In the constitution it states that there should be a separation of church and state. The opponents of same sex marriage say the marriage is a religious institution so it makes sense for the government to get out the the marriage business. Unions for everyone and if you want to do it in a church, by all means do it.

In Colorado they've already had "common law" marriage. So I don't see this law as new. But, I admit I haven't really read the article. I'm totally going by what I know already.

As far as marriage being a religious institution I disagree. One, you can get married w/ a JOP. My first marriage was that. I know several people who also have.

Second, and this is mostly pondering, why call marriage an "institution" if you want to fight for the right to get married? I don't get that. I'm not meaning to be critical. I happen to be a conservative who's not against gay marriage at all. I'm just looking at the terms applied and wondering about it.

I'm happily married now but would never call my marriage now an institution.

Nevermind. Der! I guess there isn't a common law among same sex partners. I thought there was though. I know of some couples who I haven't seen in a very long time, but I thought one was on the others insurance. I could have sworn we had a convo about it.

I don't see the need to scrap marriage, but the government needs to get out of recognizing marriages. Legal unions for whomever wants it. Marriages for those who want to go through a church.

I don't think we should do away with marriage at all but we should realise in this day and age that relationships are coming in all shapes and sizes now. My boyfriend and I are planning on moving and we were looking at the laws in the three possible countries and if anything happens to him unless he declares me his common law partner on his visa applications or marries me, I have no rights which totally sucks.

I'm with UnDave. Letting ANY two people form a legal union harms no one. Those who want to present their union to God in the form of a wedding/marriage should certainly be allowed to do so, but get the government out of it.

Hartsfull, Colorado does not have common law marriage for same sex couples. If it did, that would have been pretty big news since common law marriage is exactly as legally binding as regular marriage, so Colorado would effectively be allowing same sex marriage.

Are you confusing same-sex civil unions with common law marriage?

I think this law in Colorado is a huge, big, hairy, awesome deal.

It's the first time (as far as I know) that a state has offered a union that is available to any two people. A straight couple, a gay couple, two single people who are good friends. (California and other states offer civil unions but, again as far as I know, they are only offered to same-sex couples.)

This is what government "marriage" should be. A way to legally declare that Party A and Party B want each other to automatically inherit each other's property, make medical decisions, etc. That's it. Regarding the nature of the relationship, that's my business, not the government's.

It's very pleasing to see people agreeing on this solution. And it's surprising to see a legislature considering this all too logical solution.

Though this the best possible solution, I still wouldn't mind if the government called it a marriage for straight people and something else for gay people, as long as everyone had equal access to the same contract.

Sorry, California's civil unions are only offered to same-sex couple or to elderly couples (so they can maintain benefits from a deceased spouse). I was typing too fast.

And this law in Colorado is aimed at the same two groups, same sex couples and elderly couples (it was sponsored by the only two openly gay members of the Colorado state legislature), but it is available to anyone. I can't imagine there will be a huge rush, but I wonder if there will be some young, straight couples in Colorado who choose this instead of a traditional marriage because regular marriage is an institution that has historically oppressed minorities and because it's freaking weird to have the government involved in your romantic relationship.

Organic, I would be okay with having the exact same contract for the two groups, assuming that in this century the special name for same sex marriage would become archaic and eventually done away with.

That is, if that's the band-aid we need until the bigots and religious zealots of this generation get old and die, then fine.

If I had my way with it government would not issue marriage licenses but rather civil unions to all. Marriage IMO should be left to the church to recognize however if we insist on having the government grant that privilege than it should be a privilege that is afforded to all legal tax paying citizens hetero or homosexual.

I've been saying this for years now - it makes soooo much more sense then all these silly labels.

"Marriage" as it is in government terms and rights will become nothing more than a legal contract that anyone can enter for the benefits - and it can be called something contractual and boring. And people can get "married" in their own private time the same way they get baptized, circumcised...etc.

We already perform two ceremonies for religious marriages - this can make them mutually exclusive!

Haha, I didn't want to articulate it as such, but that really is the underlying idea. I get very frustrated when gay rights advocates insist on calling their unions "marriage," because that seems to be the point at which many people shut down.

I'd like to see more people framing this issue as a question of legal rights as opposed to a social discrimination issue. It's much easier for the bigots and religious zealots, as it were, to think rationally about the legal question. And I think once same sex partners get the rights, it will go a long way toward fixing the social discrimination problem.

So, I guess it's really just a question of strategy.

But if I may separate myself from solutions that actually have mass appeal:

One size fits all contracts are a bad idea. The government should get out of personal contractual agreements altogether. That is to say, every couple (should they be inclined) would need to write up their own contract, which the courts should enforce but not alter. And the federal/state/local governments should not give any special benefits to any tethered people, which is really just social engineering.

