why can't another label be used for same sex marriage?

[Xuan]

I try to be open minded about this, but why can’t a union between homosexuals be called something else besides marriage? Most people in this type of a relationship say it is for financial reasons, that they have the same rights as hetero people regarding this and that’s why they want to get married. What happened to the phrase civil union? Why is the word marriage so important for homosexuals?
It is very misleading to use marriage because as a Catholic, you are considered married when it is by a priest.
I am not asking to start a big debate-but if the word marriage causes so much conflict in this, why not change the label? Perhaps common law partner or something --that way they still get the financial things and the word marriage can be removed from this.

Hi mommy k,

I don’t know if there’s a one-size-fits-all answer, but I think a big part of the reason has to do with the way various laws are written. There are literally hundreds of laws (not only federal, but state) that use the word “marriage” to specify who gets certain benefits.

If a same-sex couple is legally labeled “married”, they qualify for the benefits, but if they’re legally labeled “civil union” they don’t. It would require rewriting all those laws and adding the term “civil union” to change them so same-sex couples could qualify for the benefits, and that would never happen.

This is just my opinion, but I think this aspect of the law is one of the major reasons why they want the name “marriage”.

Xuan

 

[edwest2]

I try to be open minded about this, but why can’t a union between homosexuals be called something else besides marriage? Most people in this type of a relationship say it is for financial reasons, that they have the same rights as hetero people regarding this and that’s why they want to get married. What happened to the phrase civil union? Why is the word marriage so important for homosexuals?
It is very misleading to use marriage because as a Catholic, you are considered married when it is by a priest.
I am not asking to start a big debate-but if the word marriage causes so much conflict in this, why not change the label? Perhaps common law partner or something --that way they still get the financial things and the word marriage can be removed from this.

Gay people don’t want Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions. It’s not up to non-gay people.

“Since 2000, PFLAG has had an official policy statement on marriage equality that states its opposition to any attempts at either the federal or state level to introduce constitutional amendments restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, rendering LGBT people second-class citizens.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[JRKH]

Gay people don’t want Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions. It’s not up to non-gay people.

“Since 2000, PFLAG has had an official policy statement on marriage equality that states its opposition to any attempts at either the federal or state level to introduce constitutional amendments restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, rendering LGBT people second-class citizens.”

Peace,
Ed

If the Civil authority gets out of the Marriage" business and instead recognizes “Domestic Partnerships” - under contract law since that is what they are - then everyone is equal. To me - this seems the most equitable.

Peace
James

 

[Listener]

I have often wondered about that, too. The State has had to rename some things, like Spouse 1 and Spouse 2 instead of Bride and Groom. They are also renaming some things like Parent 1 and Parent 2 instead of Mother and Father. Oops! I guess you need Parent 3 in case there is a surrogate mother involved.

Since the State doesn’t seem to have any problem renaming things, then why not rename Marriage to Domestic Partnership or Civil Union for straight couples and gay couples. Oops! I guess Domestic Partnership is out. What are we going to do when someone asks why this union can’t be between 3 or more people?

There would also be no reason why two people of the same sex would have to be gay.

That way, we wouldn’t be calling marriage something that it isn’t. The Church would be much happier, and I don’t see why the State would care.

 

[CopticChristian]

I have often wondered about that, too. The State has had to rename some things, like Spouse 1 and Spouse 2 instead of Bride and Groom. They are also renaming some things like Parent 1 and Parent 2 instead of Mother and Father. Oops! I guess you need Parent 3 in case there is a surrogate mother involved.

Since the State doesn’t seem to have any problem renaming things, then why not rename Marriage to Domestic Partnership or Civil Union for straight couples and gay couples. Oops! I guess Domestic Partnership is out. What are we going to do when someone asks why this union can’t be between 3 or more people?

There would also be no reason why two people of the same sex would have to be gay.

That way, we wouldn’t be calling marriage something that it isn’t. The Church would be much happier, and I don’t see why the State would care.

