If Equal Civil Unions Were the Law, Bigots Would Mobilize to Ban Gays From Civil Unions

[mondo joe]

In the discussion about Civil Unions vs Marriage, what is frequently lost is that the problem isn't in the name but in the attitude of those who want NO LEGAL RECOGNITION of same sex couples.

Florida just voted to ban same sex civil marriage and "other legal unions treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof."

They're not the first state to do so.

The problem is not in the word: it is is in the belief that same sex couples don't deserve any legal recognition at all.

[QC]

1. It's amazing how few people understand this. n/t

[cali]

2. it doesn't have to be civil unions v. marriage

it can be, get civil union where you can (and where you can't get marriage) and then work toward marriage. Isn't it better for couples to have legal rights under the aegis of civil unions than no rights at all, if that's the current choice? And despite what happened in FL and other states, CA did not, as I understand, attempt to outlaw civil unions under prop 8.

Sentiment varies from state to state and region to region. It's a mistake to believe that FL represents MA or VT of NJ or NH or CA or other states- and visa versa.

[mondo joe]

3. I'm trying to keep two things from being conflated:

1. CUs vs Nothing: I agree, a civil union is better than nothing because it helps to address real needs and can be a stepping stone.

2. Let's Just Get Everyone Civil Unioned And Then No One Will Care: This is the uninformed argument I'm tying to address in this thread. Civil Unions are often presented as a simple no-fuss solution by people who don't understand the reality of the situation.

[CTyankee]

7. How about stating that everyone has equal protection of the laws under our Constitution?

The umbrella of the Constitution protects ALL of our rights. Get away from having this portrayed as a zero sum game. It isn't. We share the protections our Constitution gives us. To say anything different is unAmerican.

[ruggerson]

4. yep

[Recursion]

5. Right, but you can't ignore the fact that CU laws easily pass in states...

...that will eagerly ban marriage.

Which is to say, I think you're oversimplifying people's motivations.

[mondo joe]

6. In which states do CU laws easily pass?

Seriously.

In WA state it took forever, and then passed just barely, and not even with full equal status.

[Recursion]

8. Well, for example, California

They've had unions (domestic partnerships) since 1999 and there's no sign of that being overturned. VT, CT, NJ, NH, and DC passed them without fuss but I think marriage would have significant problems in all those places.

And in general domestic partnership or union recognition gets fairly high support nationwide; I just think you're wrong that people don't support unions.

[mondo joe]

10. I wouldn't call almost any of those "without fuss".

And I don't think civil unions get "fairly high support" - I think they get abstract approval, but not real support.

If there were really support they'd be more widespread.

[cali]

11. CT now has marriage.

Here in VT, the majority are now for gay marriage and we'll have it within a leg session or two.

[msongs]

14. Nov. 4, 2008 - Florida - outlaws civil unions for ANYBODY nt

[cali]

9. NH. Vermont has had civil unions that under our state constitution

have to provide all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. There can't be any exceptions under the law. And it's been in place for 9 years. In addition, we'll almost surely get marriage here, and be the first state to get there through the legislative process. The majority here now approves of gay marriage. It's a slight majority, but man, what a difference a decade has wrought. Hell, I don't think there's a single VT legislator who's against our civil union law. Not even a single repuke. CUs here have been a great stepping stone. They've really changed public perception.

Oh, and in NJ, I believe that civil unions went into effect with relatively little fuss.

[mondo joe]

13. And - as I said to you here and in your thread - I appreciate the stepping stone and

have no practical problem with it.

But passage of CUs in a few states doesn't translate into broad acceptance of them. We already have states that have banned them.

[LeftHander]

12. Wisconsin has similar wording...denying anything like marriage to same sex couples

It basically made it so the state cannot legally recognize a same sex couple in any way.

[tandot]

15. If they could, they'd try to legally ban all non-heterosexual sex

I agree, this isn't about marriage or civil unions.

