Civil Unions for All! A Compromise on Gay Marriage?
December 27, 2007
I have a lot in common with a dear auntie of mine. We share a love of animals, music, good food and the warm sun of Mexico. I even look like her. People have been known to mistake photos of her in her twenties for photos of me.
But one thing we disagree about is gay marriage. I won’t presume to articulate her positions here, but they are based in her Christian faith. My aunt supports civil unions for gays and lesbians, but not marriage.
I respect my aunt’s right to her opinion, and I know that a lot of others share it. They see marriage — which is a fundamental component of our society — as under attack from those who would radically change its definition.
The truth is that we’ve already changed marriage a great deal in the past couple of centuries. It used to be that a father owned his daughter until she was married, at which point she would belong to her husband. Widows had some measure of power, but were often controlled by their sons or other male relatives. Women could not own property or vote.
Nowadays, marriage is viewed by the state as the merging and protection of assets between equal partners in a joint venture. It grants special rights to married couples, including the right to pension benefits, shared health care, and tax benefits.
Some compassionate social conservatives have put forth the idea that gays and lesbians could be given civil unions, a separate but equal institution under the law. Their only qualm is with calling a legal relationship between two men or two women, “marriage.”
The problem with this is that nothing guarantees that separate but equal institutions remain equal. If public opinion were ever to radically shift against gays and lesbians, the civil unions they enjoy could be dissolved, re-tooled, or even turned against them. This is unacceptable to LBGT activists just as using the term “marriage” to describe Adam and Steve — rather than Adam and Eve — is unacceptable to Christian conservatives.
So, since we all share this country, how about some common ground? What if the state got out of the marriage business altogether and gave civil unions to everyone instead? Then churches and religious groups could determine for themselves what kinds of relationships constitute marriages. They could agree to marry only heterosexual couples, or let gays and lesbians be married as well.
In other words, a civil union is a merging and protection of assets between equals. A marriage happens in the eyes of God. Nobody would force any church to marry any couple whose relationship did not meet with the dictates of their beliefs, and everyone would have equal rights under the law.
What do you guys think?
[Many thanks to my good friend Emmett for helping me think this issue through.]
I completely agree. What you’ve described is exactly where I think we should be going. The State should get out of the marriage business. Let the matter of rights be dealt with through civil unions that are separate from marriage.
Now for this to truly catch on you need to work on the terminology to sell the idea better. “Let’s get civil unioned” or “Let’s get civil unionized” doesn’t quite have that ring to it (pun intended). So how would you phrase that?
Daniel K - How about, “baby, will you merge assets with me?” (presents ring, girl squeals)
Daniel: I think “will you marry me?” suffices just fine. After all, that’s still what people are doing. It’s just that the state is providing a component of marriage (the legal one) rather than defining the whole shebang. That’s left up to individuals and/or their religious institutions.
I agree in many ways with your last 2 posts, but I want to bring something else up. In many ways I see these issues as the Catholic Church being too entwined in american government and laws. While it’s true that religion does not sit well with me, I don’t have a problem with the practice of any belief that gives people morals. Let people believe what they will as long as it doesn’t take away from the beliefs and practices of others. The reaction I’ve heard from many who oppose gay marriage (and I live in Boston, so I’ve heard a few) usually revolves around the definition of marriage as defined by a church. Make civil unions the legal contract, and the marriage an event that’s coordinated through your religion.
In a country with this sort of religious climate, how long do you think this kind of change would take? Will we see something close in our lifetime?
Trista - I love it!
Teresa - I’m afraid that as long as you continue to use the term “marry” you won’t be able to clearly define the difference between a civil union and marriage. You need to be able to put a vocabulary around civil unions. How you frame this will determine the success of convincing people it is the way to go.
what happens if I do not have a faith ?? only the state can ratifiy that correct ??
SO the state is needed. and whatt happens if its a ‘chuck and larry; sceanrio the state will not ratify this correct ? is not that an infringment of a fundamental right ??
just asking..
IMHO, the church should do what they want, the government should ratify whomever whats to have a ;marriage/union and the general public should just let other people live their lifes !!
who the freakin hell cares wither s/he is gay/les ?? As long as they are decent people who behave correctly thats all I Ask …correct ??
Teresa,
The idea you propose is the one I usually suggest when/if I get into such a discussion. I always make a point of pointing out that this whole issue is possible ONLY because the state is in the marriage business in the first place. If it got out of defining ‘marriage’, which has long been a *social* institution, not a political/legal one, much of the issue would go away.
/ pd - I would have no problem if my county court sanctioned “marriage” was redefined as a civil union with all the legal trimmings that come with it.. It wouldn’t change my relationship or love for my wife.
We had no religious ceremony. We just paid our $10 and said our vows before a justice of the peace.
This plan makes sense logically, but I’m sure some people will feel that their marriage is being taken away.
I have no problem with gay marriage, but I’m a traditionalist in some ways. I’ve always wanted to “get married” someday, and “civilly uniting myself with a man” just isn’t the same somehow.
I could still get married in my church, but what if I wasn’t religious?
I’m sure I’m not the only person who will have a problem with the vocabulary change.
This would also create separate terms for couples who get married in a religious ceremony and those who go the strictly legal route, which is sort of strange. Some social conservatives might expand their view and look down on all civil unions, even heterosexual ones, as inferior to their “real” marriage.
Some social conservatives might expand their view and look down on all civil unions, even heterosexual ones, as inferior to their “real†marriage.
They’re doing that already, Mel.
[...] enough on issues I think should have wiggle room (abortion, marriage–I subscribe to the TeresaCentric school of thought on the marriage/government/religion [...]
By its very definition, marriage (a union of a man and a woman), is an under inclusive legal term for use in a society that strives to ensure due process and equal protection to all similarly situated persons under the law. The term civil union most accurately describes the socio/political construct of a state sanctioned union. It is all inclusive in that it can pertain to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.