Listener,

I do believe that you have stumbled onto something relevant…and to think…

Theodor Seuss Geisel…had it all along…

 

[Faithdancer]

Listener,

I do believe that you have stumbled onto something relevant…and to think…

Theodor Seuss Geisel…had it all along…

Yes Coptic, very apt, and the image also perfectly summarizes the phantasmagorical absurdity upon which the whole notion of same sex “marriage” devolves.

 

[iloveangels]

I try to be open minded about this, but why can’t a union between homosexuals be called something else besides marriage? Most people in this type of a relationship say it is for financial reasons, that they have the same rights as hetero people regarding this and that’s why they want to get married. What happened to the phrase civil union? Why is the word marriage so important for homosexuals?
It is very misleading to use marriage because as a Catholic, you are considered married when it is by a priest.
I am not asking to start a big debate-but if the word marriage causes so much conflict in this, why not change the label? Perhaps common law partner or something --that way they still get the financial things and the word marriage can be removed from this.

It’s all very simple. In Paris, when you get married you go to the government offices for the civil marriage and you are married in the sight of the government. Then IF you’ve prepared yourself over a period of time beforehand, you go to the parish, where you are married sacramentally and then you are married in the eyes of the Church. This is what we need to do and ASAP. The Catholic Church has GOT TO get out of the business of civil marriages.

PS. This is not the civil society’s problem and they don’t view it that way, in any case. Not any more. It’s OUR problem and we have to deal with it, or it’s going to be dealt with FOR us and we aren’t going to like it.

 

[edwest2]

If the Civil authority gets out of the Marriage" business and instead recognizes “Domestic Partnerships” - under contract law since that is what they are - then everyone is equal. To me - this seems the most equitable.

Peace
James

Then why put this on the ballot? Why go to politicians to get their seal of approval? Why go to the State for benefits?

Who needs my permission or anybody’s permission to live how they want?

Catholics didn’t put this on the ballot.

Gays don’t want domestic partnerships, they want “marriage equality.” And equal to who?

Do the math:

One Man + One Woman — does not equal
One Man + One Man — or
One Woman + One Woman

I wish advocates would stop with the magic tricks. It’s not working.

Peace,
Ed

 

[iloveangels]

Then why put this on the ballot? Why go to politicians to get their seal of approval? Why go to the State for benefits?
Who needs my permission or anybody’s permission to live how they want?
Catholics didn’t put this on the ballot.
Gays don’t want domestic partnerships, they want “marriage equality.” And equal to who?
Do the math:
One Man + One Woman — does not equal
One Man + One Man — or
One Woman + One Woman
I wish advocates would stop with the magic tricks. It’s not working.
Peace,
Ed

Yes, they’re all arguing about civil marriage. Lots of confusion here.

 

[JRKH]

I have often wondered about that, too. The State has had to rename some things, like Spouse 1 and Spouse 2 instead of Bride and Groom. They are also renaming some things like Parent 1 and Parent 2 instead of Mother and Father. Oops! I guess you need Parent 3 in case there is a surrogate mother involved.

Since the State doesn’t seem to have any problem renaming things, then why not rename Marriage to Domestic Partnership or Civil Union for straight couples and gay couples. Oops! I guess Domestic Partnership is out. What are we going to do when someone asks why this union can’t be between 3 or more people?

There would also be no reason why two people of the same sex would have to be gay.

That way, we wouldn’t be calling marriage something that it isn’t. The Church would be much happier, and I don’t see why the State would care.

Actually Listener…I can readily see plural “partnerships” as the next step…I don’t like it…but there it is (or will be…

Peace
James

 

[edwest2]

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri

Peace,
Ed

 

[belorg]

God’s peace. Belorg posted, in part:

All of your definitions, except the last, involve males and females. You make a gigantic leap from what amount to minor variations among man-woman marriages when you lump same-sex “marriage” in with them. This is probably because as an atheist, you see no essential difference between man and woman; the only differences are physical, and are the outcome of an impersonal and unloving evolution. This is also why a worldly (i.e. feelings-based) love figures so strongly in your estimation of marriage, even more than sexuality. Many cultures consider feelings-based love to be a pleasant but irrelevant component of marriage, and for good reason; there is no permanence in “as long as we both shall love.”

