4 ms·

Civil unions would have been a better answer to that. It's a much more culturally secular entity, and can defined better. For example, two people who live toge

Civil unions would have been a better answer to that. It's a much more culturally secular entity, and can defined better. For example, two people who live together long enough can be declared in a civil union, this way, someone can get spousal benefits even if they don't go through the process of getting married, which is more fair, I think.

turc1656 10y ago
Honestly, I don't really know much of anything about civil unions so maybe your right. If that's the case, I have no idea what the actual distinction is between a civil union and marriage would be then if they both confer the same benefits/rights/protections. Sounds like civil unions were just created to fill that same-sex marriage gap without pissing off the people who didn't want same-sex marriages. That way the people who are against it can still feel like marriage is just one man and one woman while gay couples can still get the legal perks. Seems like a typical political cop-out. But I could be wrong on this assumption as I don't know enough about it. That's my gut impression, though.
- edblarney 10y ago
  A civil union is the civic definition of partnership. It confers the 'legal rights'. 'Marriage' is something cultural and religious. People can call themselves married, or not, it's not legally relevant. You go to City Hall to register your partnership. You go to Church (or whatever) to get married.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    What jurisdiction are you describing? In the United States, they are legally different concepts, with marriage conferring more rights to the couple. Since Obergefell v. Hodges, civil unions are not really used.
    - edblarney 10y ago
      Sorry, I'm not describing a jurisdiction, rather explaining how I think it should be done. I guess I didn't make that clear as it was an appendage to my earlier comment. :)
- rsynnott 10y ago
  > Sounds like civil unions were just created to fill that same-sex marriage gap without pissing off the people who didn't want same-sex marriages. In most countries which implemented them, that's broadly correct, yeah. In some countries there were also constitutional issues; in Ireland we had to change our constitution to permit same-sex marriage, for instance, so we had civil unions in the mean time. In practice, though, there were lots of small unintended legal differences. Marriage has been around since before any modern society, and it weaves itself into laws and regulations. The campaign for equal marriage in Ireland found something like a thousand legal differences between civil unions and marriages, mostly essentially accidental. They're a mess and should be avoided if possible.
rsynnott 10y ago
What you're describing is a common-law marriage, more or less. Most jurisdictions have abolished them, because they create administrative problems (for instance, if someone dies with money and without a will, you're basically guaranteed a messy legal procedure), but a number of US states still recognise them. Civil unions were largely implemented as an alternative to marriage, usually only for same-sex couples, either because granting same-sex marriage was too contentious, unconstitutional, or similar reasons. And they worked like marriage; they were generally contracted just like a civil marriage. Generally, when countries permit same-sex marriage, they also remove any existing civil union laws. We had them in Ireland for a few years until the constitution was changed to allow same-sex marriage, for instance; after that the law was changed to forbid any new civil unions.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Civil unions would have been a better answer to that. Civil marriage already is a civil union; distinct-in-name "civil unions" are a separate (if sometimes nominally equal) civic institution to keep same-sex unions segregated-in-name from opposite-sex unions. > For example, two people who live together long enough can be declared in a civil union, this way, someone can get spousal benefits even if they don't go through the process of getting married "The process of getting married" basically exists to (1) document the state of union to aid in dispute resolution, (2) provide notice of an opportunity for basic review for legal barriers to the union (which now are basically consanguinity and already being in a similar union with someone else), and (3) provide clear documentation of consent from both parties to.the formation of the union. The less formal form you describe (common-law marriage) coexisted alongside formal "registered" marriage (and, arguably, is even more linked to religion than the formal kind, since it's a direct product of the Christian doctrine that sacramental marriage is created between the partners alone, with the Church and/or State functioning as additional witnesses, not the creators of the state), but has increasingly fallen out of favor because it creates a lack of clarity about legal rights and obligations.

turc1656 10y ago

Honestly, I don't really know much of anything about civil unions so maybe your right. If that's the case, I have no idea what the actual distinction is between a civil union and marriage would be then if they both confer the same benefits/rights/protections. Sounds like civil unions were just created to fill that same-sex marriage gap without pissing off the people who didn't want same-sex marriages. That way the people who are against it can still feel like marriage is just one man and one woman while gay couples can still get the legal perks. Seems like a typical political cop-out. But I could be wrong on this assumption as I don't know enough about it. That's my gut impression, though.

edblarney 10y ago
A civil union is the civic definition of partnership. It confers the 'legal rights'. 'Marriage' is something cultural and religious. People can call themselves married, or not, it's not legally relevant. You go to City Hall to register your partnership. You go to Church (or whatever) to get married.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  What jurisdiction are you describing? In the United States, they are legally different concepts, with marriage conferring more rights to the couple. Since Obergefell v. Hodges, civil unions are not really used.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    Sorry, I'm not describing a jurisdiction, rather explaining how I think it should be done. I guess I didn't make that clear as it was an appendage to my earlier comment. :)
rsynnott 10y ago
> Sounds like civil unions were just created to fill that same-sex marriage gap without pissing off the people who didn't want same-sex marriages. In most countries which implemented them, that's broadly correct, yeah. In some countries there were also constitutional issues; in Ireland we had to change our constitution to permit same-sex marriage, for instance, so we had civil unions in the mean time. In practice, though, there were lots of small unintended legal differences. Marriage has been around since before any modern society, and it weaves itself into laws and regulations. The campaign for equal marriage in Ireland found something like a thousand legal differences between civil unions and marriages, mostly essentially accidental. They're a mess and should be avoided if possible.

rsynnott 10y ago

What you're describing is a common-law marriage, more or less. Most jurisdictions have abolished them, because they create administrative problems (for instance, if someone dies with money and without a will, you're basically guaranteed a messy legal procedure), but a number of US states still recognise them. Civil unions were largely implemented as an alternative to marriage, usually only for same-sex couples, either because granting same-sex marriage was too contentious, unconstitutional, or similar reasons. And they worked like marriage; they were generally contracted just like a civil marriage. Generally, when countries permit same-sex marriage, they also remove any existing civil union laws. We had them in Ireland for a few years until the constitution was changed to allow same-sex marriage, for instance; after that the law was changed to forbid any new civil unions.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Civil unions would have been a better answer to that. Civil marriage already is a civil union; distinct-in-name "civil unions" are a separate (if sometimes nominally equal) civic institution to keep same-sex unions segregated-in-name from opposite-sex unions. > For example, two people who live together long enough can be declared in a civil union, this way, someone can get spousal benefits even if they don't go through the process of getting married "The process of getting married" basically exists to (1) document the state of union to aid in dispute resolution, (2) provide notice of an opportunity for basic review for legal barriers to the union (which now are basically consanguinity and already being in a similar union with someone else), and (3) provide clear documentation of consent from both parties to.the formation of the union. The less formal form you describe (common-law marriage) coexisted alongside formal "registered" marriage (and, arguably, is even more linked to religion than the formal kind, since it's a direct product of the Christian doctrine that sacramental marriage is created between the partners alone, with the Church and/or State functioning as additional witnesses, not the creators of the state), but has increasingly fallen out of favor because it creates a lack of clarity about legal rights and obligations.