Why is it so important to have gay unions called marriage?

[napi21]

I'm realy not looking to start a war here, but asking the question. I certainly sounds like a majority of people are willing to say gays have the same rights as anyone,but MANY are opposed to calling it marriage. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if this issue was resolved with granting legal unions to everyone and get the argument put to bed?

[boolean]

1. Separate is not equal

What's wrong with giving blacks a water fountain and whites a water fountain? Both get to have water fountains!

[crim son]

8. Thank you. Well said. n/t

[cali]

15. Frankly, I don't buy that.

In Vermont civil unions provide every right that marriage does under the laws of the state. I do believe it's better if there's but one common name for a union between two people, but it's not the same as the Jim Crow laws that so viciouly oppressed African Americans. Just a poor comparison.

[sui generis]

21. oh bull cali

if our "civil unions" aren't recognized in EVERY state and at the federal level it's not the same thing.

And if black Americans can't get off their high horse and see a civil rights issue right in front of them then don't expect me to support their issues either.

[Not Me]

24. Exactly, sui...

I long for the day when a married (gay) couple can challenge DOMA in the Supreme court.
THEN, I will have Social Security parity, IRS equality, etc.

Getting state recognition is only a first step.

[ThomCat]

133. Exactly.

Friends of mind moved to Canada because Canada would allow them both to become citizens and get married. The US is not willing to allow them to marry, so the one who is a US citizen could not sponsor the other (who is from Singapore) for citizenship as a spouse.

That is just one of the many rights and privilages that will not be available or will not be secure in civil unions that married people take for granted.

[Fridays Child]

26. Marriage is the "brass ring" of relationships in our society.

To say that a certain group of people cannot reach for it--that they can have something similar but they can't call it marriage--is divisive and unfair, no matter how it's rationalized.

[napi21]

38. I hate to poo poo your statement about the brass ring, but

I sure could introduce you to a whole lot of EX-MARRIED COUPLES who would sure say your wrong about that!

[LostinVA]

41. But, they had the RIGHT to find that out, didn't they?

[napi21]

67. Yea, but NOW they really WISH they hadn't! n/t

[Fridays Child]

101. The fact that they got married supports my contention.

The phenomenon of divorce did not cause them to reject marriage, in the first place, and that actually speaks to the importance of that institution in our culture.

[cali]

54. Yes, but of course I didn't say that.

In fact I said I support one institution for all. I still maintain that civil unions providing all the benefits of marriage, and simply known by a different name, though it may be inherently discriminatory, is hardly in the same realm as Jim Crow laws, and I damn well stand by that.

[sui generis]

60. yeah, your ability to pass on your property

to manage your own legal adult affairs, to visit your partner in the hospital, and to stay in the house you've lived in for decades with your partner Is Not The Same Dreadful Thing As the Jim Crow Laws.

It's worse.

At least black people could marry black people. And I stand by that.

(edited to remove flame)

[cali]

77. Huh???

Let me repeat: Vermont Civil Unions provide every single right and responsibility that marriage provides, and obviously that includes all those basic rights you list. As far as black people being able to marry each other, well gee, too bad they didn't have voting rights, or the right to a decent education, or the right not to be lynched. In fact, blacks in the south lived under a reign of terror and subjugation. Saying that a civil union is equivalent to that is, and remains bullshit. And let me repeat; I support one institution for all. I'm simply objecting to that specific comparison.

[sui generis]

80. I may have to redact my other statement

about enlightenment.

Civil unions are bullshit inferior solution unless they 100% equal in all states and the federal government.

If I can't look after my family in Nebraska with a civil union from Vermont, as far as I'm concerned taking my kids away from me there is the same thing as lynching me.

And I repeat. There are motherfucking "moral values" assholes who think that because we weren't lynched for our skin color we aren't having civil rights issues, and that they have cornered the market on being persecuted. Let's NOT even go there; skin color is not a consideration for whether you turn out queer or not.

[cali]

90. Redact to your heart's content.

I have an inherent distrust of people who throw around the word enlightenment anyway. If you think a marriage from MA provides you with anymore legal protection in Nebraska than a civil union from Vermont, you're sadly mistaken. DOMA takes care of that, as well as any state laws that Nebraska may have.

As for your bizarre rant about skin color not being an indicator of queerness, no duh. Why you're going there is beyond me, but I don't think you're making much sense at all.

Finally, no civil unions aren't as good as marriage, but if you can't see that they're far better than no legal recognition, if you think that they're simply Jim Crow like, we have absolutely nothing to discuss anyway. From a good many of the responses on this thread you'd think that civil unions are worse than nothing at all. I see it as a step in the right direction, albeit a step that's too timid for my liking.

[sui generis]

142. reworded for a more mature reply

I think you're trying to be helpful, but we're not talking about Jim Crow laws. I'm not incoherent. I'm trying to avoid your straw man - I never brought up Jim Crow laws to begin with, and I have no idea why YOU keep going there.

We're not here at anyone's invitation. We're not asking anyone's permission. I could care less about timidity or temerity, and I am NOBODY's victim, and certainly not the governments. It has changed some parts of me into something less than pleasant and far less than likeable, and extraordinarily aggressive, but I will not BE anyone's victim either. Ever.

I don't like being like this. I am an idealist. I don't feel any different about myself and the "way things should be" for me than you do about yourself, at all, and if you weren't "allowed" to be married, and if your friends kept telling you they thought what was best for you, I would come to your defense like a lion and take no prisoners.

I don't trust you or anyone for that matter to decide what's best for me, and neither should you. That's not a truce in the traditional sense. I hope it's an understanding.

[cali]

143. LOL

If you think I'm remotely republican like or lite or whatever, after I've stated that I support marriage for all, your grasp of reality is so tenuous as to be non existent. Go play with others who share your delusions. I'll stick with reality. Fortunately, I don't have to redact a thing: You never registered with me at all, and as you're eminently forgettable, I'm sure you'll soon slip back into the nether regions of my consciosness.

[sui generis]

144. I reworded my reply

for what it's worth. Eminently forgettable. That made me laugh pretty hard chica. Check your PM - I may publish it.

[ThomCat]

135. NO, it does not.

It only provides all of the rights and benefits under STATE LAW that married people receive. It does not provide any of the rights and privilages under FEDERAL LAW that married people receive.

[Marnieworld]

163. nevermind

my point had been made. :blush:

[foreigncorrespondent]

98. Go tell that to Sapph.

You know we haven't even seen each other this year? And we are not likely to see each other this year? Thanks to the gas prices tickets between Australia and the U.S. have gone way up, neither of us has the kind of money to be able to purchase a ticket so we can see one another.

