undefined

points

[-]

You might be surprised, but a civil union is the only legally binding form of marriage in many countries, e.g. Germany. The Churches - even though they are state churches - aren’t even allowed to provide a wedding ceremony if the civil union hasn’t been performed beforehand. Which different legal provisions do you think make the „religious marriage“ vs. „civil union“ morally equal to „separate but equal“?

> Being the good guys is about more than being "second worst".

If you cannot think about any group that’s not as bad as Hamas, but worse than Israel, I‘m happy to help… just ask!

by ceejayoz15 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> You might be surprised, but a civil union is the only legally binding form of marriage in many countries, e.g. Germany.

That's great.

That's not Israel's setup.

> If you cannot think about any group that’s not as bad as Hamas, but worse than Israel, I‘m happy to help… just ask!

"Others are worse" is not the moral standard one should aspire to, either.

by nkmnz2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Israel’s setup is not perfect (and so is the one in Germany), but as long as you cannot show that there is any meaningful legal difference in the eye of the state between a couple that’s married (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze) or in a Civil Union, I cannot see the difference to the system in Germany. I think (not an expert) the system in the UK in the same: you can get married either by the Church of England or by a civil institution - both are valid, both are equal before the law.

Edit: just check it, it’s true. “You can choose to have EITHER a religious ceremony OR a civil ceremony if you’re getting married.” [0]

So since we’ve established that it’s a common practice in some countries that marriages can be either religious or civil, but still equal before the law, could you please elaborate how exactly civil unions in Israel are discriminated against compared to religious marriages?

[0] https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/plan-your-ce...

by ceejayoz2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Everyone can get (civil) married: Fine!

No one gets (civil) married, everyone can get a civil union: Fine!

Certain people can get (civil) married, others get a civil union: Not fine.

This is very simple. "Separate, but equal" never works.

by nkmnz2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

But what is the DIFFERENCE between the two, other than the name? Please enlighten me, I cannot find any meaningful information on this.

Also: this kind of discrimination - if there is any - is targeting Arabic and Non-Arabic Israelis in the exact same way. So I don’t fully understand why you pointed this out as an Act of discrimination against Arabs.

by ceejayoz1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> But what is the DIFFERENCE between the two

You, in your own comments, acknowledged they are similar, not identical.

For starters, you have to go abroad for one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_civil_marriage_...

They also aren't valid abroad sometimes.

"In 2017, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that although Israel recognizes 'reputed spouses' as a legal union, the union is not a marriage under Israeli law, and therefore, Florida law does not recognize the relationship as a marriage."

And some people (an atheist marrying a religious person, for example) can't get one at all within Israel.

"In 2010, Israel passed the Civil Union Law for Citizens with no Religious Affiliation, 2010, allowing a couple to form a civil union in Israel if they are both registered as officially not belonging to any religion."

> Also: this kind of discrimination - if there is any - is targeting Arabic and Non-Arabic Israelis in the exact same way.

"It's fine, we discriminate against other minorities!" is not the argument you imagine it to be.

by nkmnz2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Opting for a separate comment for this one:

> "Others are worse" is not the moral standard one should aspire to, either.

OP stated that all Arabs hate Israel. This opens up the debate if living in an Arabic ethnofascist state such as Gaza or a Muslim fundamentalist state like Saudi Arabia would be the better choice for those 2 million Arabs. So yes, I think being the lesser of two evils is already the answer to that binary choice.