Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Not All Gay Couples Cheering Connecticut Civil Unions

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:51 PM
Original message
Not All Gay Couples Cheering Connecticut Civil Unions
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/09/093005connAdvancer.h...

When Connecticut's civil unions law comes into effect at midnight the LGBT rights group that successfully fought for the law will celebrate with a party, but not all same-sex couples in the state are cheering.

Many gay and lesbian couples say civil unions are a sham and only marriage will do. One couple, John de la Roche and Michael Hargrave say they'll boycott the party sponsored by Love Makes a Family.

"I cannot force myself to go and dance at this. I just think it's really insulting that we have to sit in the back of the bus," said de la Roche who has been in a relationship with Hargrave for 13 years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Until the country gets real about this
I hope they do the civil union and party like crazy. "Marriage" is a state of mind. If you say you are married, you are. (as long as the legalities are the same)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
12.  Married until your partner dies
Then the county reassesses your property with the 50% gift you just got,and its current value; and one more gay senior loses their home. The other levels of Gov't , I presume, take their cut of this "gift". "If these walls could talk"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Well that sucks
I had no idea. I thought civil unions took care of all the legalities. Thanks for setting me straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. it won't happen in Calif
that is taken care of. until this year only one county, SF,did not re asses. It is very spotty, what rights you have Calif is more comprehnsive than most. The immigration factor is the second most grating/onerous problem. especially when I see strate people bringing not only spouses, but entire families; and I can't bring anyone?I should pay less taxes, not more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meeker Morgan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. About inheritance etc and gay couples
Make damn sure you have a written and notarized will.

You can also put whoever you want as next of kin for the hospital, but you have to plan ahead.

There is no need for proof of "insurable interest" if YOU name your beneficiary.

No this is not the same as equality, keep on fighting for marriage.

But at least some of the horror stories can be avoided by prudent planning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Siyahamba Donating Member (890 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. The Connecticut civil unions only provide a fraction of the same rights
Unlike Vermont, Connecticut only offers a few of the rights married couples get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
19. The legalities are NOT the same
The difference between a civil union and a legal marriage is not just a semantic one -- civil unions do not offer the same protections of property and inheritance across a wide spectrum of benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaver Tail Donating Member (903 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. I tend to agree
Nothing Short of marriage will do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FuzzyDicePHL Donating Member (698 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Not marriage?
Then not equal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. What is the difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage"
legally? What rights does one confer that the other does not? I'm not really up on this issue. Could someone please help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Civil union is a state sanctioned union, while marriage is a
religious union which the state has no business delving into in the first place?

I'm not anti-gay marriage; I'm anti-marriage, period. All unions should be civil unions, and if a couple wants to go a step further, find the church of their choice and go for it. The state has no business saying this marriage is good and that one is bad. It violates the first amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tamyrlin79 Donating Member (944 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I agree with this.
if marriage is a religious sacrament, the state has no business in it. Once again, the religious right wants it both ways.

of course, I will say that the ones who do not support separation of church and state are consistent. But not the secular conservatives (few though they may be these days...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benevolent dictator Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. Actually, marriage started as a property contract through the government.
Religion got involved because often the clergy were the only ones who could read and write the marriage contract
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tamyrlin79 Donating Member (944 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. to name a few:
1. You have no legal standing in a state that does not have a civil union statute (whereas every state has a marriage statute). As a same-sex marriage, the state MAY not recognize the union anyway (thanks DOMA!!!), but you have a better chance of getting in under another states divorce and child custody statutes if you are "married" rather than civil unioned.

2. Marriage keys into federal benefits. Thus, under a CU regime, you may be eligible for state benefits as all married people in that state are, but not the federal ones.

3. If you are married in one state, you have a better standing to sue for that relationship to be recognized in another state that has not instituted same-sex marriage or civil unions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Thanks. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. civil unions aren't valid in any other state
except for the one in which it was formed

marriages, at least heterosexual ones, are recognized in every state

if you have a civil union in say Vermont and move to Virginia, where they are against the law, any rights you had in Vermont are lost

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Siyahamba Donating Member (890 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. "Letting the states decide" doesn't bestow the federal-level benefits
There are a number of rights granted by marriage at the federal level - immigration is a big example. Leaving marriage up to the states keeps same-sex couples from having equal rights even if they live in a state that has equal marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. The biggest difference
The United States system of law is based on a concept called "common law." This means that past court rulings influence future court rulings, and that, eventually, past court rulings can have the effect of law.

Many of the presumed rights, privileges and protections of marriage are conveyed through common law and not statute. Depending on the state, things like inheritance, powers of attorney, authority over a spouse's minor children, hospital visitation, "conjugal visits," and a great many other things exist because of court rulings related to marriage, not civil unions.

Then there is the way the US Constitution is worded. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. (Article IV, sec 1)" California is required to recognized Vermont marriages because California has marriage, too. California is NOT forced to recognize Vermont civil unions because California has no laws granting rights to civil unions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laughing Mirror Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. Civil unions nothing to dance about
Only marriage will do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
11. Get the state out of the marriage business.
Have only civil unions available from the state. Leave marriage to churches, communities, any other formations that want to call it that. Still let ministers conduct civil unions, so they can do it in their marriage ceremonies; but let more non-ministers be justices of the peace for purposes of witnessing and recording civil unions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Siyahamba Donating Member (890 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. A lot of people propose this.
I think it has a lot of popular support. Have any politicans spoken in favor of this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 29th 2014, 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC