PDA

View Full Version : American Civil Unions Act


sjbouza
10-27-2008, 08:13 PM
Hey all,

I just thought I would post a little project my "hubby" was working on. The assignment was to write a Bill for the House of Representatives. I gave him a little help, shhhh don't tell. Here it is. Tell us what you think. I have told him that he needs to send it into his Congressman. If any of you think it a good idea spread it around and have others do the same. Understand that the assignment was limited to one page so this may not be all inclusive. Feel free to add to it and send it into your reps if you think it is worth while.


Subject Area: Civil Rights/Social Values

Topic: Marriage/Civil Unions

Title of Bill: American Civil Union Act


Description of Bill: The American Civil Union Act will remove the religious term “marriage” from the eye of the government. In place of marriage, people will receive, instead, civil unions. The civil unions will bear the same weight and benefits that marriage currently holds, and will be available to any two consenting adults regardless of gender. Marriage ceremonies may be done on a religious level, but they will not be upheld in the eyes of the government without a civil union license. This bill is attempting to give the right to “marry” to couples that are not currently able to do so. It is important to accomplish this without infringing on the beliefs and rights of the various religions. Religious institutions will still retain the right not to marry or recognize marriages that do not coincide with their specific beliefs; however, the government issued civil unions are to be respected and recognized by law. This bill is written in faith of separation of church and state. The Church may not impede on the business of the government and vice versa.

Beneficiaries of Bill: The American Civil Union Act will strongly help same-sex couples and families. They will have the same right to civil unions as any opposite-sex couple. Also, they will have access to benefits for themselves as well as their families that are currently unavailable to them. The religious institutions will also benefit from this bill, as as they will not be forced to perform any ceremonies that do not coincide with their religious doctrine. As a final note, this bill has the potential to increase state and local revenues by opening up civil unions to more couples.

Positive Impact of Bill: The positive impacts of The American Civil Union Act will be far reaching. By allowing government recognized civil unions, more children can benefit from private insurance. This, in turn, can take the burden off of the government to provide insurance through Medicaid/Medicare. State and local governments can see a positive impact with an increased influx of money coming from a wider range of civil unions.

Fiscal Impact of Bill: The fiscal impact of this bill will be negligible. The biggest thing that needs to be changed are the current forms that are used for marriage licenses. They will need to be altered to be made appropriate for the more inclusive civil unions. There is little else that will contribute to fiscal costs. The costs of this bill to the government is insignificant as there is little change within the current system.

Hope you all like it. I think it would work. Get rid of the word "marriage" in the government for everyone and keep it what it is, a religious ceremony. This gets the government out of the religion business and religion out of the political business and keeps both of them safe and happy.

Peace to all,
Scott

pnggrad79
10-27-2008, 10:09 PM
I like it. Sounds reasonable to me. Who wants any part of straight marriage anyway? ;)

BruceChris
10-27-2008, 10:28 PM
On all legal documents. But the Fundies will go through the ROOF . :eek: . :eek: . :eek: . :eek: . :eek: . :eek:

BC

Matt Algren
10-28-2008, 12:56 PM
I've seen this floated before, and I just can't go along with it.

If we were starting from scratch, going back to the day when civil marriages were first linked with church marriages, that might be a reasonable solution. But while I understand Scott's point and have no doubt that he's trying to find a fair middle ground that pleases everybody, it's too late to say "Well, we're not calling them civil marriages, we're calling them civil unions." Everybody knows that it would be a way to wink at the right and assure them that The Gays aren't going to get marriage.

Besides which, if you think the anti-gay groups would stand for 50-year-old marriages being retroactively turned into civil unions, you've got another thing coming.