So, just what is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

[1monster]

Are not all legal marriages in this country "civil unions"?

Are not all legal marriages in this country "civil contracts"?

(And isn't "marriage" a religious concept rather than a civil concept?)

A couple (male/female, male/male, female/female) can go through a religious (or otherwise) ceremony and call themselves married, but if they don't have that civil contract (called a marriage license) sold by the state, they have no legal union.

On the other hand, a couple (male/female) can get a civil contract (marriage license) and have a legal union (marriage) and still not be married in the eyes of some churches...

If legal unions are passed into law, are they going to be different from marriages in anything other than name? Would male/female partners be allowed to have civil unions, also? Or would civil unions be limited to same sex couples?

If for some reason, a civil union couple decides to call it quits, how is the legal contract ended? Will one have to go to court and be issued a "dissolution" rather than a "divorce?" Or will the stipulations for ending a civil union simply be placed in a civil union contract? What happens if there is not pre-civil union contract?

Will those who are partners in a civil union be granted the same benefits/detriments of marriage re: income tax, health insurance, homesteaded property (in states that that homestead provisions), etc., etc.?

Will there be any difference between civil unions and marriage other than the name they are called? If so, which is more adventageous?

Just for the record, my feelings on gay marriage go something on the line of "Why shouldn't gays be allowed to suffer like the rest of us? ;)

I guess my real question is if this is an agrument in semantics or will there be a real difference other than what the partnership is called.

(Please don't point out that calling one a marriage and the other a civil union might/could/would lead to discrimination. I know that names do matter. But if all else is the same, it shouldn't be hard to change or compromise on both sides of that too.)

[LostinVA]

1. A very good thread explaining they are NOT the same -- at all

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4700877

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. As I understand it,

in states allowing "civil unions" of same sex couples, their rights are not the same as those of married couples. But I'm not sure. I was married by a judge in a civil ceremony myself, btw, opting to wait on the religious ceremony until sometime later.

[1monster]

7. I was married by a judge with no witness in the room, although his secretary signed

the license as a witness... she was in the outer office with the door closed. (Hmmm,am I legal?

Some aquaintences of mine had the marriage license and a notery in their living room. They were sitting around the coffee table which held the licesne.

The notery, a friend of the couple, said, "Are you sure you want to do this?" They said yes. She asked again, "Are you really really sure you want to do this?" Again they indicated that they did want to do "this."

The couple signed the license; the notery affixed her seal and signed the license.

And they were married.

No ceremony and no other witnesses... That was more than twenty years ago, and they are still married.

[alfredo]

91. You aren't married until you sign on that dotted line. If marriage is

done in a church without that legal document, it is not a legal marriage. I was told by the priest that we aren't legally married until we sign and have a witness sign the state document.

Our vows were said in a small restaurant. It was presided over by a gay priest. He made it special by wearing his best Hawaiian shirt. The best man was a former male prostitute, the maid of honor also gay. The music was done by an Atheist opera singer. Our reception was a boozy, hash brownie madcap affair.

We've been happily married and want all willing people to have the same right to marry the person they love. It doesn't have to be a church wedding, a justice of the peace or ship captain can do the deed. All that matters is the right to enter into that contract with the person you love, and trust.

[Xipe Totec]

3. I was married by a JP

In my own house, which my then future wife and I bought together and had it built.

We never got married by the church (we tried, but the church required that we first join the congregation (pay some dues, cough cough), and go through indoctrination, etc., etc., etc...

Too much rigmarole, so we said screw it.

As far as the Catholic church is concerned, my children are bastards born out of wedlock.

[SidDithers]

4. A very good post about why marriage is not a religious concept...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4700155

Sid

[MADem]

5. Civil unions are state-sanctioned. FEDERAL BENEFITS do not accrue to them.

You want to bring your foreign fiance over to the USA on a fiance visa?
Your fiance, and you, had BETTER BE heterosexual!!

You want your spouse to collect social security benefits based on YOUR, HIGHER wages?
You'd better be HETEROSEXUAL!

You work for the federal government, or serve in the military, and you want your spouse to get your survivor benefit annuity?
You'd BETTER be heterosexual!!!

You work for the feds, and you want your spouse to qualify for your medical benefits?
You'd BETTER be heterosexual!

That's the tip of the iceberg. There's over a thousand federal benefits that accrue to heterosexual unions. Homosexual unions, even from places like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont, don't get any Federal love.

Can you see why gays are a bit annoyed? I sure can.

[zeemike]

11. Seems to me that it could be solved by simple change to

Federal law....probably a presidential order would do it.

[MADem]

47. Presidents can't change laws. CONGRESS makes law, not Presidents.

Presidents just sign laws that Congress makes.

Obama has said he's opposed to gay marriage, he's not going to issue any orders on that line, even if he could (though he can't).

I think he's not going to touch gay marriage with a ten foot pole if he can possibly avoid it. If there are any gains for federal recognition of civil unions, I think they'll be very incremental. It won't solve the big issues attendant with the discrimination.

[zeemike]

55. As head of the executive branch he can issue executive orders

Like Bush did on so many things.
He could say to SS that they should pay civil unions the same as marriage and then the congress would have to act to overturn it.

