Civil Unions coming to Illinois?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm an atheist as is my husband. Our wedding ceremony was entirely secular. I am married. I have a marriage. The word "marriage" means something to me. I would not take kindly to those who would claim different.

I agree with you here. Unless everyone gives up the idea of "marriage" as a civil thing, then no one should be denied it.

As I've said again and again, as long as we give civil recognition to a religious ritual, we'll have problems. It would be much simpler to just stop recognizing all religious marriages. That doesn't present a First Amendment problem, because they are still free to have religious marriages all they want--they just wouldn't be recognized by the state. (Once upon a time, naming a baby was primarily a religious ceremony, and now we've separated legally naming a baby from the religious ceremonies of baptism or christening or whatever.)

While we're at it, I would do away with the requirement of any kind of ceremony at all--even before a justice of the peace. It can be done (as with naming a baby) by paperwork, and then people are still free to do any kind of optional ceremony they choose on their own.

Similarly, among Catholics the notion of a civil divorce has been--ahem--divorced from their religious sacraments. (In fact, they technically don't recognize divorce but instead grant annulments where it is claimed that the marriage never took place to begin with.) So a Catholic getting a divorce might get the legal divorce and also go through Church procedures to get an annulment. The state gives no recognition whatsoever to the annulment. Similarly, the state should give no civil recognition to religious marriages.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

RE: The Separate but Equal problem.

I don't think you can apply that to a religious institution as opposed to public ones (where the phrase was originally applied).

That's exactly the problem: these events that happen within religious institutions are being granted civil recognition. The foundation of the entire marriage problem is a separation of church and state issue.

If we could truly separate church and state, it would be clear that the "separate but equal" problem shouldn't be addressed within churches, but should be addressed in whatever received state civil recognition.

As long as only heteros can get "married"--even if all the accidents of marriage pertain to these new "civil unions"--the two would not truly be equal. It's the same reason why courts rejected "separate but equal" schools and required equal protection of the law to everyone regardless of race.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yay for a step forward!

 

[marksman]

these events that happen within religious institutions are being granted civil recognition.

I don't think that's true. (Edited to add: Or, while literally true, I don't think it's as problematic as it appears you believe it to me -- my apologies if I'm misread you.) When my wife and I married, we went to city hall and got a marriage license. At that point, we could get married anywhere. There was no requirement we get married in a church (and, in fact, we did not get married in a church). We could have gotten married in a Stuckey's by a Justic of the Peace. I think a notary public could have done the deed. That would not have been a recognition of Stuckey's by the government.

The problem is not that religious folk can perform marriages. Pretty much anybody can get permission to perform marriages if they care enough. The problem is the government grants licenses only to heterogeneous couples.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think that's true. (Edited to add: Or, while literally true, I don't think it's as problematic as it appears you believe it to me -- my apologies if I'm misread you.) When my wife and I married, we went to city hall and got a marriage license. At that point, we could get married anywhere. There was no requirement we get married in a church (and, in fact, we did not get married in a church). We could have gotten married in a Stuckey's by a Justic of the Peace. I think a notary public could have done the deed. That would not have been a recognition of Stuckey's by the government.

Stuckey's isn't a religious institution, nor is the Justice of the Peace a religious minister conducting a religious ceremony, so there is no entanglement issue.

FWIW, in most states, the ceremony (even a secular civil one) is still required to execute the marriage license. My side point was that all states should do away with that requirement and just do it with documents, making any ceremony optional.

The problem is not that religious folk can perform marriages. Pretty much anybody can get permission to perform marriages if they care enough. The problem is the government grants licenses only to heterogeneous couples.

I disagree. The problem is that religious rituals are being given state civil recognition. This causes the exact confusion that leads to silliness like "the Defense of Marriage Act" (and similar laws passed in several states).

There is an entanglement between church and state.

Churches, which are allowed to discriminate, are being given civil recognition. That's the problem. So the only place a gay couple could be guaranteed marriage (in a system where gay marriage is allowed but not mandated to all non-state agents authorized to execute marriage licenses) is the justice of the peace. Again, you'd have an attempted "separate but equal" system. In dealing with racial segregation in schools, the courts rejected that you can actually have "separate but equal".

