Civil Marriage Verses Civil Union
From time to time I have heard the argument that the legal contract between two people as recognized by the government should be called a "civil union" rather than a "marriage". I think the idea is that having it be called "civil union" would make it easier to convince people that it's OK for same-sex partners to get one, because "marriage" connotes the religious union, and most people opposed to same-sex marriage think of it in that context.* While I agree that calling this legal contract a "civil union" would be OK, assuming it guarantees same-sex partners equal protection under the law, I think that pushing for a name change would actually cause more problems than it would solve.
The current legislation and case law use the word "marriage". This includes all the state laws in all 50 states and the federal laws, such as the one requiring states to recognize marriages from other states. If we were to start calling it "civil union", all of that legal infrastructure would go out the window. A new federal law requiring states to recognize civil unions from other states would need to be enacted, and each state individually would have to enact laws that replace marriage with civil union. I could see this getting messy very quickly.
Also, what would happen to current marriages? Would they suddenly become civil unions under the law, or would they be "grandfathered", and only new legal contracts would be named "civil unions"? Neither choice seems good. The former would anger a lot of couples who would probably feel their legal union had been downgraded, and the latter would not serve the original purpose (equality under the law) for a long time.
For these reasons I think that it would be easier in the long run to keep calling it "marriage" and change current law to allow same-sex partners to be legally married. We need to convince those opposed that we are not talking about the religious institution of marriage. Indeed, if we are following the Constitution, we can't be, since that would violate separation of church and state.
*My apologies if this sentence seems awkward. I really just wanted to use the word "connotes", and I tried to structure the sentence such that I could. I mean, really: who wouldn't want to use the word "connotes"?
The current legislation and case law use the word "marriage". This includes all the state laws in all 50 states and the federal laws, such as the one requiring states to recognize marriages from other states. If we were to start calling it "civil union", all of that legal infrastructure would go out the window. A new federal law requiring states to recognize civil unions from other states would need to be enacted, and each state individually would have to enact laws that replace marriage with civil union. I could see this getting messy very quickly.
Also, what would happen to current marriages? Would they suddenly become civil unions under the law, or would they be "grandfathered", and only new legal contracts would be named "civil unions"? Neither choice seems good. The former would anger a lot of couples who would probably feel their legal union had been downgraded, and the latter would not serve the original purpose (equality under the law) for a long time.
For these reasons I think that it would be easier in the long run to keep calling it "marriage" and change current law to allow same-sex partners to be legally married. We need to convince those opposed that we are not talking about the religious institution of marriage. Indeed, if we are following the Constitution, we can't be, since that would violate separation of church and state.
*My apologies if this sentence seems awkward. I really just wanted to use the word "connotes", and I tried to structure the sentence such that I could. I mean, really: who wouldn't want to use the word "connotes"?
posted by josmith42 at
7:26 PM
|
3 comments