So sit back and enjoy your little pixie world for a while. But then snap out of it and realize that the Vermont civil unions did NOT deliver all the rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. Had it, Sapph and I would have gotten unionized years ago.

[Fridays Child]

107. I wasn't addressing the Jim Crow question.

I was making an affirmational observation regarding your statement that "...it's better if there's but one common name for a union between two people...."

It's very distressing to see how contentious people are becoming around here. :(

Maybe it's the upcoming election that has us all on pins and needles. :shrug:

[boolean]

30. What oppression?

They got to drink water just like everyone else. They got to ride the bus just like everyone else. What's the difference between the front and the back of the bus?

Because that's what you're saying when you say "Civil Union" is OK. It keeps the homosexuals separate from the heterosexuals. It's divisive. It promotes bigotry. It's bullshit. It is NOT tolerance nor is it acceptance.

[cali]

59. Oh for fuck's sake

First off I explicitly said I support one name/institution for all, but as far as comparing civil unions, which whether you like it or not was a great step forward 7 years ago, to Jim Crow laws in the South is bullshit.

[sui generis]

61. and though you are clearly more enlightened

and I'm not being sarcastic Cali because I know you (well, DU "know"), there are lots of people who use that phrase to say that equal marriage is NOT a civil rights issue, and they vote that way, and feel righteous about it.

[Arkana]

109. What about pulling religion completely out of the equation?

Call all such things civil unions, no matter if they are heterosexual or homosexual. If the church doesn't like it, then fine--they don't have to bless it.

Don't kill me, I'm merely throwing out a suggestion.

[foreigncorrespondent]

97. Really?

Wow. Does that mean Sapph can move to Vermont, settle down, I travel over there, we get unionized, and then our union will be recognized by the immigration department?

You best think about what equality truly is before stating such a dumb founded thing as you did, next time.

[cautiouslywaiting]

32. Thank you!

I'm bi and if I get married to another woman, I want it to be a real marriage, not a pretend one. It is definitely not the same thing.

[helderheid]

43. thank you. Quite frankly I want the government to get out of the marriage

business. Stick to civil unions for all (like in the Netherlands) and if you want a church wedding, go for it but it is not recognized by the government.

[Fridays Child]

115. I agree. My husband and I were married by a judge in Los Angeles...

...twenty years ago. We, specifically, did NOT want the marriage to be recognized by any religion, so we chose to have our union presided over by a civil authority.

Now, here's what I want to know: did the state of California perform a religious ceremony on me, against my will? If they did, I may sue.

[Greyhound]

2. Religious bigotry, plain and simple.

Personally I think all government sanctioned unions should be referred to as civil unions, but then I take the separation of religion and state seriously.
:kick:

[annabanana]

12. I agree with you here...

I don't think the government should be in the "Marriage" business at all. What is now called a "marriage certificate" issued by the state should be called a "civil union certificate". Various churches, synagogues, mosques, ashrams or whatever can then consecrate them (or not) as they choose. The legal rights should be attached to the civil certificate, not to the religious institution.

[BadgerKid]

35. Agreed

IIRC this is the way it is done in Germany. The couple will have a second ceremony for the religious aspect.

[PeaceProgProsp]

20. I know more heterosexuals who DON'T get married because

of the religious stigma of "marriage" than I know same-sex couples who want to subject themselves to the religious stigma of marriage.

I agree. The government should have same-sex unions which guarantee two people all the life, work and death benefits we give married people today, and then leave it to whatever church (if any) people belong to to give them the spiritual bond called marriage, if they chose to do that.

I think my hetero unmarried friends are crazy to pass up all the legal benefits of being married, even if they're willing to put up with the legal burdends. However, I do understand their reluctance to engage in the religious institution of marriage.

[RPM]

3. why was it so important to allow blacks to sit in the front of the bus?

I mean, they got to ride the bus anyway, right?

Bzzzzzt - Equal opportunity to public services and institutions is the definition of equality.

[LostinVA]

42. Perfect analogy -- spot on

I hope you don't mind my using it!

[DireStrike]

51. How on earth is that a perfect analogy?

It would be a perfect analogy if what happened in history was that blacks were allowed to sit anywhere they want, but had to call those seats "the back of the bus."

[LostinVA]

56. No, your analogy is off

Good try, though.

I'm tired of having to read homophobic posts on Du.

Ignore.

[cali]

62. There was nothing remotely

homophobic about that particular post. Now said poster may have a history I'm unaware of, but absent that I"m really sick of the thought police around here who are so quick to call people names. I find that offensive.

[DireStrike]

83. Yeah, I've got no such past...

See below (post 47 and my response 55) for what I termed a good point about the issue.

Guess partisanship and bigotry can come from anywhere, even the "tolerance first" crowd. Even the devil can quote scripture, eh?

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

134. state civil unions DO NOT give federal marriage rights.

ergo it is not comparable to sitting "anywhere" on the bus.

[DireStrike]

159. Ok, fine.

I wasn't really arguing about that. This thread seems predicated on the assumption that there is a choice between campaigning for "marriage-in-all-but-name" and marriage.

The arguments about the differences in civil unions from marriages need to be highlighted more often or risk falling off the radar thanks to absolutist arguments like this one. What are the differences, by the way?

[Ms. Toad]

164. Civil unions vanish at the border of the state

and only provide spotty effectiveness within the state because the state (which grants civil union rights) exists within the country (which grants no civil union rights).

In a state with civil unions: If I am married I am entitled to exercise all of the rights granted by both the federal government and the state. (I.e. I get the full set of marital rights) If I am in a civil union - in a state which grants or recognizes civil unions - I am only entitled to exercise the subset of rights granted by that state, but am barred from exercising the federal rights.

When I cross the border into a state without civil unions: As a married individual I am entitled to exercise all of the rights granted by the new state, as well as those granted by the federal government. As a member of a civil union, I lose the rights granted by my home state, am not entitled to the rights granted by the new state, and still don't have access to those granted by the federal government.

When I cross the border into a country without civil unions: As a married individual I am entitled to exercise all of the marital rights granted by the new country (both federal and state/province). As a member of a civil union, I am entitled to neither - this is probably true even if I have a state sanctioned civil union and I have crossed into a country which recognizes same gender marriages (I don't believe this has been tested yet, but I have friends who had considerable hassles having their Mass marriage recognized by Canada.)

[Bluebear]

4. Personally I would like to end the term "marriage" for ALL...

Civil unions are the legal contract. If someone wants to get "married" in church, good for them. That would be my druthers, civil unions for straight and gay couples.

