5919

They’ll probably just say the Pope is wrong. Right-wing Catholics don’t view Francis as a legitimate pope- they still consider Benedict the pope.

I wish Francis would excommunicate some of the right-wing American Catholics to make a point.

5920

I agree with CraigM, it’s really not that complicated. Currently the state hands out marriage certificates, and in the future they only hand out civil union certificates. You already the state-issued certificate to qualify for legal benefits, so it’s just a change to the wording at the top of the form.

Oh, and currently the certificate must be signed by a state official or a minister. But since literally anyone can be a minister (you can get “ordained” for free online), that requirement might as well be replaced by another plain old witness.

5921

Yeah, the state needs to get out of the marriage business altogether.

5922

The cat is out of the bag now and there’s no way to put the marriage category back into the civil union sack. It would be seen - quite rightly - as a demotion of value. And most straight people probably also wouldn’t be eager to sign off on a “civil union” only meaning of marriage either - if anything dividing civil unions vs marriages would create a slightly higher demand for religiously based unions by otherwise relatively indifferent straight couples, following the Scandinavian model of state/religious cultural divide.

Basically it would divide the country to into the “haves” and the “haves-if-they-want-to” vs the “have-nots” and “have-nots-regardless-if-they-want-to”. Though, in the end, i suppose you could get around this again by having denominations that would agree to sanctify same sex marriages. Though these would likely be thin on the ground in well over 1/2 the states for the peoples living there.

5923

Honestly, they should entirely separate religious institutions from state recognized marriage.

5924

I’ve said for a while that all this religiosity has to have some payoff politically. You can’t rile up 40-50% of the population along very binary, religiously grounded moral arguments for decades, election after election, without making some hay out of it.

The problem is that when they finally get what they want these religious conservatives are more likely going to break the country then heal it, because the only resolution between axiomatic moral value systems ultimately is violence, not political accommodation. Sunni and Shia don’t run around shooting each other because they lost some or another debate - they do it because between two religiously founded belief systems, there is no rationality to resolve them.

I don’t think Amy Barrett is going to be as bad as she seems to all these speculative Twitter posters. But it’s clear there’s an issue with the logic of “settled” jurisprudence vs. fundamental principles. There’s a strain of American legal though that approves of bad things like slavery because they see it as their duty to uphold the Constitutional views as-is, and assume the resolution is through Constitutional amendments only. Lots of people agitating for a return to segregation doesn’t make their views unsettle settled law, but that’s sort of the implication of her published opinions (even though she explicitly called desegregation “settled”) because in theory people newly agitating against desegregation would “unsettle” the placidity of the courts just as much as abortion does.

5925

Should probably just completely separate religion from any sort of government involvement. We need an amendment or something!

5926

It’s not like a certificate that literally says “marriage” is required to call yourself “married”.

I am a homeowner, but I don’t have a “homeowner certificate”. I have something the state calls a “Deed” with my name on it, which is good enough. If a church wants to make a special “homeowner” ceremony for their faithful that’s fine, but it’s neither necessary nor sufficient.

5927

If simply changing the terms from “marriage” to “civil union” were simply a matter of bureaucratic labels, i don’t think you’d have the agitation by religious conservatives about the matter as (intense?) as it is.

Clearly the religious desire to create a separate category that is superior to a state designated category is the hope and goal.

A better question is why does the state have to change the title of “marriage” to “civil union” to appease religious sensibilities, when it’s just as likely that religious denominations could just as easily come up with their own category replacement for “marriage”?

5928

I suggest “religious union”.

5929

Superior how? Maybe in the eyes of their deity, but that’s not something the state needs to worry about.

Because it solves a problem. And religions are even more hidebound than government. So no point in waiting for them to solve it when you can do it yourself.

5930

Just to be clear, a lot of this comes down to how this trickles down through society. Do people, when they register at a doctor, have a “Marriage” category and right next to it a “Civil Union” category. When applying for a loan, or to a job, or college, or interact with authorities, are you being forced to designate your “civil union” as a different category than a “marriage”? If so, why? If not, then why change their names?

It matters if the difference is recognized by the state as a different category. And, i suspect, you’re not likely to get religious people on board with demoting their “own” marriages to simple “civil unions”, though obviously there are going to be exceptions. But like i listed above, when you’re forced to register Civil Partnerships as a different category officially than a Marriage Spouse, that’s the goal of these religious sensibilities and going to be anathema to secularists.

5931

All of this.

The easy route is for state governments to say that you no longer need any sort of religious acceptance (i.e. having a minister’s signature) to get married. Fill out some forms, pay some fees, boom, you’re married, just like buying a house.

If churches want to offer a “sanctification ceremony” of some sort, fine. Then they can ask each other “is your marriage sanctified?” to find out who’s going to hell and who isn’t.

5932

Well, normally they ask you for your “Spouse”.

I agree that it would be pointless to have separate categories for “married” and “civil union”.

But if you have a “civil union certificate” there is nothing stopping you from calling yourself “married” and checking that box.

No, in fact I think that’s the opposite of what people mean when they say the state should stop recognizing “marriage” altogetherm

5933

I mean, I agree, in a sane world. But… 2020. The people who want to split civil unions from marriage aren’t going to be content letting those under civil unions be able to continue to use the same terms. This is entirely culture war stuff, after all.

Split civil unions from marriages today, and some 1/4-1/2 of the states will make official the new, inferior designations of people in “Civil Partnerships” that they will be required to use (if civil partnerships are even allowed at all, tbh.)

5934

Who cares what they think? Once the state stops recognizing “marriage” altogether, those people lose all their influence.

5935

If you think in a world of Twitter that progressives are going to be content being demoted from a marriage to a civil union in half the country, and being forced official to change their wording from “spouse” to “partner” and/or giving up a few rights reserved to “marriages” along the way, well, #admiraltarkin

5936

How are we still having this debate in 2020? I thought we settled this one, the (American) state lets any two people of any genders get married. That supreme court effectively said that the state’s definition of marriage trumps the religious one. Nowadays the only role religions have to play in marriage (from the legal perspective) is providing an officiant, but the officiant doesn’t have to be religious. Also just about anyone can get any sort of flimsy ordination online and qualify as the officiant.

From the perspective of the state marriage is very much a legal, not religious, concept. Religious officials can’t annul them, prohibit them, force them, etc. What problem are we trying to solve here?

5937

Who said anything about splitting them?

Everyone with a legal spouse is required to have a civil union certificate. The end.

Whether their “marriage” is recognized by a church is irrelevant. There are no “marriage certificates” issued by the state.

5938

Because the Pope isn’t just speaking to Americans.