[NorthCarolina]

16. Actually, I think they would like to ban ALL SEX other than for the explicit purpose of procreation

plus maybe an occasional romp in the airport mens room on the down-lo.

[unblock]

17. right, sex is only for (a) procreation and (b) republican donors.

[cali]

18. who is they?

There is absolutely no opposition left to civil unions in Vermont. And in a fairly recent poll, the majority supports gay marriage. Support for civil unions is higher, at over 70%, but still there's majority support for marriage for all. I don't know of any great movement to repeal civil unions in NH or NJ. CT has moved with no fuss to marriage.

[tandot]

22. I am talking about extreme religious zealots who were responsible

for financing the prop 8 ads full of lies to scare the average voter ("they'll teach it to your 2nd graders" "they'll take away your religious freedoms" "they already have Civil Unions and therefore the same rights as married people" etc.)

Civil unions do NOT offer the same rights and privileges as marriage. There are over 1000 rights that civil unions do not offer.

[cali]

23. wrong. just wrong. There is NO NONE ZERO ZIP NADA federal

recognition of gay marriages. How people don't understand this is beyond me. THE FEDERAL RIGHTS BESTOWED ON STRAIGHT MARRIAGES ARE NOT BESTOWED ON THOSE GAY COUPLES MARRIED IN CA MA OR NOW CT.

It's absurd to pretend that they do.

[tandot]

24. 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.

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

[cali]

25. One more time:

In Vermont (I can't speak for NH, NJ or CA) those in civil unions have all the rights that the state bestows on straight marriage. Every one. Constitutionally mandated. In MA and CT obviously, gays and lesbians have all those rights.

NO gay or lesbian couple whether joined by marriage or civil union has federal rights that are granted to married straight couples.

[NorthCarolina]

29. and contrary to what the fundies will try to tell you

these Federal Rights CANNOT be gained by having a lawyer "draw up contracts".

[Zodiak]

19. Civil unions are the modern equivalent of "separate but equal"

If we cannot call it a marriage, then there is inherent inequality. I'm sure that back in the day, "separate but equal" passed a lot more easily than "equal", but it was still wrong.

[cali]

20. seperate but equal did NOT grant rights to the black community

In fact Jim Crow laws took away rights. Civil Unions, imperfect as they are do the opposite of that. There was nothing wrong 10 years ago when the VTSC ordered the VT legislature to either grant marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples or to call it something else and grant ALL the rights of marriage. It's not the pefect end, but it was a damn good beginning, and now people here are ready to accept gay marriage. So in that respect, it worked, as well as providing all the legal protections of marriage.

Ironically, the GLBT community was ecstatic about the VT decision 10 years ago.

Civil unions aren't perfect, but they are better than nothing and they can in no reasonable way be comared to Jim Crow laws.

[Zodiak]

26. Jim Crow is NOT separate but equal

That is Plessy vs. Ferguson.

from wiki

"Blacks were entitled to receive the same public services such as schools, bathrooms, and water fountains, but the 'separate but equal' doctrine mandated different facilities for the two groups. The legitimacy of such laws was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537." (emphasis mine)

This sounds a whole lot like civil unions vs. marriage. You get all of the bells and whistles of marriage, but it is separate from the good god-fearing heterosexual version. It is inherently unequal to treat these entities any differently. We have been down this road before, and it leads to other things.....like Jim Crow.

[cali]

27. Yes, I know Plessy welll. I should have said that Plessy (Separate but equla)

enshrined oppression of blacks into the consittution. That sounds NOTHING like civil unions. It's beyond absurd to claim it does.

[Zodiak]

28. You can attach whatever negative connotations you wish

But it does not change my opinion nor the opinions of so many here.

It sounds exactly like separate but equal.

"You can get hitched, but you cannot call it marriage....we'll give you the rights that go with marriage, but you cannot call it that. Marriage belongs to us heteros."

[Greyhound]

21. Bingo! K&R n/t

:kick: