marriage or civil union

[Long Duck Dong]

ok I am actually curious..... ( polite way of saying I am bloody nosy )

in nz we have the civil union and marriage....

now there is no difference between the two in terms.... except marriage is heterosexual only, the civil union is open for heterosexuals and LGBT

If your country had this option, and you had a partner that you loved totally... what would you choose as your joining... the marriage title or the civil union title....

personally I would have the civil union.... I have a odd and unfounded hatred of the term * marriage *.... call it a marriagephobia if you will..... but I am curious ( god I love how polite that sounds, when i am too bloody nosy for my own good ).....what are the feelings and thoughts of the bisexual.com family

[TwylaTwobits]

hmmmm well since I'm the one that is going to be involved in something with you...and you have explained the differences between marriage and civil union to me. I voted Civil Union, as I would never want you to have to deny your bisexual nature.

Now that being said....Partner....when we do the handbinding we both know that will mean more than any piece of paper. So I'll just sit and enjoy the other responses to this thread and keep safe in my mind the knowledge you are mine by your own pledge and nothing a law says will change that :)

[MetaSexual2]

Why should the semantics matter? It doesn't really matter what its called as long as its consistent for everyone. Calling it one thing for heterosexual couples and another for homosexual ones though puts society on the slippery slope towards the "separate but equal" arguments used by those who argued for separation of races during racial civil rights struggles. I don't care which it is, as long as they use the same term for everyone so that all unions are considered equal in the eyes of the law.

[Long Duck Dong]

research the civil union for new zealand... its why I stated the marriage / civil union ...and btw... the LGBT community of NZ wanted the civil union / marriage options... as a choice for the people.....

New Zealand
Main article: Civil union in New Zealand

On 9 December 2004 the New Zealand Parliament passed the Civil Union Bill, establishing civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The debate over Civil Unions was highly divisive in New Zealand, inspiring great public emotion both for and against the passing. A companion bill, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill was passed shortly thereafter to remove discriminatory provisions on the basis of relationship status from a range of statutes and regulations. As a result of these bills, all couples in New Zealand, whether married, in a civil union, or in a de facto partnership, now generally enjoy the same rights and undertake the same obligations. These rights extend to immigration, next-of-kin status, social welfare, matrimonial property and other areas.

The Civil Union Act came into effect on 26 April 2005 with the first unions able to occur from Friday 29 April 2005.

[bityme]

The law should provide just one set of rules and it should be called a civil union. Marriage is a product of religion and should remain there.

For myself, it would have no personal effect. Been there, done that, twice. Never Again!

[Long Duck Dong]

mmmm never really looked at it that way...... I have to admit that for me, civil union feels to be less rule bound than marriage....

[orbit]

We have Civil Union where I live (the only state in Australia which has it) but sadly it isn't recognised anywhere else in the country, but it's a good start and I have to praise the local government for it show of strength against the other states and federal government. Personally, I'm not sure why same sex couples would want to be 'married' exactly, given that the church doesn't approve and actively discourages their behaviour. If you don't approve of me, I'd rather just do my thing and let you do yours. I certainly understand the need for same rights under law as married couples, as such bring on the Civil Unions.

Oh, and agreed that maybe their should be Civil Union for all, regardless of sexual orientation, for the non religious amongst us

[elian]

I voted for both civil union and marriage. I would be completely happy with Civil Union rights for all but I do know that there are some officially recognized religions here in the US who have no moral difficulty whatsoever marrying same sex partners.

Civil Union is in the secular domain, marriage is in the religious right?

[MetaSexual2]

Marriage is a product of religion and should remain there.

Most social anthropologists would disagree with you there bityme. Historically, marriage arose as a social construct, not a religious one. The Catholic Church was the primary arbiter of social contracts in the late Roman/medieval period and so that is when it fell under their control in the West. The argument that marriage was created by religions is primarily being used by those who think its control should remain there.

But yep, if they want to play these semantic games, let them have it. Ultimately though, that shouldn't stop people calling it whatever they want to. Religions should have no say in contract law in a democracy.

[littlerayofsunshine]

Civil Union... Bah Humbug!!


I personally feel that marriage is just a fiscal proposition these days. It is a very serious issue. For some its a religeous issue. I find that since (at least here in the US) You do not have to have a preacher/minister/rabbi/reverend/deacon ect.ect. marry you. You can have a doctor, lawyer, justice of the peace, elvis, little richard, anyone with a states certificate to perform a ceremony. And a church can choose to honor or not honor your marriage "and thats the straight ones" just because it wasn't performed in that particular church or religeon. You can have your marriage anywhere you want. There are people who get married in Bathrooms.

Well before I ramble too much. Let me touch base again. A church doesn't have to recognize your marriage if not performed there or by the same religeon, a state doesn't have to recognize any marriage until you pay them to with that nifty certificate they give you. If you have a religeos marriage and divorce through the church (which I know catholics have to) You still have to divorce through the courts. Sooooooo Let Everyone get married, the financial windfall would be great for the economy. Between all the certificates/liscences, bookings of venues, catering/waitstaff, wedding planners and cake and bar supplies. and if they divorce holey moley the bank in that division. Who hoo! but seriously.