I can see the appeal of writing your own contract (and Manfriend and I have one, and I enjoy it for many reasons) but one of the large points of this bill in Colorado is to create a low-cost way for two people to grant each other rights like inheritance, ability to make medical decisions, etc. Some might not be able to afford a lawer to draw up that kind of contract. (Which doesn't detract from your broader, more principled point, and you can always use the brain of the internet and just write your own, I'm just saying...)

Beyond that, some things in this Colorado law grant things that are not contractually available under state law, like the ability to sue for wrongful death.

The are about 1,000 federal benefits for married couples, another 400 from states. Why don't churches start calling their unions something different, since it won't require that so many laws be re-written and if you don't want the state involved in your 'union' it doesn't have to be. Otherwise, it's gonna cost a boatload of taxpayer dollars to change things.

I guess my question would be which group used the term "Marriage" first, the government or the church? It would take one amendment to change the definition of marriage for the government.

Well, since our Federal government has only existed for 200 years and some change, clearly the word marriage was around earlier.

But it wouldn't just take one amendment. Marriage is a state thing, and changing the paperwork alone would be a nightmare.

"Beyond that, some things in this Colorado law grant things that are not contractually available under state law, like the ability to sue for wrongful death."

I completely agree. The laws regarding who can sue for wrongful death, in my state at least, are absurd. For instance, children cannot sue their father who kills their mother for wrongful death, with damages including income that they would no longer receive from their mother's work.

If I can still speak in the hypothetical, anyone should be able to sue for wrongful death damages if it is established that the beneficiary was financially dependent on the deceased. I should think that would give one standing.

Of course, this is not the case, and in order for my unlikely solution of eliminating government intrusion into private contracts to work, it would be prerequisite that many encumberances be remedied.

There is no reason for the church to have to change and not call it marriage anymore. That's absurd. The minority does not (or rather SHOULD NOT) rule, the majority does.

I find it interesting however, that its suggested the church give up the right to call it marriage to suit the minority of people who want same sex marriages, but yet, we asking that minority to not call it marriage is out of the question, offensive, and blah blah blah.

So haus, if a majority were in favor of a name change you'd be a-ok with that? I somehow doubt you'd allow the opinion of a majority dictate what a church can or cannot do.

Practically, no one can force anyone to stop or start using a word. So, if all states instituted civil unions, legal partnerships, designated beneficiaries, whathaveyou, pretty much everyone would call it marriage anyways.

Truesong, I was just in a hurry and wasn't able to read the article. I had only meant that CO had a common law. I came back at comment #3 and said, nevermind--because I realized that the law was for same sex marriage.

But, I have had gay friends who one is on the others insurance. That was all I knew of, as far as any thing that MIGHT relate to common law marriage.

I have to agree with Hypnoticmix. I am all for allowing civil unions to all but marriage being decided by your church/ religion. I am one of few liberals who does not exactly jump at the idea of same sex marriages but fully supports civil unions with all of the same legal rights as marriage.

No worries, harts. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page in knowing that A) common law marriage is exactly the same as "real" marriage and B) no state that allows common law marriage (and there's only, like, ten?) allows same-sex marriage.

(Er, unless Iowa or Vermont allow common law marriage? I don't think they do, but it's been a while since I brushed up on it.)

Point being, though, there is no state that, say, allows same-sex common law marriage but not "regular" marriage.

Your friend may be on her significant other's insurance simply because the employer allows it, might not be a state law issue.

No I just get annoyed at everyone having to bend over backwards and rewrite laws and change everything to suit a minority of people.

I don't have a problem making reasonable concessions or accomadations. I do have a problem with requiring a whole slew of tradition and values be changed.

You can get married at the court house, but the feeling that doing so is non-religious is, I think, false. That union is still defined by Christian values. If it weren't, then homosexuals could happily get married at court houses.

I think the ideal setup would be being able to have a legal marriage conducted by a government official (e.g., for the gays); and being able to have a religious marriage conducted by a church official (e.g., for the polygamists); and being able to have a legal, religious marriage conducted by officials from the government and from the church.

It would be like a buffet! You could have just the pork chops if you were strictly a carnivore, or a hearty salad if you were a vegetarian, or the chicken strips and a baked potato if you wanted to have your Uncle Sam and Jesus it too.

@rowlkitty
"In the constitution it states that there should be a separation of church and state."

No, it doesn't. So says Charlie Young. And, you know, the constitution.

