Could Civil Unions Flip the Rhetoric of Male/Female Relations?

[Melk]

The issue of homosexual marriage bred the rhetorical, separate-but-equal concept of the civil union. The civil union seems to be a concept to quiet gay marriage opponents who believe that the government will attempt to force churches to marry homosexual couples to one another.

In this spirit, I wondered, if the government decided that all marriages were exclusively religious institutions and that for the sake of "legal recognition" cohabiting couples would have to apply for a "civil union" to obtain property rights or other legal attachments that could be recognized in death, sickness, divorce or progeny, would women getting "married" pressuring their future husbands to obtain a "civil union" become the female version of "if you really love me, you wouldn't tarnish it with legal contracts" complaint that men requesting "prenuptial agreements" get now?

Would men be quicker to "marry" if divorce had no connection to the US legal system?

Would women stop racing to get married and begin pressuring their boyfriends to get civilly united because the institution marriage offers no legal or financial protection when the marriage falls apart?

Finally, would this potentially open the slippery slope in an entirely other direction? For example, if "marriage" was considered a religious institution, would plural marriage begin getting pushed again in the Mormon church?

[EliSnow]

Given that a number of states are recognizing gay marriages, I think that's the future, and not "civil unions."

[Melk]

Given that a number of states are recognizing gay marriages, I think that's the future, and not "civil unions."
I suppose I should have clarified that this is a hypothetical question.

Think of it as Earth 2 America.

[EliSnow]

It's pretty simple. If marriages are only religious-recognized unions, and all government benefits and legal rights are tied to civil unions, it would hasten the death of religion in America. Until then, religious people who want a "marriage" would get both a marriage and a civil union, because you would be an idiot to not get a union that would provide benefits and rights.

[hunnerbun]

Well in this case then why do I have to get a marriage license from the Province/State I reside in? Or for that matter why if you are married in the church do you have to get a divorce? If it only comes down to the religious aspect of it then technically all you would have to do is apply to the church for the license to marry and to get an annulment to dissolve said marriage. As a Catholic now if I want to re-marry in the church I have to shell out a crapload of money to also have the annulment on top of the divorce.
Seems to me they want it both ways.

<~~~ Completely in favor of Gay marriage...I can't understand any of this religious "it will lessen my marriage" bullshit in that case make divorce illegal 'cause that lessens it too.

[MacVittie]

As long as the civil union was a big party where the woman gets the be the center of attention for months leading up to it, I think they'll go for it.

[KatPw]

<~~~ Completely in favor of Gay marriage...I can't understand any of this religious "it will lessen my marriage" bullshit in that case make divorce illegal 'cause that lessens it too.

They may say that the reason they are against it is because they think "will lessen my marriage" but I don't think that is the reason at all. I think the reason they are against it is because they are afraid that they may have a gay child/grandchild and they think by preventing gay marriage it will keep their offspring on the straight and narrow.

ETA: And where does common law marriages fit into all this? I don't think my state recognizes them but I know others do.

[EliSnow]

ETA: And where does common law marriages fit into all this? I don't think my state recognizes them but I know others do.

A common law marriage is one where the marriage is recognized due to continuous, long-term cohabitation together between a man and a woman without a formal marriage ceremony or license. I don't think such marriages have all the rights of a regular marriage in those states where it is recognized, but I may be wrong.

[Charlie_Don't_Surf]

My friend you have just sparked my brain. I am against gay "marriage" (i'm against this gov't male female marriage too) because I don't think that a gov't should be performing what is(was) more or less a religious ceremony. I, however, would gladly put my full support behind gay marriage if it meant a restructuring of the marriage system. That way women won't making an investment based on 50% of your income from when they buy low(marry while you're poor) to when the sell high(divorce after you've picked up some scratch). I think too many good men get crushed with that shit.

This would also be beneficial for child support rule restructuring. In a case where there are two dads or two moms, the payments would have to be 50-50(or at least fair assuming that one makes much more than the other). So that would also be a benefit for straight couples.

If gays would market gay marriage as such I think most of America would be behind them. Remember in a majority vote you only need 50% + 1.

They could probably market it as "Free Marriage." This way they would gain support of those who question "What's in it for me?"

[hunnerbun]

My friend you have just sparked my brain. I am against gay "marriage" (i'm against this gov't male female marriage too) because I don't think that a gov't should be performing what is(was) more or less a religious ceremony. I, however, would gladly put my full support behind gay marriage if it meant a restructuring of the marriage system. That way women won't making an investment based on 50% of your income from when they buy low(marry while you're poor) to when the sell high(divorce after you've picked up some scratch). I think too many good men get crushed with that shit.

This would also be beneficial for child support rule restructuring. In a case where there are two dads or two moms, the payments would have to be 50-50(or at least fair assuming that one makes much more than the other). So that would also be a benefit for straight couples.

If gays would market gay marriage as such I think most of America would be behind them. Remember in a majority vote you only need 50% + 1.

They could probably market it as "Free Marriage." This way they would gain support of those who question "What's in it for me?"

Don't even get me started on the 50-50 bullshit. When I got married as far as I was concerned it was forever, I believed the whole til death do us part bullshit, unfortunately for me my husband had a different view. He fucked up his business to the point that he had to declare bankruptcy as I result I had to as well so the creditors didn't come after me for the defaulted loans, even though I was not the one at fault, on top of it all he "committed adultery", once again, not my fault. As a result I made him sign over the house to me and kicked him out, why the fuck should he get 50% of something I struggled to keep the whole time he was out putting all his "income" into VLT's instead of paying his debts.
I also know of women who will take half of their husband's pension, I don't really agree with this either.

[Charlie_Don't_Surf]

Don't even get me started on the 50-50 bullshit. When I got married as far as I was concerned it was forever, I believed the whole til death do us part bullshit, unfortunately for me my husband had a different view. He fucked up his business to the point that he had to declare bankruptcy as I result I had to as well so the creditors didn't come after me for the defaulted loans, even though I was not the one at fault, on top of it all he "committed adultery", once again, not my fault. As a result I made him sign over the house to me and kicked him out, why the fuck should he get 50% of something I struggled to keep the whole time he was out putting all his "income" into VLT's instead of paying his debts.
I also know of women who will take half of their husband's pension, I don't really agree with this either.

Umm, I think you missed something. I said 50-50(or as fair as possible) for CHILD SUPPORT. In divorce I think people should leave with what they earned. If someone's infidelity is the reason for divorce then a REASONABLE amount of money should be given so that the other person can get their lives back on track(6 months to a year TOPS).

[hunnerbun]

Umm, I think you missed something. I said 50-50(or as fair as possible) for CHILD SUPPORT. In divorce I think people should leave with what they earned. If someone's infidelity is the reason for divorce then a REASONABLE amount of money should be given so that the other person can get their lives back on track(6 months to a year TOPS).

Yeah Charlie...sorry. My blood begins to boil and my vision clouds a little at the whole 50-50 issue. I do agree with the child support statement and with the leave with what you came with statement, I guess I just never understood the whole "I'm gonna make you pay" tactic.

[boosterp]

Don't even get me started on the 50-50 bullshit. When I got married as far as I was concerned it was forever, I believed the whole til death do us part bullshit, unfortunately for me my husband had a different view. He fucked up his business to the point that he had to declare bankruptcy as I result I had to as well so the creditors didn't come after me for the defaulted loans, even though I was not the one at fault, on top of it all he "committed adultery", once again, not my fault. As a result I made him sign over the house to me and kicked him out, why the fuck should he get 50% of something I struggled to keep the whole time he was out putting all his "income" into VLT's instead of paying his debts.
I also know of women who will take half of their husband's pension, I don't really agree with this either.

As a divorced male without children I agree with you both. I left with what I came in with, I left her yet she gets the house, the common purchased stuff, etc. Part of me did that though just because I did not want to deal with her.

Oh, we were not married in a church and did not included the word god in our vows. yet our marriage license from Texas still had the word god in it.

[EliSnow]

My friend you have just sparked my brain. I am against gay "marriage" (i'm against this gov't male female marriage too) because I don't think that a gov't should be performing what is(was) more or less a religious ceremony.

Going back to this argument, this hasn't been true for over a hundred years in Western civilization. Moreover, in ancient Greece, Rome, etc. there was often no religious or state involvement in marriages at all.

As a result, using it as a excuse to oppose gay marriage is baseless.