Monday, August 20, 2007

Solving this whole Civil Union issue thing

A few weeks back, Mrs Duck and I watched the political forum on the Logo Network. It was the Democratic contenders, though all the Republicans were invited to attend, though all declined. Though, not a surprise, the LGBT base is not exactly one Republicans running for President do not feel all warm and fuzzy about. The forum was not a debate, since each candidate appeared all on there own with some interviewers and the questions were not exactly hard hitting, but at least the candidates got the chance to express there views on homosexual issues. Pretty uneventful actually, except for Governor Richardson saying homosexuality was a choice. Egads man! If there is one accepted answer that would be used to avoid answering that questions is that you are unsure whether it is a choice or a part of your chemical makeup that you can't control. But, never ever say its a choice out right! Shockingly, his spin team put out a statement 2 hours later saying the Governor was confused.

But, as we watched this debate and watched many of the candidates, especially the front runners, sort of hem and haw about the idea of gay marriage or civil unions or someplace in between, I came up with my own brillant solution.

the word Marriage itself has religious connotations, making it difficult for people to turn around on as giving Marriage rights to a couple that is not a man and a woman. Heck, to me the word marriage is a derivative of the word matrimony, which is a sacrament in the Christian religion. So, lets take marriage out of anything that has to do with civil government. Its not a marriage license, its a civil union license. Its not a marriage tax, its a civil union tax.

Now, I am not saying take marriage out of the entire vernacular, just take it out of anything governmental. If you get wed by someone who is tied even in some loose, Church of Elvis type way, to a religious order, they can call it marriage. So a priest, rabbi, shamen, guy who you met over the internet perform a wedding ceremony and can say, you are married in the eyes of God, the form you sign as a legal document is a civil union license. I mean, how many laws on the books are there that say you have to confirmed by the time you are 15, that you have to know yiddish by the time you are 13 or even have to have your pee pee snipped of some of its skin when you are a child? Yet, the stigma or feelings of religious organizations still have a power in a law of a love between 2 people? Interesting, isn't it?

And, you can say you are still married. When you go to a diner, you order a coke, when you want a brown caffeine soda, yet the waitress knows what you mean, even if they only serve Pepsi. So, say you are married all you want. Just sign a form from the state saying your husband is Jack or Katie or whatever, that says civil union license.

What else can I solve?

11 comments:

tiff said...

PERFECT.

And correct. Completely.

julia said...

Interesting and quite logical argument. If only half of America was interested or logical.

By the way, Sparky, I've nominated you for an award...

Anonymous said...

Sparky Duck said it all!
Visit Civillywedd.com it is based on the same premise as outlined by Sparky Duck

Michael - Lover of Amy said...

I would say "Oh my God" to express my amazement that the Duck and the Tool agree on a political issue, but I don't want to bring religion into it, so I will say "Wow!" instead.

Now, if we can accomplish this one, can the next "get the terminology right" crusade cover abortion?

What is the opposite of life? death, right? And what is the opposite of choice? Isn't it (in simple terms lack of choice or anti-choice?

The religious high moral grounders are "pro-life." I am pro choice.

Ultimately, if abortion is killing, which is debatable, you would need to sort things out with God. In the meantime, the government should not have the ability to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

Matt-Man said...

If I understand you correctly, I agree with you. This whole issue gets muddled by the word "marriage".

If a certain denominaton doesnt want to lay the "sacrament of marriage" upon a couple, that's up to the the particular church, but gay people should be able to legally enjoy the same legal pain that hetero couples endure....er....enjoy. Cheers!!

Bond said...

Wait...wait ..wait... Richardson says it is a 'choice' and then his staff says he is 'confused'..? Does not anyone else see th incredible humor in that!

You are one bright duck....I totally agree with this. It is a damn shame that my friends who have lived together for 20 years do not have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple.

No shared health benefits...their wills had to be made iron-clad so angry members of either family could not screw the surviving party...

So freaking wrong...

Sparky Duck said...

Tiff-Big words coming from someone as brillant as you. TY

Julia-the problem with my arguement is that its logical.

Michael-you hit it on the head, its all about using words to make sure that a groups twisted sense of right is enforced. See we can get along

MattMan-you understood me perfectly. Endure is a perfect description sometimes.

Bond-Ya see I think Richardson is confused alot, and not just about the sexuality question. A shame that the US of A has second class citizens isnt it?

Starrlight said...

Excellent work, Sparky! Totally agree with you. Although marriage is a four letter word in my vocab :P

Empress Bee (of the High Sea) said...

this is yet another place the republicans and i differ on our opinions, there are LOTS of differences, but i am still more right leaning than left and i have been married almost 40 years so i don't want to talk about that! ha ha

smiles, bee

J. Lynne said...

Last year two of my friends who had been living together got married in a big church wedding. She kept her own name, having already been through one failed marriage.

A week later another two of my friends who'd been living together got married in a hotel but it was a civil union because of paperwork involving her first marriage lost during Hurricane Katrina and the Catholic Church. She changed her name.

The whole thing got me thinking about the ridiculousness of the whole marriage debate. Who cares who the two people are that want to commit to each other? At least they are choosing to commit to someone. In this day and age where divorce lawyers are practically as common as McDonalds, yay for anyone willing to put their heart, soul and bank accounts on the line.

Anthony said...

If there is separation between church and state (even though our money has God on it) then there should be separation between marriage and state, too.

I prefer the clear caffeine soda, but to each his own.

Next: You could solve the Pennsylvania state transporation budget without having to add tolls to I-80 for starters.