[MADem]

70. He can't CHANGE LAW, though. That's just NOT ON. It will never happen.

Further, where DOMA is sloppy, the STATES THEMSELVES have stepped in to crush any hope of equal rights.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0957.htm

Besides, Obama has stated he's opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, and believes marriage is only for heterosexuals. He's not going to reverse that, or anything that smells like that, and he's not going to do anything that signals a future reversal. Rick Warren was a SIGNAL, you see--it was his way of saying "Breathe easy, DOMA fans....I'm not screwing with that law, I'm not going to ask my Congress to touch it with a forty foot pole." He's getting this out of the way early--he figures the shitstorm will eventually die down when his administration starts doing other stuff.

He can't say to SS that they should pay civil unions, because DOMA prohibits it. Plainly. It's in the language of DOMA. They don't distinguish between any union between gays.

DOMA specifically interferes with any such attempt. That is what it was designed to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.


Now, keep in mind that there is a FEDERAL definition of marriage. DOMA says that Civil Unions can't be treated as marriages for any purposes (to include according rights). It's a very neat package, you see. It closes all the loopholes.

Congress would not act to overturn, because the President does not, and can not, make law--the Supreme Court would step in, and set the situation back a hundred years or more--and probably put prayer back in school while they're at it.

Congress will likely move incrementally, if at all. There's just no percentage in them helping out a "minority group" like gays, unless and until a critical mass of crusty old straights like me gripe about it as well.

[zeemike]

73. Well I have learned something here, thank you

But I do wonder about is the language of that bill.
May not and shall not have different meanings. May not is saying that it can be changed and could mean that he could do it by executive order...but I am not a lawyer.

[MADem]

83. Do you see why gay people are pissed off?

I think if heterosexual couples were told that they couldn't, as widows or widowers, collect social security based on their spouse's earnings, but instead, had to rely on the bare minimum, they'd revolt. And further, the language of DOMA gives the states PERMISSION to behave in a discriminatory fashion. It's really a rather odious piece of work.

[zeemike]

84. Yes I do

And I think it is totally unfair that they do not have the same benefits as any other couple.
What I don't understand is why they are pissed at me and others who support them but suggest a compromise where the religious own the word marriage and civil unions be treated the same as marriage.
The only thing I can figure is that they just want to rub the christians noes in it...which is just anger and not a quest for civil rights.
And please don't bother to post how if it is not called marriage they will be treated differently, I have already read that reason here. Black people did not insist that they be called white in order to keep from being discriminated against although I am sure it would have helped.

[MADem]

85. They're pissed because too many people don't understand that separate is not equal.

When people say "Oh, shut up, you can marrry in Massachusetts, what are you bitching about?" they don't understand that other states can and do refuse to recognize that marriage, that federal benefits do not accrue, that they are, indeed separate and not equal.

There can be no "compromise." They're angered because even suggesting such a thing is an endorsement of Separate and Unequal.

A compromise is acceptance of discriminatory treatment. That's like saying "Gee, you blacks, we 'let you' have the vote, now get your asses to the back of the bus--oh, and we're putting balconies back in movie theaters, too! Stop GRIPING....you GOT the VOTE, after all! Geeez, what MORE do you whiners want? Isn't that 'good enough' for now?" Imagine how well that would fly. It wouldn't. It's a human rights issue, and human rights trump Christian rights.

"Oh, it's not a big deal" for people like me, because I won't ever find myself in a position where I can't get married to a gay person. That's not my orientation. That's not my BIOLOGY. It's way to easy to say, then, that it's not my issue, either. But I can't do that.

Discriminating against people based on how they're physically made is just wrong. It's wrong to do it to black people, to brown people, to gay people, or to people who are left-handed or have red hair or are stuck in wheelchairs.

We can't change how we're made. We all deserve a right to live and love and make a home like everyone else. And that's the thing that some of these hating "Christians" don't seem to get.

[zeemike]

86. Well some questions on Separate but equal

That came from the civil rights movement which meant the black people should be separated from white society.
No one is suggesting that gay people go to different schools and live in segregated housing...that would be separate even if things were equal.
How is a black person able to be the same as a white person unless they bleach their skin or something.
Blacks never asked to be white they just wanted to live freely and equally in our society.
So if separate but equal has any application here you will need to show me how gays are herded into segregated neighborhoods or schools or kept from employment by law.
Unfortunately we can do nothing about how individuals feel, but the laws can provide for equal treatment...and that is all they can do.

[MADem]

88. No, they are just suggesting that they have separate BENEFITS, even though they pay into the system

like everyone else.

And their separate benefits consist of BENEFITS AT THE SINGLE RATE, even if they are married. See, they ARE herded into a separate pen. They ARE separated from others who are in the same situation as they--even if they marry, in CT or MA, or "civil union" in VT, they are still DENIED FEDERAL BENEFITS. Unlike straight people who do the same thing.

That's SEPARATION and it's UNEQUAL. And it is a BIG deal.

It's obvious that you still don't get it. Try, please. TRY.

Let's take away your right to get a visa and a green card for your foreign-born fiance, let's take away your ability to file a joint tax return, let's take away your ability to file for social security benefits as a widow/er using your spouse's HIGHER pay so you'll get a larger benefit....and then let's pretend that these things aren't "so bad." Let's say your husband works for the federal government, as a civilian worker, in the military, what-have-you--let's take away your ability to get health benefits based on his employment, let's prohibit you from getting governmental housing that's provided to others in the same job, let's prevent you from being named as an annuitant on his retirement benefit.

Are you starting to get an idea of what this is all about?

Come on. It's not a question of blacks "wanting to be white" or gays "wanting to be straight." You know, those "lucky black people" were able to take advantage of the federal benefits that accrued from marriage, even when they were shuttled off to separate schools and facilities--the federal benefits that are STILL, to this day, denied to gays.

