Normally I don’t write political or social stuff because I’m pretty liberal. Actually I should say I have mostly socialistic leaning, strangely. But this is finance related because anyway you cut it, it affects a lot of people.
Since California’s supreme court ruled that banning same sex unions is unconstitutional. In MA, the only state to legalize same sex marriages, I have to say I agree. I think that people who are willing to enter into same sex unions need to be protected financially and legally.
But how to reconcile this with the religious right in the country? Simple. Civil Unions. Have everyone same sex or opposite sex enter into civil unions. Then those who are religious and wish to be “married” can do so in a church, but they still need to get a civil license and enter into a civil union.
This will make everyone equal and those who wish for a sanctified marriage can still do so. And those with athetical, or non-religious leanings can be “married” as we see fit. I am happy with this solution because I feel it puts same sex unions on par with non-religious heterosexual relationships.
It would allow same sex couples to file joint taxes, be able to cover a partner on medical insurance, and have equal rights to children, or to estates in the case of death. This will remove religion from the equation of marriage and make it a financial and legal partnership.
It will equalize “marriage” as it is defined. And while marriages can be dissolved by the church, everyone still must go through divorce and separation of assets and dissolution of their “civil” union. Hence we can call it marriage if we so choose, but basically it’s a legal and binding contract between 2 people of whatever sex.
Do you think this is a good or bad idea? If so why?
14 responses so far ↓
1 Meg // May 30, 2008 at 3:10 am
I definitely agree! I’ve had the same thought for some time and was actually puzzled that more people didn’t even consider it as a possible compromise. I don’t see how marriage is the government’s business — particularly if one considers it a religious sacrament. The government’s business should only go as far as things like taxes and distributing property in case of a death without a proper will and similar arrangements.
Personally, I’d like there to be civil-union type arrangements available for other types of partnerships, like for friends or family that live together in the platonic sense but who would appreciate extra financial benefits and security. You don’t have to lust over someone and/or have kids to form a domestic partnership.
Maybe I’m too open-minded. Still, sometimes I want to shake some people on the religious right and tell them that the separation of church and state is just as important to protect conservative Christians as it is to protect everyone else.
(And for the record, my own marriage hasn’t been hurt one darn bit by other people deciding to get married — or even divorced — no matter what their sex, race, religion, politics, etc. etc. etc.)
2 Turn One Pound Into One Million // May 30, 2008 at 10:52 am
I agree with you too – what you say makes a lot of sense.
3 L@SpillingBuckets // May 30, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I have felt this way for a long time – marriage is a religious issue, but civil unions are a state issue – and there is definitely no reason why gay couples should be denied the rights and benefits that come with government recognized unions.
(btw – I am mostly conservative… on all issues except religion)
4 frugal zeitgeist // May 30, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I think it’s a great idea, and in fact this is almost exactly how it’s done in France, Germany, and probably a number of other EC countries. (I’m not sure if same sex unions are actually legal in France or Germany, but in both countries a marriage between heterosexuals is invalid without a civil union.)
When I got married, my now-ex and I were insistent on having a civil ceremony instead of a religious one. We found a retired judge to marry us, but it took a fair amount of work.
5 dogatemyfinances // May 30, 2008 at 1:10 pm
“It would allow same sex couples to file joint taxes.”
Nope, just state taxes. There’s a federal law that prohibits the feds from recognizing same-sex marriages or civil unions. IMHO, the federal taxes are a much bigger deal.
I just blogged a couple months ago about how much more expensive it is to insure your domestic partner, as opposed to your spouse. That’s all federal taxes, which MA or CA can’t change.
6 LivingAlmostLarge // May 30, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Thus why if they mandated a civil union as the set standard they would be able to file jointly. It would be the minimum required for any couple, not just same sex.
Plus I’ve done domestic partnerships and it doesn’t cost more in MA or CA to cover the partner. DH did it before we married for over 5 years. We lived together a long time.
And we were also married at the courthouse by a judge. Are we any less married than someone in the church? If so fine, as long as legally they admit we’re equals. Then why not allow same sex couples to enter into civil unions like DH and I?
