12 comments

• 

  LiamT.

  1 year ago

  I've been hoping ever since civil unions got started, that they'd catch on in their original form; that is without the need for lawyers in the breakup process. Think of it; something personal that lawyers don't make money exploiting. This could make marriage obsolete.

  
  

  I should point out that I've been divorced three times.

  reply
• 

  CarlM

  1 year ago

  Daniel: No kidding.

  
  

  Liam: If civil unions are to be the governmental version of marriage, then it needs to be as serious a contractual obligation as marriage is now. (Lawyers will still be needed.) Otherwise, we'd have people forming civil unions simply to fraudulently take advantage of benefits like insurance, etc.

  reply
• 

  cooperati

  1 year ago

  i think the problem is the growing movement to make anything not going for this movement a penalty sufferable by fines and imprisonment, if not simple liability on the side of the persons who hold the belief that they can deny services to a gay couple for whatever basis.

  
  

  take the case in the point where a photographer couple were contacted via their website to do a same sex marriage photo shoot. they replied, "thank you for visiting our site. however, we do not do shoots for gay marriages." now those couples are in court, and the outcome is very certain against the photographers.

  
  

  (i was taught) in the 6th century, islam spread by the rule of the sword. anyone who did not convert, and agree to the righteous ways of islam, mohammed, and allah, were executed as examples of their wayward paths. essentially, they faced punishment for not agreeing with the new movement.

  
  

  do we sit in the same situation today? just ask the church in california and massachusetes if they have the right to refuse a gay couple a ceremony, without a civil suit, or without a criminal trial on the basis of unlawful discrimination.

  
  

  however, this is but a symptom of the mode of our culture. it seems we live in too litigious a society to claim we are free to say what we feel. i wonder to what extent lawyers will pour over your statements the next time you dissent from their clients' goals.

  
  

  or mine. words. goals. and all.

  
  

  -=T=-

  reply
• 

  Mark Palmer

  1 year ago

  Well "stated" ;)

  
  

  I enjoy your posts; they remind me a lot of my POV.

  
  

  Peace and Cheers,
  Mark Palmer

  reply
• 

  Dave Fourputt

  1 year ago

  I see some problems with this.

  
  

  A church marries two people. In many companies a spouse gets health benefits. I see boatloads of lawsuits on this one.

  
  

  What if a church decides to marry a man and a dog? What if a church decides to marry a man and a minor?? What about the law on the books for the minor?

  reply
• 

  Daniel Miessler

  1 year ago

  Dave,

  
  

  That's the point: the marriage is not the government piece, and it's not the piece that companies would go by to determine if they got health benefits. That's the civil union part.

  
  

  The marriage is purely religious.

  reply
• 

  Maxo

  1 year ago

  I had wrote about this before too at http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11525590...
  I wish this idea would catch more traction, or at least that most people where somewhat familiar with the concept.

  reply
• 

  Steven G. Harms

  1 year ago

  I used to live in The Netherlands and here's a sight i saw, weighted towards the summer and late spring.

  
  

  Old-style fancy cars ( Duisenberg, Rolls ) with paper adornments is parked on the sidewalk. A happy couple exits the door, both in beautiful rainment: he in gray top-hat ( occasionally with tails ) or suit; she, in a lovely white gown, or a fashionable dress. Their families cheer them as they enter the car and drive off.

  
  

  Now, to your point, the building they exited? The Raadhuis, the city hall.

  
  

  Subsequently the bridal couple were welcomed to take the civic license and have a ceremony performed at their church, but that was not the state's business.

  
  

  Another parallel may also be seen in the difference between the King's Courts and the Ecclesiastical courts in Plantagenet–Tudor span of English history. Ultimately the amicable divide prevailed: the state could deprive you of liberty or lucre, but could not damn you; the ecclesiastical courts could damn you, but couldn't imprison or fine you ( unless you bought into their flim-flam and lent them that authority, not unlike a dominatrix, curiously ).

  reply
• 

  Brock

  2 months ago

  your wrong first of all marriage is viewed as a "goverment function" also civil unions dont get all the benefits taht married people do they only like picking to pull the plug or share family health care
  Fyi im 11 u got pwnd bitch
  reply
• 

  Veronica

  1 month ago

  I absolutely agree with you. The California Supreme Court just upheld the ban of gay marriage here, but I know that the debate over gay marriage will never end until the government gets out of the business of marriage. As a family law attorney, I believe in the government institution currently called "marriage." On the other hand, I do not think that the government can either safely limit marriage to straight couples or redefine marriage to include gay couples. The solution, I think, is for the government to have a neutral institution called "civil union" (with all of the rights now granted to married couples and domestic partnerships) for all Californians and let religious institutions marry people.
  reply
• 

  Jack

  1 month ago

  In the federal government's eyes, marriage is a contractual relationship between two consenting adults who are required to be a man and a woman. What gay rights activists are demanding is removal of the "required to be a man and a woman" part.
  
  While most states allow marriage between minors ALL of those either require parental consent or a court order. The slippery slope argument about marrying your dog doesn't apply. And there are already rules in place for marrying minors.
  
  It's a tiny change that removes discrimination based on gender.
  reply
• 

  leob

  1 month ago

  There is already a civil version of marriage. It is called marriage. It has to be performed at the state level. When a church performs a marriage, it is (for some unknown historical reason) allowed to act as an agent of the state and file the state paperwork for the civil marriage. If the church does not file the government paperwork, the church marriage counts for diddly squat - as you will find out if you claim a married exemption and then get audited. Similarly, if you get married at city hall (a CIVIL MARRIAGE) it counts for diddly-squat with the church: you are still living in sin. If you are catholic and want to later marry a catholic in the catholic church, no annulment from the Vatican will be necessary.
  reply