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

[OmahaBlueDog]

Marriage affords conjugal rights, property rights, inheritance rights, rights of ineritance for offspring, the right to share benefits, and the rights to make life decisions for the other party in the event of incapacity. I'm sure I'm missing many, but it's late.

What are the primary differences? What rights do civil unions not extend?

Note: I am asking because I honestly don't know what the differences are. I'm not asking as a means of making a case for one over the other.

[Behind the Aegis]

1. If you are serious...

...well, first, there are tax benefits...then...

...several of the things you mention.

Do you want to know what I have to plan this week? If you are curious, I will share.

Oh, and one other thing....well, I will let it be a surprise. (I am not trying to be a dick, though I am good at it, I am trying to show, there are too many, even the good-hearted who don't have a clue.)

ETA: When are we getting fucking grammar check!? Oh, and I want a "spell check" that knows it should be "am" and not "an!"

[Oregone]

12. Just curious if you can explain this further...

And are you only referring to a single state's construct of "civil union" (if so, what state?)? It would be quite educational if you could enumerate the legal differences between "civil marriage" and "civil unions" (frankly, I wasn't aware there would be any, and that is unfortunate).

No joint filings for taxes?!?

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Louisiana.

I live in New Orleans (parish and the city proper...78% Obama, 22% Mc...Donald's? Murray? something...can't remember...didn't see any signs with his/her name). I have NO rights here. NONE! It doesn't matter what the fuck I call it, it doesn't matter. The tax thing I referred to was for those who can actually get "civil unions." They may (or may not) file as joint in their STATE, but not FEDERAL. This would apply to benefits too. It was that issue (taxes) to which I was referring.

Do you wanna know what I have to do this week?

[Oregone]

20. "Do you wanna know what I have to do this week?"

Probably not. You don't sound happy about it. :)

But shoot...I might learn something.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. Nothing too harrowing.

This week, I get to sign papers that will allow me power of attorney over my partner of 6.5 years (and him over me). That's the best we can do. This means our home, money, insurance, life/death decisions, and property will go to him in the event of my death (G-d forbid) or vice-versa (G-d doubly forbid). However, this does NOT prevent his (or mine, though, they know I will haunt them from the grave if the DARE step in his way: and trust me, I am a big enough of bitch, death won't stop my ass) family from stripping the surviving partner of EVERYTHING.

Britney Spears can marry in Vegas, some fuck-up she met 5 minutes prior, and it is LEGAL. I have been with my partner for almost 7 years and everything we have together...well, it's fair game to whomever can claim it.

Do you understand now?

[Thor_MN]

104. I am holding in my safe similar papers that cover my brother and his partner

He has my guarantee that our side of the family will not interfere, as long as I am alive, anyway. Considering he is 5 years younger and keeps himself in much better shape than I do, I'm pretty sure that I will not be the executor of his will. But he does have the insurance that I will cover him in case of an accident by blocking any attempts by our other siblings, not that I think that they would try anything.

Good on you for getting the legal crap that you shouldn't have to deal with taken care of.

[Tigress DEM]

25. IF a federal law passed giving Civil Unions the full legal rights of marriage, would that be good?

See, what I am thinking is amp up Civil Unions and toss Civil Marriages. Put the government out of the marriage business and leave the word "marriage" up to churches. Because without the "legal" component of a Civil Marriage being MORE legal than a Civil Union, the churches couldn't mess with people's rights accorded by the state by taking a vote on it.

AND because there ARE churches that support gay marriage, those who want both could GET both and there would not be a legal leg for other churches to oppose it.

Of course, then straights would have Civil Unions instead of Civil Marriages too, so anything voters tried to do would mess rights up across the board and you know people refrain from peeing in their OWN pool. To ME it's the BEST protection of rights for gays and it "lets" the fundies "win" their word in their own church, but not everywhere.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. I like the way you think.

But, it is not reality.

When it comes down to the "nitty gritty" it will be about equality, and that is it.

I have confidence, at least if I am thinking I have the correct username, you will be on our side. Sadly, this is one of those "you are with us, or against us" types of situations. There are no 'shades of grey' in in this situation; at least none that anyone has ever shown me.

