Any gay men here OK with a civil union and not a marriage?

[444099]

I do know lots of bisexual and gay men who are fine with getting a Civil Union and not getting married. Why have "gay" marriage when so much of our discontents and disorder came from heterosexual marriage? Marriage itself is a heterosexual institute and a failure at that. I'm personally OK with a Civil Union and even in Europe Civil Unions are popular and work out fine. Mark Simpson: Gay people don't need marriage | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2008/12/05/lets-be-civil-gay-marriage-isnt-the-end-of-the-rainbow/ http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/200...s-replacing-marriage-in-france-for-straights/

 

[Industrialsize]

Civil Unions would be fine IF the Federal Government had a definition for them. It is important to use the word Marriage. The Federal Government knows what a marriage on and conveys many rights and privledges on those who enter into one. The end goal is to have same sex marriages recognized by the Federal Government so gay people can enjoy the rights that have been denied to them. DOMA currently stands in the way but is currently being litigated in many courts. So the answer is NO, I'm not fine with having to settle for a civil union.

 

[B_Nick8]

No. There was a time I might have agreed with you, believing that "marriage" was just a word. That was before I learned that there are over 1.700 legal rights and privileges that are not extended to same-sex couples unless the word "marriage" is applied to their union. Otherwise, there is no real equality in the eyes of state or federal governments. So, no, civil unions are not equivalent and are not even "separate but equal", a situation I will also not tolerate.

I don't need to be married in the eyes of a church that won't permit it (if so inclined, which I personally am not, I could find one that would) but I insist on being married in the eyes of the law.

 

[nudeyorker]

I personally don't need it, because a definition by the church or government is not going to change the feelings my partner and I share and our commitment to each other. I would like to see marriage legalized for everyone who wants to be legally married. My partner and I have done the necessary legal paperwork that afford us all of the rights that many people are fighting for with the exception of filing a joint income tax return. When it's legalized maybe I will change my mind and want to be married.

 

[mitchymo]

I have seen so many marriages fail but i like the idea of formal recognition. The whole civil partnership thing derives from the fact that the church has a claim on the institution of marriage and the word is meant for them.
I think governments should create a change that refers to the formal unity of two people as 'a unity' and have 'marriage' bracketed as 'religious unity' written underneath as a subtext. That way non-religious types can get 'married' and share a common word for the event regardless gay or straight.
Can you imagine what a taste of their own medicine the church would be getting if their ceremony was given less recognition in legislature, they would have their back ups in contempt most probably.

 

[MovingForward]

I personally don't need it, because a definition by the church or government is not going to change the feelings my partner and I share and our commitment to each other. I would like to see marriage legalized for everyone who wants to be legally married. My partner and I have done the necessary legal paperwork that afford us all of the rights that many people are fighting for with the exception of filing a joint income tax return. When it's legalized maybe I will change my mind and want to be married.

Thats the issue. We have to spend time and money just to get rights that we could have with marriage. I agree with you, it is When not if

 

[B_dxjnorto]

I suppose we should harp on the word "marriage" in order that the inevitable civil union will be as similar as possible. I too share the OPs misgivings about the dysfunctions that come with the word. One more group to clog the courts with fighting over children and property. From what I hear it is already happening with people who have set up domestic partnerships.

The OP must be one of our dysfunctional poster children with multiple accounts. Anyway, good OP I think.

 

[ben_big_willy]

I vote for an entire separation of church and state. I think EVERYONE (gay, straight, transgender, and even non-sexual partnerships) should have to apply for identical civil union status. Leave "marriage" for the church to decide.

I had two twin great-aunts who were never married and lived their entire lives together. They supported and fended for themselves and yet when it came to inheritance or medical situations, it was always a hassle as they never had the privileges that a civil union would have extended to them. What about couples like them? What about a single daughter or son who takes care of one of their elderly parents? Sure it's non-sexual, but who cares? It should be like a employee of an airline claiming a travel buddy. You are in effect saying that Joe Blow over here is your partner (however temporary or long-term) and you both are taking care of one another these days. When it is no longer advantageous, you file a civil union dissolution, and you are free to separate and claim someone else.

