Do gay civil unions discriminate against asexual domestic partners?

[Jersey Devil]

I don't know if "asexual" is the right word, so here is what I am talking about.

What about people who live together as a family unit and do not necessarily "love" each other like a mother and daughter or brother and sister, who share their homes, income, etc.?

Wouldn't they be discriminated against if gays were granted civil unions?

An example. Under NJ law a husband and wife (and a gay couple if gay civil unions were recognized as legal) would pay no state inheritance taxes. However, a brother and sister who live together as a family unit (I am not talking about anything kinky) pay an inheritance tax of approximately 11%, plus they cannot collect survivor benefits like a spouse for pension purposes, etc.

So if we recognize gays for the purposes of civil unions, don't we also have to recognize all these other situations or be in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

[ithacan]

1. Your real question is

should marriage be privileged over other kinds of relationships...

Society currently does do that.

Should that be changed?

[Jersey Devil]

2. Yes, my question does assume that and

I did not mention traditional marriage being discriminatory for that reason. But once you grant exceptions like for gay civil unions, don't you have to make those exceptions comply with the 14th amendment by not making them discriminatory?

There is a strong argument that traditional marriage does not violate the 14th amend rights of gays and others because there is a "rational basis" for the discrimination - the state's interest in protecting the traditional family unit. But once you go beyond that, what is the rational basis for discriminating among the other groups?

[David__77]

5. Not a strong argument to me and millions of others.

"Traditional family unit" comprises a minority of US households. Households with children, which includes single people and same gender couples, should get special consideration. And you cannot use a "reproductive" argument since many marriages produce no children.

The easy way to answer your question is not to have civil unions but instead have marriage equality for same sex couples.

[Jersey Devil]

8. Same sex couples? What about different sex "couples"?

Why would it be OK to discriminate against different sex couples or, for instance, two women (or men) who live together and shared a home but had no sexual relationship or desire to "marry".

[sadiesworld]

3. No. Civil unions and marriages are about (presumably) lifelong

commitments between unrelated persons. Other familial relationships are governed by other portions of applicabe estate laws, SS laws, etc.

[Jersey Devil]

6. That is just not true in many cases

I am settling two estates right now, one where a brother and sister lived together for their entire lives and neither married. They were as permanent as any other situation you could possibly describe.

The other situation is a mother and daughter who lived together for over 25 years.

Why should related persons be discriminated against in favor of unrelated persons who "marry"?

Another example - Two roomates who live together for 20 years or more and have no personal relationship, either heterosexual or gay/lesbian, yet share all their financial responsibilities. Why are they different.

I am taking the devil's advocate approach. If you permit gay civil unions are you not opening Pandora's Box?

[sadiesworld]

10. Not neccessarily. I think the purpose of civil unions, like marriages,

is still to raise a (new) family.

[Progress]

11. I don't think of that as a "Pandora's box".

I do think that any two consenting adults should be permitted to establish a civil union (or domestic partnership or marriage or whatever you wish to call it) that entails specific rights and responsibilities. There is no reason to limit such an arrangement to those who share a heterosexual relationship or indeed to those who share any sexual relationship at all. If two people are committed to each other enough to wish to form such a relationship, what does it matter whether the relationship is based on romantic love, sibling love, deep friendship, or even practical reasons only? After all, there are couples who marry for security or status or reasons other than love. Not all married couples last, and some asexual partnerships can last a lifetime. I don't see this as "opening Pandora's box." You might as well argue that it is "opening Pandora's box" to allow some ethnic group equal protection because then every ethnic group will expect equal protection.

[Jersey Devil]

13. Then we are in agreement

I think limiting civil unions to people of the same sex is the wrong approach.

[LoZoccolo]

4. I've been thinking this for two years.

Basically, I support no government-recognized marraige at all for anyone, and very very flexible civil unions which would include asexual relationships. This would totally neutralize the wedge issue and give even more people the benefits they should have.

[Jersey Devil]

7. That is my conclusion as well

Any person should be able to designate someone else as their "domestic partner" if they want to. Of course the argument against it is that it would be too expensive after considering social security, pensions, etc. It is a very difficult issue to tackle and no where as simple as some are trying to make it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. that's why we need domestic partnerships

What people do in their bedrooms is none of my business (thankfully)!

[Progress]

12. So it's too expensive to provide equal protection?

What if we had a situation where Social Security was being provided only to white people because it would be "too expensive" to start giving it to everybody (who met the rest of the qualifications)?

[Jersey Devil]

14. It is one of the most effective arguments against civil unions imo

and you will hear it over and over again during the campaign. I am not endorsing that argument, merely pointing out that it will be made.

Could social security withstand the addition of millions of "survivors" claims that never existed before? Isn't that a valid question?

[Progress]

15. I understand.

And I think it's a valid question. My response would be that equality concerns must take precedence over financial concerns. If Social Security cannot handle the influx in its current form, then it will have to be reworked somehow. Maybe payouts will start having to be a little less. If that's the price of providing equal protection, then so be it.