Would you support a system where the government only acknowledged civil unions, and that a marriage church or not would be a personal ceremony? So, a couple that gets married would still have to go through a 5 minute official government procedure or sign a document. Also, any reference to it in government or public sectors would refer to civil unions.
I only ask because this would help prevent discrimination against one group or the other, either people that have been married or more likely those with civil unions. This would level the playing field somewhat.
Hmmmm... that is an interesting question that has not been posed to me before. For now I would have to say no. While I do believe the validity of what you say, if folks can't be brought far enough along intellectually and emotionally now, they will just find a way to do as they want. I mean this in both regards as in there are homosexuals who currently "marry" in every regard except getting the license from the state. Likewise there are folks who are very fundamental in their religious beliefs and likely would have some means of getting around the lack of marriage license.
I guess I would sort of equate it with how we desegregated neighborhoods and schools only to watch a huge white flight occur from most of our city centers.
Or the infamous, you can lead a horse to water routine....
I have stated that civil unions are the same legally and don't have religious baggage/patriachy/etc. If you have religious folks enter that domain it is going to cloud it. For example in many religious beliefs the man is the leader of the family and the woman the helper of the family. This is why some object to marriage. Yet if these same religious folks had a civil union after a marriage, it would, in my view, bring the same baggage to civil unions.
I'm sure if we gave people a choice the percentages would start to change over time. If men were assured their child visitation rights, no alimony, etc from the coupling that is civil unions, I bet the percentages would be dramatic and would likely lead so of the cohabitators here to have a civil union instead of marriage.
See it is also my view (as you have seen in threads here) that the reason many men are so punitively punished is because the family courts also subscribe to a biblical view of marriage. Marriage is till death do us part, hence alimony. Marriage says the man must earn and the woman must nurture and hence so does the family court.
However if we had a new modern institution that was free of that thinking, the courts might have to treat men differently under it. The vows to a civil union wouldn't have to assume the man the leader of the family, the only financial provider etc.
It could benefit many folks who are not traditionalists.
Likewise the last thing I would bring up is if we did what you mentioned we would be right back at square one. Homosexuals would be wondering why they could not have a marriage and civil union while heterosexuals can. Religious folks would be screaming that being forced to civil union is undermining their marriage vows, etc.
I think giving people a union with the same legal rights that is more modern and progressive is good. I have faith that if it is more appropriate for them, they will choose it.
Hmmmm... that is an interesting question that has not been posed to me before. For now I would have to say no.
Just remember, I'm asking that for the state to acknowledge something it is a civil union. Perhaps just two signatures on a piece of paper to get in the system. Any religious, or non-religious for that matter, could get married in a church and have their vows.
Having two systems in the government wouldn't work in my opinion. Too many chances for x=OK married but no equivalent. So, make the paperwork centered around the agnostic union document and the social aspect free for whatever anyone wants to do.
Just remember, I'm asking that for the state to acknowledge something it is a civil union. Perhaps just two signatures on a piece of paper to get in the system. Any religious, or non-religious for that matter, could get married in a church and have their vows.
Having two systems in the government wouldn't work in my opinion. Too many chances for x=OK married but no equivalent. So, make the paperwork centered around the agnostic union document and the social aspect free for whatever anyone wants to do.
Your original premise spoke of a second small ceremony or something of that nature didn't it? Small governmental procedure?
I don't see what you are quite getting at. Are you basically saying sign a second paper in addition to their marriage license or have the civil union paper replace the marriage license?
Your original premise spoke of a second small ceremony or something of that nature didn't it? Small governmental procedure?
I don't see what you are quite getting at. Are you basically saying sign a second paper in addition to their marriage license or have the civil union paper replace the marriage license?
Sorry, I was trying to say a small ceremony or maybe just signing a piece of paper. I'm not exactly sure how it's done now. I think you need to go in front of a justice of the peace, and I'm guessing that wouldn't change. But I wouldn't be against the government simplifying the process even more.
The ultimate goal is to have a legal union that the government acknowledges for all official situations. Marriage could remain a sacrement of the church, people married outside of the U.S. could just get it officially documented here, etc.
Sorry, I was trying to say a small ceremony or maybe just signing a piece of paper. I'm not exactly sure how it's done now. I think you need to go in front of a justice of the peace, and I'm guessing that wouldn't change. But I wouldn't be against the government simplifying the process even more.
The ultimate goal is to have a legal union that the government acknowledges for all official situations. Marriage could remain a sacrement of the church, people married outside of the U.S. could just get it officially documented here, etc.
The way it is most commonly done now (I said common, not universal) is that the wedding occurs and while the whole group is moving to the reception, the bride and groom typically go sign their marriage license.
When I eloped with my wife to Vegas, we had the wedding, then were driven over to the City Clerks Office where there is a whole team of folks filling out marriage licenses. We filled out our part and were done.
The easiest way to implement what you suggest would be by changing the marriage license to a civil union license.
I personally wouldn't have a problem with this. However as I mentioned, there are a lot of folks, a lot of history and a lot of other issues that would likely muddy the waters regarding this.
I personally wouldn't have a problem with this. However as I mentioned, there are a lot of folks, a lot of history and a lot of other issues that would likely muddy the waters regarding this.
I'm not sure what problems there would be, but if homosexuals can't get married in a church the government sure can't do anything about it. The government can change what it considers legal and binding though.
You forgot one good reason to marry, trumptman: the green card. \
Bingo, Giaguara! I just got mine a month ago. What do I do now? Divorce and leave her the house that I paid for? That would be one friggin' expensive greencard.
I didn't ask for a prenuptial agreement, because I didn't want to offend my wife's sensitivities. If I could do it over again, I would definitely have a prenup. A prenup can't hurt if you stay married, and will surely help if you do break up.
As for cohabition, I often wish we would have stuck with that. I think I got married too early. And once you're married, it's damn tough to break it off when it's not working and even tougher to get over the stigma of a divorcee. OTOH, cohabitation wouldn't have gotten me the greencard.
On a related note, I love the French word for cohabitation, concubinage. Who wants to be my concubine?
The difference (in my opinion) would basically be not using a word that some groups consider associated with church/religion, patriachy, or other beliefs that they consider baggage.
I was married in a church. Even when say a judge performs the ceremony, it is still called a marriage and can have religious overtones. For folks that hate religion to a degree that they don't want their union tainted with a term with religious history, I say they can call it a civil union and have the exact same results with regard to legal and tax benefits.
Nick
So you'd have a choice of being married or being 'civil unionised', both purely through the state. Also you can have your marriage blessed through your religion if you choose.
That way when you get married they could say 'what do you want it to say on the marriage certificate'? And then it could say Civil Union or Marriage, depending on your preferences.
So you'd have a choice of being married or being 'civil unionised', both purely through the state. Also you can have your marriage blessed through your religion if you choose.
That way when you get married they could say 'what do you want it to say on the marriage certificate'? And then it could say Civil Union or Marriage, depending on your preferences.
I'm fine with that. However again I don't control the planet. I know that there are religious groups that would never allow homosexuals to choose the marriage box there.
I'm fine with that. However again I don't control the planet. I know that there are religious groups that would never allow homosexuals to choose the marriage box there.
It's a problem, like I said, because that allows for discrimination. Some things a 'marriage' will be necessary while 'civil unions' will be excluded.
I'm disappointed in you Nick. Thought you'd be less dogmatic about this choice.
I just got mine a month ago. What do I do now? Divorce and leave her the house that I paid for? That would be one friggin' expensive greencard.
How long did it get to get one = how long were you married bvefore you got it? 2 years? 1 years? More? Less? And in which state ..
I've always considered being/getting married like driving a ferrari or taking aeroflot; it's one of those things that you should do once in the life but not necessarily more. So better do it with someone you would enjoy watching and spending time even when you are 80 ... well, hopefully the card won't take that long..
It's a problem, like I said, because that allows for discrimination. Some things a 'marriage' will be necessary while 'civil unions' will be excluded.
