I don’t think this is at all a valid counter-argument as all of these powers can equally be given to civil unions, if they aren’t already. In my eyes, if you propose to someone and “get married” and want to give your spouse the legal powers associated with what was previously marriage, you would register a civil union.
No civil marriage doesn’t mean that people can’t connect themselves legally; it just means that you have to register a civil union to do so. All of the points you raise are easily defeated by just defining civil unions to replace marriage in all respects. The system is already very close to how I describe. You can “get married” at a church or wherever else and in most countries that does not mean anything until you have registered it with a local registrar. I’m just saying that the thing that happens in a church is “marriage”, and the thing that happens with the legal paperwork at the registrar’s office is called “civil union” regardless of the genders or sexualities of the parties involved.
Sorry, I think we are talking of the same thing. In Germany that is the way it is. Civil union and marriage is equivalent, you dont have to get married at a church, the only important thing is to go to the state for a few minutes and tell them basically.
I thought that the problem was that the state still has to accept things such as (whatever you call it lets say) unions of things such as same sex partner and so.
Problem is the civil union is mostly historically influenced often (tends to be less these days)
I don’t think this is at all a valid counter-argument as all of these powers can equally be given to civil unions, if they aren’t already. In my eyes, if you propose to someone and “get married” and want to give your spouse the legal powers associated with what was previously marriage, you would register a civil union.
No civil marriage doesn’t mean that people can’t connect themselves legally; it just means that you have to register a civil union to do so. All of the points you raise are easily defeated by just defining civil unions to replace marriage in all respects. The system is already very close to how I describe. You can “get married” at a church or wherever else and in most countries that does not mean anything until you have registered it with a local registrar. I’m just saying that the thing that happens in a church is “marriage”, and the thing that happens with the legal paperwork at the registrar’s office is called “civil union” regardless of the genders or sexualities of the parties involved.
Sorry, I think we are talking of the same thing. In Germany that is the way it is. Civil union and marriage is equivalent, you dont have to get married at a church, the only important thing is to go to the state for a few minutes and tell them basically.
I thought that the problem was that the state still has to accept things such as (whatever you call it lets say) unions of things such as same sex partner and so.
Problem is the civil union is mostly historically influenced often (tends to be less these days)