[Tigress DEM]

40. Thanks. When it comes to reality, sometimes I like to define my own.

IF as you say the "nitty gritty" is about equality, then you really have 2 battles that at this moment you are fighting as one un-winnable campaign.

People who can't see shades of grey only see winners or losers, all or nothing. I see a whole rainbow of colors as hope and I do not accept that the world is black and white because any fool can look outside and see that is pure bullshit.

This is NOT about with you or against you, because I would happily see gays get their rights through civil marriage.

It's about strategy and compromise that doesn't deprive anyone of their rights.

1) The government has no business marrying people because it's not the church.
2) The church has no business legislating people's rights because it's not the government.

It's about calling a truce and redefining the battle ground(s) and appropriately waging the war for rights and seeing if the deal with marriage and the church resolves itself. (I know you're seeing red right now, be patient.)

I don't remember my up-thread because I've been posting on this topic a lot, and I've said this before;

IF civil marriage is off the table, the fundies can't use it as a tool to deprive gays of their rights.

IF the sacrament of marriage is left in the hands of the church, each church can decide on it's own whether gays can receive that blessing. Some churches already do.

There WILL be heartache, I know, because some churches NEVER will cede this word. And saying, "find another church" is no solace.

BUT there is a HUGE groundswell of support for gay rights especially in terms of being at a loved one's side in the hospital and even the fundies point to civil unions as the way to go. So I say "go with the flow" and get a federal law that defines family partnerships in such a way that it is possible to have equal rights for every type of family in all 50 states. The Roe V Wade of gay rights IS POSSIBLE in our lifetime.

IF you try to get this with Civil Marriage it will just be turned over again and again. Lose the word to win the war.

I've got more, but have a hubby to feed. Be back later.


Peace.

[Hannah Bell]

48. there is a HUGE groundswell of support for gay rights especially in terms of being at a loved one's"

yes. even lots of the fundies i know will concede these benefits: joint property, designate heirs, child custody, all those legal/economic benefits.

it's just the word "marriage" that's the hang-up, on both sides.

personally, having come of age when living together outside of marriage was the "right" being fought for, & the "meaninglessness" of marriage the rhetoric du jour, i think the same: why fight this stupid war, go for civil unions & get 99%, with 3/4 of the population's approval.

[Zhade]

50. I'm sorry, but you're still wrong about marriage being a solely religious institution.

It isn't. Never has been, never will be.

[Tigress DEM]

65. At this moment "marriage" has two meanings. Yes, you are correct.

1) Civil Marriage which accords legal rights unfavorably to hetro couples and denies said rights to same sex couples in most states.
2) Marriage as a religious rite that celebrates a spiritual union of a couple.

BUT civil marriage has never bestowed the spiritual component and if this term is discrimantory and can't be ammended without everyone going apeshit mad, I say scrap civil marriage as a concept and start over with something that is truly equal to all Americans.

Because IF we have the courage to redefine our battles there are 1,169 legal provisions that could be won for same sex couples by giving up one word in the government dictionary.

It is MY assertion that:
1) The government has no business marrying people because it's not the church.
2) The church has no business legislating people's rights because it's not the government.

SO if church and state are really seperate, then the federal government needs to find a way to make Civil Unions carry the 1,169 provisions for all it's citizens seeking partnerships and leave the whole "marriage" issue in the church's lap.

[Zhade]

69. Okay, I still don't understand your logic.

"1) The government has no business marrying people because it's not the church."

Once again, marriage does not belong to religion. They don't get to claim what was never wholly theirs to begin with.

[Tigress DEM]

86. Marriage as a religious rite is in the Torah, pre-Christ. Marriage describing legal status 1300 AD.

Marriage is an official church sacrament.

The joining of couples and sharing legal status the way we understand it and are trying to obtain equally for the GBLT community is very new. I'm sure you don't want the old definitions where one person is the property of the other.

Where the mistake was made happened in England where the church and the state were the same at the time, which was part of the reason our forefathers left "merry" olde England. Marriage as a word was used to describe something that combined cannon law and legal rights of settlement. AND at that time marrying women was basically a means to obtaining their dowry or inheritance.