It's HUMANS we're talking about, here, who only want the same benefits and treatment that other people get.

It's an issue of BIOLOGY, not morality.

[zeemike]

89. Oh I get it and we are in agreement with equal status.

But what you are not getting is that to compare that equal economic status to a policy enacted by the south to segregate a whole race of people from society is to trivialize it.
It is one thing to be deprived off some economic benefit and quite another to be denied housing and education and a job.
There is another way to solve the problem os inequity that would thrill the right wing and that would be to eliminate federal benefits to all couples...If they offered you that in exchange for saying that your are married in the eyes of the law would you like it?

[MADem]

90. It does not "trivialize" it at all. You aren't quite getting it, apparently.

How about I pay you LESS than than someone doing your exact same job...just because of a physical characteristic?

Is that trivial?

A good percentage of the federal rights denied to gay couples ARE economic benefits. That translates to a tax on them for being gay.

You also, from your last sentence, apparently are laboring under the misapprehension that I am gay. I am not gay. I am simply a crusty old straight person who feels that human rights are human rights, and denial of rights to one is denial of rights to all.

The right wing would not be thrilled at depriving couples of federal benefits--are you kidding? How will the widow live, if after all of her years of being barefoot and pregnant, at home, in the kitchen, she is unable to tap social security benefits based on her HUSBAND's wages? See, that's what gay people can't do, either--get benefits based on a spouse's wages.

You have some more study to do on this issue. You aren't understanding it. You don't realize that yes, it IS "just as bad" as segregation. It's less OBVIOUS, but it's just as bad.

When you give someone less, just because of their biology and for no other reason, that is wrong. There's no mitigation, there's no "Oh, well..." to be said. It's WRONG.

[zeemike]

92. I try to never make assumptions about anyone I talk to on the net

And I would point out to you that black people waited years for equal pay and to some extent they are still waiting.
That is because we can make laws and enforce them but we cannot change the way people think just through leduslation...and we will definatly not change few of those minds with hostile rhetoric.

But if the right wing care so much about widows then why did the try in many ways to destroy SS and reduce the government to a size that they could take into the bathroom and drown?
It is after all government programs that provide these economic benefits is it not?
And if you thing that it is just as bad as segregation in the south you need to study history a little more...for me it is not necessary because I lived it.

[MADem]

93. OK, so now you want to play the "two wrongs make a right" game?

GEE, black people waited for years for equal pay. That means "Let's punish GAYS too, while we're at it! Why the fuck not? They haven't waited long enough...yeah, that's the ticket!"

Say, women only make seventy cents for every buck a man makes--so that makes screwing gays over OK, too!

I have studied history--more than you have, apparently, which is why I can see the painfully apparent similarities between these issues. You, OTOH, only see the surface of the situation. You think that if those pesky, complaining queers can sit in the front of the bus and go to the white movie theater, why, they're part of society and they're "equal"--or "equal enough" for now.

You need to study this issue, because you plainly do not understand it. At all.

FWIW, spell check is your friend.

[zeemike]

94. You know that is not what I said

But at this point i think it would be a waste of yours and my time to keep defending myself or justifying what I say.
But the best way to study history is to live it.

[MADem]

95. I have lived it. I remember separate accomodation quite clearly.

I have used segregated bathrooms, sipped from segregated water fountains, and watched films in segregated movie houses.

The best way to study history is to live it, sure.... AND STUDY IT--read the facts and laws surrounding it.

I've done both. You haven't, apparently.

[zeemike]

96. Yes I have, but it was apparently a different side of racism

Than you saw.
The side I saw was no where near a comparison to mealy being denied a deduction on income tax.
Did you go to a black theator...did you talk to black people, did you live with black people?
Then how could you know how a principle like separate but equal felt to them? How could you compare that to being denied economic privileges?

[MADem]

97. Merely (sic) being denied a deduction on an income tax?

How about MERELY being denied social security benefits?

How about MERELY being denied a retirement annuity?

How about MERELY being denied health care benefits?

How about MERELY being denied....EQUALITY.

Thanks for that post.

Now I know where YOU are a-coming from. You just revealed yourself and it wasn't pretty.

You have no clue what color or ethnicity I am, either. But you're doing a great job assuming, aren't you? While you continue to play the TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT game.

Pathetic.

[zeemike]

98. Every time I post I reveal myself and so do you.

I am not ashamed of what I have said.
And how about mearley being denied health care because you cant afford it?
Or single people not getting the same tax break that married do.Are they also considered separate but equal? How about equality for THEM?
How about people being denied SS benefits because they did not work at a paying job? Equality for them too?
How about those that have no retirement at all...do we treat them equal?
I could go on and on but none of that matters because tax brakes are not a civil right.
And retirement is not guaranteed to everyone nor is medical care unless you can afford it.

But get this I don't care what color or ethnicity you are it is not about you.

[MADem]

99. We're done, here. You've told me all I need to know.

If you aren't ashamed of your attitude, that is telling, too. This little exchange is a gem for the archives, that's for sure.

Providing other examples of inequities doesn't make any inequity "right" or "better." Gee, why did blacks complain about Jim Crow? After all, Jews were killed and thrown into OVENS!!! Gosh, that's WORSE!!!!! That's the quality of the argument you offer--it's sick. Pathetic. Uninformed. Enabling. Excusing. SAD.