I do not think the difference between a man and a woman marrying in full consent and a woman being forced into a union by the man and the family can be considered a minor variation.
My point is that, despite various claims to the contrary, the term “marriage” can be defined in many ways, so the argument that the term marriage is completely redefined is simply false.

And if you don’t consider love an important part of a marriage, then you are the one redefining marriage into a simple contract.

You see, Belorg, I once thought as you do. Back in that dark period of my life when I lived as if God did not exist, I saw the whole world as revolving around my feelings. I believed that since there was no God, any meaning that the universe might have was caused by what meaning I inflicted on it. I thank God daily that he delivered me from my self-centeredness and through Truth, opened up the possibility of genuine love! Blessings, ~Br. Carlo~

I am very sorry for you that you experienced a dark period in your life, Br. Carlo. I can assure you that I experience no such thing.

 

[signit]

Hi mommy k,

I don’t know if there’s a one-size-fits-all answer, but I think a big part of the reason has to do with the way various laws are written. There are literally hundreds of laws (not only federal, but state) that use the word “marriage” to specify who gets certain benefits.

If a same-sex couple is legally labeled “married”, they qualify for the benefits, but if they’re legally labeled “civil union” they don’t. It would require rewriting all those laws and adding the term “civil union” to change them so same-sex couples could qualify for the benefits, and that would never happen.

This is just my opinion, but I think this aspect of the law is one of the major reasons why they want the name “marriage”.

Xuan

My opinion, too.

Here’s a piece from a New York Times blog:

bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/how-gay-marriage-will-change-couples-financial-lives/

Now that SSM is legal in New York, they qualify for state benefits. Of course they still don’t get federal benefits available to married couples (income tax status, estate and gift taxes, Social Security survivors’ benefits).

 

[CopticChristian]

I do not think the difference between a man and a woman marrying in full consent and a woman being forced into a union by the man and the family can be considered a minor variation.
My point is that, despite various claims to the contrary, the term “marriage” can be defined in many ways, so the argument that the term marriage is completely redefined is simply false.

And if you don’t consider love an important part of a marriage, then you are the one redefining marriage into a simple contract.

I am very sorry for you that you experienced a dark period in your life, Br. Carlo. I can assure you that I experience no such thing.

Belorg,

Who defines Marriage?

Does that definition conform to acceptance by those that define it?

Do I have to accept any definition?

Define Love?

 

[Allan856]

OK let me see if I can answer that question with this: Think about how you would feel if your spouse was dying and laying in bed on life support but you knew that he didn’t want to be revived when his heart stopped beating yet because you are in a “civil union” with him or her the hospital didn’t recognize you as a legal spouse and instead left the decision up to the closest relative.

Homosexual men and women even though it goes against the churches belief want to have all the same legal rights as a married couple. Personally I don’t care if they Call it marriage but I do think that the church should not be required to recognize the marriage, just like in regular civil marriages. I have friends who are homosexual and I love them as my own family and would never discriminate against them just for being what they are. Jesus said to love thy neighbors as you love Jesus Christ. Marriage is a word the vows we take are what is the sacrament not the word. They do not destroy the original meaning of the word just by them using it. I don’t mean any disrespect to anyone but I personally do not condone discrimination, bullying, or even the tactics of some of the churches I have seen. NOT SAYING ANY OF YOU ARE DOING THEM…

 

[Flame4]

Whatever its called, its going to cause the same problems in society. Whatever its called, its still a sin. The only benefit I can see from having a different term for Church marriages and civil marriages, is that the state won’t try to impose its idea of marriage of the Church (ex. putting pressure on the Church to “marry” gay couples). Even there, I don’t think having different terms will last as a protection for the Church for very long.