You can't go and say " God only intended this" and force everyone to follow, and then say I'm not god, but if you want me to acknowlege your god thang, pay me 45-85 dollars and sign this. Let the church marry who they want, Let the Justices and others marry who they want and lets all be some happy more financially stable countries.

Yes I am PRO GAY MARRIAGE, and I bet they would have some awesome weddings :) NO cash bars please :)

[Falke]

Well, this is coming from the US but...

I would say back everyone off to a civil union. Reason being is that marriage is a religious prospect, however with the traditional marriage alot of countries have adopted is one tracked, basically a semi-secularized Christian version locking in one man and one woman. However, this is a interesting issue as in our constitution it clearly states that one shall make no law establishing a religion and no law forbade the free exercise of religion. What we have is a legal code which follows a rather narrow band when it comes down to religions, and one even members of the same religion but differing denominations disagree with.

With that, my question is, if the religions are in disagreement about what marriage is, would having one group's version of it becoming or being a law violate the 1st amendment as the others could not legally marry under their own code? Really the best way to solve this one is convert everyone to a civil union with all the legal rights/privileges that exist under being legally married, and it is optional of which religious ceremony one wants to be married under.

[Annika L]

Also coming from the US, and only really talking about the US (and its ideals concerning the interplay between politics and religion):

I agree with Zwitter that marriage is a religious construct, and needs to be defined by each individual religion. Some religions are ok with same-sex marriage, others are strictly opposed, and some permit (or used to permit) polygamy...and some have probably advocated even less mainstream practices. Religion is a matter of belief and of identification, and the state should not be able to dictate to the various religions what they can and cannot do, or which unions they can and cannot sanction.

The state, on the other hand, has the right to decide what unions it will sanction, and has an incentive (even obligation) to sanction unions that it believes will support its interests. Given the research that shows that same sex unions are no less stable than heterosexual unions, and the research that shows that same-sex couples are just as capable of raising healthy, well-adjusted children...and given our nation's stated beliefs in equality for all, I believe (as do an increasing percentage of Americans) that same-sex unions should be sanctioned by the state. Our unions support the interests of the state every bit as much as heterosexual unions. But I believe the state really should restrict its influence to civil unions.

If Religion X wants to advocate, say, marriage to a goat, so be it. The state needn't sanction that union, and the marriage may be illegal...but it is impractical for the state to tell adherents to Religion X that those adherents can't believe such marriages are ok. People will believe what makes sense to them to believe, and the state should not be involved in this. People will do whatever they think makes sense for their own salvation and spiritual fulfillment...and when their ideals conflict with the rules of the state, they must make decisions and face consequences, either to their state or to their god.

So to summarize, each religion should dictate its own definition of marriage. The state should legislate what it has the power and obligation to legislate. They should support same-sex unions, should stay out of any religion's definitions of marriage, but should enforce their laws, independent of any religious ideology. In this model a person could have a civil union (whether or not it is recognized by any religion), a marriage (whether or not it is recognized by the state), or both.

[SaraSaurus]

I picked marriage. I'm sure a lot of that has to do with my christian background and how I was raised but also, where I live, while we have civil unions there are over 1,000 rights that married couples get that those in civil unions don't. I want all of my rights not just the ones the government feels I should be allowed to have. Personally, I think marriage should be a religious institution and civil unions a government one with the same rights for all couples.

[alegrias]

I see civil union as a step towards marriage. Ultimately I think that marriage ought to be an option for anyone, regardless of their sexuality. (Marriage is about way more than sex anyway.)

However, if "society" isn't ready for same-sex marriage, but it is ready for civil unions, that's better than nothing. Once ppl get used to the idea, it will be easier for them to accept marriage.

If 3, or even 4, ppl want to live together and have sex, I see no problem with that (provided that everyone involved knows and approves). But I think that marriage with more than 2 people is stretching things.

[alegrias]

hmmmm well since I'm the one that is going to be involved in something with you...and you have explained the differences between marriage and civil union to me. I voted Civil Union, as I would never want you to have to deny your bisexual nature.

Now that being said....Partner....when we do the handbinding we both know that will mean more than any piece of paper. So I'll just sit and enjoy the other responses to this thread and keep safe in my mind the knowledge you are mine by your own pledge and nothing a law says will change that :)

Awwwwwwwww. What you said matters more than any piece of paper. Hope you two enjoy a long and happy life together.

[hardasabone]

i believe if youve been with the same person at least 10 yrs or so wheather its man & man women & woman or man& women you should be aloowed the same rights to the outher person affairs as a man and wife i dont ness agree to man and man woman and woman marriages but the should have the rights the same such as insurace coverage same legal rights as a reg couple but not married just let them have the cival union rights withought the legal marriage ect but should be stipulated they must have been together at least 10 yrs or longer they use to have common law marriage here in mich after 10 yrs same thing ect for this would be for same sex couples 10 yrs or more only not 10 yrs off and on thanks for reading

[Polyamerious Phoenix]

I want to change my vote to "omg can we have the marriage for 3 or more"

LOLz