It wasn't until the 16th century that we really began to get "love" as a concept and motivation for getting married. AND it took much longer for any equality to happen for both halves of a hetro couple.

[Ms. Toad]

41. Marriage is a state institution

You can't create or define it at the federal level.

[Tigress DEM]

103. You can change it through a Constitutional Amendment.

I think it has come to the point where this is an equality under the law issue and it needs to be addressed in as final a way as we can. The pain and horror to the GBLT community when they get their rights voted in once and then taken away in the next cycle is untenable and has got to stop.

Marriage is a word that's meaning is muddled. In the 1300's in England it was used to describe their form of matrimony which combined Cannon Law that goes back to the founding of the Christian churches and which was based on earlier Jewish law in the Torah which predates Christ.

Don't do it through Civil Unions. Trash them too. Call it a partnership agreement. Call it Elmo. Just get 1,169 legal provisions to be in effect for Americans willing to step up to the plate and make a commitment in writing to one another.

[Ms. Toad]

121. It would be far more difficult

to get a constitutional amendment for civil unions than to just require that states respect marriages performed in other states and countries. Once that happens, any individual state ban on creating its own marriages will be meaningless since couples can cross the border to a state which permits creating marriages, get married, and return home and claim all the rights associated with marriage.

Are you old enough to remember the miserable failed attempt to constitutionally declare that women are equal to men? Unfortunately, we are far more likely to get an opposite amendment (barring recognition of marriage) than we are to get one permitting any type of legal union. Creating a constitutional amendment is, at its core, adopted by popular vote (the bodies voting are different than what just happened in CA, but it is a vote nonetheless).

Unfortunately, when you change what you call something which already has an established legal meaning, you have to start over from scratch. From a legal perspective, your assertion that "Marriage is a word that's meaning is muddled" is not correct. It has a well established meaning within each state and country (and well defined relationships with that stats in other states and countries). When you give it a new name, the legal presumption is that you intend it to be different - and you have to start all over unmuddling the meaning of the new term. That will include decades of litigation - all at the expense of individual families - to refine "Elmo" to the point where its meaning and the legal implications are as clear as they are - from a legal perspective - with marriage today.

[Zhade]

49. No. For one thing, marriage is NOT solely a religious institution.

If it were, there would be no married atheists/agnostics.

And as sure as I can guarantee anything, there is no way straight couples would give up the term marriage. Nor should they have to - the best answer to this is to obey the Constitution and extend equal protection and full faith and credit to all under the law.

[LooseWilly]

73. I'm hetero, and I'm already considering the idea of giving up the term marriage...

Of course, it's not a term that's ever meant much to me ... and no I'm not theist either.

I'm personally really liking the idea of doing away with Civil Marriages. Leave the churches with the power of conducting "marriages", but eviscerate "marriage" of any legal rights. Make it solely a religious ceremony... of about as much legal consequence as communion, or a bar mitzvah... or some similar Scientologist bullshit ceremony (if you're a Scientologist, and that phrasing offends you... well, fuck off... I don't like Scientologists anyway).

If some hetero couple (or homo, whatever) gets married in a church... well that's just swell... they still have to go and have a Civil "ceremony" performed... or at least the paperwork filled out... in order to get the legal rights. Don't file paperwork, just do the "thing" in a church?... well fuck you then... no rights for you.

I like it.
I'll submit to it.
In fact, I prefer the idea to any church bullshit... personally.

[LostinVA]

124. No, it wouldn't -- you usually can't "overlay" laws

[demwing]

130. Ive been saying the same thing for years

Let church marriages have all the legal and civil weight of a baptism - none. Make all legal marriages "Civil Marriages," with all the benefits associated, and open to all regardless of race, gender, etc.

[OmahaBlueDog]

34. I was speaking generically, but I suppose it would have to be on a state-by state basis

Since states define what benefits marriage gives.

[HeresyLives]

2. In one, you're married.

In the other, you're 'unionized.'

Gays can never say they are 'married', just in a 'civil union'.

It's a semantic quibble to make one 'less' than the other.

Not equal.

Not constitutional.

