – put that aside for the moment.

If the federal government were to acknowledge a ‘civil union’, and not call it ‘marriage’, would that be enough to start with? Are we getting caught up in wording at the moment? Should the fight be to acknowledge our unions first THEN go after the words?

I watched Larry King the other night with Chad Allen, Gavin Newsom, Pastor John MacArthur and Marilyn Musgrave.

It was what Pastor MacArthur said that struck a cord in me. And it all came down to wording. (Again I’m not talking about the discrimination factors here – not at this moment) He placed the difference between marriage and civil unions into the words. He looks at the word marriage in a religious sense. He did say that gay people have a civil right to join together and have the state acknowledge it. His only concern was the religious sanctity of the word marriage, that it being between a man and woman and in the sense of joining for procreation. That is his only issue with the issue and seems to be one of the main issues at hand. He argued his entire point from a religious stance (of course I didn’t agree with it), but still acknowledging that we have the rights to a civil union.

Now Ms. Musgrave is the one introducing the legislature on the amendment. Frankly, she can kiss my big fat hairy ass. She is one of those people who confuse love with deviance. She kept comparing gay marriage to bigamy. I was quite pleased with Mayor Newsom’s retort that she had only a rhetorical red herring to throw out like that and one had nothing to do with the other. I believe he did a wonderful job putting Ms. Musgrave in her place.

I am a very strong believer in the separation of church and state. But if this is the REAL issue at hand, and out of all of this we could get civil unions acknowledge by the federal government isn’t that a valid first step?

I’m not basing my entire opinion on this one television show. But the points made and the way they were made, enticed more questions for me.

So for now, I will continue to watch, read and listen to find the answers. I can only hope that the votes this November will be votes in the right direction.

My best,
Gary

Quote:

---

Originally posted by basschick
. . . but whatever your opinion, the bottom line - make SURE you vote!

---

Yes mam! But don't wait until the elections. Let those in office as well as those running for office know how you as a tax paying, voting citizen feel about the issue. Write your representative and senator asking them NOT to support the Federal Marriage Amendment. Remind them that there are far more pressing issues to spend their time on -- the issues George W.'s trying to take the country's attention away from with "save marriage, protect families" rhetoric. He's failed on education, jobs, terrorists, Iraq . . . don't let him win with this.

Pay special attention if one of your elected representatives is a sponsor of the Amendment. These indiviuals need to be reminded that we vote and, as of now, our votes still count. They don't hold office forever. Let them know they have constituents that disagree with what they are proposing.

AGAIN . . .
Write your representative: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Write your senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

I did: http://www.gay-empire.net/brownback.html

In Defense of Equal Civil Marriage Rights

Quote:

---

Ouotes Originally posted by Gary-Alan
. . . It wasn’t until the Massachusetts court deemed there is a difference between a ‘civil union’ and a ‘marriage’ that the word ‘gay marriage’ was thrown into the mix here in the US.

---

It's those against who threw those words. No one I know that's for equal rights in civil marriage laws defines it as 'gay marriage' -- that's a label designed to stir up the folk that don't understand, or don't want to accept, the difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage.

Quote:

---

If the federal government were to acknowledge a ‘civil union’, and not call it ‘marriage’, would that be enough to start with?

---

BIG IF! There are over 1100 separate laws within the U.S. Code that relate to the status of being married or being a spouse of a marriage or the child of a marriage.

Quote:

---

. . . He looks at the word marriage in a religious sense. He did say that gay people have a civil right to join together and have the state acknowledge it. His only concern was the religious sanctity of the word marriage, that it being between a man and woman and in the sense of joining for procreation. . .

---

And, sorry to say, that civil right is called a civil marriage, requiring no religious group or official to perform it, accept it, respect it or honor it. Marriage is not just a religious term. It is a term that defines both a religious act and a civil contract and one does not 'require' the other. Furthermore, not all religions say marriage is a sacrament or that it's purpose is for procreation or even that it is limited to different-gender couples.

JAY JAY

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jonjayw
And, sorry to say, that civil right is called a civil marriage, requiring no religious group or official to perform it, accept it, respect it or honor it. Marriage is not just a religious term. It is a term that defines both a religious act and a civil contract and one does not 'require' the other. Furthermore, not all religions say marriage is a sacrament or that it's purpose is for procreation or even that it is limited to different-gender couples.

JAY JAY

---

Hey Jay Jay!

Just for the record I'm not in love with Pastor MacArthur LOL

And I agree with whole heartly on the all religious factors you mentioned above... But the main religious opponent to this is the conservative Christain based, who do define it in terms of procreation, man and woman.