You're saying being discriminated against because of your BIOLOGY isn't "so bad." There's no difference between being gay or being black or being chinese. It's not something that can be CHANGED. It's not something that the individual can control. It is a function of one's biology. That point is lost on you.

And you are proud of the fact, apparently, that this truth isn't sinking in.

You have a happy holiday. Read the DU policy on gay marriage sometime--it's an eye-opener (for you, anyway).

[zeemike]

100. I did not say any of the things you said i said

But that is why I thought we were through a few post ago.

[MADem]

101. You said what you said--and they're GEMS for the archives.

Happy holidays.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

104. That being said...

Can't the new Congress repeal the DOMA and then allow the President, by Executive Order, to direct all Executive Branch agencies to treat all civil unions alike?

Here's my problem with all of this. I don't like the government to be doling out rights based upon one's willingness to participate in a church ritual. At the same time, I understand how stable homes and families create stable neighborhoods and stable societies, so it's in the interest of government to encourage people to "hook up" over the long term.

I just don't get why any two adults can't fill out some forms, pay a little fee, receive a marriage license and then be considered married in the eyes of the government and for all legal purposes.

If Rick Warren doesn't want to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples in his church, that's his right under the First Amendment. Other churches will, and gay couples can go there if they desire a church wedding.

If pressed, I would have to say that I'm against "gay marriage" simply because I'm also against "straight marriage," at least to the extent that the government uses a religious sacrement as the basis for determining citizenship.

[cali]

13. yep. gays and lesbians either in civil unions or marriages are denied

each and every federal right automatically conferred on hetero married couples. It's just wrong.

[Mike 03]

28. Cali, I am confused. Why wouldn't gays in "marriages" (as declared by law as true)

not accrue these benefits that are bestowed to heterosexuals?

[cali]

41. Because same sax marriages are not recognized by the

federal government. And they aren't recognized in most states either. For instance, a same sex marriage performed in MA isn't recognized in the majority of states, due to state laws in those states. DOMA, alas.

[MADem]

48. The FEDERAL government doesn't recognize "gay marriage."

DOMA, remember?

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate<1> and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives<2>, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

[1monster]

16. I see your point, but there is a federal law somewhere on the books that

requires states to recognize the marriages legally perfromed in other states. Also, I was asking under the assumption that "civil unions" would be national (federally recognized), not just statewide.

Since at the moment, we do not have established civil unions, you have pointed out some very valid concerns.

BTW, back in the seventies, there was a movie called I WILL, I WILL, FOR NOW. It was all about the idea of marriage as a renewable contract. The couple would vow to love, honor, etc., etc., for a period of time, usually seven years, with a renewal clause that could be exercised indefinitely.

Personally, I thing that marriage needs a complete overhaul. It isn't working to well as it is anymore.

[Bill McBlueState]

22. if there's a law like that

"a federal law somewhere on the books that requires states to recognize the marriages legally performed in other states"

then same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts would be valid everywhere in the US. I wonder why that's not the case.

[1monster]

42. The Full Faith and Credit Clause and Act of the Constitution which basically states:

This information was difficult to find as almost all keywords regarding federal law and marriage assumed I was looking for info on same sex marriage...

The act declares, that the record, duly authenticated, shall have such faith and credit as it has in the state court from whence it is taken. If in such court it has the faith and credit of evidence of the highest nature, viz., record evidence, it must have the same faith and credit in every other court.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been noted for its application involving orders of protection, for which the clause was expounded upon by the Violence Against Women Act; child support, for which the enforcement of the clause was spelled out in the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738B); and its possible application to same-sex marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws and cases, as well as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. The clause has been the chief constitutional basis for challenges to the DOMA.

As of early 2004, 39 states have passed their own laws and constitutional amendments, sometimes called "mini DOMAs," which restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. Most of these "mini DOMAs" explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

[HamdenRice]

30. Yes, "Full Faith & Credit Clause": It's why the Defense of Marriage Act is probably unconstitutional

It's not a normal federal law. It's the U.S. Constitution. The "Full faith and credit clause" says:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

In other words, things like birth certificates, court judgments, divorces and so on (public Acts and Records) carried out by one state are enforceable and recognizable in any other state.

So if Connecticut allows gay marriage, a gay couple married in Connecticut that moves, say to Alabama a state that doesn't doesn't itself grant gay marriage, Alabama would have to, according to the constitution, recognize the Connecticut marriage.

The DOMA says that no state has to recognize the same sex marriage of another state. This seems to be clearly unconstitutional, but it hasn't been tested in the Supreme Court.

This is why if

(1) one state grants gay marriage, (2) a gay couple married in that state moves to some other state that uses DOMA not to recognize it, (3) the couple tests the second state's refusal to recognize their marriage, (4) the couple takes the case to the Supreme Court and wins,

then basically the entire gay marriage debate would be over.

It's my guess that this is something that Democratic politicians assume is going to happen and why they will not expend much political capital on the issue. It is likely to be solved in the Supreme Court anyway.

[ieoeja]

Full faith and credit "as regulated by Congress".

So it is *not* unconstitutional on that basis. The ban on intragender marriage may be unconstitutional on purely human rights basis, but not on the full faith and credit argument.

It is really better to get these things settled via the courts. Otherwise, civil rights could be handed out then taken away after every election.

[HamdenRice]

81. Point of information: The clause about Congress is very trivial

The text does not say that Congress can regulate full faith and credit. It says:

"...Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof <that is, the effect of the proof>."

