Civil Union or Marriage? It's all about the license!

[jansu]

Since you can not get married in a church, etc. without a Marriage License issued by the State and you receive a Marriage Certificate issued by the State, ALL MARRIAGES are really CIVIL UNIONS! So, they need to call all of them Civil Unions or all of them Civil Marriages!(There is no such thing as a Religious Marriage)! You can take that Marriage License and get married in a church, by a justice of the peace or at the bottom of the sea. Even if you marry in a church, it does not make it a religious document....it is Civil!

When the State issues a license for something, they can not discriminate against one sect of people! Could they get away with just issuing driver's licenses, hunting licenses, real estate licenses, Doctor's licenses, fill in your license here, to heterosexuals?

In every State, all GLBT's, who either want to marry or want to help in the cause, must go down and apply for a Marriage License! When they won't issue you one, take them to court! Sue them for discrimination under the law, using just this fact about licenses and the State! This is the time to fight for human rights, because this Administration is taking more and more of our rights away and on this one, they will lose. It will keep them busy, losing most places. It will have to go to the Supreme Court this year. When they lose there, it will just prove that they are bigots! And it will be in the news! They will have to spend more and more time in trying to explain their positions to the American People. With more and more Americans coming over to the Human Rights side.

Churches can still decide whom they allow to be married in their places, as they do now. Since I am not a Catholic, I can not marry in a Catholic Church.

But we must all have the same Marriage or Union....same name, same thing!

[plcdude]

1. exactly

I have said this very same thing in other threads. We are talking about a civil right and that is why the judges and many in law do not want to take this on. They know once it goes before a reasonable judge this civil right cannot be denied to select group. This is not rocket science. We need to send your comment to the democratic candidates so that they can speak clearly about it as a civil union.

[Taeger]

2. No ...

Marriage is an ancient civil institution. Our variety is inhereted from English common law that predates the introduction of Christianity.

Beyond that, it really doesn't fucking matter. We're a Democracy and the people will decide WHAT marriage is. If you look at what the people say, they overwhelmingly say it's a union between a man and a women.

The initiatives to STOP gay marriage is NOT a conspiracy of the right wing. It is an issue of middle America.

I DO think the right wing is full of hot air. I don't think society will collapse NOR would it affect anyone involved in "marriage classic". But it strikes at a fundamental issue of FORCING middle America to recognize gay unions.

Simply put ... THEY DON'T WANT TO!!!!! And the attempts to FORCE them through judicial order will FORCE them to support those Amendments.

The thing that is REALLY fucking things up is that the right wing (who ARE in control right now) will use this momentum to push anti-Civil Union and anti gay marriage measures into amendments that are SUPPOSED to simply protect states from respecting gay marriages in another.

[izzie]

4. Taeger I am starting to see where you are.

Since we all see the marriage is a contract by the govt. for what ever it is for, here marriage, you are saying that middle America will not let it be with gay people, Specially if we call it marriage. They would not say a thing if I left my money to a live in women by a will but we could not live together and call it marriage. This does not bother me at all, and I think the gays have turned up the turf when they did not need to but it is facing us. I do not think a ad mend. should be done as that is also silly but contracts are alright to me but lets not call it marriage.

[Taeger]

6. I think that the imposition

I think that the imposition of a new institution called "gay marriage" is actually more offensive to people than gay marriage itself. This is what people are reacting to.

Having disucssions on this board and being called a "homophobe" because I don't happen to think that a same sex couple is a marriage rather than a "new institution" has frankly pissed me off.

I find in offensive when people REFUSE to accept progress when it wasn't "everything they wanted". I find it offensive when you express "partial support" for a group and then they piss on you because you don't support them 100%.

[jansu]

5. Sorry, but we live in a Constitutinal Rep. Republic, vast difference!

Democracy and what you are talking about is just MOB RULE! Our form of Government is that the majority gets to decide things, unless and until they come up against someones rights under the Constitution. Then the courts decide, all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you think that the majority of the people wanted to end slavery, have Bi-racial marriage, women's right to vote, women't right to decide, civil rights movement, just think of all the advances we have made in Rights! They are almost always against the majority! Be thankful that you don't live in the Democracy you are talking about, then the majority could make laws and have them upheld which made something that you are, against the law!

