Marriage vs. Civil Union

[libertylove4]

[COLOR="Black"]Hey everyone! It's time for another fabulous installment of 'An Open Question'

Brought to you by libertylove4 and the support of viewers like you!

This weeks theme song is............'White Wedding' by Billy Idol[/COLOR]



[COLOR="Navy"]Now on to the question......

Yesterday the New York State Senate rejected a bill that would have made Marriage Equality possible in the state, prompting some activists to call for a change of plan, focus on civil unions and "everything but marriage" domestic partnerships like in Washington State and put marriage on the back burner for a few years. My question is what approach would you take, focus on civil unions/domestic partnerships first and marriage later or focus on getting full marriage rights now?

My view on this is that it may be a good plan in theory, but what will stop the religious bigots from sabotaging Marriage Equality in a few years like they are doing now? The issue isn't the approach to the issue, it the use of the ballot box to define a person's civil rights. This needs to be taken to Congress and the Supreme court like every other major civil rights issue of the past century. If people are allowed to vote for a minority groups rights 9 times out of 10 the minority group will lose. What would have happened if interracial marriage had been put up to a vote? I say continue to focus of marriage in the states where it's most popular and most conceivable and civil unions in states where marriage doesn't have as much support, while consistently petitioning congress and challenging the gay marriage bans in court in the states where they exist.

Thanks all for stopping by and remember to leave your comments below....love y'all [/COLOR]

[Kiid]

I think the equality is What it should be!

But we can still live happily with out marriage.

OR WE SHOULD SO TOTALLY MAKE A SUPPER POWERFUL GAY CHURCH!!!
where in our religion we are aloud to get married. And be just as "normal" As straight people!

[boxerdc]

I'll take a civil union, as long as it is equal in every way to states marriage for str8s.

I don't care what they call it, I want the tax benefits and safety nets that str8 people get for me and my partner..

We pay more in taxes and get less back right now.. I've often thought about suing the government on the grounds of "taxation without representation".. It has worked in the past.. First time in Boston back in the 1770's when we threw all that british tea overboard, and again in 1961 when the District of Columbia got the rights to vote for president.

If they won't give us our rights because it's the right thing to do, then we've no other option except to start costing them a lot of money.

[marshlander]

It comes down to pragmatism v idealism. In the UK we have civil partnerships which are effectively marriages in everything but name. However, separate, but equal ... where have I heard that before?

Some politicians who voted for the concept of civil partnership did so because they felt it the best chance of getting any legal recognition of loving commitment. Others undoubtedly did it with a sigh of relief that they could claim they fought the cause of gay equality without having to face the ire of their constituents. Many said that marriage would be a step too far for most voters. I'm not convinced by that. I think a little extra push would have secured it. However, CPs have made a difference to those who want them in terms of security and peace of mind. Colloquially civil partners are referred to as being married, civil partnership ceremonies as weddings. In that sense equality is creeping into the language. Bigots and pedants, though, can rightly claim that a civil partnership is not marriage and, while the division exists, journalists like the Daily Mail's Jan Moir apparently feel justified to caricature, sneer and mock a large group of the population because we can be classified by sexual orientation.

Yes, I'd like to see marriage equality in every way including the name. As kids we are brought up with an expectation of getting married. Like it or not it is part of society's expectation of us all. Being separate is being excluded and a confirmation of second-class status. No one is hurt if I can marry whoever I choose, but I think a lot of negative messages are sent subliminally by marital apartheid.

I might be prepared to compromise. Why aren't all registry office/non-church weddings known as "civil partnerships"? After all, that's what they are, a partnering in a civil setting. But just try redesignating everyone who has ever been married in a registry office as "civilly partnered" and see what kind of response they get. It might give them some idea of how I feel.

[fredv3b]

I think it really depends on you priority, full equality or practical rights and benefits. I think the two biggest determinants of that are whether you are still single or not and your age. If you are still single then you can afford fight for the principle of full equality, if you are young then you have time on your side and can probably afford to wait for gay marriage, which I have no doubt will happen in America eventually. However there are plenty of (often older) couples out there, for whom the rights and benefits of something other than full marriage would make a real and current difference, e.g. inheritance laws, hospital visitation rights, tax breaks for health insurance. While, obviously, those couples would prefer full marriage that is simply not going to happen in the immediate future, unless the Supreme Court of the United States, decides that laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional, unlikely but possible. Essentially, by holding out for full equality we are forcing couples to go without such rights and benefits when they really need them, on the other hand we admit that something other than full equality is acceptable. As Marshy says, its pragmatism vs idealism. I am generally a pragmatist.

In reply to Marshy's post I think it would have taken a bit more than a 'little extra push' to achieve Gay Marriage in the UK rather and Civil Partnership, certainly possible for a government to do if it didn't think it had more important things to do with its political capital, I just think it is very unlikely that a government would want to do it.

[peterinmalaga]

Another very interesting question, LL. On this issue I have many contradictory thoughts and feelings. My problem is basically that I don't like marriage per se. I don't like the power it puts into the hands of the churches and the state and I don't like the fact that it more or less becomes obligatory once the option exists. Most straight marriages don't last and more and more straights are opting to live together but not marry, so what is the point of us aping an institution which so manifestly has failed. I even have some issues with civil union: I would rather see progressive people working to make all the laws relating to couples more and more applicable to every couple that lives together, regardless of sexuality. I don't like the way civil union is seen by so many people as a step on the road to the “real thing”. Fuck the “real thing” I don't want it and it just doesn't work but I do want me and my partner to have the same rights as any cohabiting couple. For me the issue of gay marriage is just diverting attention from the real problems - inheritance laws, hospital visitation rights, tax breaks for health insurance etc etc. I do realise that I am probably in a minority of one here but I can live with that. When gay divorce (like straight divorce) has become the norm, I think there will be more people who think like me. Separating from a person you have lived with and loved is always very hard but divorce is MUCH harder.
Did you know that there are companies that specialise in the cleaning of wedding dresses? Now what is that all about?

[fredv3b]

Interesting post.

I don't like the fact that it more or less becomes obligatory once the option exists.

That's a reasonable point. Although I disagree with it as below.

Most straight marriages don't last and more and more straights are opting to live together but not marry, so what is the point of us aping an institution which so manifestly has failed.

Most straight marriages do last, although I admit that will shortly not be the case in the US, however in Europe though many do not last most do. 'Marriage' is an almost universal feature of human life over time and place, although the form and 'rules' of marriage may vary pretty much every culture has/had something we could roughly translate as marriage. I don't think marriage has failed. I don't want to 'ape' it, I want to be part of it.

Besides which, the statistics for straight people who live together without getting married are far worse. In the UK, half the parents of children born to co-habiting but unmarried parents will have spilt by the time they are 5 years old.

I even have some issues with civil union: I would rather see progressive people working to make all the laws relating to couples more and more applicable to every couple that lives together, regardless of sexuality.

That sounds to me like compulsory marriage. Just because I choose to shack up with someone doesn't mean that I necessarily want them to inherit all my worldly goods or control my funeral, especially if I, say, had grown-up children.

Separating from a person you have lived with and loved is always very hard but divorce is MUCH harder.

It is, by design. Marriage is not some private contract between two people. Marriage is a contract between two people, the state and the wider community. The state and the community encourage marriage because they see a 'public good' arising from marriage, that is far more stable and longer lasting couplings which leads to a better environment for raising children, a much greater chance when one person falls ill there will be someone look after them etc. Making divorce hard is the way the system is enforce by making people think twice before they divorce, but much more importantly before they marry.

[Rychard the Lionheart]

National Statistics

UK Marriages.

There were 270,000 weddings in the UK in 2007, a fall of 2.7 per cent since 2006. Marriages registered in England and Wales fell by 3.3 per cent in 2007 to 231,450, which is the lowest number of marriages since 1895 (228,204). In Scotland, marriages decreased slightly from 29,898 in 2006 to 29,866 in 2007, while in Northern Ireland marriages increased 5 per cent to 8,687.The long-term picture for UK weddings is one of decline from a peak of 480,285 marriages in 1972.

In 2007, 88,010 marriages were remarriages for one or both parties accounting for 38 per cent of all marriages.

Since 1992 there have been more civil ceremonies in England and Wales than religious ceremonies. In 2007, civil ceremonies accounted for 67 per cent of all ceremonies which is an increase from 61 per cent in 1997.

The statistics above show a decline in marriages, this could be affected by the recesssion we are in at present, but the trend is still downwards. If the projected increase of civil ceremonies carries on, within 50 years there wil be very few religious ceremonies performed. How can the church in the future argue over the defence of marrige if people are not going to a church to wed?

[peterinmalaga]

You are right Fred that quite a lot of straight marriages last and I know that some of them are happy unions. But for every happy union there is at least one more that is an unhappy one. People stay together because they are forced to by the law. In Spain the statistics on abuse of wives are horrendous and the statistics are almost certainly only the tip of the iceberg. In France it is an accepted fact that many men have a wife and a mistress: President Mitterand's wife and mistress were both present at his funeral. If you divorce, you each get half a house and your wife gets a large chunk of your pension. The family business would presumably also have to be split in half. Most people are afraid of the law and with good reason. Divorce is expensive: at the end of the day nobody really gains except the legal profession.
I didn't know that gay couples could produce children: perhaps I should have paid better attention in my biology classes. What relevance have children to us?
In England you are fortunate. You can leave your property to whoever you like when you die. That is not the case in Spain, where I live. There are strict laws which force you to leave a certain percentage of your estate to your wife and a certain percentage to your children – and of course a certain percentage to the state. Marriage is like a straight jacket, you are no longer free to do what you want with your property or your body. I am in a monogamous relationship, that is my choice but I do not want that to be forced upon me or anyone else. If we did not have the institution of marriage, those people who want to live in the manner of a married couple would be free to do so. The reverse is not true unfortunately. Marriage as an institution is a “one size fits all” model of cohabitation. I don't want any part of that. You say “Marriage is a contract between two people, the state and the wider community.” That is exactly the problem. In Spain gay bars are full of married Spanish men who go there for extra-marital sex and the brothels too are full of married men.
Thank you for those statistics, Rychard! Karl Marx also produced some very interesting statistics on the use of prostitutes in Victorian England and the quaint custom of trepanning. Apparently there were so many prostitutes in Victorian London that the average married man must have used them several times a week. And trepanning was not a nice way to make prostitutes out of young girls.

