In today's pages: Civil unions and war criminals
The editorial board finds intriguing an idea raised about Proposition 8 during Thursday's state Supreme 
Court hearing: Having the state recognize only civil unions, while couples take their marriage vows at the religious or other private institution of their choice.
But just as marriage and family traditions have altered dramatically -- with shorter and more frequent marriages in a lifetime, couples living outside the married state and prenuptial agreements that trump customary family agreements -- it is time to consider an altered state role in domestic legalities. Justice Chin opened the discussion, and it is worth continuing.
The board also says the economy isn't a good reason to deny California a clean-air waiver to regulate greenhouse gases. In fact, the board says, Detroit will ultimately benefit from the production of more fuel-efficient cars. The board also calls on the world community to stand behind the International Criminal Court's warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir on charges of war crimes related to the atrocities in Darfur.
On the other side of the fold, writer Joe Queenan tells the investment experts to pipe down about the long-term value of stocks; this is indeed the time to panic. And columnist Joel Stein fantastizes about the up side of unemployment.
Illustration: Randall Enos for the Times
I reject the premise of this article for several reasons:
1. Civil marriage pre-dates the involvement of religionns in marriage. (The 'We had the term first' argument)
2. Civil unions are not legally binding (not in the Federal sense anyway). Nor are they by any means cohesive or alike from State to State (in those few States that have them). Nor does the Full Faith & Credit Clause apply, since they are not legal marriages.
3. "The Church" (TM) still has the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony" and that is the terminology that should be applied to religious "marriages".
"Having the state recognize only civil unions, while couples take their marriage vows at the religious or other private institution of their choice." is NOT an "intriguing idea" nor is it a discussion "worth continuing". It's a stupid idea and legally unnecessary. Applying the Equal Protections Clause of the Constitution is all that is necessary to end this debate - treat all of your citizens equally before the law. No need to create any more superfluous institutionns like "civil" unions.
Heck, if Liz Taylor can have any/all of her out-of-country (but still perfectly legal) marriages recognized by the State, why should the State not legally recognize legally married same-sex couples? Or wait, I remember why not - religious bigotry trumps other people's rights.
Posted by: George Olds | April 04, 2009 at 10:42 AM