[Taeger]

9. Your answers ...

Do you think that the majority of the people wanted to end slavery?


Yes the majority of the people in America wanted to end slavery. Slavery in the south was an unfair form of labor competition. The folks in the North didn't care much for black folk, but they didn't like slavery either.


Bi-racial marriage?

Bi-racial marriage is an institution as old as humanity. The inability to express this in a way that did not impune marriages between different WHITE races is probably what sunk opposition.

Women's right to vote?

http://www.rochester.edu/SBA/timeline1.html
<snip>
...
By 1900 women also have full suffrage in Utah, Colorado and Idaho.
...
1912 Suffrage referendums are passed in Arizona, Kansas, and Oregon.
...
1914 Montana and Nevada grant voting rights to women.
...
1917 Members of the National Woman's Party picket the White House. Alice Paul and ninety-six other suffragists are arrested and jailed for "obstructing traffic." When they go on a hunger strike to protest their arrest and treatment, they are force-fed.
Women win the right to vote in North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana, Rhode Island, Nebraska, Michigan, New York, and Arkansas.
...
</snip>

As you can see, there was a GREAT DEAL of public support for women's suffrage. One the most CONSERVATIVE of states (Utah) was FIRST to grant women's suffrage.

women't right to decide

I'm not sure there was a majority, but there was PLENTY of support for this.

Abortion was legalized in California in 1967

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/abortl.htm

During the 1960's and early 70's many states liberalized their abortion laws to some degree. Generally, this meant allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest, or for various health reasons. This was largely due to the influence of the 1962, Model Penal Code. Its inclusion of "liberalized" features was a watershed for the loosening of abortion regulations, which had, until this time, usually banned all abortions but those to save the mother's life. (However, Roe v. Wade would ultimately strike down these MPC-style laws in 1973.)
...
In 1970, New York (followed by Alaska, Hawaii and Washington) introduced the first laws to allow abortion "on demand." New York's modification of Penal Law §125.00 made elective abortions performed by a licensed physician completely legal for the first 24 weeks and homicide thereafter. The state has also added reporting and live-birth regulations in Article 41 of the Public Health Law. This statute's constitutionality was upheld by the New York Court of Appeals (5-2) in Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 194, 286 N.Y.2d 194 (1972).


You see here that there was quite a bit of support for legalized abortion even BEFORE Roe v. Wade.


civil rights movement??

There was considerable opposition to Jim Crow laws outside of the Mason-Dixin Line. Besides this, I'm sure that pretty much EVERY black person opposed segregation.

Beyond this, the simple fact that gays aren't allowed to marry the same sex (they're still allowed to marry) doesn't even remotely compare to the inhumanity and debasement of the Jim Crowe South.


Quit comparing grapes to apples and oranges. They aren't the same in size scope, color or texture.

The fact is that most "liberal" movements were led by individual states. The fact that their isn't ONE state that has legalized gay marriage is VERY telling!!!!! The states ARE NOT leading this crusade. The only municipality leading on this issue is San Francisco. And they don't even have the authority.

[noiretextatique]

8. forcing?...perhaps, but what harm would it do?

to force the majority to deal with the fact the minorities have the SAME rights as they do? frankly, i don't want to be forced to live by what middle america thinks is right.

[stopbush]

3. Great minds think alike.

See my thread from yesterday:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=7075

[jansu]

7. Didn't see this yesterday! Good post & sorry I seem to just repeat you!

This needs to be said over and over again! I have started printing out pamphlets and leaving them at places that I go to, cafes, doctors offices, laundry-mat....like the White Rose Society did in Nazi Germany. If all of us who support human rights will start doing this, being very polite and informative, we can get this and many messages out there. Please join me!

Ask whomever takes one, to make 10 to 100 copies and leave it where they go!

You can write to me at [e-mail] for some good stuff to print out if you need any ideas. Or send me some of yours!