 

[edwest2]

Then become the person’s guardian with durable power of attorney. A friend of mine set it up with another friend of his to make end of life decisions for him. And my friend still has a living family member.

What’s with all this label stuff? Gays want marriage - not sorta, kinda, not really marriage. That’s all I’m reading from the gay press.

And frankly, what do you want Catholics to do?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Joe_5859]

“A rose by any other name…”

I am personally convinced that using the language of “civil union” as a “compromise” is just part of the foot-in-the-door strategy of reaching the ultimate goal: having same sex relationships viewed as exactly the same as opposite sex relationships.

Note the Vatican’s statement on the issue: Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons. The Church makes no distinction between “marriage” and “legally recognized civil unions.” I’m inclined to follow that lead.

Marriage is something. What makes a marriage valid is that a man and a woman make a public commitment to each other, not that the piece of paper says “marriage” on it rather than “civil union.”

The fact that people continue to bring up these arguments about considerations regarding finances, next-of-kin, hospital visitations, etc. is all just a smoke screen. These things can already readily be achieved through the legal systems we already have in place. They are all variants of argument from emotion. They pull out this or that heart-string-pulling example of a gay man who was unable to visit his partner on his death bed and then argue that same sex marriage is the only means of preventing such tragedies. That’s simply not true, nor is it a rational basis to redefine marriage.

 

[signit]

The fact that people continue to bring up these arguments about considerations regarding finances, next-of-kin, hospital visitations, etc. is all just a smoke screen. These things can already readily be achieved through the legal systems we already have in place. They are all variants of argument from emotion. They pull out this or that heart-string-pulling example of a gay man who was unable to visit his partner on his death bed and then argue that same sex marriage is the only means of preventing such tragedies. That’s simply not true, nor is it a rational basis to redefine marriage.

Sometimes they can; sometimes not.

As you and the other poster say, they may be able to achieve power of attorney ahd hospital visitations without recognition of “marriage.”

But, according to the article I posted, there are financial benefits available only to “married” couples; for example, in New York they can file joint state tax returns, and they can transfer assets at death without being subject to state estate taxes. On the federal level, only “married” couples get Social Security spousal benefits.

There was a piece in the newspaper the other day about one of the parties in the current federal SSM cases. Although she was legally married in her state, when her spouse died she was liable for over $300,000 in federal taxes because federal law doesn’t recognize SSM.

 

[edwest2]

“A rose by any other name…”

I am personally convinced that using the language of “civil union” as a “compromise” is just part of the foot-in-the-door strategy of reaching the ultimate goal: having same sex relationships viewed as exactly the same as opposite sex relationships.

Note the Vatican’s statement on the issue: Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons. The Church makes no distinction between “marriage” and “legally recognized civil unions.” I’m inclined to follow that lead.

Marriage is something. What makes a marriage valid is that a man and a woman make a public commitment to each other, not that the piece of paper says “marriage” on it rather than “civil union.”

The fact that people continue to bring up these arguments about considerations regarding finances, next-of-kin, hospital visitations, etc. is all just a smoke screen. These things can already readily be achieved through the legal systems we already have in place. They are all variants of argument from emotion. They pull out this or that heart-string-pulling example of a gay man who was unable to visit his partner on his death bed and then argue that same sex marriage is the only means of preventing such tragedies. That’s simply not true, nor is it a rational basis to redefine marriage.

You’re absolutely right Joe. It’s not just an opinion. My friend spent hours with me in the emergency room last year and nobody - nobody - asked what our relationship was. Straight, gay - nothing. So it is a smokescreen.

I put him down as the beneficiary on my IRA over the phone. No questions asked. I put him down on my meager bank account. No questions asked. I plan to leave him all my worldly possessions and there is no legal requirement to indicate our relationship. We’re both straight.

So yeah - it’s all the constant harping about things anybody can do being made to sound “impossible” for gays. And bringing it up here all the time? That’s not going to change anything.

Peace,
Ed