[etherealtruth]

52. That makes more sense than anything I've ever heard ...

... r/t this subject!

[aquart]

5. Because that's what they are.

Because marriage has recognized legal rights. If the same legal rights are accorded "civil unions," (NOT gay unions)how are they NOT marriage? If the same legal rights are NOT accorded "civil unions," then the whole point of them is lost.

It's hypocrisy and lying to call marriage other than what it is.

[Solon]

6. Because civil union =! marriage...

its actually quite simple, civil unions, as practiced in Vermont, for example, allow for STATE benefits only, not FEDERAL benefits, while marriages allow for both.

[trof]

7. Yeah, let 'em join a union.

"You in a union?"
"Yeah, I'm in Gay Guys Local 107."

:popcorn:

[rhino47]

9. Because separate is never equal.

If they are the same rights then why not address it by the same name?
To call it civil unions denotes it to a lesser stature.This vein of reasoning is the same as the segregationist`s argument.

[TygrBright]

10. Yes and no...

...if what you are suggesting is that "marriage" be relegated to churches to handle, and that the state affirm, solemnize, contract, whatever, "legal unions" that render to a couple the benefits of being each others' next of kin, assuming default inheritance rights, joint property rights, etc., etc., etc., I'm with you 100%. The state has no business meddling in the religious aspects of partnership and should not do so.

Or, if you are saying that the state apply the word "marriage" to unions that have some kind of religious sanction, and apply some other word to unions that don't have religious sanction, that's iffy, but I could go with it, with some reservations.

If, OTOH, you are suggesting that the state apply the word "marriage" to heterosexual unions and some other word to unions that aren't between Ozzie and Harriet (as it were,) then no. I'm not on board with that. When I was young, it was still illegal in many states to marry someone whose ancestors came from a different continent than your ancestors came from. Would calling interracial unions "something else" have addressed the fundamental injustice there?

hair-splittingly,
Bright

[Ellis Wyatt]

11. I really don't know

My entire family is against me on this. They think that gays should be able to partner or commit or having civil unions or whatever else they want to call it as long as it's not "marriage", which I don't understand. It's just like the "separate but equal" arguments of yesteryear.

It's not even like they're really religious, so I don't know what the hangup is. Their main arguments are this slippery slope of "It's always been one man and woman. If you're going to allow two men, why not a man and a dog?" "Why not two men and one woman?" "Why not 97 men and 35 women?" Again, they don't hate gays, don't feel they should be stoned, etc, they think they should have the same rights, I just think that they think a civil union = marriage in every way except name only.

I know there's something around that details exactly what rights "civil unions" don't have that "marriages" have.

I just think it's a civil rights issue, and all the gays should have all the rights that I have. Plain and simple. It really seems like a very cut and dry argument when working of the assumption that being gay is not a choice

[LisaM]

13. I used to feel that way, too, but I've changed

why should anyone be relegated to second-class status? What if the discussion were about slaves, or divorced people? Who are we to decide, other than obvious issues of age, abuse, and incest, who should marry?

[skypilot]

14. I personally have no emotional attachment...

...to the word marriage. I kinda think that the word and the images it conjures up for people is one of the things that has clouded the discussion. If I were to "marry" (for lack of a better word at the moment) I wouldn't want it to be in a church or at city hall or any of that. I don't even really know what my "wedding" would look like but I know what it wouldn't look like.

[Lex]

16. If the legal protections are precisely the same in every way as married

folks then the terminology matters not so much--people will call it 'married' anyway.

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

17. Federal rights.

Right now, even in Massachusetts, gay couples are not eligible for the federal rights that come along with marriage. but when the day comes that enough states fully recognize gay couples that DOMA can be overturned, gay "marriages" will automatically be recognized. Gay "civil unions" won't be without amended legislation.

Plus, it's all too easy to make civil unions separate and a little less equal. Just because the states that have civil unions NOW have made them the legal equivalent of marriage, that doesn't mean other states will do the same in the future.


I'd personally prefer civil unions for ALL couples, legally speaking, with churches performing "marriages" for whatever couples they deem theologically appropriate...but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Ms. Toad]

166. Not just legislation would be required

This country's laws are a blend of statutory law (legislation) and common law (laws with their origin and continued vitality derived from (generally) English case law). Many of the marital rights are common law rights - no statute exists. These rights would need to be changed by individual same gender couples challenging each line of cases which developed the right to modify it to include civil unions. Basically, that means that the burden of changing the non-statutory unequal benefits will fall on the shoulders of individual gay couples and the rights and benefits will not be equal until all of the relevant case law is overruled or modified by subsequent decision.

[ThomCat]

18. Because separate but equal

means value can be assigned differently to things that are only supposedly equal. That value of things is important. If yours is less important than someone else's simply because it's in a different category then people will find a lot of small ways to devalue yours and deny you benefits that other people get.

With separate but equal water fountains those supposedly equal water fountains were sometimes in inconvenient locations. They often were in worse repair. There were fewer of them. And the the water quality was not as good because of of the lack of maintenance. Also, white people could use either fountain but black people could not, so only one group was really restricted.

Similar explanations could be made for anything that is separate but supposedly equal.

[sui generis]

19. except that's not what people want

Here's the deal:

California grants a domestic partnership, then says the same gender marriage issue is moot because gays already have rights under the domestic partnership registration.

It's like saying that segregation is okay, because blacks have seats in the back of the bus just like the white folks do in the front.

Yes, call it all civil marriage or civil unions for everyone, with exactly equal rights and I'd be fine with that.

I am not at all fine with "baby" steps that are actually giant steps backwards.

[Shakespeare]

22. Looked over any IRS forms lately?

That should go a long way in explaining it. It's not just a matter of semantics. :eyes:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. Two reasons, arguably:

Firstly, the message it sends: both calling them marriage and not calling them marriage send a message to the electorate, and the former is the one I'd prefer to see sent.

Secondly, it makes future legislative differentiation harder. If initially you have a) marriage, and b) civil unions that currently grant all the same rights, then you can introduce a law to make them unequal again more easily than you can introduce a law that applies to straight married couples but not to gay ones.


On the other hand, there are a couple of arguments against: it will require even more political capital to get through gay marriage than civil unions, and calling for it will increase Republican turnout even more. Also, the pedant in me objects to the term - I think that the people who say "marriage is the union between a man and a woman" are right, semantically. Still, I think ethics should take precedence over lexicography in this case (although not over political calculus - "it won't work, and it will do more harm than good to gay rights" is a good argument against currently calling for gay marriage, I think).

[MessiahRp]

25. Personally I believe this...

All marriages performed in front of a judge should be a Civil Union. Marriages should be church only forms of Civil Unions (meaning the state papers that are required should all be Civil Union papers but the Church can issue a special "marriage certificate" that works in conjunction.

This way there is separation of church and state on this issue. Churches can decide on their own who they want to conduct a "marriage" on as that paper would recognize that marriage in that church's eyes.

From a state's perspectives everyone, gays included, would have to get civil union paperwork authorized through the state for their union to be legal. The judges would have to perform civil union ceremonies no matter the sexual orientation of the couple being married.

Since the marriage certificate is only paperwork that recognizes a marriage in that church's eyes liberal churches can also issue marriage certificates that also are only recognizable by the issuing church.

This would be the answer that legally pleases everybody. Marriage is a buzz word because religious people feel that this would equate their church based term of marriage to whatever gay people are getting. I agree it's bigotry but if the entire system was changed to present the separation of church and state our government is supposed to represent, this would be the way to do it.

Rp

[NoSheep]

140. hmmmm.

:think:

[cosmik debris]

27. Bass ackwards

I say we should take marriage away from straight couples. Then we will have equality! If we give straight couples exactly the same rights that Gays have now--Bingo problem solved.

[izzie]

28. The state is the third party of the contract called marriage.

We all could do a contract on living to gether but it would not be as powerful and some thing I do not think could be even put into a contract. Contract are saying you will do some thing for some thing but I am sure you could not say a business would have to give up your retirement to some one but the state can do that and has. I would say leave the name off it and just make a contract if you wish. I see it as not a large problem for two same sex people. Children must be protected and so the state must come into the marriage contract. And to tell you the truth, at my age, I knew they sure were all for men. In the '50's a women was careful about leaving that marriage if they had children. The state lets Churches marry people and many people for get that.

[0rganism]

29. the debate, strange as it may seem, was never about marriage

or civil unions, or whatever you want to call it. It's rooted in a much more basic objection to homosexuality itself.

Sure, it would be better if everyone's marriage was called a civil union and gays could have them too, then leave any additional labeling up to the church of choice, but that was never the problem in the first place.

It's always been about whether the states should fast-track recognition of a union of which the bible (more specifically, the Old T.) explicitly disapproves. Marriage itself is little more than a civil union, condensed into a simple "licensing" procedure and declarative ceremony.

The strongest opposition to gay marriage comes from people who think homosexuality itself is offensive. THAT is where it all comes down, those are the people you have to convince in order to end the debate. Convince them that homosexual bonds can be the basis of a socially stable relationship worthy of official recognition, and you've won the whole ball of wax -- marriage, adoption, etcetera. Whether or not we call it marriage is a secondary issue.

It was much the same with interracial marriage. The people who opposed it were largely the people who opposed racial integration.

[dogfacedboy]

31. It's a mentality that needs to change.

In reality, marriage and civil union are just words. However, separate is never equal.
My take on those opposed to calling legal unions between two men/two women is this: The opposers would then be forced to see gays/lesbians as equal, and the Regressives just can't stand that idea.

This needs to be settled at a national level in order to force the Regressive states into line with the future, and with reality.

[sui generis]

33. another answer "Defense" of marriage is defended from us.

I'm not sure they could have put it in more hateful terms. Like we're some kind of alien marriage eating devil spawn creature.

Marriage is under assault?

Not at all. Maybe the narrowest view of marriage, with the man on top and the woman on bottom in the missionary only having sex with the purpose of making babies is under assault. Maybe the idea of marriage as a legal commitment exclusively between opposite gender people because the government knows what's best is under assault.

But "Defense" of marriage defends nothing. Many of us are already married, are already doing all the inconvenient legal workarounds and everything else to fuck the government back without marriage. And we pay fewer taxes as a result and often put away more in savings and retirement as a result, and with very little effort anyone can share and acquire death benefit property unchallenged if you build your "relationship" like a business partnership, registered as a business partnership with POA's and trustee documents, remuneration agreements and all the other crap that they think we can't do.

Emotionally and rationally I'd rather be married, but financially we're much better off this way and I love rubbing it in their pasty little righteous faces.

The truth is, if this were a gay world and only marriages between same gender people were allowed I'd be fighting just as hard for opposite gender people to have the right to make their own decisions about their own lives.

[novalib]

34. E.Q.U.A.L.I.T.Y.!!!!!!!

Why is it so important?

WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT?!?!?

It's about EQUALITY!!!!

[Rex]

36. Because gays view it as a marriage?

And don't believe religion owns the word marriage? Just my guess.

[Pithlet]

48. Yes. Religion doesn't own the word marriage.

That's an excellent way to put it. I'm not religious in the least, and I'm married. I'm not going to call it anything else, and I don't expect gay and lesbian couples to have to call it anything else, either. It's not as though there aren't churches that would gladly perform same sex marriages. It's not as though there aren't same sex couples who are faithful. It shouldn't matter. Marriage no longer has strict religious meaning, and hasn't for a long time. The bigots don't have the right to withhold it from anyone.

[bullimiami]

37. its important that the government treat all people equally.

if the government sanctions marriage, there needs to be marriage for all.

the government can get out of the marriage business and into the social contract business where they belong.

[napi21]

45. You know, I wonder ifeveryone has really thought through their argument?

You do realize, along with marriage & Civil Unions, comes all the damn divorce laws, or dissolution laws or whatever they result in being called. Alimony laws, personal property distribution. The whole messy side of "marriage".

Don't even try to tell me all THESE marriages will last forever! Everyone thinks that on their wedding day!

i suggest everyone think about itt very hard before you get what you don't realize what you're asking for.

[Marnieworld]

53. Well then it's equal rights to be miserable

If it's just one thing than there won't need to be any other new laws. It makes it easier.

[sui generis]

57. It's not about what can go wrong.

It's about dreams and commitment and taking care of each other and the happiest scariest most wonderful day of your life and the future and everything that is good about being with the person you love and wanting it to stay that way forever until death do you part.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? And if you have kids it's about your ability to care for them, about your ability to pass on your property and pension and house to your family, because it's a legal family and not some inferior construct of legal paper and workarounds and other crap that we have to do to protect ourselves.

[napi21]

74. Oh boy! The dreams of youth abound!

Betcha you're fairly young, huh?

I've been married to the same guy for 45 years, and yes I have two sons. I remember the day I believed the same as you do now. Time educates you!