So this is a very technical provision about the courts, and more specifically federal courts which Congress regulates, not about the effect of full faith and credit. When you see words about "proving," you are basically seeing references to federal evidence rules. It merely means that Congress can prescribe the way that you prove an Act, Record or Proceeding -- meaning prove in court, and the effect of that proof in federal court. When it was drafted, the clause was primarily concerned with enforcing court judgments of one state in another, and those out of state judgments have to be proved in the deciding state's court or a federal court.

It does not mean that Congress has extensive power to cause one state to disregard the acts and proceedings of another state.

However, you are correct, that there are limits to the Full Faith and Credit Clause that could prevent the courts from declaring DOMA unconstitutional. That is the public policy exception to the clause -- an exception that says that the federal courts won't force one state to enforce legislation from a second state that is against the public policy of the first state.

[MADem]

44. There's a FEDERAL DEFINITION to marriage.

And to make matters worse, we have that stupid DOMA. Civil unions for gay folk would be both separate and unequal.

Even if states recognize marriages, the feds don't have to--and they're not. Massachusetts has "marriage" but it doesn't help at the federal level.

I don't know what the future of marriage is; all I know is that back in the day, the only "unwed mothers" I knew lived in Jamaica and Europe! Now, most young mothers I meet nowadays, though, haven't bothered to "tie the knot." Heck, we've got a few in the family -- and that would have been UNHEARD OF back in the day.

IF this keeps up the issue will be moot, or it will be overtaken by some sort of popular demand.

[MADem]

45. Darn double click!

[MADem]

49. ....

Always posting in the wrong spot...!

[zeemike]

6. There is a simple solution to this.

Allow the religious churches the copy write on the word marriage.
They would have standing because it was their invention.

now let the flame war beguine.

[SidDithers]

9. It wasn't their invention, they co-opted it...

like they did with most of their mythology.

See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4700155

Sid

[zeemike]

14. So what...let them have the word. n/t

[1monster]

10. Well, maybe, but didn't marriage exist BEFORE the churches? I'm aware

of only one major religion which has been in existance longer than the traditional 2000, plus or minus, of the Christian churches (not sure about some of the more obscure religions).

And that is Judeaism. Was there not marriage before that?

[zeemike]

18. You mean Hindu, Buddhism and other eastern religions are obscure?

And they may have been around a lot longer than Judaism.
But the point is that they could own the word and no one could give a dam.

[1monster]

20. Do the Hindu and Buddhist religions predate Christianity? I was under the

impression that they came later. But it's been quite a long time since I studied comparative religions.

[zeemike]

27. From Wikipedia

Hinduism originated on the Indian subcontinent. It is considered by some to be the world's oldest extant religion. Hinduism contains a vast body of scripture divided as revealed and remembered expounding on dharma, or religious living. Hindus consider the Vedas and the Upanishads as being among the foremost in authority, importance and antiquity. The Bhagavad Gītā, a treatise excerpted from the Mahābhārata, is sometimes called a summary of the spiritual teachings of the Vedas. It is difficult to identify any universal belief or practice in Hinduism, although prominent themes include: Dharma, Samsara, Karma, and Moksha. Hinduism is sometimes called a polytheistic religion, but this is an oversimplification. Hinduism includes a diverse collection of schools whose beliefs span monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, monism and even atheism. For instance, the Advaita Vedanta school holds that there is only one causal entity (Brahman), which manifests itself to humans in multiple forms, whereas traditions such as Vaishnavism and Shaivism worship Vishnu and Shiva in a monotheistic sense. A number of scholars even consider the Samkhya school of thought to have atheistic leanings.<3>

[Pithlet]

8. To answer your third question. No. Marriage isn't just a religious concept.

I'm atheist/agnostic. I was not raised in a religious family to begin with. I did not get married in a church. And I'm married. I'm just as married as anyone who was married in a church.

[1monster]

19. I wasn't married in a church either. I'm not agnostic or a theist... but neither do I belong

or wish to belong to a church of any kind.

I guess my idea of marriage as a religious concept comes from the idea that, in the far distant past, one could be married "common law" (not refering here to people who live together without the benefit of a marriage license) without the blessings of the church or one could be "married" if the ceremony was performed by a priest or other clergyman.

[Pithlet]

25. Well, it isn't now.

We're talking legal rights, here. Once upon a time a lot of things happened differently. But marriage is a legal contract now and has been for a long, long time.

[mondo joe]

12. Sorry, but even if all else is the same it IS a problem.

Making its final recommendation, the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission says the civil union law 'invites and encourages' harm to same-sex couples and their children

***

The civil union law "invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children," concludes the final report, titled The Economic, Legal, Medical and Social Consequences of New Jersey's Civil Union Act. "In a number of cases, the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for civil union couples."

***

According to the final report, the civil union law's harm to same-sex couples includes:

-- The inability of a number of same-sex partners to visit one another in
the hospital, and to make medical decisions for one another, because
hospitals don't accept civil unions as equal to marriage. The
Commission's final report begins with the story of Naomi and Gina,
a couple in Montclair, New Jersey who had a humiliating and
life-threatening experience at a hospital. Gina was admitted to the
emergency room with cardiac arrhythmia, unable to give consent for
treatment. When Naomi arrived and said she was Gina's partner, the
doctor interrogated Naomi about the nature of the relationship and
initially kept Naomi away from Gina and refused to let her give consent
for Gina. The report has other stories like this.


http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/In-New-Jersey-a-Blue/story.aspx?guid={967F097A-668E-4BE4-82D7-8CD6CF9EFFE5}

[Mari333]

15. HERE IS YOUR ANSWER:

nswer: According to Lambda Legal Defense, more than 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon heterosexual married couples in the United States. By not being allowed to marry, gays and lesbians are denied these rights. Even in the state of Massachusetts, the only US state with legalized gay marriage, most of the benefits of marriage do not apply, because the Defense of Marriage Act states that the federal government only recognizes marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife".