That the state also recognizes other institutions (though it's not so in most states--it's pretty much either a justice of the peace or a religious minister) doesn't make it OK to give religious ceremonies state civil recognition.

It's also not at all necessary. As I mentioned, we've separated religious christenings and baptisms from the civil aspects of naming a baby. It's clear now that a church can discriminate or make whatever rules it likes wrt to baptisms and christenings, but it cannot interfere with the state-recognized process of granting a baby its legal name.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yay for a step forward!

Despite all my reservations, I second that.

It's certainly better than the giant step backward that Missouri took a few years ago.

ETA: But I still see this sort of situation as a temporary solution that will have to give way to true equality at some point.

 

[GreyArea]

I remember more than one discussion about this which examined whether marriage is an interpersonal contract, a legal status conferred by a third party (the government) affecting fourth parties (everyone else in society), both a contract and a status, or neither.

I was struck by Loss Leader's account of it, pointing out that it is not just between two individuals.

It is something like a status. In many ways, it's the last status in law. Being white used to entitle you to certain rights that others didn't have, as did being a landowner. There were negative statuses - being a slave, being a woman - that entitled you to fewer rights. And then there's childhood.

Except for being a child, marriage is the only other status there is. It is the only other time that who you are counts towards how the law treats you. It is also the only voluntary status; people can enter and leave almost at will.

But, even with all of that, marriage still functions a little like a contract in some ways. There are aspects of marriage that are just between the two individuals. That doesn't make marriage a contract, though, any more than it makes your hand a foot.

Marriage is just ... marriage. There is nothing else like it.

Also here, and here.

...but KingMerv00 has said that marriage is both a contract and a status, as did Quadraginta. Loss Leader disagreed, and so it went around.

My major point is that this is more complicated than most people seem to think. Of course, I am not a lawyer, unlike Loss Leader and (maybe now?) KingMerv. (I don't know about Quadraginta.)

My minor point is that interested people might want to read these earlier discussions, to see what has been said here before. There was even some discussion of church/state separation regarding marriage in 2008 (start with page 2).

 

[marksman]

Stuckey's isn't a religious institution

So are you saying that there should be a special law forbidding marriages from being certified in a religious institution? So I could have gotten married in a Stuckey's but not a church?! I'm really confused about what point you are trying to make.

the ceremony (even a secular civil one) is still required to execute the marriage license. My side point was that all states should do away with that requirement and just do it with documents, making any ceremony optional.

Why? The "ceremony" is merely getting someone authorized by the State to certify that the people are entering into the marriage of their own free will. There's no requirement that it be done in public or any specific building, at least not in any State of which I'm aware. (I'm sure the wedding planners' lobby wished otherwise!)

The problem is that religious rituals are being given state civil recognition.

No, they aren't. The only "ritual" being given civil recognition is the certification of the license. That most people choose to do that during a religious ritual is of no consequence ot the State, as evidence by the fact that I could get married anywhere and it's just as valid as any other marriage.

The ceremony is not the issue. It's the discrimination that is the issue.

the only place a gay couple could be guaranteed marriage (in a system where gay marriage is allowed but not mandated to all non-state agents authorized to execute marriage licenses) is the justice of the peace.

Right, because you're discrimination against homosexuals is still legal. That's the issue. It's the recognition of bigotry, not of religion.

It's clear now that a church can discriminate or make whatever rules it likes wrt to baptisms and christenings, but it cannot interfere with the state-recognized process of granting a baby its legal name.

Right. They can do that for licenses too. The problem is the law permits discrimination. It's not recognizing religion. You're confusing two concepts because much homophobia is also motivated by religion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So are you saying that there should be a special law forbidding marriages from being certified in a religious institution? So I could have gotten married in a Stuckey's but not a church?! I'm really confused about what point you are trying to make.

I said exactly what I'm saying. There should be no civil/state recognition of any religious ceremony. The state should have nothing to say about religious ceremonies.

I never said there should be a special law forbidding marriages in religious institutions. Just that any such ceremony should be given no religious recognition at all.

