TED Conversations

Nadine Clement

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Make Civil Marriage the Norm for the entire country and religious marriage a symbolic addition to that

For years we have been trying to make people reform their religious views to include gay marriage and I think it is causing harm to both parties. I am suggesting a simple alternative, make civil unions the default of the land, if you want to get marriage under the eyes of god that is a separate ceremony.

All laws that include incentives for 'marriage' should be changed to 'civil union' in the books.

Religious ceremonies should be separate from the government and should not give any additional rights that you would not get in a civil union.

Civil Unions therefore should be expanded to included any and all rights of a marriage as we think of it now and religious marriage should be reduced to a symbolic ceremony.

In short in this system EVERYONE would be required to get a civil union if they wanted the United States of American to view them as couple, and then after that they are free to make the decision if they want to have a religious cermony in the eyes of God.

This would be protecting religious rights but also giving rights to the people that deserve to be regonized as a couple with all the incentives and protections of marriage.

Thank you for reading my petition.

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-president-of-the-united-states-make-civil-unions-the-norm-for-all-couples

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 30 2011: I still fail to see why the recipient of my benefits has to be a "love match".

    Toss marriage completely out of the realm of law.
    • thumb
      Nov 30 2011: The only problem with that is how do with the international marriages and such how do they get green cards or the better question if that is thrown out who doesn't? That always seems to be a topic of big debate in this country.
    • thumb
      Nov 30 2011: Gisela, Why doesn't your comment surprise me?

      Excellent idea Nadine. Thank you for your clarity.
      • thumb
        Dec 1 2011: Because it's ludicrous to base such important things on something that for most people lasts a few years?

        I'm not suggesting we forbid making the person you marry in a religious ceremony your recipient, I'm pointing out that it is stupid to equate the two at all. Marriage is a religious and cultural artifact. The legal and tax benefits currently tied to marriage should instead be tied to a contract between two people that has nothing to do with "love" whether permanent or temporary.

        And who the hell cares if I sponsor someone into the country and don't actually love them? If I want to promise to support someone financially if they cannot find work, why create a department of workers to check whether or not s/he knows the colour of my toothbrush and what deodorant I use?

        It's just idiotic and juvenile busy-body work.
        • thumb
          Dec 3 2011: Well I am kinda against the tax benefits to begin with but if we DO have them they should be equal. Civil union I do equate to a contract between people though.
      • thumb
        Dec 3 2011: But a contract that implies sexual/romantic entanglements.

        I'd like to see that prerequisite gone.
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2011: Seriously?

        Did you just resort to "you're pretty, why aren't you dumber," with me?

        I can't recall the last time that happened. Between this and that Kentucky church that just banned inter-racial marriages, I am starting to wonder if I fell through a time vortex and woke up in 1960-something.
        • thumb
          Dec 4 2011: No ma'am. Thank wasn't the focus nor intent of my comment, which you obviously missed completely. We need not communicate again. There is no basis for understanding here. Good bye.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.