02-17-2011, 06:51 AM
Dave, it's a bit complex an explanation, but here goes. When reading comments on "Civil Unions" you have to know what exactly are they talking about? Are they talking about a specific definition that is used in a specific instance, or something else?
It was in 2000 that Vermont first promulgated a "Civil Union" that was not a marriage, and that is what some are referring to when they say "Civil Union". It's not civil unions, it's Vermont’s "Civil Union" specific to how Vermont first defined it.
Prior to that, a civil union was just the way the matrimony was performed. You see this in federal laws when benefits were being denied to legally married couples because the state or territory imposed their own recognition of marriages as "In the Eyes of God", meaning they recognized only church marriages and not those done administratively by a judge, justice of the peace, or a court clerk. So governments added in their laws (written way before the year 2000) that the benefits and privileges of spouses included Holy and Civil. Look at all the laws modified in the 60-70's that had to add the various recognized cultural, spiritual, and alternative weddings. These are all legal and recognized by governments, just like civil and holy prior to change of meanings post 2000.
So when you hear people say "civil union" you need to know if they are speaking of the common law application as in a union performed under state law with no affinity connection or civil union as in the specific definition in use by Vermont and now a few other states?
Now to complicate this more, ALL marriages are civil. They are performed under the state civil laws. You can add the requirements of some other umbrella, but the state civil authority of marriage is superior to the umbrella group. You can get married in a civil ceremony and although your church may not recognize the marriage for their purposes, it's still a legal union. Likewise if you got married in a church under church law (which has to also conform to state law), you are divorced legally under civil law. It doesn’t matter if the church recognizes that divorce under their laws, it's a legal divorced under the law and to hell with what the church thinks.
The last point to make is that people use the word marriage as if that is the legal definition. The legal definition is the consensual contractual joining under the laws of a state. So you will see and hear in various laws depending on when written, (and why), the words: marriage, matrimony, union in matrimony, union, wedlock, civil union, wedded, marriage union, and similar words to describe the state sponsored consensual joining of two as one.
Civil Union, as we discuss the gay marriage issue, is not even ten years old and only found in a handful of state's laws. To take 2,000 years of applying the word civil & union together meaning marriage and throw that away because of a couple of state's recent use of that phrase to describe a very specific local definition is like having a mass murderer call himself Jesus Christ and for that point forward, Jesus Christ means only mass murderers.
ETA: Dave, so that we can all agree and not get side tracked on the issue of Hawaii, I'll assume that whenever the word civil union is mentioned, it references the Domestic Partnership type meaning and when Marriage is used, it references the tradional common definiton of matrimony. Because not all states and not all fedreal laws use the same terminaiology to mean the same thing, (and some uses one to mean the other) if we keep it to the purpose of these two things, we can get on with the discussion. Fair?
It was in 2000 that Vermont first promulgated a "Civil Union" that was not a marriage, and that is what some are referring to when they say "Civil Union". It's not civil unions, it's Vermont’s "Civil Union" specific to how Vermont first defined it.
Prior to that, a civil union was just the way the matrimony was performed. You see this in federal laws when benefits were being denied to legally married couples because the state or territory imposed their own recognition of marriages as "In the Eyes of God", meaning they recognized only church marriages and not those done administratively by a judge, justice of the peace, or a court clerk. So governments added in their laws (written way before the year 2000) that the benefits and privileges of spouses included Holy and Civil. Look at all the laws modified in the 60-70's that had to add the various recognized cultural, spiritual, and alternative weddings. These are all legal and recognized by governments, just like civil and holy prior to change of meanings post 2000.
So when you hear people say "civil union" you need to know if they are speaking of the common law application as in a union performed under state law with no affinity connection or civil union as in the specific definition in use by Vermont and now a few other states?
Now to complicate this more, ALL marriages are civil. They are performed under the state civil laws. You can add the requirements of some other umbrella, but the state civil authority of marriage is superior to the umbrella group. You can get married in a civil ceremony and although your church may not recognize the marriage for their purposes, it's still a legal union. Likewise if you got married in a church under church law (which has to also conform to state law), you are divorced legally under civil law. It doesn’t matter if the church recognizes that divorce under their laws, it's a legal divorced under the law and to hell with what the church thinks.
The last point to make is that people use the word marriage as if that is the legal definition. The legal definition is the consensual contractual joining under the laws of a state. So you will see and hear in various laws depending on when written, (and why), the words: marriage, matrimony, union in matrimony, union, wedlock, civil union, wedded, marriage union, and similar words to describe the state sponsored consensual joining of two as one.
Civil Union, as we discuss the gay marriage issue, is not even ten years old and only found in a handful of state's laws. To take 2,000 years of applying the word civil & union together meaning marriage and throw that away because of a couple of state's recent use of that phrase to describe a very specific local definition is like having a mass murderer call himself Jesus Christ and for that point forward, Jesus Christ means only mass murderers.
ETA: Dave, so that we can all agree and not get side tracked on the issue of Hawaii, I'll assume that whenever the word civil union is mentioned, it references the Domestic Partnership type meaning and when Marriage is used, it references the tradional common definiton of matrimony. Because not all states and not all fedreal laws use the same terminaiology to mean the same thing, (and some uses one to mean the other) if we keep it to the purpose of these two things, we can get on with the discussion. Fair?