I'm disappointed in you Nick. Thought you'd be less dogmatic about this choice.
I think it is very possible to keep the rights between marriage and civil unions aligned.
As for being dogmatic about the choice. I don't believe it foolish to believe other self-interested folks out there will assert their beliefs and interests. I think to believe otherwise is foolish. Marriage is just a word. To others it is an institution with a history and religious connotation. So I have advocated setting up another institution with a different word, no history or religious connotation and all the exact same rights.
If you don't think traditions or religion have caused a few "disagreements" over the course of human history you are being a little naive in my opinion. I just prefer to sidestep the issues rather than argue people into changing their beliefs about the past or their god(s).
How long did it get to get one = how long were you married bvefore you got it? 2 years? 1 years? More? Less? And in which state ..
It took me 4 years, but that's unusual. I had an H1-B work visa when we got married, so I (idiotically) didn't file my greencard application immediately. I got married in summer 1999 and didn't file until summer 2001. At the time I filed, the expected processing time was 20 months. Unfortunately, the USA Patriot Act, which Congress passed in the aftermath of 9/11, added more security/background checks to the process. That increased my wait by another 4 months, for a total of 24, or two full years.
The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly known as the INS, and not part of the Department of Homeland Security) is supposedly speeding up the process. According my immigration attorney, some applicants who filed after me got their hearings and thus their greencards before me. So if you applied these days, I imaging the process would be a bit shorter.
You can and should apply for a greencard immediately after your wedding. If you get your greencard less than 24 months after your wedding, it is only a "temporary" permant residency permit." Only 24 months after your wedding does it become permanent for good, i.e. they can't take it away from you unless you committed fraud. If, as was the case for me, you get your greencard more than 24 months after your wedding, it is already permanent.
While you are waiting for your greencard, you can apply for temporary work permits, which allow you to work, and "advance parole", which allows you to exit and re-enter the US. The pain in the butt with both the temp work permit and the advance parole is that you have to renew them every 12 months. There's always more paperwork around the corner...
Quote:
I've always considered being/getting married like driving a ferrari or taking aeroflot; it's one of those things that you should do once in the life but not necessarily more. So better do it with someone you would enjoy watching and spending time even when you are 80 ... well, hopefully the card won't take that long..
Yup. Definitely not worth getting married just for the greencard. There are other ways to get a greencard, i.e. work in the US for many years and/or get a company to sponsor you. Make sure the person you marry is the right one, even if here in the US there is statistacally a 1 in 2 chance that it is not/will not be and that you will divorce. As for Aeroflot, I will be happy if I never have to fly it. As for a Ferrari, I wouldn't mind driving one more than once, or even owning one.
Thanks, Escher. Yes, I won't do it only for the card... not that desperate. hm, 'just in case'...
So once ... well, married or so, how do you need to re-enter? As K? Do you need to apply for that specifically from an embassy elsewhere, or just as entering at airp or in Canada border etc? How long stay do they give with the K (or is the K for not-married? Which is the right and where you need to apply?)?? 12 mos? Do you know if it's technically possible e.g. get married in an other state than where either of you are living (like somewhere in Europe etc) and where would that have to happen, in 2 embassies in the same time?
Cohabitator here as well. Just passed the 7 year mark.
While I'd be quite happy to live out the rest of our days together as 'partners' (that term is a bit cold, but I don't have a better one), she's started bringing up the 'M' word lately (although infrequently) and it's starting to freak me out a bit.
why? don't make a big hoopla abut it then. just get married by a judge
why? don't make a big hoopla abut it then. just get married by a judge
Where's the fun in that?
Seriously, I don't think it's the contract per se she's after, more like a public affirmation of our bound-togetherness. And like I said, this is coming up only after a few mandatory bridesmaid gigs for her.