[Oregone]

7. Thats sort of misses the mark...

When people say they are married, normally they refer to the cultural/social/religious institution of "marriage", being that such is said in a social context. Such an institution of "marriage" is separate and unique from a state institution of marriage ("civil marriage"). Further, it is largely ignored by the state, whereas the legal construct is not. The legal construct of "civil marriage" is what the right and legal benefits are derived from. This question I think is more asking what are the legal differences between "civil marriage" and "civil unions".

Anyone and everyone can get "married" in a social/cultural/religious context, and say they are married. The question is directly questioning the legal construct and asking for a contrast.

[Ms. Toad]

42. The only people I have heard describe themselves

as married whose marriages are not legally recognized are same gender couples who cannot gain legal recognition for their marriages. I have never heard a straight couple who is not legally married refer to themselves as married.

[Common Sense Party]

56. I have. It happens all the time if they've been together for years. nt

[Ms. Toad]

120. I wasn't saying it doesn't happen -

I was responding to a post which asserted that most people using the term marriage or married are referring to a status which does not include the legal status. The vast majority of straight folks who say they are married mean they are legally married - even if there are some who have been together without legalizing that status (except in states in which they ARE legally married by virtue of holding themselves out as married).

[Zhade]

51. That's a rather limited view. There are plenty of MARRIED atheists/agnostics.

NT!

[verges]

45. self delete

Self delete

[jaysunb]

3. Good question....

I've always wondered what was the point.
BTW, I voted no on 8. :)

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. The difference is simple: the word marriage.

I say call legal unions between two consenting adults civil unions under the law, IN EVERY CASE... STRAIGHT OR GAY.

Let marriage devolve into an adjective that ANYONE can use as they see fit.

Equal treatment under the law is what's most important. Scrub EVERY reference to marriage from EVERY civil code. It's not hard. Ever use the find and replace function on a word processor? Simply reprint all the volumes and throw out the ones that are no longer relevant.

Fuck. We're arguing over a WORD. If you removed the word MARRIAGE from every book of laws, there would be no argument. I think.

[HeresyLives]

6. Exactly.

Either everyone is married, or everyone is in a 'civil union'.

No 'special words' for one group.

[Winnipegosis]

8. Marriage

"If you removed the word MARRIAGE from every book of laws, there would be no argument. I think."

Too Orwellian. The word "marriage" must be kept, and dealt with.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. Then we shall forever be arguing over the use of a single WORD.

Cuz religion ain't going away. I didn't say BAN the word, I said "let it devolve into an adjective". What's orwellian about that?

[Winnipegosis]

16. Marriage

"I didn't say BAN the word, I said "let it devolve into an adjective". What's orwellian about that?"

I suggest you read, or re-read 1984 to find out.

[Zhade]

52. Nah. We will get our full equal rights under the law, no matter what it takes.

Maybe it's just a word to you, but then you haven't been denied its use.

[verges]

46. As an optional

non-legal binding ceremony apart from the civil rite which bestows the rights.

[Tigress DEM]

26. BUT right now Civil Unions don't have the same rights. They SHOULD.

I say REMOVE Civil Marriages and everyone who wants the legal benefits get a Civil Union to obtain them and those who want the ritual and spiritual component go to a church.

I say take that word's power away from the government.

Put marriage in the church's laps and let every church decide for themselves whether they support gay marriage or not. One church can't go and regulate another church or have an election to take away the rights of another churches members.

[Ms. Toad]

43. Words have legal connotations -

the difference is not just a word.

There are NO civil unions anywhere in the world that confer legal rights which are equal to the rights conferred by marriage.

[verges]

47. That doesn't mean there cannot be. nt

[Ms. Toad]

123. The process of getting civil unions to be equal

is a far more burdensome process than the process of ensuring that marriage is available to all couples regardless of gender.

Within the United States, ensuring marriage is available to all couples regardless of gender will require two court cases which would establish portability across state and country borders (which would render individual state bans on marriage meaningless). Making civil unions equal within the United States will require legislation in all 50 states, considerable litigation within each of the 50 states to overcome the legal presumption that when you use a different word to describe something you did so because you intend there to be a real difference, federal legislation (and perhaps litigation to render civil unions equal to marriages) and then you still need the same two cases establishing portability across borders.

