Why don't we just destroy the legal term of marriage and go on? (virtual, homosexuals)

[GeneCosta]

This case has been brought up before, but I don't believe it was ever talked about in detail. Why not just destroy the legal term of marriage altogether and get away from this friction that has formed in our country (and others)*? Compromise is what unites two opposing sides through-out history. Without compromise, we would have been bickering about never coming to the aid of those commie Russians (how dare they sign a treaty with him!), and the free world we live in might be just another state of Nazi Germany.

From what I'm reading, most people, religious or not, would be accepting of most these benefits for homosexuals.

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

The only major problem I see is child and adoption care, but can't we just START forward with a compromise? Why not abolition the term "marriage" in the legal system and replace everyone with "civil unions"? People could still refer to whatever they want as marriage, ending political tension (not social, of course, but like I said it's a start). This way certain Catholics don't have to recognize someone who had a divorce, certain Christians wouldn't have to recognize homosexuals being "married", and so on.









* I'm American.
http://www.eskimo.com/~demian/mar-list.html

[Unedited]

Why don't we just destroy all the laws people have a problem with?

[Mike182]

would it not be better to allow everyone a civil union, and then those who want a religious ceremony can have an additional religious ceremony. that way, both parties would be happy...

[Revasser]

Because the two things; civil marriage and the religious ceremony and trappings of "marriage" are already two very different things. Unless you sign a marriage contract with your partner, you can have all the religious ceremonies and all the church trappings you like, you still won't be married in the eyes of the law.

While calling all marriages, both heterosexual and homosexual, "civil unions" is, at least in my view, an acceptable solution, it seems unnecessary, because civil marriages and religious "marriages" are already separate things. However, I understand that one of the major problems the more moderate on the "Religious Right" have is the use of the word "marriage", so I think cutting it out of law completely and not letting anyone use it in a legal context is fine.

Of course, there are the more extreme on the "Religious Right" (seemingly the majority) that are opposed anything even remotely resembling marriage for same-sex couples who would be against "civil unions" and they're also the most likely to kick and scream about not being able to use the word "marriage" in a legal context anymore.

[jeffrey]

Did they change the name of freedom when they outlawed slavery? Did they change the name of voting when it became legal for women to vote? Marriage is a word that certain people think they have exclusive rights to. As did the word freedom. As did the word vote.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Mike182

would it not be better to allow everyone a civil union, and then those who want a religious ceremony can have an additional religious ceremony. that way, both parties would be happy...

Much as that Idea reminds me of when Dustmen became "refuse collecting officers", you make a good point. But would that not immediately give rise to a virtual 'class' system................I'm married! You just are "civilly united".......nanananah...?

[Revasser]

Originally Posted by michel

Much as that Idea reminds me of when Dustmen became "refuse collecting officers", you make a good point. But would that not immediately give rise to a virtual 'class' system................I'm married! You just are "civilly united".......nanananah...?

Only if the term is different for the different kinds of couples, ie. is heterosexuals get "married" and homosexuals get "civil unioned." If both heterosexual and homosexual couples get "civil unioned" and the word "marriage" is axed from law, then it won't be so much of a problem.

Of course, certain folks are still likely to say "we're married and you're not, because you're two women and only a man and a woman can really be married", regardless of what the law says, but the if law says all couples who choose to take out the contract are "civilly united" whatever the gender mix is, then those opinions can simply be ignored.

Most people will still call it "marriage" in day-to-day language, regardless of what the legal term is and if some social conservatives want to go on imagining there's a difference, let them.

But I do agree with Jeffrey. Changing the name of civil marriage to appease people who think their group has a monopoly on marriage is a cop out, but it might be a necessary cop out to get the ball rolling.

[retrorich]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

Why not just destroy the legal term of marriage altogether and get away from this friction that has formed in our country (and others)?

Call it what you like, same-sex partners should be able to obtain legal civil union status and enjoy ALL the same rights as opposite-sex partners; and those rights should be guaranteed and protected by law. Religious institutions should not be required to perform marriages/unions, if they choose not to, but they should be forced to accept the LEGALITY of all civil unions.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

This case has been brought up before, but I don't believe it was ever talked about in detail. Why not just destroy the legal term of marriage altogether and get away from this friction that has formed in our country (and others)*? Compromise is what unites two opposing sides through-out history. Without compromise, we would have been bickering about never coming to the aid of those commie Russians (how dare they sign a treaty with him!), and the free world we live in might be just another state of Nazi Germany.

From what I'm reading, most people, religious or not, would be accepting of most these benefits for homosexuals.



The only major problem I see is child and adoption care, but can't we just START forward with a compromise? Why not abolition the term "marriage" in the legal system and replace everyone with "civil unions"? People could still refer to whatever they want as marriage, ending political tension (not social, of course, but like I said it's a start). This way certain Catholics don't have to recognize someone who had a divorce, certain Christians wouldn't have to recognize homosexuals being "married", and so on.

Yeah we'll just call them "committed's"