Hold a true friend with both hands.
-- Nigerian Proverb --
--------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand the fuss. I really don't because the difference between them is just the words. If (and that's a big if - of course it should) civil union grants all the same rights and privileges as marriage, then what's the fuss? I don't get it.
The only difference between civil union and marriage is involvement of religion.
Marriage is actually a religious thing which has been accepted as a legal thing.
Civil union is a legal thing without necessarily the involvement in or approval of religion.
Otherwise there is no difference. It's just the word used.
My first two marriages were in churches. The first would have been accepted by everyone as marriage. The second one was not accepted as marriage by Ex#2's church because I was a divorcee. So were we married? As far as the government was concerned, yes, because of the legal aspect. As far as his religion was concerned, no, and only because of the religious aspect.
The third was by all definitions a civil union. Jay and I swore fidelity and signed some papers (a contract!) in a judge's office. So were Jay and I married? I say no, not by the religious definition of marriage. It was a civil union, and only a civil union! It granted all the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of religious marriage, but it was purely a civil union! It was a contract we entered into.
However, anyone in a civil union can by convention call themselves married.
So what's the fuss, and why are folks rejecting civil union and demanding marriage?
Insisting that "marriage" is between and man and a woman, only, is injecting religion into civil contracts. I thought our constitution prohibited that.
I really don't understand all the fuss. Anyone "joined" by a judge or JP is already in a civil union. Why are people so hung up on the words? It's just a word!
.
3 comments:
I think the same way, only probably because of the Catholics. My in-laws had to be married by the priest in the "vestibule," not at the altar, so it was pointedly a state marriage until a year later when he was fully converted.
But then there are the Muslims who have the "islamic marriages" to 13 year olds.
I never thought less of my mom because her second marriage was at city hall, and not at church.
Not everyone grew up in these churches though, but maybe we can all adopt the terminolgy the church people do. Church people can brag they aren't just married, they were married at the altar.
Agreed 100%. I am friends with a couple who are not conjugal with each other (if that's the correct way to say that). They entered into a "domestic partnership" some years ago, so that the man would have the right to have a say at the woman's then teenage son's school.
A couple of years later, they got married in a Pagan Handfasting ceremony that was also legally binding by the state. I guess it was an ordained minister who did the ceremony.
The man is gay, and I know for a fact that he and his wife are not physically intimate. They married for financial and domestic convenience. They call each other husband/wife. They act like a married couple outside of the bedroom. They say they are they only people either of them would trust to change the bedpan and take care of them when they are old and infirm.
What kind of marriage is that? They are married, for realz, legally and whatnot. I'm guessing Christian conservatives would blow a gasket if they knew of this sort of thing. A marriage contract for financial and domestic convenience? What a concept!
Except that in some religions, they are not yet "married" because the marriage has not been consummated. Some religions would condemn their union because there is no intent to make babies.
Sigh.
Post a Comment