Should ALL Domestic Contracts Be Called "Civil Unions"?

Forums: Legal
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In the recent past, there has been much controversy about gay marriage, civil unions, and Constitutional amendments defining marriage. Much of the controversy involves religious, social or legal considerations.

For the first time, I have read something that clarifies the entire issue for me completely. It is an article that was tucked in my weekly throwaway local newspaper. Now these papers are not usually known for their incisive reportage and commentary. But this article stands out.

The piece was written by Dave Loebig. His thesis is that marriage is primarily in the purview of religion, and really has nothing to do with the government's part in the contract.

Quote:

And let's face it. To government, marriage is just a legal status that bestows obligations and rights on the individuals involved. It's the clerk of the court that keeps the records, not the clerk of sanctity, and government makes little if any effort to qualify the compatability, the morality or the family values in any marriage. (Would you really want government regulating sanctity?) With the reasonable exception of child welfare in a divorce, to government, a marriage or a divorce is just another entry in the books.

Loebig's thesis is that "marriage" is something to be dealt with by religion. What people do to "make it legal" as far as the state is concerned, is a civil union. Therefore, calling ALL domestic contracts between couples civil unions, and leaving the marriage issue to the churches, would dissipate the animosity that has been engendered by this issue. It would open the door to gaining the rights and privileges offered by the government, to any committed couple.

That is, except where the government's agenda is to legislate their own personal concept of morality.

What do you all think?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,419 • Replies: 22

No top replies

Good point. Incidently, neither a church wedding nor a ceremony with a Justice of the Peace is "legal" until the officiating officer and the bridal couple sign the necessary papers.

0 Replies

I think that a judge married my wife and I. There was no priest, no religion. We're married. We're not in a 'civil union'.

If two people take vows to love, honor and cherish each other, if they make that other persons life their own, then they're married. I don't care if it's a man and a woman, two men, or two women. Marriage is dedicating your life to another adult, and them doing the same to you.

0 Replies

Turner_727- What I am talking about is changing the language that is used to more appropriately describe the role of government in the union of two people.

I too was married by a judge, There was no religious ceremony involved. And for 37 years, I have thought of myself as "married" to my husband. But I would be willing to forego that appellation if it meant that a different term for the relationship with my husband would produce equality for all committed couples.

Maybe it is a matter of semantics. Marriage is a word that is tightly ingrained in our society. Any ideas for another word to describe the arrangement?

0 Replies

Turner_727 wrote:

I think that a judge married my wife and I. There was no priest, no religion. We're married. We're not in a 'civil union'.

Turner... respectfully, the judge did not marry your wife, you did. Your marriage with your wife, the real marriage, not the legal contract, is between the two of you.

No one else's marriage or lack thereof can shake what's between you and your wife.

My take... if Civil Unions become the law of the land (especially here in Massachussetts) I and my wife are going to apply for a Civil Union, and I am going to push that all like-minded married couples do the same... Civil Disobediance.

0 Replies

Oh, and even if a couple entered a civil union, as far as the legalities were concerned, what is to stop them from calling themselves "married" in their personal lives?

0 Replies

Seal Poet--

Applying for a Civil Union? Mr. Noddy and I (if we live long enough) will be the first in PA. Brilliant idea!

Phoenix--

An important part of the "marriage", secular or religious, is exchanging vows in public. I understand that more and more states are doing away with the "Common Law Marriage" because it is difficult to fathom the intent of the partners.

0 Replies

Any couple that wants to make the commitment to couple hood should be able to. What is the difference between civil union and marriage any way. A contract is a contract. But to deny people who love each other the right to be legally bound is just plain nuts.

Guess how I voted?

0 Replies

I'd prefer to go even a step farther and untangle the mass of benefits/privledges from "Marriage" and/or "Civil Unions" altogether and allow whomever wants to to create a legally binding contract with anyone they may chose for each item. I could assign a medical Power of Atty to one person and a financial Power of Atty to another for example. Right now those automatically default to the "spouse".

Why not just have a "master list" of these things and require everyone to execute one when they reach the age of majority? Then they just update it as their life situation changes. Instead of going to the Town Hall to get a "Marriage License" you got to the town Hall and update you master list.

0 Replies

Instead of thinking "marriage" or "civil union" let's think in terms of "Established Household". "Family" has too many traditional overtones.

I have a friend who lives with her sister and with a nephew (their brother's child). They are a functioning household with no tax breaks or family discounts of any sort. 'Y" membership? Each must join as a separate adult? Nephew is mentally ill and cannot work--but he's not a tax deduction, either.

"Diversity" is an overworked word and an under appreciated reality.

0 Replies

Read the same thing and proposed this on another site. Didn't get many positive responses though.

0 Replies

I voted for the whole Civil Union thing.
I was bound to my husband by a judge as well, and didnt consider myself any less married than anyone else. I would think that being ceremonially married by the church should be a seperate matter entirely and only required if your own personal beliefs make you believe such a thing would be best for you.
Additionally, I had to get divorced by a judge as well. I suppose it all should be who you consider your judge and what laws you wish to abide by.
You know-that whole seperation of church and state thing back at work here-IMO.
I do believe though that it is hard for our society to accept a word other than marriage, or for the church or state to use anything else either. Tough one but, Civil Union could work.

0 Replies

Noddy24 wrote:

Instead of thinking "marriage" or "civil union" let's think in terms of "Established Household". "Family" has too many traditional overtones.

I have a friend who lives with her sister and with a nephew (their brother's child). They are a functioning household with no tax breaks or family discounts of any sort. 'Y" membership? Each must join as a separate adult? Nephew is mentally ill and cannot work--but he's not a tax deduction, either.

"Diversity" is an overworked word and an under appreciated reality.

This is an example of a case where IMO, the MA SJC decision on Gay marriage falls short (not that they live in MA but..).

The court was very big on the whole "No 2nd class citzen" point in their ruling even after acknowledging that there are many "non-traditional families" out there that are denied acces to benefits bestowed on married people but they refused to accept that their ruling just moved the yardsticks. If there can't be any 2nd Class status created (an idea I like) then why did the court rule in such a way that leaves these non-traditional families without the ability to qualify for the benefits?

0 Replies

I agree with those who say that there should be a distinction between what goes on in the church and what goes on in the civil arena.

Churches can decide who should be married, but the gov't has no business determining which social arrangements get certain benefits and which do not. It infuriates me when I hear Bush et al piously talk about the sanctity of marriage. That kind of talk is for the church.

0 Replies

Quinn wrote:

Quote:

Additionally, I had to get divorced by a judge as well. I suppose it all should be who you consider your judge and what laws you wish to abide by.
You know-that whole seperation of church and state thing back at work here-IMO.

A member of the clergy announces, "What God hath put together, let no man put asunder."

Do you suppose all divorce lawyers (and Family Court Judges) are damned?

0 Replies

Noddy24 wrote:

A member of the clergy announces, "What God hath put together, let no man put asunder."

Do you suppose all divorce lawyers (and Family Court Judges) are damned?

I suppose it all depends on if you were married in the church to begin with.
So, its probably only about 20% damned at the moment.

Wink

0 Replies

The thing is, as those of you know who have been married and divorced, there is no one poking into your personal issues when you get married now (what mean is not the state, parentsm etc., can and do poke their noses in pre-nuptial).

It is only when you need to divorce that the state sticks in statutes, it, the marriage contract is codified law in the individual states. So in my opinion if the state is going to regulate who and how we marry each other they better make it equal for all or else.

God bless the Mass. constitution and the Mayor of San Francisco.

0 Replies

JoanneDorel wrote:

The thing is, as those of you know who have been married and divorced, there is no one poking into your personal issues when you get married now (what mean is not the state, parentsm etc., can and do poke their noses in pre-nuptial).

I dunno Joanne. To get married in most states you have to provide the clerk with a medical clearance that says you don't have syphilis, HIV, rubella or a host of other possible diseases as well as questions about your blood line relationship to the other person. Those are all "personal issues" too.

0 Replies

Not any more fishin man most states do not require any blood work, privacy dontcha know.

0 Replies

Noddy24 wrote:

Good point. Incidently, neither a church wedding nor a ceremony with a Justice of the Peace is "legal" until the officiating officer and the bridal couple sign the necessary papers.

That's because marriage is a contract. Is a civil union a contract? Cool

0 Replies

Should ALL Domestic Contracts Be Called "Civil Unions"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know