That complexity is the reason that none which currently exist are not equal - and the reason that if what you are going for is equality, civil unions are not the path. (If what you want is some additional limited legal protection, civil unions may provide that, but in any realistic sense - because of the complex interrelationship that exists between the various state and country marriage laws - they cannot provide equality.)

[LostinVA]

125. Wrong -- "marriage" is a LEGAL term, used in thousands of local, state, Federal laws

As well as in benefits language in companies.

[Antennas]

5. Both receive the same legal rights, I think.

It's a matter of semantics.

It'd be like saying blacks couldn't ride in the front of the bus, but they could ride in the front of a bus that is designated for blacks only. They are able to ride in the front now, but in the end, it's still equal but separate - which is NOT constitutional.

That was probably a silly example. I'm tired.

[Caliman73]

30. Semantics are important

When words are used to exclude a group from full participation in society, that is wrong, period. I suggest that every one read the classic work by Theodor Seuss Geisel "The Sneeches and Other Tales" Are we Star bellied sneeches, plain bellied, or are we the guy who uses the sneeches for his own purposes?

Seriously, what is gay marriage going to do to the "sacred institution" that adultery, (physical, psychological, and sexual abuse), and divorce have not done to demean it?

[Zuiderelle]

37. NO, THEY DO NOT RECEIVE THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS. Civil unions do not give ANY Federal rights.

ZERO. None. And it's up to each state to decide what STATE benefits to give under civil unions. They are not the same in any state, and they are nothing compared to the federal benefits straights get under marriage.

[cali]

129. and neither does gay marriage in ANY state. Gay marriages are NOT RECOGNIZED

by the federal gov't. How can people not fucking know this. A civil union in VT grants exactly the same rights in VT as a gay marriage in MA. Still, it's not equal, and that's why we need to move for marriage for gays and lesbians.

[Zhade]

54. On the contrary, that was an excellent example!

But it is not just semantics.

[LostinVA]

126. Totally off the mark -- "marriage" is teh legal term

[Book Lover]

10. Gay couples do not get any of these...

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

[goodgd_yall]

13. Very good

We have to get people to understand that civil unions and marriage do NOT result in the same benefits.

[Antennas]

14. Thanks for the link.

More people need to read it.

[OmahaBlueDog]

35. I think that's the answer I'm looking for. Thanks!

[goodgd_yall]

11. Federal taxes

You can't claim to be married on the tax return. You're forced to use a class that does not describe your actual situation. There are actually practical reasons to legalize marriage between gay/lesbian couples.

[Oregone]

15. Another approach (which saves space on a 1040)

Instead of "Married, filing jointly", just put: "Filing jointly with spouse"? Not sure why they need a new box if it should be handled the same. But yes, what a drag. That is ridiculous that such a word prevents federal filing.

[Ms. Toad]

44. It isn't the word on the form that matters.

You cannot file jointly unless your marriage is legally recognized (regardless of the wording on the form). The law is very specific, and the status is only available to couples whose marriages are legally recognized by the state in which they live at the time they file - and because of DOMA, they exclude same gender marriages EVEN if they are legally recognized.

[FM Arouet666]

17. Separate but equal.

I have been reading about Obama's stance on this issue and I have come to the conclusion that he will advocate for civil unions that are equal in every way but name. And I am sorry, that is not good enough. It may not be as extreme as segregation but it is still just as wrong minded. Marriage is sacred, therefore marriage is special and too good for homosexuals? Either everyone gets civil unions or everyone gets marriage. Obama's current stance is really no better than telling gays and lesbians to get to the back of the bus.

[Oregone]

19. "And I am sorry, that is not good enough"

But it is enough to START

"Marriage is sacred"

Perhaps some consider cultural marriage to be so, but no law or ordinance will ever prevent anyone from engaging in a social-cultural marriage ceremony and entering into such a social construct (straight or gay). These constructs are all but ignored by the state, who instead creates a separate legal construct that grants legal rights and benefits. Whether a state refers to this construct as a "marriage", "union", or "thingamajig", the purpose of such is to deliver rights and fulfill equality (the name of such a legal construct is hardly important in the meantime). Its about what it delivers and it can answer the underlying civil rights issue at hand. Anyone who is in a legal construct of a "civil union" has an equal opportunity to also be in a social construct of a "marriage". People are getting hung up on a word and confusing the two separate constructs as one. Its sad and is causing a lot of strife.