When it finally does go down (and it will), I'm sure it will be more on the unconventional side. That is, no religious overtones or any other voodoo like that.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Nick,
Would you support a system where the government only acknowledged civil unions, and that a marriage church or not would be a personal ceremony? So, a couple that gets married would still have to go through a 5 minute official government procedure or sign a document. Also, any reference to it in government or public sectors would refer to civil unions.
I only ask because this would help prevent discrimination against one group or the other, either people that have been married or more likely those with civil unions. This would level the playing field somewhat.
Hmmmm... that is an interesting question that has not been posed to me before. For now I would have to say no. While I do believe the validity of what you say, if folks can't be brought far enough along intellectually and emotionally now, they will just find a way to do as they want. I mean this in both regards as in there are homosexuals who currently "marry" in every regard except getting the license from the state. Likewise there are folks who are very fundamental in their religious beliefs and likely would have some means of getting around the lack of marriage license.
I guess I would sort of equate it with how we desegregated neighborhoods and schools only to watch a huge white flight occur from most of our city centers.
Or the infamous, you can lead a horse to water routine....
I have stated that civil unions are the same legally and don't have religious baggage/patriachy/etc. If you have religious folks enter that domain it is going to cloud it. For example in many religious beliefs the man is the leader of the family and the woman the helper of the family. This is why some object to marriage. Yet if these same religious folks had a civil union after a marriage, it would, in my view, bring the same baggage to civil unions.
I'm sure if we gave people a choice the percentages would start to change over time. If men were assured their child visitation rights, no alimony, etc from the coupling that is civil unions, I bet the percentages would be dramatic and would likely lead so of the cohabitators here to have a civil union instead of marriage.
See it is also my view (as you have seen in threads here) that the reason many men are so punitively punished is because the family courts also subscribe to a biblical view of marriage. Marriage is till death do us part, hence alimony. Marriage says the man must earn and the woman must nurture and hence so does the family court.
However if we had a new modern institution that was free of that thinking, the courts might have to treat men differently under it. The vows to a civil union wouldn't have to assume the man the leader of the family, the only financial provider etc.
It could benefit many folks who are not traditionalists.
Likewise the last thing I would bring up is if we did what you mentioned we would be right back at square one. Homosexuals would be wondering why they could not have a marriage and civil union while heterosexuals can. Religious folks would be screaming that being forced to civil union is undermining their marriage vows, etc.
I think giving people a union with the same legal rights that is more modern and progressive is good. I have faith that if it is more appropriate for them, they will choose it.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Hmmmm... that is an interesting question that has not been posed to me before. For now I would have to say no.
Just remember, I'm asking that for the state to acknowledge something it is a civil union. Perhaps just two signatures on a piece of paper to get in the system. Any religious, or non-religious for that matter, could get married in a church and have their vows.
Having two systems in the government wouldn't work in my opinion. Too many chances for x=OK married but no equivalent. So, make the paperwork centered around the agnostic union document and the social aspect free for whatever anyone wants to do.
Originally posted by bunge
Just remember, I'm asking that for the state to acknowledge something it is a civil union. Perhaps just two signatures on a piece of paper to get in the system. Any religious, or non-religious for that matter, could get married in a church and have their vows.
Having two systems in the government wouldn't work in my opinion. Too many chances for x=OK married but no equivalent. So, make the paperwork centered around the agnostic union document and the social aspect free for whatever anyone wants to do.
Your original premise spoke of a second small ceremony or something of that nature didn't it? Small governmental procedure?
I don't see what you are quite getting at. Are you basically saying sign a second paper in addition to their marriage license or have the civil union paper replace the marriage license?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Your original premise spoke of a second small ceremony or something of that nature didn't it? Small governmental procedure?
I don't see what you are quite getting at. Are you basically saying sign a second paper in addition to their marriage license or have the civil union paper replace the marriage license?
Sorry, I was trying to say a small ceremony or maybe just signing a piece of paper. I'm not exactly sure how it's done now. I think you need to go in front of a justice of the peace, and I'm guessing that wouldn't change. But I wouldn't be against the government simplifying the process even more.