You see, I was born in an era when people actually believed in "for better or worse, till death do us part"! And yes I did go through some nightmare times, but I said I took an oath and I was going to abide by that oath.

That's just not true anymore.

Sorry folks, I strongly support civil unions for everybody who wants to be a "couple" and have voted for your cause here in Ga. I just think your're pushing for too much and are risking getting nothing at all.

[sui generis]

82. I won't tell you how old I am

but your marriage is clearly not the standard that everyone's should be set by.

And I am not alone in my starry eyed optimism, my romantic nature. My parents and my partner's parents have been married for more decades than you and they still love each other and whisper sweet nothings to each other and carry on like newlyweds.

Maybe that part IS genetic. Or maybe we just choose better these days. My 98 year old neighbors have been married for 78 years and they are out front every day looking to give a biscuit to my mutt on her walk, holding hands, cackling at dumb jokes, and baking pies for helping rake their leaves.

It's not all bad from where I stand, not bad at all.

[LostinVA]

88. Why is "couple" in the quotes?

Oh,a nd thank you for putting MY civil rights on YOUR frigging time table. YOU don't get to decide when MY rights are iumportant... understand??? And, how dare YOU get to tell us we're "pushing for too much."

Seriously, how DARE YOU.

Aren't you glad Alice Paul and Lucy BUrns didn't think that way?

God. Your "couple" tells me all I ned to know about your "Democratic" views.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

91. "Couple" says it all. Right there. Sorry the queers are getting too uppity.

I guess I'll go sit on the back of the bus again.

[Zhade]

113. Why do you put couple in quotes?

Do you believe GLBT folk can't be couples?

Your homophobia is showing.

[me b zola]

155. You seem to wear your homophobia as a badge of honor

That you seem to wear your homophobia as a badge of honor is both vile and sad.

So many good people on this thread have patiently attempted to explain why seperate but equal is not equal, and rather than listen to the lessons of history, you resort to quip that marrage has it's downfalls so you feel as though legally sanctioned bigotry against 10%(?) of Americans is somehow protecting GLBTs from the horrors of equality.

The cherry on the cake is not the fact that you felt the need to put parenthesis around gay couples (that just merely highlights your homophobia), but that you somehow see civil rights as someone else's cause: "I strongly support civil unions for everybody who wants to be a "couple" and have voted for your cause here in Ga.

It's like this, Napi. I'm not gay, but I have less rights as long as GLBTs are treated unequally under the law. Our rights, our freedoms are linked together, and when one group is denied the the same rights as others then we are all less as a nation, as a people.

I urge you to read through this entire thread, several times if necessary. Above you said, "Time educates you!" I sincerely hope that you are not so set in your ways that you will be unwilling to learn--and grow--a little more.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

160. I'm no spring chicken.

And I agree with Sui.

"I've been married to the same guy for 45 years, and yes I have two sons. I remember the day I believed the same as you do now. Time educates you!

You see, I was born in an era when people actually believed in "for better or worse, till death do us part"! "

Really? Because I've been married 55 years, and I was born in an era where there were even more unhappy marriages, and even more divorce too. It's just that everybody was full of shit about it.

[Karenina]

78. Napikins...

Your post exposes some very bigoted views...

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

92. Woah, since some gay marriages will end in divorce we shouldn't ask for them

Sorry, but I think everyone is aware of the "messy" side of "marriage."

Jesus Christ, you think that's a valid argument?

[Zhade]

114. Then I guess straights shouldn't have the right to marry...

...since 50% of straight marriages end in divorce.

Your arguments are condescending and fucking ridiculous. You must really have a problem with gays, the way you're talking.

[napi21]

125. I think it should be a hell of a lot harder for straights to get married!

Far too many getmarried only to decide not long afterward that they made a mistake!

[Zhade]

126. It's not your right to decide for others. PERIOD.

NT!

[mondo joe]

146. It's really not your call, is it?

Or would you want a stranger to make your most personal decisions for you?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

161. When you've found you painted yourself into a corner...

you can either wait until the paint dries or just walk over the paint and make a mess.

Personally, I think it's just best not to paint yourself into a corner in the first place.

[mondo joe]

150. This is the most fucking stupid argument in the thread.

Do you think no one realizes these things come along with marriage?

Could you be MORE condescending?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sui generis]

40. I agree we also shouldn't allow interracial marriage.

as long as we're saying absurd things.

You don't have a choice. We're not asking your permission. Meanwhile, we're paying taxes and fighting wars and sewing unfortunate bigots up in the emergency room without first inquiring about their "lifestyle choices". Could you imagine a gay surgeon only treating "real" gay people, and not those fake opposite gender loving weirdos? Could you imagine living in a world where YOU weren't "allowed" to get married by gay people, or where YOUR marriage wasn't considered "real" but ours were the "standard"?

"Real" marriages are marriages between two adults. Real society recognizes those commitments as either legal partnerships between business entities or domestic arrangements that we call marriage, made to preserve the rights of inheritance, look after the kids, and manage each others affairs.

You are right. Anything else isn't real, and its inferior.

Again, we're not asking permission to be equal.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sui generis]

65. I am being civil

it's not a choice. You have it from me. Just as soon as you prove that a self identifying heterosexual man could go live with a gay man, and have sex and pretend to be happily civil unioned, I'll agree to call it a choice.

Anyway, in a more civil tone, we're not asking permission. We're not asking approval either. In fact we're not "asking" for anything. You may disapprove, and that is your choice, and I respect that. That's your life experience. It invalidates my life when you call it a lifestyle choice.

It hurts my kids when you say their parents aren't "real". That's your choice. But my choice is to live with my partner and support and raise my kids and pass my property on just like everyone else, to fight for them and their future as fiercely as you would fight for your kids.

And that's where equal marriage comes in - that's all. It's the same protections for my family that you have for yours, and I'm not even offering to judge your lifestyle choice - I just don't even know you well enough to have an opinion.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Why are other people's "lifestyle choices" any of your business?

As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, it's not up to you to "celebrate" or not "celebrate" other people's lifestyle choices. The point is, they deserve the same civil rights as you- and if they want to get married, it's no more YOUR business to tell 'em they can't than it is their business to dictate the decision to you if YOU want to get married.

Sheesh. I don't know what it is with some people's heads that they think they need to be everyone else's fucking nanny.

[sampsonblk]

84. Let's agree to disagree.

I lack the passion to continue.

[Puglover]

100. self delete

excess snark, not worth it.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Puglover]

105. Can you muster up the passion to further explain this?

"I support the rights, but I don't think this lifestyle choice is to be celebrated in any way." I'm intrigued.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Puglover]

124. So I'm more intrigued.

"But I would certainly not promote homosexuality to anyone.

Would you "promote" heterosexuality?

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

131. WTF???

Replace "gay" with "African American," "Handicapped," etc....

[Rex]

44. Hmm.

Are people born heterosexual? Can you prove that one? If not then your statement makes no sense. Do you believe people are born heterosexual?

[sampsonblk]

64. This is actually interesting

Do you need proof that people are born heterosexual? Jeez...where do I begin? How about that women and men are born with body parts that are analogous and perform complementary functions that lead to reproduction of . . . more human beings. This is how our species survives. No other natural way works.

I am not trying to be insulting here, because I certainly understand that people are passionate about this. I am not.

[Rex]

66. You seem passionate about this

but I guess you're not.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. I guess that's why no other animals in the wild besides humans display

homosexual behavior.

...NOT.

[Zhade]

127. But penguins choose to be gay!

:eyes:

This should be a no-brainer: humans are animals, some animals are born homosexual, therefore some humans are born gay.

I mean, DUH, right?

[Warren DeMontague]

138. And the bottom line? I don't CARE if it's a choice or not.

Either way, everyone deserves equal rights.

That's a no-brainer, too!

[Zhade]

141. Indeed!

NT!

[KitSileya]

153. Heck, there's no evidence there's no non-gay species.

Researchers have found evidence of homosexuality in over 1500 species so far, and there's not one species they can definitively say have no gay individuals, except in species where they don't reproduce thru sexual intercourse.

In other words, homosexuality is very, very natural.

[sui generis]

71. yeah well we make babies too

believe it or not, pretty much the same way. At least I don't know of anyone whose kids came in a "just add water" box from Nabisco.

It's not about SEX SEX SEX. It's about gender orientation. It's about our ability to make choices about our own lives and pursue happiness without interference from the government.

We're passionate about it because it is the welfare and protection of our families. Our real families with real people and real kids.

I would give both my kidneys away, both my eyes, my beating heart to my partner or kids if I thought it would save their life, and I am deadly serious.

How could I not be "passionate" about this silly legal and social construct then?

[kiahzero]

102. I guess procreation is what marriage is all about

Why don't you start telling women that they can't remain married after menopause?

[sampsonblk]

112. You are going too far

I haven't told anyone that they can't do anything.

[Marnieworld]

165. Or the couples that choose to be child-free

I guess we aren't "really" married? :eyes:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

137. Homosexuality and bisexuality also exists with non-human animals.

How do you explain that?

[mondo joe]

151. You've mistaken your assumptions for proof.

An unfortunate error.

You assume a purpose or function to nature, which is quite silly.

[Marnieworld]

49. Really?

I almost thought that you were being sarcastic but after re-reading a few times I think that you are serious. I am curious. Do you think that your own preferences are "choices"? What would make a "real marriage" that is different than one with same-sex people?

New scientific discoveries are happening all of the time supporting the "proof" that you seek, however the anecdotal evidence from legions of homosexual people (and all other gradiations) supports the "born this way" concept clearly demonstrates this. Do you not know any homosexuals personally? Have you not been exposed to any sort of documentary or narrative about this? FWIW I am a straight woman but I am still shocked when I encounter this mindset still.

[sampsonblk]

79. No, I wasn't being sarcastic

Not at all. I have been at DU for years and this is the first time I can recall ever talking about this subject at any length. I repeat that I have no passion for this subject, but since I opened this can of worms, I am going to respond to your criticism.

No, I don't think that my hetero preferences are choices. I believe that I was born to be with a woman.

I am not going to write an article here on what I consider the important elements of a marriage. My apology.

"New scientific discoveries are happening all of the time supporting the 'proof' that you seek..." So you see I am not a bigot after all. We agree! I am seeking the truth and have been for quite some time. I am open minded about this after all. And if it turns out that people are born gay, well then that's the answer and that's it. But I don't want to sound like Hans Blix here, but its noteworthy that people have been looking for a long time and haven't found the answer you suggest.

"Do you not know any homosexuals personally?" Of course I do. Its America. Everyone knows someone who is gay or lesbian. I have a very very close childhood (male) friend who is gay. Its never been an issue.

"Have you not been exposed to any sort of documentary or narrative about this?" Ms Straight Woman, I have read about this a plenty. And just what mind set must I have? I am offended that you are lumping me with bigots that you have met. Just my opinion, but in terms of the goverment's responsibility here, its all about the science. Absent the science, its a lifestyle choice, and the government has no responsibility to deal with it one way or the other.

[Zhade]

119. If you don't want to be termed a bigot, stop displaying bigotry.

NT!

[mondo joe]

148. "Lifestyle choice"? What a load of bullshit.

Are you channeling Pat Robertson?

[Marnieworld]

158. you ignored my point about anecdotal evidence

That was the proof of it. You don't have to wait for the science if most homosexual people say that it isn't a lifestyle choice but who they were innately since as far as they can remember. It's odd to me that you consider your own preferences innate but for others it's a choice. You said that homosexuals couldn't have a "real marriage" but refuse to say what that is and why they can't have one. You don't need science for yourself just for others. I believe that we are all equal and should be in the eyes of the law. No scientific conditions necessary, no choice better than others. We just disagree.

[Marnieworld]

46. So then you'd be ok with "inter-racial" unions?

Too recently it was illegal for inter-racial couples to marry. If giving it a different name was ever a compromise it would have been viewed rightly as a diminished status. Now everyone can be married despite race or faith. The same arguements were said then (The Bible, unnatural etc.) against these marriages and they are just as invalid as they are today. It's a universal experience, love and commitment and gender of the pair should be as irrelevant as race is now.

Many were opposed to those marriages then and those Many were wrong. Everyone is equal and therefore everyone should have the same exact thing. Anything else is unequal.

[BuyingThyme]

47. For the same reason it's so important to have gay people called people.

[sui generis]

50. and "lifestyles" called lives

good grief, is the 70 hour a week corporate monkey dad with the stay at home pill popping gardner banging alcoholic valley of the dolls wife supposed to be our standard?

That's a life too. Yeah and CNN just called same gender marriage a "moral issue".

They wouldn't know a moral if it bit one of their delicate little nads right off.

It's an American freedom issue and a civil rights issue (especially for our children), not a "moral" issue.

The war with 655,000 dead is a moral issue.

My ability to legally provide for my kids is a civil rights issue.

[DireStrike]

55. Now that's a good statement.

Better than the "back of the bus" one above.

Really makes people think about the issue.