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.

AND CIVIL UNIONS DO NOT GIVE THESE BENEFITS.













http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

[rgbecker]

17. This thread is just trying to complicate a really simple issue with a lot of zany questions.

Listen, you're either with us or against us. Get that straight. Its just like everything else.
Now line up, left or right, right or wrong, black or white, Gay or Straight.

I gotta get back to my book, " What's the matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank. Seems to have a good grip on where the USA has been and hopefully, where it is climbing out of.

[1monster]

33. So, asking questions is forbidden? Frankly, while I see no reason gays can't marry,

that kind of remark sets me squarely against YOU. Not homosexuals, not bisexuals, not heterosexuals, not even asexuals. You sound remarkably like George W. Bush.

Gay rights are moving forward at a much faster pace than civil rights for people of color did (well over 100 years), and God knows, far faster than rights for woman have. It took until August, 1920 for women to be Constitutionally granted the right to vote (fifty years after African Americans men were Constitutionally given the right to vote) and we were shot down on the Equal Rights Amendment.

The very fact that Civil Unions are being floated means that gay marriage will eventually come to pass. I did not and was not suggesting that anyone settle for that if it is not what is wanted. I was simply asking what civil unions actually are and how they would be the same or different from marriage.

Also, I'm not adverse to the idea of civil unions for heterosexual as well as homosexual couples. It might be an improvement on marriage, which is hidebound by traditions that often impede a relationship.

[rgbecker]

69. Actually I enjoy the questions.

I am just amazed that with all the talk about this issue in the media and among the voting public, which have been sounding off on this issues all over America, there are so few questions being asked that would lead to a little discussion of all these issues you have brought up. I think the American public is just using this gay marriage issue to bash gays and have not thought a bit about the history of marriage, the role of the church vs. the role of the state in marriage and the legal issues concerning marriage and divorce. I keep forgetting sarcasm never goes over very well on the internet. Keep it up. By the way, my marriage here in Massachusetts has no meaning now that gays can marry. I never should have bothered. (Whoops, did it again!)

[NMMNG]

21. Gah

[Caliman73]

23. Semantics is enough.

Semantics can be the difference between acceptance into society and discrimination. People die over differing concepts, semantics as it were. Heterosexuals (of which I am one) tend to believe that they are the norm (which we are statistically), but we have imbued that standard with attributes far greater than the numbers suggest. Because male/female relationships make up the majority of romantic or arranged unions there is a belief that they are inherently better and should be afforded validation that is denied to homosexual relationships. That is what this is about. It is about a word "marriage" which has great significance in the lives of most human beings. Most cultures have a concept for "marriage" which is spiritual, religious, and or legal. Whether you personally agree with marriage and what it stands for legally, spiritually, religiously, or personally, you have to know that our society sees marriage as the culmination of a relationship between two adults. What homosexual people want is to be afforded the same dignity that heterosexual people have always enjoyed with access to these concepts within their established parameters in the United States. I know you were being tongue in cheek about "suffering like the rest of us" but in fact that is the situation. Homosexual relationships, which are built on the exact same concepts as heterosexual relationships, are denied the ultimate validation in our society. The semantics correspond to attitudes that are responsible for denying complete access in our society to people just because they happen to love people of the same gender. Some heterosexuals think that just allowing homosexual people to use the word "marriage" will sully the entire concept, yet the staggering amounts of divorce, adultery, and abuse that goes on in heterosexual marriages does not. All the other stuff is fine as long as marriage remains the sole property of a man and a woman.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. If the answer is anything other than "nothing" it's not good enough. n/t

[Mari333]

26. ?

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. "Civil union" is inadequate if it is different in any way from marriage.

In fact, having a different name qualifies as a difference.

Sorry if I'm being unclear.

[mondo joe]

80. Exectly. New Jersey's study confirmed that CU's were not treated equally, even though

as far as state law was concerned they were supposed to be.

[Gwendolyn]

29. You're asking this NOW???

Where have you been the last ten years?

[unpossibles]

31. equality nt

[Mike 03]

32. Your last two sentences exclude something important though, especially for those of us who are not

gay, because it's something we have to stretch our minds to understand.

Words DO matter. What was the difference between sitting in the back of the bus or the front? What was the difference between sitting at the White Counter or the Black Counter, or drinking from the White Fountain or the Black Fountain?

It is the fundamental separation.

So by saying we should not discus the linguistics of this issue, that is another way of suppressing comment on one of the key issues.

Also, is it for heterosexuals to determine for gay people what the issues are and are not?

I'm new at this, but I am passionate about it. But in every single case of deciding what is acceptable for Gays and Lesbians, I am following their lead. In the end, their opinions are the opinions that matter.

Edit: humiliating typo: write instead of right. Sorry, I'm tired.

[noamnety]

34. Exactly right.

If it's the same water from the same source, is it just semantics?