The ultimate goal is to have a legal union that the government acknowledges for all official situations. Marriage could remain a sacrement of the church, people married outside of the U.S. could just get it officially documented here, etc.
Originally posted by bunge
Sorry, I was trying to say a small ceremony or maybe just signing a piece of paper. I'm not exactly sure how it's done now. I think you need to go in front of a justice of the peace, and I'm guessing that wouldn't change. But I wouldn't be against the government simplifying the process even more.
The ultimate goal is to have a legal union that the government acknowledges for all official situations. Marriage could remain a sacrement of the church, people married outside of the U.S. could just get it officially documented here, etc.
The way it is most commonly done now (I said common, not universal) is that the wedding occurs and while the whole group is moving to the reception, the bride and groom typically go sign their marriage license.
When I eloped with my wife to Vegas, we had the wedding, then were driven over to the City Clerks Office where there is a whole team of folks filling out marriage licenses. We filled out our part and were done.
The easiest way to implement what you suggest would be by changing the marriage license to a civil union license.
I personally wouldn't have a problem with this. However as I mentioned, there are a lot of folks, a lot of history and a lot of other issues that would likely muddy the waters regarding this.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I personally wouldn't have a problem with this. However as I mentioned, there are a lot of folks, a lot of history and a lot of other issues that would likely muddy the waters regarding this.
I'm not sure what problems there would be, but if homosexuals can't get married in a church the government sure can't do anything about it. The government can change what it considers legal and binding though.
Originally posted by Giaguara
You forgot one good reason to marry, trumptman: the green card.
Bingo, Giaguara! I just got mine a month ago. What do I do now? Divorce and leave her the house that I paid for? That would be one friggin' expensive greencard.
I didn't ask for a prenuptial agreement, because I didn't want to offend my wife's sensitivities. If I could do it over again, I would definitely have a prenup. A prenup can't hurt if you stay married, and will surely help if you do break up.
As for cohabition, I often wish we would have stuck with that. I think I got married too early. And once you're married, it's damn tough to break it off when it's not working and even tougher to get over the stigma of a divorcee. OTOH, cohabitation wouldn't have gotten me the greencard.
On a related note, I love the French word for cohabitation, concubinage. Who wants to be my concubine?
Escher
Originally posted by trumptman
The difference (in my opinion) would basically be not using a word that some groups consider associated with church/religion, patriachy, or other beliefs that they consider baggage.
I was married in a church. Even when say a judge performs the ceremony, it is still called a marriage and can have religious overtones. For folks that hate religion to a degree that they don't want their union tainted with a term with religious history, I say they can call it a civil union and have the exact same results with regard to legal and tax benefits.
Nick
So you'd have a choice of being married or being 'civil unionised', both purely through the state. Also you can have your marriage blessed through your religion if you choose.
That way when you get married they could say 'what do you want it to say on the marriage certificate'? And then it could say Civil Union or Marriage, depending on your preferences.
Originally posted by Bygimis Turug VIII
So you'd have a choice of being married or being 'civil unionised', both purely through the state. Also you can have your marriage blessed through your religion if you choose.
That way when you get married they could say 'what do you want it to say on the marriage certificate'? And then it could say Civil Union or Marriage, depending on your preferences.
I'm fine with that. However again I don't control the planet. I know that there are religious groups that would never allow homosexuals to choose the marriage box there.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm fine with that. However again I don't control the planet. I know that there are religious groups that would never allow homosexuals to choose the marriage box there.
It's a problem, like I said, because that allows for discrimination. Some things a 'marriage' will be necessary while 'civil unions' will be excluded.
I'm disappointed in you Nick. Thought you'd be less dogmatic about this choice.
Originally posted by Escher
I just got mine a month ago. What do I do now? Divorce and leave her the house that I paid for? That would be one friggin' expensive greencard.
How long did it get to get one = how long were you married bvefore you got it? 2 years? 1 years? More? Less? And in which state ..
I've always considered being/getting married like driving a ferrari or taking aeroflot; it's one of those things that you should do once in the life but not necessarily more. So better do it with someone you would enjoy watching and spending time even when you are 80 ... well, hopefully the card won't take that long..