7 Monica // May 30, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I’m with you. It’s worth mentioning that originally in Massachusetts Bay Colony, marriages had to be performed by an officer of the state. Our Puritan founders considered marriage a civil union effected by a magistrate, one where a minister could be present and give an address if the couple wished, but one where the essence of the union was a civil and legal contract rather than a religious sacrament. MA has a long history of regarding marriage as a financial and legal matter.
8 Mrs. Micah // May 30, 2008 at 8:00 pm
We had separate civil and religious weddings. Of course, the civil one still counted as a marriage. Anyway, I’d be 100% in favor of this. I don’t think the state has any business in weddings anyway…
9 chris // May 31, 2008 at 12:56 am
I’ve for a long time said this.
It still would not take the vinegar out of the religious right.
10 Future Millionaire // May 31, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I don’t understand why same sex couples are not provided the same protection under the law either, especially when it comes to medical decisions and end of life stuff. I’d be all in favor of this.
However, I’d never heard of Meg’s idea of allowing civil unions for friends and family. My gut reaction is no, that it would be an abuse of power. But this one I’ll have to think on for a while.
11 Jim ~ mydebtblog.com // Jun 1, 2008 at 4:57 am
The problem I have with this is where the end of it will be. If you leave marriage as defined between one man and one woman the way it is, nobody gets confused. A civil union could be almost anything. If two people of the same sex are seen under a civil union, is that what it is limited to? What if someone wanted to enter a civil union with that of another species, such as a pet? What if more than two people want to enter a civil union? Could family members have a civil union with each other that would be legally protected in the same way? Marriage should not be redefined by society.
The bigger issue in California is the election in 2000 when prop 22, California Defense of Marriage Act, was passed. Now the courts basically tell the people you’re voice doesn’t matter and has overturned the will of the people. Since this has happened I’m sure Hollywood is very happy. Maybe they will make a movie about this for HBO too?
12 chica with issues // Jun 2, 2008 at 5:56 pm
we need to get you into government!
I don’t live in CA or MA and spend a lot of time wondering what will happen if my gf or I end up in the hospital, for instance.
13 Livingalmostlarge // Jun 2, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Just two human beings Jim. I don’t think animal by any definition would be considered normal human beings. They dont’ have higher thought.
Leave it simple two people. If you want to legitimize polygamy, then perhaps. But it’s gotta conform to statues where they have to civilly enter into the union at 18. A lot of the polygamy in the news is because underage minors are participating.
I’m not against family marrying. But it’s up to the family to understand the risks. I’ve a friend with an arranged heterosexual marriage to his counsin.
SOOO…according to you, it’s good because it’s male female and just two people. BUT now that i’ve reaveled it’s to his counsin, it’s bad right?
There is no pleasing anyone. But keeping our government out of our religious beliefs would be the right step. This way we’d make civil unions a financial agreement, not a religious one.
Right now it seems like we marry for “religious reasons” which isn’t even true for heterosexual couples in some cases.
14 chris // Jun 4, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I’ve had an interesting dialog with some folks regarding this.
My suggestion was to have two forms of “marriage.”
The first would be a civil union. A civil union would basically be the same as todays marriage, only it could include same sex partners. The civil union would be the civil announcement that two people have joined together and now share rights and responsibilities.
The second would be a true biblical marriage. A true biblical marriage would require the couple to enter into a traditional male/female relationship. And it would require the male and female to live their lives in a true biblical and non-breakable covenant except for the biblical reasons. If one partner decided that after a period of time that “we just grew apart”, they would forfeit all rights to the union. Divorce could only happen for the stated biblical reasons for divorce. If there were biblical reasons for divorce, then the person who caused the grievance would then lose their rights to the spoils of the union.
The purpose for this is two fold. Many christians have become extremely upset with two people of the same sex wanting to form a legal union. They say it taints traditional marriage and destroys the family. This would preserve the marriage aspect.
The second is the divorce rate of christians is nearly as, if not as high as the rate for non christians. The more strict marriage covenant would require some forethought and commitment before plunging into marriage vows.
Leave a Comment