This way, everything is EQUAL.

 

[Industrialsize]

I personally don't need it, because a definition by the church or government is not going to change the feelings my partner and I share and our commitment to each other. I would like to see marriage legalized for everyone who wants to be legally married. My partner and I have done the necessary legal paperwork that afford us all of the rights that many people are fighting for with the exception of filing a joint income tax return. When it's legalized maybe I will change my mind and want to be married.

Sorry to disagree with you Nudey, but it is impossible to do "legal paperwork" to benefit from ALL of the well over one thousand rights conferred on a married couple. One simple example, my husband has always made more money than me. If he were to die before I do, I would not be able to collect HIS social security. If the Federal Government recognized our marriage, I would.

 

[nudeyorker]

Sorry to disagree with you Nudey, but it is impossible to do "legal paperwork" to benefit from ALL of the well over one thousand rights conferred on a married couple. One simple example, my husband has always made more money than me. If he were to die before I do, I would not be able to collect HIS social security. If the Federal Government recognized our marriage, I would.

Sorry I should have said we have made the necessary legal arrangements that are important to us! In that we have done the same things that any non-gay couple would make who choose not to marry.

 

[jakeryder]

Here in Canada we've had same sex marriage for I think 4 years now. Our society is yet to fall apart. Legalize same sex marriage everyone, then lets get on with fixing issues like economics and climate change.

 

[B_Castello]

Marriage itself is a heterosexual institute and a failure at that.

Not all heterosexual mariage are failure... And vice a versa.

I think a union should have the absolute same right as any straight union. One day, it will be so, and they would be ashame of their ages of darkness (today)

 

[RedBear]

Personally I would like to see ALL government "marriages" become Civil Unions and leave marriages up to the churches.

 

[irreal]

I vote for an entire separation of church and state. I think EVERYONE (gay, straight, transgender, and even non-sexual partnerships) should have to apply for identical civil union status. Leave "marriage" for the church to decide.

I think that the word "marriage" has nowadays lost all it's religious content for the most of the people, and, being just a word, why should we use a different word for something that is the same? I truly believe that calling it different, even if they gave you the same rights, is some kind of discrimination, as you will allways be "different".

It also seems very difficult to me to understand people who are against same-sex marriage, i mean, nobody is going to force them to make use of that rights, and yet they are standing up against other people rights.

Answering to the other issues ben said, there's legislation in many countries to protect those who have other people on their charge.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Personally I would like to see ALL government "marriages" become Civil Unions and leave marriages up to the churches.

I like that idea. =

 

[invisibleman]

The issue matters to those who are coupled. I would be OK being coupled and this issue matter.

 

[rbkwp]

I think the Personal Commitment to each other is sufficient irrespective of Marriages or Civil Unions.call them what you will
Equal partnerships has been my personal catchcry .. and it has worked for partner and self.. no questions.
I dont believe at all in Marriages as such..str/gay/bi whatever.
I dont believe in the Churches involvement in Marriages .. especially in this Century we are living in.
Personally i have never entered into anything more than a partnership/relationship..we knew each other well enough not to have the bindings of either marriage or CU...well CUs (legal) were not about a few years ago
Worked out fine .. breaking up and sharing the goods..no problems
Certainly feel that ALL benefits a married couple are entitled to ...should be made available to a CU couple.
(and i mean ALL and everything- I assume the $ rich Gay community gives back equally as well ..in a sense ..humans contributing to society ..despite not having children..well most.)
I dont think our Govts should dictate what should be/not for this matter.
(similar views on Euthanasia)
enz

 

[DiscoBoy]

Why should we need to settle for a civil union?

 

[matticus201]

No, I am not ok with that.

 

[invisibleman]

Why should we need to settle for a civil union?

Well, you don't have to settle. If you want marriage rights and entitlements recognized under US Federal Law, you fight for them in the courts and in the legislative process.