I'm surprised DUers can't see why this image is offensive, or why that solution wasn't a great "inclusive" compromise that included the views of all "reasonable" people:

[Gwendolyn]

37. I see it as misfits and dysfunctional people coming out of the woodwork.

It's not like people couldn't have informed themselves before now concerning the differences. It appears to be the new fashion for all those who hate the institution of marriage to glom onto the issue of those who have been denied this right, to fight against it in general.

[1monster]

38. I find that image offensive. I find you equating my asking question honest questions

to racism or discrimination offensive.

I didn't offer insults to you. I asked questions because, while I've heard much about "civil unions," I've never heard exactly what they are.

A good many people answered in a genuine effort to enlighten me.

A few were just downright obnoxious.

Thank you for your concern.

(edit: inserted the word "heard")

[noamnety]

51. Photos have an immediacy that words don't always carry.

If you are offended by that image, that's good. You don't really need us then to explain in words why separate but equal is a problem.

[1monster]

52. I never suggested that separate but equal was the option. I was asking what civil unions are and

how they are the same and how they are different.

How that is advocating "separate but equal" beats me.

[mondo joe]

60. Actually, you did imply that separate but equal would be acceptable.

"(Please don't point out that calling one a marriage and the other a civil union might/could/would lead to discrimination. I know that names do matter. But if all else is the same, it shouldn't be hard to change or compromise on both sides of that too.)"

[1monster]

75. No, dear. I suggested that if they were the same in all but name, a compromise could be made

on BOTH sides. I didn't spell out the compromise; I guess I thought it didn't need spelling out.

The compromise would be to make the terms interchangeable with civil unions and marriage both being used for heterosexual and homosexual couples (I did suggest this down thread from my OP).

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who go nitpicking for something to criticize rather than to add something worthwhile to the dialogue.

[noamnety]

76. Can you explain again why we need to compromise on equal rights?

Marriage exists. Gays are prohibited from getting married.

I'm not understanding your concept of a compromise on equal rights - either you let everyone have the SAME rights or you don't.

The ONLY reason to create an entirely new set of shadow laws to establish "civil unions" is to develop a new way to prevent gays from having equal rights since they are getting too uppity to accept no marriage at all.

[1monster]

79. I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse. I am not

suggesting a compromise on civil rights.

And, since I've gotten responses from people who were willing to answer my questions rather than use them as a stick with which to beat me, I don't need your obstructive comments making me out to be some sort of latter day KKK.

[noamnety]

72. Can you look at those drinking fountains

and understand how they are the same and how they are different?

If someone asked you that question about those fountains, how would you answer it? That's what I'm asking you to do - to think that part of the equation through on your own. Seriously. There was a long time in our history, not so long ago, when benevolent people who considered themselves supporters of African American rights didn't see what the big deal was with those fountains. It was just taken for granted. If you were living 50 years ago and someone asked you how are the fountains the same and how are they different, how would you answer?

[1monster]

77. Once again, I never said anything about separate but equal. I asked how they were

the same and how they were different.

Someone else suggested that I was condoning "separate but equal," something I'd never do, because "separate but equal" seldom if ever is equal.

[noamnety]

78. I see you aren't thinking this through yet.

You asked: "if this is an argument in semantics or will there be a real difference"

With the drinking fountains, was that all an argument in semantics? Or can you put into words what the real difference was?

It's like a riddle. I'm asking you to try to solve it yourself.

[Gwendolyn]

103. I can't reply to everyone...

But this is the worst of it, so I'll do it here.

We have a couple of older teenagers staying with us for awhile, and they have a sense of humor that only teenagers can understand, as well as very little sense of boundary. We've made everything in this house available to them, which hasn't always worked out for the best. They're off my puter now, indefinitely. I apologize for the rudeness. Merry Christmas... and happy holidays.

[zeemike]

35. The answer to that is labeling

Black and white, gay and strait.
But the labels in question are married or civil union.
So if we want to homogenize everything we should not call people black and whit or gay and strait.

We could just adopt Newspeak where all words are eliminated except for the basic ones so that people would not be able to think differences at all,

[Gwendolyn]

46. You want to "homogenize" everything?

What is wrong with you? :wow: How fascist!

Also, your post made no sense, so you get a hall pass. And learn the diff between straight and strait. I'm not a spelling nazi but sometimes the errors are poetic.

[zeemike]

54. No I don't, but if you want to it is ok with me

I don't like Newspeak, and I thought it would be obvious to everyone.

[Gwendolyn]

56. Civil unions have been around for awhile.

Anyone who doesn't get it after the 90's is just dumb or has another agenda.

Now you're interested. Why? That's the better question. What's your terrible story? :eyes:

You don't like news speak but have no idea what it means. :)

[zeemike]

67. My terrible story?

Is that I have spent the last 7 years or so here trying to get a democrat elected to office and now have to defend myself against all kinds of accusations as to my character, intelligence, and motive.
And all because of a man making a 3 minute speech at a ceremony that means shit.
The reason I came here in the first place was because it was a safe place where I could express myself without being accused and insulted.
But I guess those days are over now and we are back to square one.
I am beginning to think that people just like to fight and insult others to make themselves feel better.

And don't assume anything about me, most likely I read 1984 and George Orwell's essay before you were borne, unless you were borne before 1960.
And I have seen with my own eyes real discrimination and bigotry unlike anything you see today. Where black people had to shuck and jive before whit people just to stay alive, and you could be arrested for being gay.

