Civil unions instead of marriage

“Heterosexuals have all but completely taken over the civil union option (92%, leaving just 8% for gays!). The civil unions give heterosexual couples financial advantages, but when one of them wants to leave, it is easy: “If one or both of the partners declares in writing to the court that he or she wants out, the PACS is ended, with neither partner having claim to the other’s property or to alimony.” So much for family permanence.”
As far as I’m concerned this is quite a bit better than the current situation in the U.S. where the woman is given every encouragement to divorce and offered the man’s head on a silver platter for doing so. As long as we have this so-called No Fault Divorce (It’s more Man’s Fault Divorce, as in he was stupid enough to get married in the first place, so he will lose half of everything and has a snow balls chance in hell for custody. ) we are living in glass houses and have no reason to throw stones.

Civil unions were created to give something like marriage to homosexuals when and where it was illegal for them to get married. From the beginning it was a watered-down version of marriage, or, as Veith called it, “marriage lite.” More importantly it is the State recklessly undermining the divinely instituted estate of Marriage and its very existence: “A man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Instead of the abrupt dissolution of a marriage by divorce brought about by two people (maybe only one is in the wrong), here we have the State saying this estate need not exist and is no better than any man-made arrangement. It is the epitome of postmodernism. It is “marriage” without the responsibilities, permanency, commitment, and even — in gay unions — the right make up. Wherever you see it arise, real marriage begins to fade. In Nordland County, one of Norway’s most “tolerant,” Stanley Kurtz observed this in 2004: “[I]n a place where de facto marriage [civil union] has gained almost complete acceptance, marriage itself has almost completely disappeared.”

One can’t neatly separate civil unions from traditional marriage. Civil unions in Scandanavia and France have led to a breakdown of traditional mariage

Peter Wood in an insightful NRO article, What’s So Civil about Civil Unions?, writes:

Recently, about 4,000 people rallied on the Boston Common in opposition to gay marriage. I talked afterwards to one of the protesters who seemed rather discouraged. He noted that, as he has gone around and talked to people in the state about the issue, he has found many who are diffident. They have essentially bought the line, “Why should I care? If two gay people get married, how does that hurt me?” In truth, it probably wouldn’t. The destructive consequences would fall mainly on the young and the vulnerable who would grow up in a society without the bulwark of traditional marriage protecting them against the excesses of their own immature appetites and the rapacious desire of older males ever eager to expand the zone of sexual permissiveness.

…Jesting with calamity has some merit, but it probably won’t change the tenor of the debate. As to whether we should cut our losses by accepting civil unions as a step short of gay marriage, I take counsel from Michel De Montaigne. In his essay “On Vain and Cunning Devices,” Montaigne warns against the illusion that the middling way is always safest. Rather the middle ground is the natural home of “erroneous opinions” and men who “bring disturbances to the world.” I think we are best off facing the harder question squarely. To be generous in spirit and worthy as a culture, do we really need to abandon our commitment to traditional marriage? That’s where gay marriage — and civil unions too — will inexorably take us.

However tempting, serious Christians need to avoid the siren song of civil unions and stand for traditional marriage.

Cwirla,
“I’m beginning to wonder whether the state is a competent steward of marriage. We may need to rethink this in two-kingdoms’ terms.

Just thinking out loud here.’

I’m with you on this. And it isn’t “we may need to.” It is we had better start rethinking this as of this time last year. I’m about ready to assign pre-nups to every couple that walks through my door and not marry them until they sign.
David T, We don’t have marriages any more, not as far as the state is concerned. We just have men stupid enough to sign half their income away. The state hasn’t honored anything like a marriage since the 1970s.
And Peter, I agree that Christians need to stand for traditional marriage which is why I am remarried, even after learning the hard way what a lose lose situation the state has made it. But then I sometimes wonder what it is. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that it no longer matters what the state wants to call it. Marriage is between the man and the woman he married. The state is doing everything it can to actively destroy the institution. So perhaps the piece of paper they have you sign isn’t worth anything. It certainly isn’t what God uses in determining a marriage.

tODD,
Hence my whole thing about the Pre nups. Haven’t done it yet, but I am beginning to think that moving in that direction might be smart.
I think we are really going to have to re examine this issue hard as a church. Marriage is more or less a secular thing, as it is given to all not only Christians. I don’t think though that it is a state thing much more than it is an ecclesiastical thing. But we Christian’s might stop forcing men into a bad situation. Prenups might go along way in that.

Of course, looking at the history of marriage, the involvement of both church / state is newer: The Council of Trent brought in the Catholic marriage laws, requiring the presence of a priest and two witnesses. By the 1600’s government recognition of ecclesiastically – contracted marriage was common in Protestant lands. Prior to Trent, it was a private transaction between two individuals. Church involvement was encouraged, but not required absolutely. This was done to prevent the denial of the contract by either party at a later time for their conveniance.

Non-Ecclesiastical government “sanctioned” marriage appeared in the 1800’s – in Germany for instance, “civil marriage” was created in the 1870’s (Bismarck’s Germany).

One should be careful of reading into History what isn’t there – the predominance of BOTH church- as well as state-sanctioned is a creature of the modern (ie post-Rennaissance) era.

““If one or both of the partners declares in writing to the court that he or she wants out, the PACS is ended, with neither partner having claim to the other’s property or to alimony.” So much for family permanence.”

Wouldn’t that just make them like marriage in many states of our country? Seems to me it doesn’t take much to dissolve a marriage around here either.

#10 peter L

so are you saying… what ARE you saying… you are saying that to qualify for the sacred state of marriage men and women should submit to fertility tests and that women who have gone thru menopause do not qualify to get married?

that would be the logical conclusion to your post…

Debatepedia has an article on the civil unions vs. marriage which is pretty relevant to this article:

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:_Civil_unions_vs._gay_marriage#Pro.2Fcon_sources