Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Dumb question regarding gay marriage
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
What's the difference between "marriage" and "civil union"? Does the former grant more rights than the latter?
(Asking this because I was discussing the upcoming DC legislation with my mom, a (usually) very liberal Catholic, and she said she wasn't against civil unions, but she didn't like the idea of using the word "marriage" for same sex couples. So I'm wondering, is this all semantic?? What's the difference? Sorry if this is a dumb question...) |
Anonymous
|
The link above defines marriage:
"First of all, What is Marriage? When people marry, they tend to do so for reasons of love and commitment. But marriage is also a legal status, which comes with rights and responsibilities. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions. " Problem is for many of us it is also a sacrament. http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Sac_Marriage.htm The shortcomings of a civil union (definitions and recognition vary among states) can be overcome I think by a Federal law. Then the states could determine what additional benefits, if any, they wish to award members of a civil union. Thinking tax benefits here. Ditto with the Feds - do you want to allow members of a civil union to be treated as married partners in the tax code. I am a moderate Catholic, and I have zero issues with civil unions and having our elected representatives determine any civil benefits. Just don't take my sacrament of marriage and make it something it never was and something I personally find incompatible with my faith. |
Anonymous
|
"I am a moderate Catholic, and I have zero issues with civil unions and having our elected representatives determine any civil benefits. Just don't take my sacrament of marriage and make it something it never was and something I personally find incompatible with my faith. "
Here's the problem though, the sacrament of marriage occurred in your church ceremony and your personal beliefs in marriage not on your state registration certificate. Allowing gay marriage does not mean that a Catholic or any church must conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex partners if their beliefs counter this practice. Your marriage registration or license is a legal status that simply uses the same term marriage. Within state law and federal law this term is recognized across a wide latitude of laws and benefits. It is completely impractical that every state and federal law and private policy be amended to legally equate the term marriage and civil union. There isn't a quick search and replace button out there. Its a larger problem for issues of insurance, custody suits, taxation, and guardianship and next of kin issues. |
Anonymous
|
In addition to the problems amending every state and federal law that the pp noted, there is also just the psychological impact of not being able to do what the majority does.
For example, if Christianity were the state religion, how would you feel if you were Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist and every public event opened with a prayer to Jesus? You'd still be allowed to go to your own house of worship and certainly if you felt excluded you could convert to Christianity. No one is stopping you from participating in the full life of the community should you decide to convert to Christianity. Don't you think it would be painful at times to know that you as a person are not a first class citizen? That's how it is for some gays and lesbians I know. |
Anonymous
|
In countries that actually separate church and state, rather than just paying lip service to the idea like the U.S., you have to have a civil marriage to be legally married. It's up to you if you then choose to have a religious ceremony; the religious one does not carry any legal benefit.
In the U.S., church officials are empowered to confer the legal status of marriage and all its benefits. That's where the sacrament confusion comes in. I think we should require a city hall procedure for marriage, the same for every couple. If that couple then wants to go to the church in a white dress, and if the church wants to allows its clergy to perform a ceremony for them, more power to 'em both. I have no problem with the Catholics saying they don't want same-sex couples to receive the sacrament of marriage in their church. I have a very big problem with Catholics or anyone else saying that same-sex couples should not be allowed the legal benefits of marriage (or "civil union" if you prefer). |
Anonymous
So I assume you're OK with the Church providing benefits to a same-sex partner of an employee when they were joined in a civil union? |
Anonymous
I'm not religious, so if I'm getting this wrong, please forgive (and/or enlighten me). Marriage can be two things in this country. Marriage is a legal status, similar to forming a corporation, and it provides things like tax, property, and inheritance provisions. Marriage can also be a religious sacrament (but doesn't have to be). So if the state made civil marriage legal for gays, I don't see how it impacts on religious sacraments. It wouldn't force the Catholic church to recognize gay marriage. It would only be a legal vehicle available to same-sex partners to confer current legal rights. |
Anonymous
A letter to the editor in the Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/18/AR2009111803621.html) suggests a solution used in San Francisco: Let everyone designate a beneficiary. It's a job benefit, so why should it discriminate against those who are not in a relationship? |
Anonymous
You can have your sacrament. But, you do not NEED to have the sacrament to have a marriage in this country, which is a civil institution. By calling it something else, you are treating gays/lesbians as second class citizens. |
Anonymous
As other PPs have stated, there is a difference between the state-recognized legal union of a marriage, and the religious sacrament that was performed in your church. Both are called marriage, but they're separate. If you're against all marriages that are "incompatible with your faith," then do you believe that atheists should have to call it a civil union, too? The government recognition of marriage doesn't have anything to do with what goes on in your, or any, church. I'm a Christian too and for me, yes, marriage is a holy covenant and a sacrament. It's because I take marriage so seriously that I want all my brothers and sisters to have the same opportunity. |
Anonymous
| I think the state and federal governments ought to ONLY recognize civil unions (they would be identical for all couples, straight or gay) and leave it to the churches to decide who they want to "marry." |
Anonymous
As a Catholic, you can't get the Sacrament at the Justice of the Peace. Ergo, legal marriage is no threat to the Sacrament. It does not provide gays access to that Sacrament at all. |
Anonymous
|
"So if the state made civil marriage legal for gays, I don't see how it impacts on religious sacraments. It wouldn't force the Catholic church to recognize gay marriage. It would only be a legal vehicle available to same-sex partners to confer current legal rights. "
A previous poster made a good analogy about a corporation. We all have ideas on what a corportation is but there is a legal definition defining criteria for becoming one, process for creation and dissolution. The legal status of a marriage union is also defined in this manner by state law and reciprocity exists among states (I don't have to get re-married if I move across the river). Gay marriage legislation would change the definitions criteria that member of the union must be male and female. The status of marriage in all laws stays the same, its just more people can be married. This is the only way to guarantee full equal marriage status from legal perspective. I suspose you could amend each state's label of marriage to be referred to as "civil marriage" but this is doing the exact same thing as changing the criteria. If you create civil marriage as a separate status though you create a second category that would not automatically confer all rights. Each individual code and regulation would need to be amended individually and that is just not going to happen. |
Anonymous
|
Straight lady divorced here from a civil marriage.
I cannot even begin to describe how...bureaucratic my marriage seemed. It was merely a legal contract be the time we finally dissolved it. But it was a contract that meant my son's father has an automatic right to continue to parent unless he proves unfit to do so (as do I), and it means we didn't have to think about what to say to hospital staff if one of us landed there and needed a visit. It meant that any parenting issues around one of us dying were automatically dealt with to a degree without having to fret and think about it and draw up papers with an attorney. And don't tell me that we should do that anyway regardless of orientation. Yes, but with the hetero-normative privilege we enjoyed, we had the luxury of putting it on a mental backburner and not fretting about it being challenged. |