Haus, did it bother you when states had to rewrite laws to allow interracial couples to marry? (Alabama had to have a special ballot to take the law off the books just in the past decade!) Even though only a very small minority of couples (to this day!) are interracial, and at the time the majority felt it was wrong?

I don't put any stock into traditions or "values." Be nice to people. That's pretty much the only traditional value I think is worth protecting, and even that isn't (and shouldn't be) the law.

Seabee! I love that episode. : ) The West Wing taught me roughly half of what I know about the Federal Government.

It's exactly the same in that if one wants to leave they can go to court to claim properties etc. All it takes is 6 months (or was the case at one time) to live together to be considered common law. Regardless of if you bought a house together etc. You could have rented an apt together, one person can go through as much hell as married couples do when separating.

As far as other states: I don't know. I've never lived w/ anyone there.

Not that this matters either, but my friend happens to be a man.

I don't know what state you're talking about, but as far as I know (and I've looked into it quite a bit) there are no longer any time-tables for common law marriage, and there is absolutely no way for you to be common law married (which holds all the same rights and obligations as any other marriage) on accident. You must consciously decide to be married.

So...what's exactly the same?

TS - You know I don't buy the comparison to the struggles of the civil rights movement. Marriage isn't a right.

Sure, marriage isn't a right for gay couples just like it isn't for straight couples, right?

But what is a right is to be treated the same as any other citizen. If you can marry Barack Obama, then so can I, and so can any other citizen.

I guess I just don't get why its ok and right to ask the hundreds of millions of people to change what they are doing to suit the far fewer gay people who want to get married, but its wrong and completely not ok to ask gay people to be ok with a change that gives them the same exact rights and just withholds one word.

I think civil unions with all the rights of married couples is a very reasonable solution and I think this would have been solved by now if that were ok. Probably would have been solved years ago.

Nope not a right for straight people either.

And a civil union with all the rights of married couples WOULD be treated at the same as ever other citizen, so why isn't that ok?

@housfrau "Marriage isn't a right."
That's ri-lawdy-lawdy-diculous.

Maybe you don't have the right to marriage in the same way you're entitled to, say, free speech, but I couldn't hope to begin to imagine how some people "earned" their joke marriages.

And you are certainly entitled to equal treatment, so if some lady can marry some dude, then another more different dude should also be able to marry that dude.

Just like the colored water fountains bubbled with the exact same water as the ones for white folks? Why do labels matter...?

Nobody earned anything, some people get it and some people don't.

What did gay people do to earn marriage? Nothing.
What did straight people do? Nothing.

And a civil union would be equal treatment. So whats the problem?

If labels don't matter, then civil unions really shouldn't be a problem right?

The common arguement is "equal treatment"

OK. This would be equal treatment. So whats the problem?

Its because equal isn't enough.

@hausfrau "I think civil unions with all the rights of married couples is a very reasonable solution and I think this would have been solved by now if that were ok. Probably would have been solved years ago."

It's not okay in the same that separate-but-equal was not okay.

Haus, I was being facetious. Labels clearly do matter.

Equal is never enough. See affirmative action.

So its not enough to be equal, it has to be exactly the same and it has to be special, people have to, HAVE TO go out of their way to accomadate or else it's just not good enough.

And I dont think it is the same as separate but equal but that was very real in a practice. This would only be real in a word. Just one word. That's all.

I'm a female. I don't demand to be called a male. I don't require everything to change so that it can accomadate me. There are things I will never be able to do that men can do. Is that separate but equal?

I have nothing against gay people. I absoluetly beleive they should get the rigts of married people and all the coverage.

But if we're scrapping marriage, then F' it. Lets scrap it all, we need to allow polygamy, we need to allow people to literally whoever and whatever they want to.

Dude, this isn't Affirmative Action Marriage!

Gays aren't stealing marriages from well deserving straights.

It's not like if a dude is on the fence about marrying a guy or marrying a girl, he'll get a bonus for marrying the guy.

It's about equal treatment, and nothing else.

And as far as your cross-gender argument, that just muddies the water and is discriminatory towards a whole other demographic.

"But if we're scrapping marriage, then F' it. Lets scrap it all, we need to allow polygamy, we need to allow people to literally whoever and whatever they want to."

Now you're talking, kiddo!

No its exactly the same.

We're expecting everyone to change an accepted definition that hurts no one to suit a minority of people.

So why stop there? That's all I'm saying. Because it truly will not end here. And why should it? Why shouldn't people be allowed to be polygamists? Its discriminatory to allow gay people to change the definition but then say "no no, they're the only ones who can, all of your lifestyles are unacceptable."

How does that make sense?

And while we're at it I think we need to change the definition of mother, father, and all other sex based words.