main differences between civil union and marriage?

[Jeremy]

I'm unexperienced on this issue and I'm wondering about this...

What are the main differences, besides that each are legal in different places?

I usually defend marriage because it was a religious thing until the state took control of it. But all people should have the same rights. That's why I'm asking about civil unions.

[nate895]

Nothing at all but name. Really, without Constitutional override of common law, you cannot have "gay marriage" if you are talking about common law marriage, which I think how things should be done. Have the ceremony and all, but no social contracts with the government.

[Join The Paul Side]

I wouldn't know what to tell you. This is one of them topics that the Esablishment and MSM sidetrack us with so we're not watching or paying attention to real issues and things they do right under our noses.

[Jeremy]

I wouldn't know what to tell you. This is one of them topics that the Esablishment and MSM sidetrack us with so we're not watching or paying attention to real issues and things they do right under our noses.

It is an issue though... at least if people are being deprived of their rights. I don't know though because like I said, I'm also unexperienced on this topic.

[Jeremy]

Nothing at all but name. Really, without Constitutional override of common law, you cannot have "gay marriage" if you are talking about common law marriage, which I think how things should be done. Have the ceremony and all, but no social contracts with the government.

So what does that mean as far as unions go?

[Banana]

The thing about marriage is that nowadays you have to go to a clerk to get marriage license, even for what is essentially a religious function in order to get benefits, primarily but not solely for tax reasons.

For example, a spouse is automatically the beneficiary of all property left behind by the deceased if there were no will. Another example is adopting the children; it is no question that children stays with the surviving spouse, but if they weren't married (or even common law marriage, which vary by states), they become wards of state. There's more, but this is the real fuel for the stupid controversy which should really be a nonissue.

To be honest, I'm not too sure if civil unions is a marriage-lite or just a different name for essentially same so religious people don't get their panties in a knot when other people get married to "wrong kind of people"; from what I can tell, it's a state-by-state definition...

But this really should be an nonissue; if we didn't have IRS then we wouldn't have the need to regulate the marriages; most of those can be resolved in a common law court quite easily.

[nate895]

So what does that mean as far as unions go?

Nothing, just means I'd rather have the government but out and have the natural law take over.

What happens in natural law? No gay marriage, it is naturally impossible.

[libertythor]

In most cases the difference is the name. Really they all should be called civil unions. Matrimony is for a church to decide.

[Mr. White]

Nothing, just means I'd rather have the government but out and have the natural law take over.

What happens in natural law? No gay marriage, it is naturally impossible.

Isn't it nice when your natural law is different than mine? Natural law is bogus and doesn't work. Force is the only natural law there is.

To the OP, Civil Unions and marriage differ from state to state, what specifically were you looking for info on?

[nate895]

Isn't it nice when your natural law is different than mine? Natural law is bogus and doesn't work. Force is the only natural law there is.

To the OP, Civil Unions and marriage differ from state to state, what specifically were you looking for info on?

Um, then you are the mercy of the Federal Government if there is no natural law, since they have the biggest and best guns.

[Mr. White]

Um, then you are the mercy of the Federal Government if there is no natural law, since they have the biggest and best guns.

No sir, we have the force of man-made law in the form of the Constitution, an instrument wherein the people who had liberated themselves by force gave power to the Federal government while retaining some for themselves.

Ultimately, force is greater than the man-made law of the Constitution, but we'll cross that bridge if we come to it.

[nate895]

No sir, we have the force of man-made law in the form of the Constitution, an instrument wherein the people who had liberated themselves by force gave power to the Federal government while retaining some for themselves.

Ultimately, force is greater than the man-made law of the Constitution, but we'll cross that bridge if we come to it.

The Constitution was created in the spirit of natural law. You need to read up on the beliefs of the founders. The Declaration of Independence mentions natural rights, and without natural law, there are no natural rights, it just isn't possible. The danger of a system without natural law is that the governing authority can impose whatever restrictions it wants, without regards to the Constitution because they can merely change the Constitution at will. You should read up on "legal positivism," which is the alternative to natural law and see how much you like living without natural law then.

P.S. The states created the Federal Government, the people through their state assented to it.

[Mr. White]

The Constitution was created in the spirit of natural law. You need to read up on the beliefs of the founders. The Declaration of Independence mentions natural rights, and without natural law, there are no natural rights, it just isn't possible. The danger of a system without natural law is that the governing authority can impose whatever restrictions it wants, without regards to the Constitution because they can merely change the Constitution at will. You should read up on "legal positivism," which is the alternative to natural law and see how much you like living without natural law then.

P.S. The states created the Federal Government, the people through their state assented to it.

I'm familiar with both natural law and positive law. I'm also familiar with the spirit of the Founders when they declared their independence and of the state delegates when they convened to discuss and ratify the Constitution.

Natural law is subjective bunk. When you tell someone they mustn't harm their neighbor because it's a right of the other bestowed by our Creator, they may listen they may not, it really depends on what they think of your Creator vs. theirs. When you explain WHY they shouldn't harm their neighbor, then they'll really listen.

Our forefathers convened and gave the power they had won through force to the Federal Government. They retained rights for the people and rights for the states. As their descendants we retain the rights which were reserved to us.

[nate895]

I'm familiar with both natural law and positive law. I'm also familiar with the spirit of the Founders when they declared their independence and of the state delegates when they convened to discuss and ratify the Constitution.

Natural law is subjective bunk. When you tell someone they mustn't harm their neighbor because it's a right of the other bestowed by our Creator, they may listen they may not, it really depends on what they think of your Creator vs. theirs. When you explain WHY they shouldn't harm their neighbor, then they'll really listen.

Our forefathers convened and gave the power they had won through force to the Federal Government. They retained rights for the people and rights for the states. As their descendants we retain the rights which were reserved to us.

Ah, but how did we win our rights if they did not exist naturally exist beforehand? Without natural rights, you are left with whatever the government says are your rights. That can change at any moment, whether or not the founders intended. The Constitution is part of the common law, which is influenced by natural law, which means that it already existed. Because of natural law, a state usually doesn't enact statutes to ban murder and robbery, just provides punishment for them. The reason they are able to do that is because it is assumed that, naturally, murder is wrong and a violation of another's right to life, therefore you should be punished for your actions.

[Mr. White]

Ah, but how did we win our rights if they did not exist naturally exist beforehand? Without natural rights, you are left with whatever the government says are your rights. That can change at any moment, whether or not the founders intended. The Constitution is part of the common law, which is influenced by natural law, which means that it already existed. Because of natural law, a state usually doesn't enact statutes to ban murder and robbery, just provides punishment for them. The reason they are able to do that is because it is assumed that, naturally, murder is wrong and a violation of another's right to life, therefore you should be punished for your actions.

We didn't win our rights, we won complete freedom. We then took that freedom and gave most of it away, reserving several rights to ourselves. There is no such thing as a natural right. 10,000 years ago you could do whatever you wanted unless something stopped you. Today, you can do whatever you want unless something stops you. Common law is derived ffrom many things, one of them being a theory of natural rights. Because of common law a state doesn't normally enact statutes for murder, but many do. Some adopt the Model Penal Code, some adopt variations.

We have people, we have the government they created and conceded many freedoms to. What the people retained are their rights.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

It has nothing to do with the church, we are talking about marriage the legal institution here. The two main differences are:

(1) Civil Unions usually get less benefits than marriage. Depends on state/jurisdiction.
(2) All states and countries recognize marriage, while many do not for civil unions.