[fredv3b]

Richard, Very interesting statistics. Over the period in question the UK population has gotten older, and the young are more likely to get married. I would be very interested to know how much of a drop remains once you factor that in. On the other hand the total population of the UK has risen.

You are right Fred that quite a lot of straight marriages last and I know that some of them are happy unions. But for every happy union there is at least one more that is an unhappy one.

Unhappier than if they split? Do you have any evidence for this?

I take you point regarding spousal abuse. However husbands and wives are not forced to stay together by the law, they stay together because they consider that the difficulties of ending the marriage outweigh the difficulties of continuing it. (I would add the difficulties of separation are not entirely the fault of the law, for example, whatever the law said people would still have to find somewhere else to live). I freely admit it is a difficult balancing act for the law making divorce difficult enough so that prospective couples regard marriage as a life-long commitment, but not so difficult as to allow one partner to do what they like to their spouse.

Divorce is expensive: at the end of the day nobody really gains except the legal profession.

If you think that Lawyers make a field day out of divorce, just watch what they would do if they were able to argue out the division of property after co-habitation breaks down.

I didn't know that gay couples could produce children: perhaps I should have paid better attention in my biology classes. What relevance have children to us?

On re-reading my post I expressed myself very badly, I apologise. What I should have said was that just because I choose to shack up with someone does not necessarily mean that wish them to inherit all my worldly goods. I don't doubt that someone who had children from a previous relationship may feel that sentiment especially strongly. Of course, that is mainly relevant to heterosexual relationships (I was assuming the same law should apply to everyone). As an aside, I recently read that of all the households identified by the 2006 census in the Republic of Ireland, one third had children, I suspect children are more relevant the gay couples than I had previously thought.

In England you are fortunate. You can leave your property to whoever you like when you die. That is not the case in Spain, where I live. There are strict laws which force you to leave a certain percentage of your estate to your wife and a certain percentage to your children – and of course a certain percentage to the state. Marriage is like a straight jacket, you are no longer free to do what you want with your property or your body.

Marriage is a serious commitment. I would like pick up on the point of property. Conventionally, property is divided between two people on the basis of relative proportions of the money they each spent to buy and maintain it. However what if one person worked few hours to be able to spend more time maintaining the joint home, cooking meals, etc. thereby allowing the other person to work longer hours (maybe thereby gaining a promotion etc.), this would clearly skew how much money each was paying towards the mortgage, but how should this affect the ownership of property? A very few couples would maintain a up-to-date agreement on their relative shares, it is unrealistic to expect lawyers looking back a number of years to reliably calculate how much the 'salary sacrifice' of one contributed to the 'salary gain' of the other. The law on marriage operates a simplistic 50/50 assumption, I don't think it would be fair to impose this on them without the agreement of both i.e. getting married.

I am in a monogamous relationship, that is my choice but I do not want that to be forced upon me or anyone else. If we did not have the institution of marriage, those people who want to live in the manner of a married couple would be free to do so. The reverse is not true unfortunately.

If the institution of marriage did not exist then those who would choose to live in the manner of a married couple, would be denied the protections of the institution. I admit that a set of legal agreements, properly updated with the passing of the years, will provide many of those protections, however I cannot realistically see that most couples would actually do that. A large minority of people do not make a Will, a document in preparation for an event that they are 100% certain will occur. I doubt that they (and many others) are going to make similar preparation for events that might not, or even probably not, occur.

Marriage as an institution is a “one size fits all” model of cohabitation. I don't want any part of that. You say “Marriage is a contract between two people, the state and the wider community.” That is exactly the problem.

I am sorry, you have lost me there. Why is that exactly the problem? :confused:

In Spain gay bars are full of married Spanish men who go there for extra-marital sex and the brothels too are full of married men.

I don't doubt that is true however I am not sure how the situation would be improved by the abolition of the institution of marriage. I don't think that it would make men any more faithful. I can't imagine there wouldn't more unsupported young single mothers. Women would, of course, be legally free to just leave their unfaithful 'husbands' however how would they secure their share of the marital home, child support, etc? I admit gay men who wish to stay in the closet, would no longer feel the obligation/need to marry a woman and could merely pretend to have occasional sex with women while secretly having sex with men all the same, but the abolition of marriage seems a little extreme to achieve that.