Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NJ's creation of civil unions instead of marriage is a disappointment, but

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 » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:54 AM
Original message
NJ's creation of civil unions instead of marriage is a disappointment, but
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 08:56 AM by cali
it's still a step forward. Yes, I'd prefer to see marriage for all in NJ and here at home in VT, but both states have now extended rights to gays and lesbians that mirror marriage. If we can get 6 or 7 more states on board with either civil union laws or marriage for all statutes, we'll have enough of a critical mass to start pushing for federal rights for gays and lesbians in those unions.

So although I am disappointed in NJ's decision, I do see it as a move in the right direction. Now we need more states to either grant extensive rights through civil unions, or, preferably, grant the right of marriage to gays and lesbians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
1. Every step forward
advances the cause of equal rights. When enough states have some sort of legally recognized status for homosexual couples and everyone sees that marriage is not destroyed by it, we can move forward on a federal level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. A positive development is the removal of discrimination
with regard to adoption, survivorship/inheritance/pension, and other benefits. It's not everything, but it's better than the other 49 states.

Now, if all couples could only AFFORD to live in New Jersey, that would be a great thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. The word 'marriage' seems to scare people off when it comes to
trying to get these agreements.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Geoff R. Casavant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
19. I agree -- there are three covenants of marriage
The first is the covenant the couple makes to themselves -- and that covenant happens regardless of any laws supporting or denying it.

The second is the covenant the couple makes with their community and their church -- again, this will happen regardless of laws.

The third is the covenant between the couple and the government, and it is here that the law has fallen behind reality. I once read a proposal that all goverment sanctioned unions be called "civil unions," whether straight or gay. Get away from the religious and traditional overtones of the word "marriage."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. It is a step forward only in the sense...
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 09:01 AM by TechBear_Seattle
That Jim Crow and "separate and inherently unequal" were steps forward from outright slavery.

Sure, it's an improvement, but most definitely NOT something to be happy about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Perhaps I didn't make my central
point well enough: It is, that if enough states join MA, NJ and VT, there will be a critical mass that will enable a push for federal rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
23. I'll beg to differ. Although it is certainly unequal and indequate,
it is an IMPORTANT improvement for those it benefits.

Important enough, I think, to be happy about it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
5. I think they should do away with civil marriage entirely
make everybody, straight or gay, have to live with civil unions.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Do we have to go over this yet again?
Marriage is and always has been a civil institution in this state, religious idiots to the contrary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. New Jersey has a right to do what ever it wants
and if you want to say Marriage is nothing more than a civil institution, that's your right too. To me it seems clear that people have endowed the civil marriage with religious signficance, regardless of what the law actually says.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. It is not what I say, it is what the United States Constitution demands
Under the First Amendment, no religious ceremony may carry any kind of legal significance. No religious ritual, no matter how important to its practicioners, will ever create a legal marriage without the filing of the proper civil papers with the appropriate civil agency. The filing of such papers does not, and may not, require the enactment of a religious ritual.

You have been told this repeatedly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. I'm really not trying to pick a fight
I apologize.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
6. Personally I think the GLBT community can do better than marriage
Heterosexuals have spent almost 2000 years making a mockery of marriage to the point that one in every 2 marriages usually end up the divorce court. I think GBLT deserve better.

The most important thing here is that GLBT can receive the same exact benefits that heteros receive. Plus I read somewhere where NJ gov could make a mint off of allowing out-of-state same-sex couples to 'marry' in NJ - it's a major influx of travel tax dollars to a state government in need of finding more money in their budget. If New Jerseyians are smart they should setup someplace like Atlantic City as a destination for same-sex couples across the country to get married. There is alot of money to be made here!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Just 2000 years? More like 7000 years
Making a mockery of marriage didn't begin with the birth of Christ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Yeah you're absolutely right
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
8. I think ALL unions should be civil unions, and religious 'marriage' an ADDED option.
That would settle everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. that is exactly my opinion
make everyone who wants to have "couples rights" under the law, get a civil union. if you want a religious marriage ceremony to go along with it, that is up to you and your church/temple/whatever.


anyone already holding a marriage license would of course be grandfathered.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OregonBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. I agree. Tired of this debate. Make all unions civil unions and add
religious marriage if you really think you need it!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. Technically, that would accomplish equality
But we have to look at what's on the table.

Is anyone anywhere actually working on or lobbying for legislation to strip married couples of their current status and rename it a civil union? No.

But a number of states are moving toward equal access to civil marriage for everyone, and Massachusetts is already there.

I think gaining civil marriage for all is a more realistic political goal than abolishing civil marriage for all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
20. And this would be different from the present system how?
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 11:47 AM by mondo joe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Taking the emphasis off the word 'marriage' and putting it on civil unions.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. So it's just the word. Because legally, all marriages are civil unions
with an optional religious overlay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Exactly - and people need to accept that wording and deal with the FACT that
ALL civil unions are equal and religious marriages are the optional ceremonies that make no matter to federal status one way or another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. If people need to deal with it, why bother trying to change the word?
It doesn't change the legal status in the least.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Same old reason - marriage is also a 'sacrament' in many religions that predate
our country's laws.

Let them have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. If you think simply changing the name is either feasible or would be
accepted by the right, you are IMO quite naive.

People LIKE marriage recognized by the government. They will not want to change it to Civil Unions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Never said they'll LIKE IT...heheh. Just said it's the RIGHT thing to do.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Oh. Well if we're talking about the right thing to do, just let everyone marry.
Marriage as a state function has worked just fine for a long time. Just stop denying equal access to gays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
14. I Don't Care Much What They Call It. I Only Find It Important That They Are Granted The Same
benefits as married heterosexuals. As long as there is law to give them those equal benefits, I'm ok with it.
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 Oct 31st 2014, 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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