[damntexdem]

63. It's not important at all -- equity is.

If NJ decides to get out of the marriage business and have civil unions for all, it will not be discriminating. Let churches and other commmunities of people define marriage, and perform marriages.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Why is it so important not to? nt

[KurtNYC]

72. My partner/husband died recently - since we were not "married"

the state would only release his body to his sister who in life had called him all kinds of names and generally pourwed out her hatred and insecurities on him. They were estranged for almost 20 years and yet SHE got to make all the choices about how to (not) honor his last wishes. I got no say in the matter and got nothing from his estate. Even things we owned jointly. Even video tapes of our vacations. Nothing. Without marriage no legal standing.

For all I know, she buried him close to her house so she can piss on his grave every day.

THAT'S WHY!

[johnnie]

75. That's terrible

I have a question, would a will legally take care of that? I'm just asking because I wonder how much a will in this type of thing would stand up.

[cali]

81. That's a terrible story,

and I'm so sorry about it. You do realize though, that if you had a civil union in Vermont, none of that would have happened? As far as legal protections go, civil unions as realized in Vermont and as a possibility in NJ, would have protected you every bit as much as marriage in MA. Again, because I'm sick and tired of being attacked, I support one institution for all, but acting as if civil unions isn't a step forward, is just inaccurate.

[Zhade]

122. Look at his profile. Look at his NAME.

He doesn't live in Vermont, and anyway civil unions there aren't recognized by the federal government - that's kinda the whole point of why we demand our deserved equal right to marriage.

[LostinVA]

89. Everyone on here needs to read this post

That is horrible, Kurt. Sorry about your loss... and to the extra little death to your soul given you by the laws and your husband's sister....

[me b zola]

157. I've noticed that the origional poster has not responded to Kurt's post

How sad

[dsc]

93. That is so sad

We often forget in this age of contracts that sometimes we can't afford to get them and other times we simply don't do so for lack of time. We shouldn't have to have them at all.

[LostinVA]

95. And, in many states, the contracts aren't valid n/t

[dsc]

96. My former home state is one of those

I used to live in Ohio.

[LostinVA]

99. Virginia is another, and I know NC used to be

[dsc]

106. I think it has relaxed some here

though I am not in a relationship.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

94. That should be it's own thread.

:hug:

[Gormy Cuss]

108. I'm so sorry KurtNYC.

Unfortunately your example illustrates the problem very clearly.

[annabanana]

110. I am so sorry you had to go through this.

There is no excuse in this day and age for someone who has shared your life and love to be excluded from participating in those rites and rituals that society affords us to deal with the death of a loved one. You should have never been subject to this kind of discrimination during the saddest of times.


(My personal opinion, upthread, is that the word "marriage" should be relegated to religion and it's ceremonies, but that all legal rights and obligations (for straight AND gay couples) should be represented by civil unions.)

[Zhade]

123. Kurt, you have my sincere condolences.

It's reprehensible the way we're treated - and the way some bigots on DU want to continue enabling that treatment.

:hug:

[ThomCat]

136. I'm so sorry you had to go through that.

We will keep fighting until nobody ever has to go through that again.
x(

[NoSheep]

147. I am so sorry. This must be very painful for you. Thank you for

adding this comment to the thread. It is important for people who don't get it to think about what this means to couples who aren't afforded the same rights as some. I can't believe this is even being discussed here. It is very important, but I hate the hurt it can cause. I suggested the OP go find some friends to hash this out with. Why would anyone start a thread like this...I can't figure it out.

I really am very sorry for what you have had to go through.

[Marnieworld]

167. So sorry for your loss Kurt!

I am sure that part of the pain isn't just from the lack of rights but not having the respect for your experience. You lost your husband. There is power in that word, that phrase, a universal meaning that boyfriend or partner just can't convey. He was your husband. And the terminology needs to be there for everyone to honor this universal experience.

It's more than just rights on paper. It's about respect for people and their lives. The lack of righs of course just add more pain to a painful experience I'm sure. That sister of his, well I hope there is karma or some justice re-visited. What ugliness!

:hug:

[KurtNYC]

169. Thanks to you and others above who responded

We were registered as "domestic partners" with the City but that really only gets you housing succession rights and the right to fight a long legal battle for almost anything else. It has been 5 months and is a lot less raw than it was.

I'm sure that many people just don't understand what it is like to have half the country freak out just because you want to have a monogamous relationship under the same terms as other married couples. Meanwhile there are game shows and "reality" shows for heterosexuals like "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance'" and "Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire" -- which few have cited as eroding the sanctity of marriage.

[Keepontruking]

73. Semantics

Marriage is a word. period. who care if it is man and  woman
or two women or two men??
Love is love , Benefits are benefits, red tape is red tape
............Circus Girl

[theHandpuppet]

85. No, it's not just "semantics"!!!!!!!

See my post below.

[theHandpuppet]

76. Because they are not the same with regard to one's RIGHTS, that's why

Marriage is not just a religious ceremony, it is a contract legally recognized by the federal government. And because it is recognized by the federal government, no state can refuse to recognize partners in marriage. This is not the case with civil unions, which are only legal on a state-by-state basis. There are major differences between marriage and civil unions, but here it is in a nutshell:

Here is an outline, courtesy of GLAAD. You can read more about marriage equality and civil unions at their website, www.glad.org

What is marriage?
Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments the world over. It brings
with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections. Yet it is more than the sum of its legal
parts. It is also a cultural institution. The word itself is a fundamental protection, conveying clearly that
you and your life partner love each other, are united and belong by each other's side. It represents the
ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people and everyone understands that. No
other word has that power, and no other word can provide that protection.

What is a civil union?
A civil union is a legal status created by the state of Vermont in 2000. It provides legal protection to
couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections as well as the dignity, clarity, security and
power of the word "marriage."

What are some of the limitations of civil unions?
Civil unions are different from marriage, and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the
two institutions unequal. Here is a quick look at some of the most significant differences:

Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will
be treated in other states. GLAD believes there are strong arguments that civil unions deserve respect
across the country just like marriages. But the two appellate courts that have addressed the issue (in
Connecticut and Georgia) have disrespected them based on the fact that their states do not grant civil
unions themselves.

Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to
disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in
Vermont and filing for divorce there. This has already created problems for some couples who now have
no way to terminate their legal commitment.

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and
responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a
family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor
benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring
none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind
of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as
taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like
Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint
federal/state programs.