It has taken decades to get to where we are now and the hard and dangerous work of many people any of whom died to make it happen.
And yes compared to then the distinction between marriage and civil Unions is trivial, and you should keep that in mind.

[Gwendolyn]

68. Feel better?

When all you 40 dumassess who have no one, go picket outside wherever you picket for the end of marriage, Ill be laughing. Guess it'll be on one of the teevee channels. Won't have anything to do with equal rights.

I'm glad you read orwell. That means a lot for someone. I'll use him too next time I'm stupid.

In the meanwhile, get your fucking asses off my marriage, and those we're trying to get for others.

[zeemike]

74. Perhaps you should read a few more books

It might help you with sentence construction and grammar.
See I can be snarky and insulting too.

[mondo joe]

57. Bullshit. The NJ study proved that the different name makes it substandard,

[1monster]

36. Words do matter. That was not the meat of my question. If civil unions were

the same as marriage in everything except name, then that would be a giant step forward in the fight for equal rights.

If a civil union was the same as marriage, then the biggest fight left would be to change the name of marriage to civil union or to change civil union to marriage.

Or to make both available to any couple of legal age to make a contract.

[zeemike]

39. And that would defuse the fight.

Which I wonder sometimes if that is not the goal or not.

[mondo joe]

59. Defuse the fight? You've got to be drunk. Look at how many states have banned

civil unions.

[Gwendolyn]

66. Babydear go get laid...

do not speak, as you are foolish. :)

[timtom]

40. A civil union is a legal status

A marriage is a religious sacrament.

[Mari333]

50. and legal marriages have more BENEFITS then civil unions.

nswer: According to Lambda Legal Defense, more than 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon heterosexual married couples in the United States. By not being allowed to marry, gays and lesbians are denied these rights. Even in the state of Massachusetts, the only US state with legalized gay marriage, most of the benefits of marriage do not apply, because the Defense of Marriage Act states that the federal government only recognizes marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife".

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.

[mondo joe]

62. Not in the united states. In the US marriage is the name for the legal status AND it's the

name for the religious rite.

[TWiley]

43. Married couples enjoy rights that the rest of us do not

It starts with more choices between tax laws, includes being able to enjoy social security survivor benifits, most companies do not allow unmarried partners to be included in insurance benifits, unmarried couples have little to no rights if the partner suddenly dies - family members can typically take it all in such cases. I was even not allowed to visit with someone in the emergency room because I was not legally related as a family member.

And, the discrimination does not stop there. It is clearly a civil rights issue that would be easy to solve if not for religious influences. I also have a feeling that insurance companies play a bit role in this issue as well. HIV / AIDS is very expensive to treat, and I think that those companies do not want the responsbility; it is easy to make a single person disappear.

It annoys me to no end that the fundamentalist / evangelical community pontificates about how they want all of us to behave when they are nothing more than a self-identifying cult. Think about it, there are few, if any at all, things that ALL Christians share in common. They cannot even agree if Jesus is God, Man, Profit, or something else. You become a Christian by simply saying that you are one .... no other effort is required. A group of dis-similar objects organized to become self-declaired moral supremists.

What can possibly go wrong with that?

[TexasObserver]

53. No, Marriage is not a religious concept rather than a civil concept.

Every state has extensive statutes and case law regarding the CIVIL LEGAL implications of marriage.

Marriage is a CIVIL agreement with rights under law that are long standing. Do you see any laws in any books about Baptism? About Christenings? About the requirements for joining a church?

When one is married and wants a divorce, it ain't the church that decides what happens to the assets and the kids. It's the LAW.

[Bucky]

58. What about me and my box turtle?

Why do you hate box turtles?

[EFerrari]

61. Equality. n/t

[baldguy]

63. Civil unions aren't universally recognized.

[leftofthedial]

64. it's the difference between interracial couples and homosexual couples.

oh. and the license. and a whole bunch of privileges.

[Skittles]

71. difference between sitting on the bus and being told to sit in the back

[PeaceNikki]

82. Exactly.

Our LGBT friends are being told that they should be happy that they get to be on the bus at all!

*although 37 states have written laws and/or amended their Constitutions to specifically ban them from from riding the bus at all and the Federal government says they don't HAVE to let gays on the bus in Wisconsin just because Massachusetts lets them on. They're being told they should wait and let the states work through this "issue".

[Bluenorthwest]

87. My question of the week for those who think

'it is just a word' and that we should 'let the religious have the word' is this:
how do you suggest that we make sure that all religious denominations follow the Fundie command and never call same sex unions 'marriage'? Specifics, please, about the actual methods you imagine might preserve 'word marriage' for the bigots? Will it be made illegal for some churches to practice as they see fit, if they wish to call it marriage? Will the cops shut down the UCC for holding illegal marriages, or for using the wrong terminology?
Or is the idea that the Government would print two identical forms, and only heterosexuals get teh one that says marriage? Is that it? Is the idea that the Government must treat some classes differently?
I honestly don't get the practical methods that would be used to 'leave the word marriage' to the Funides. We all have free speech, and freedom of religion. The Fundie bigot way is rejected by thousands of chruches. Shall they be arrested for calling two men married or what?
It just seems easy to say 'let them have the term' but the acualities of that are complex. How would you or a person who felt that way see it happening. That is my question. If that is such a great idea, how does it work?
If it is just about the word, how exactly do you suggest we control the use of that word? Something to think about. Easy to say, illegal to do.

[deaniac21]

102. There is nothing civil about marriage.