Religious ministers should not be treated as state agents when they are acting as religious ministers. As it stands, in most states they are given special state powers that aren't granted to just anybody--the power to execute a marriage license.

This entanglement is indeed problematic and leads to problems --especially about who can discriminate or what discrimination can be prohibited.

 

[marksman]

I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation. I still don't see how what you're describing is an entanglement issue, rather than a straightforward discrimination issue. Sorry.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It also has a lot of legal baggage associated with it. There are hundreds of legal rights that come with marriage, and not civil unions.

Exactly.

And that's partly why you can't ever have "separate but equal". Even if you got all the legal rights pertaining to marriage, but still called it something else, you still wouldn't truly be equal.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation. I still don't see how what you're describing is an entanglement issue, rather than a straightforward discrimination issue. Sorry.

Sorry you don't see it.


How about a more practical approach: have you seen any anti-gay-marriage argument that wasn't based on religion?

 

[marksman]

have you seen any anti-gay-marriage argument that wasn't based on religion?

I already answered this...

You're confusing two concepts because much homophobia is also motivated by religion.

 

[MattusMaximus]

UPDATE: The bill just passed in the Illinois Senate

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com...inois-senate-debates-civil-union-measure.html

Civil unions for same-sex couples would be allowed in Illinois under historic legislation the state Senate swiftly sent today to Gov. Pat Quinn, who is expected to sign the measure.

The bill would give gay couples the chance to enjoy several of the same rights as married couples, ranging from legal rights on probate matters to visiting a partner in a hospital that won’t allow anyone but relatives into a patient’s room.

The Senate voted 32-24 after the House, viewed as the toughest hurdle, passed the measure on Tuesday. ...

It's as good as done, folks. I predict that Gov. Quinn could have this thing signed into law by the end of the week.

As the philosopher Jagger once said: "You can't always get what you want, but sometimes - if you try real hard - you might get what you need."

 

[MattusMaximus]

I disagree that separation is protected. As long as religious rituals performed in churches are given civil recognition, we've got a bad entanglement problem.

I'm fine with civil unions as long as they are the ONLY kind of marriage the state recognizes. Otherwise, we've just got a "separate but equal" problem. (Just being separate--and being differently named--is enough to make it unequal.)

My apologies. I meant that religious liberty is protected in the sense that no religious institution can be required by this bill (soon to be law - yay!) to perform a same-sex civil union. That is one of the rallying cries of the religious bigots who oppose equality - they try to scare people into believing that their churches will be invaded by those awful homosexuals!!!11!1

As for your second point, I agree.

 

[Drachasor]

I said exactly what I'm saying. There should be no civil/state recognition of any religious ceremony. The state should have nothing to say about religious ceremonies.

I never said there should be a special law forbidding marriages in religious institutions. Just that any such ceremony should be given no religious recognition at all.

Marriages aren't given any special religious recognition, to be fair. If a Church gets a permit to expand their building, that doesn't have any special religious recognition either.

People can perform marriages with no regard for religion, AFAIK -- looked it up and this essentially true, though in some areas in the USA it might be hard to be an accepted person to perform a marriage (in the vast majority of places there is no difficulty at all). So at worst you really only need one small tweak here and that is having some form to fill out that gives you the right to perform a marriage. Seems a lot easier than getting rid of marriages as far as the State is concerned.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

"Seperate but equal" is good news?

I know where you're coming from, and I often debate with others against the whole "civil union" being an acceptable replacement for gay marriage, but as a bridge reform, like it was in Vermont, I think it's at least decent. With states passing actual gay marriage around the country, ones with civil unions will probably soon actually go towards full marriage equity.

 

[deepatrax]

Gay people can already marry in every single state in the country...they have the SAME rights to marry as Straight people do.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Gay people can already marry in every single state in the country...they have the SAME rights to marry as Straight people do.

You're absolutely right, they certainly can, as long as their partner is of the opposite sex.

 

[Shalamar]

Gay people can already marry in every single state in the country...they have the SAME rights to marry as Straight people do.

And what if the person they love, want to marry and spend the rest of their life with, happens to be the same gender as themselves?