Originally posted by bunge
It's a problem, like I said, because that allows for discrimination. Some things a 'marriage' will be necessary while 'civil unions' will be excluded.
I'm disappointed in you Nick. Thought you'd be less dogmatic about this choice.
I think it is very possible to keep the rights between marriage and civil unions aligned.
As for being dogmatic about the choice. I don't believe it foolish to believe other self-interested folks out there will assert their beliefs and interests. I think to believe otherwise is foolish. Marriage is just a word. To others it is an institution with a history and religious connotation. So I have advocated setting up another institution with a different word, no history or religious connotation and all the exact same rights.
If you don't think traditions or religion have caused a few "disagreements" over the course of human history you are being a little naive in my opinion. I just prefer to sidestep the issues rather than argue people into changing their beliefs about the past or their god(s).
Nick
Originally posted by Giaguara
How long did it get to get one = how long were you married bvefore you got it? 2 years? 1 years? More? Less? And in which state ..
It took me 4 years, but that's unusual. I had an H1-B work visa when we got married, so I (idiotically) didn't file my greencard application immediately. I got married in summer 1999 and didn't file until summer 2001. At the time I filed, the expected processing time was 20 months. Unfortunately, the USA Patriot Act, which Congress passed in the aftermath of 9/11, added more security/background checks to the process. That increased my wait by another 4 months, for a total of 24, or two full years.
The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly known as the INS, and not part of the Department of Homeland Security) is supposedly speeding up the process. According my immigration attorney, some applicants who filed after me got their hearings and thus their greencards before me. So if you applied these days, I imaging the process would be a bit shorter.
You can and should apply for a greencard immediately after your wedding. If you get your greencard less than 24 months after your wedding, it is only a "temporary" permant residency permit." Only 24 months after your wedding does it become permanent for good, i.e. they can't take it away from you unless you committed fraud. If, as was the case for me, you get your greencard more than 24 months after your wedding, it is already permanent.
While you are waiting for your greencard, you can apply for temporary work permits, which allow you to work, and "advance parole", which allows you to exit and re-enter the US. The pain in the butt with both the temp work permit and the advance parole is that you have to renew them every 12 months. There's always more paperwork around the corner...
I've always considered being/getting married like driving a ferrari or taking aeroflot; it's one of those things that you should do once in the life but not necessarily more. So better do it with someone you would enjoy watching and spending time even when you are 80 ... well, hopefully the card won't take that long..
Yup. Definitely not worth getting married just for the greencard. There are other ways to get a greencard, i.e. work in the US for many years and/or get a company to sponsor you. Make sure the person you marry is the right one, even if here in the US there is statistacally a 1 in 2 chance that it is not/will not be and that you will divorce.
Escher
So once ... well, married or so, how do you need to re-enter? As K? Do you need to apply for that specifically from an embassy elsewhere, or just as entering at airp or in Canada border etc? How long stay do they give with the K (or is the K for not-married? Which is the right and where you need to apply?)?? 12 mos? Do you know if it's technically possible e.g. get married in an other state than where either of you are living (like somewhere in Europe etc) and where would that have to happen, in 2 embassies in the same time?
(do I need to use this smile in this post?
Originally posted by 709
Cohabitator here as well. Just passed the 7 year mark.
While I'd be quite happy to live out the rest of our days together as 'partners' (that term is a bit cold, but I don't have a better one), she's started bringing up the 'M' word lately (although infrequently) and it's starting to freak me out a bit.
why? don't make a big hoopla abut it then. just get married by a judge
Originally posted by burningwheel
why? don't make a big hoopla abut it then. just get married by a judge
Where's the fun in that?
Seriously, I don't think it's the contract per se she's after, more like a public affirmation of our bound-togetherness. And like I said, this is coming up only after a few mandatory bridesmaid gigs for her.
When it finally does go down (and it will), I'm sure it will be more on the unconventional side. That is, no religious overtones or any other voodoo like that.