I think what I'm trying to figure out (amidst all the political rhetoric and opinions that are flying around my head) is, at this moment in time if a gay couple wanting to legalize their relationship can do so if a word is changed, will they? Or is this an all or nothing situation? And I love your big IF ;) BUT IF it were to happen would we be compromising by accepting it? I still wonder.

Let me add, I'm often an optimist in many things. This time I'm not. I really think that nothing will come of this except more heart ache and disappoint. I, unfortunately, feel that once the elections are over this will go to the back of the shelf because it's all meant as political rhetoric and posturing for the moment.

My best,
GA

What I want to ask is what we can do about it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DigitalJay
What I want to ask is what we can do about it.

---

1 -- See my prior post re: contacting your elected officials and -- do the same for any candidates for office. Drop a note to George!!
For more ideas checkout this 'Planet Out' page

2 -- Follow the very sound advise of HRC President Cheryl Jacques:

brief quotes

" . . . the majority of us don't talk to family, friends and colleagues about the impact of discrimination on our lives. We are depriving the people who love us most of the opportunity to fight for us, to vote for us and to end the discrimination against us.

"This silence is a barrier to our equality. . .

"Poll after poll shows that people who know openly GLBT people are far more likely to support our equal rights -- in the workplace, in marriage rights and in all the areas we lack critical protection. Some may say that our greatest enemies are extremist groups like Focus on the Family -- who are dangerous, loud and well funded. But at this moment, our greatest challenges are silence, ignorance and apathy."

Who outside the gay community have you talked to about any of our issues within the past week? If your answer is "NOBODY". Change!!

3 -- Keep informed. Read and pass on the information in this article:
Anthropologists Give Bush A Failing Grade on Understanding Human Cultural

Check out these three organizations and what they have to say:
Soul Force

Freedom To Marry

Interfaith Working Group Online

4 -- Be sure you really understand the underlying issue here, which is the separation of church and state. Yes folks, the issue may be equality in civil marriage rights, BUT, the fight against it has been taken over by those who actually think/believe that the United States is a Christian republic/democracy. Take This Quiz. You may get a real surprise!!

Jay Jay (no sig, this is personal!!)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary-Alan
. . . if a gay couple wanting to legalize their relationship can do so if a word is changed, will they? Or is this an all or nothing situation? And I love your big IF ;) BUT IF it were to happen would we be compromising by accepting it?

---

IF (still a damn big one) every state and federal law, regulation, etc. that uses the term marriage, in some form, could be changed to read 'marriage or civil union' and the feds still allowed states to define what is 'marriage' and what is 'civil union' . . .
I'd say YES! So would any 'couple wanting to legalize their relationship' (regardless of gender/sexuality/etc.). And there'd be no compromise for any gay couple.

The only question I'd have is 'Who's got the magic wand to wave and have all those words change???' Answer: eventually it'll be the Supreme Court!! (Unless GWB wins on the amendment and re-election.
He'll stack the Court and have the Constitution changed so we'll never see the light of day for years and years. Remember -- well not really -- prohibition. Same song, different verse.)

Jay Jay

Gary-Alan - i wholeheartedly and very sadly agree with you. this is all about the election. besides, even if actual marriage were granted to same-sex unions, why would that be any harder for the religious right to take away than civil unions?

i live in l.a. and we have a lot of strikes. nothing ever even begins to get solved without compromise. just my opinion, but taking what is offered can strengthen your later position. right now, they say "gay marriage is wrong. gay couples shouldn't be together".

if civil unions became the law, and continued for some time, the average people would become accustomed to the idea of a gay "couple" instead of thinking of gay people as only perverts (as many do). at that point, wouldn't it be easier to take it to the next level?

Jay Jay! Thank you for sharing those links.

Quote:

---

if civil unions became the law, and continued for some time, the average people would become accustomed to the idea of a gay "couple" instead of thinking of gay people as only perverts (as many do). at that point, wouldn't it be easier to take it to the next level?

---

basschick,

That's how I felt about this going in. A move like this is a step in the right direction. Now it seems it has moved quickly to an all or nothing situation. At first I thought it was just the press. Now, I'm seeing it everywhere.

And in seeing and hearing it like this, it has clouded any middle ground idea in my mind. Now I don't think this is a horrible thing - the fight for desegregation and the fight for women's suffrage were both 'all or nothing' arguments. And those fights had no compromise to make... there was no middle to them, the decision HAD to be all or nothing.

I think, honestly, I'm trying to look inside myself and figure out if I'm willing to compromise for the moment... Am I doing a disservice to myself if I decided I would compromise? And is that compromise still there?

Again, let me add I am not deluding myself on the politics or the possibilities of the moment. I still feel that this is a Washington game.

But when it does come to light, I want to fight this fight! I just need to understand, in myself, how far I'm willing to go. And everything posted here is helping me realize it.

Thank you all!

My best,
Gary-Alan