Filling out forms:
Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union
don't fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single
family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries
potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the
fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful
inequality. We've been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate
institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all.
Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

How real are these differences between marriage and civil unions, given that a
federal law and some state laws discriminate against all marriages of same-sex
couples? Would any of this change immediately with marriage of same-sex couples?
Probably not, because married same-sex couples will face other layers of discrimination against their marriages.
Right now, a federal law denies recognition of same-sex unions conferred by any state for purposes of all federal
programs and requirements and over 30 state laws do the same. Ending discrimination in marriage does
not mean the end of all discrimination, but using the term a "marriage" rather than a "civil union" ?is an
essential first step to opening the door and addressing whether continued governmental discrimination
against civil marriages of gay and lesbian people makes sense.

Marriage and civil unions remain different, both in practice and in principle.
First, more than a dozen states have not taken a discriminatory position against civil marriages of gay and
lesbian couples. In those states, civilly married gay and lesbian couples should be able to live and travel
freely and without fear that their relationship will be disrespected.
Second, even as to those states with discriminatory laws, legally married gay and lesbian couples from
those states may well face some discrimination in some quarters, but their marriages will also be treated
with legal respect in other arenas. Marriages are far more likely to be respected by others than newly
minted "civil unions."?

Using the term marriage also prompts a discussion about fairness.
Allowing same sex couples to marry(rather than enter a separate status) will allow gay and lesbian people
to talk with their neighbors, their local elected officials, and the Congress about whether discrimination
against their marriages is fair. Where gay and lesbian people and their children are part of the social fabric,
is it right to continue discriminating against them in civil marriage? The federal government and states that
have taken discriminatory positions against marriages of gay and lesbian couples could rethink those policies
and go back to respecting state laws about marriage, as they have done for hundreds of years. In the end, we
will not be able to have this discussion until gay and lesbian folks have what everyone else has: civil
marriage.

[cali]

86. Disappointing to see GLAAD

put something so misleading out there. Gay marriage in MA does not provide Federal Benefits. It is not portable. It's absurd that GLAAD is actually putting out there that gay marriages will be respected legally in states that have codified laws that actually discriminate against that very same institution.

I agree with GLADD that using the word marriage is a step forward, but so much of what you posted is just supposition or downright inaccurate.

[Zhade]

132. What the hell are you talking about? YOU'RE WRONG.

"What is a civil union?

A civil union is a legal status created by the state of Vermont in 2000. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage."

GLAAD specifically pointed out that civil unions do NOT get federal protection and are NOT transferable/portable (as required by the Bill of Rights).

Are you so eager to be right in your arguments that you're attacking GLAAD now? Reread it, slowly.

[cali]

145. DOMA

precludes ANY recognition of MA same sex marriages. They have no more legal weight than a civil union. Period. GLAAD glosses over this rather salient point.

[donco6]

168. The article specifically addresses this.

"How real are these differences between marriage and civil unions, given that a
federal law and some state laws discriminate against all marriages of same-sex
couples? Would any of this change immediately with marriage of same-sex couples?"

Probably not, because married same-sex couples will face other layers of discrimination against their marriages.
Right now, a federal law denies recognition of same-sex unions conferred by any state for purposes of all federal
programs and requirements and over 30 state laws do the same. Ending discrimination in marriage does
not mean the end of all discrimination, but using the term a "marriage" rather than a "civil union" ?is an
essential first step to opening the door and addressing whether continued governmental discrimination
against civil marriages of gay and lesbian people makes sense.

This is referring specifically to the impact of DOMA on state laws.

[HuffleClaw]

87. NO.

[Cleita]

104. Because marriage gives a life partner certain rights that

they don't have when single. Like if one partner ends up in the hospital it's the spouse who is looked to for instructions and decisions. With gays, it reverts to birth families and a lifelong partner who has been there for the person through thick and thin is cut out of the process.

There are legal ways for inheritance to be given to a gay partner, but there are many legal rights that marriage gives to a life partnership that gays can't access.

[StellaBlue]

118. I think "marriage" is outdated and should have no bearing on our laws, taxes, etc

nt

[Catchawave]

120. Define Marriage?

Isn't that a "churchy" thing? More than half these "churchy" definitions end up in divorce anyhow, and maybe "multiple" more "churchy" unions will follow :shrug:

I can be snarky here, I'm married almost 38 years, I'm happy because it's hard work, much like keeping a business together.

Think about it :D

Oh, and keep my government out of "my business"...whether I'm married to a man, monkey or turtle. Unfortunately, I'm married to a Republican, that's a whole 'nother war :rofl:

[greblc]

121. Access to dependant healthcare, Right to Shared Property and Estate...

Child custody issues. I see it as a fast track to give gay families the same rights as hetero families. I certain Insurance companies and estate lawyers hate the idea of Gay Marriage and lobby against it.

[NoSheep]

139. Why did you have to start this? Don't you have any friends you can hash

this out with?

:hide:

[mondo joe]

149. If you think it's not important, try to advocate for not using the term at

all but only have civil unions for everyone.

Not that I think it's a bad idea - but see how far you get.

[WinkyDink]

152. Why is it important for heterosexual civil unions to be called "marriage"?

Once one uses the phrase "as much as anyone ", the "anyone" automatically is given the imprimatur of "the standard", and there goes equality out the window.

[Nye Bevan]

154. It's not that important

People will refer to (and should make a point of referring to) civil unions as "marriage". Not only to make the point that they *are* the same as marriage, and confer the same rights as marriage, but also because it's a lot easier to say "Bob is getting married" than "Bob is getting civilly united" (or however you would put it).

So almost everyone will end up referring to (and thinking of) civil unions as "marriage". It will be inconsequential that on the legal document the word "marriage" will not appear.

This is similar to however everyone says "Velcro" even though you are technically supposed to say "hook and loop fastener" if the manufacturer is not actually Velcro. Eventually, objecting to the term "marriage" being used instead of "civil unions" will be similar to saying "but Pennsylvania is *not* a state, it's a commonwealth".

[Beelzebud]

156. mispost

[Orsino]

162. Ask someone married how s/he'd feel....

...about not getting to use the term. Marriage really is fundamental to society, as even the worst bigots tend to admit/crow, and banning a segment of consenting adults from participation makes them second- or third-class citizens.

Should we create an honorary "resident" status for women or minorities, that's like citizenship but not called citizenship? Should we write new tax laws to accommodate their status? Are these things we should do, just to keep the bigots happy? should we tell them that rights are not rights, but subject to the whims of the majority?

Civil unions will not "resolve" this particular issue. Separate isn't equal, and even if it were, I wouldn't trust a GOP-dominated government to keep it so.