[FM Arouet666]

22. I would tend to agree but have to admit that I am hung up on the term.

I have offered the same logic as you posted in the past and had my thread shot down with a great deal of hostility. Civil unions give gays and lesbians equal rights but still sets them apart. Is it a good start, perhaps. But I am still not comfortable with the idea of civil unions for gays and lesbians. "Marriage is sacred" is what Obama stated about his stance on the issue. If you tell someone that they cannot participate in something because it is sacred. Are you not telling them they are a lesser person?

I realize that your post was meant to be pragmatic and I don't necessarily disagree, but as I try to understand the issue more from the side of someone who is gay in this society the more I am inclined to agree with gay marriage.

[LooseWilly]

78. I agree... gay marriage makes the most sense.

In the meantime, while the rest of society tries to generate the balls to face the religious nuts (and no, not meant to be some sort of macho/male whatever... just an idiomatic expression)... I say we just go ahead and do away with the term "marriage" in it's entirety, until the religious nuts learn to play nice and share "their" word...

In the meantime... marriages confer the rights of civil unions now... and civil unions confer the right that marriage does now. I mean... the "bond" bestowed in a religious context should, legally speaking, be trumped by the "bond" bestowed in a state-sanctioned procedure...
Let the churchies chew on that for a while.

I'm hetero... and I'd vote for it.
Just saying.

[CTyankee]

39. With our significant CT state supreme court ruling, which declared elegantly that gay marriage

must be permitted in accordance with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, we have some evolutionary legal thinking that has effectively moved this argument forever. The "civil union" show has left town. That debate is to all extents andpurposes, over. What you are arguing may or may not be true, but it is also irrelevant. A new legal basis for gay marriage has been forged. It is here. The only question is strategy on how to implement it across the country.

The truth is that it is simple justice for all. If you try to take away any groups rights you take away from your own. Our state's equal protection argument gets us away from the RW claim that gays want "special" or "new" rights. They are neither. They are enshrined in OUR (all of us) Constitution. That is the only ground we are safe on and that is the argument that is current.

Starting tomorrow in Connecticut, gays and lesbians will be able, for the first time, to obtain a marriage certificate. That speaks volumes, doesn't it?

[LooseWilly]

81. Unfortunately, here in CA, that's exactly what the ballot just un-did...

Apparently a simple majority vote on a ballot is enough to CHANGE the State's constitution... thereby dismantling the VERY SAME decision by our State's Supreme Court regarding equal protection.

Apparently, whoever wrote our State's Constitution was at least mildly retarded. AT LEAST...

I'm considering doing the research to see about a public ballot to declare Mormonism no longer a religion... a ballot measure to change the State's Constitution to explicitly declare Mormonism to no longer be recognized as a religion.

Hmm, anyone interested in donating money to return the favor upon the Mormons for all the money they threw into the mix here in CA?...

[CTyankee]

132. I can sense your anger and frustration and I'd probably be thinking just the way you are

if I were in CA right now. But can you see how that could play into the hands of the enemy of equal protection of the law? Mormons are also a minority in this country and it is infuriating that they manipulate and lie to have another minority group stripped of its rights while crying all the time about theirs. STILL, I believe we are not on safe ground when we do the same thing they do. I don't pretend to know what CA can do. I have read that Gov. Arnold wants to get Prop 8 undone (he seems embarrassed by it and he damn well SHOULD be embarrassed!). I can't believe that an end run around our federal Constitution can hold up for long.

I'm exasperated and feel such anger and sorrow for all of CA now. I have a little 4 yr old grandson in the L.A. area. His parents are VERY progressive people in the entertainment industry. They are in shock. My daughter says the Prop 8 vote shattered her happiness at the Obama election. I go to CA twice a year and always love being with their friends and coworkers, a great group of people including several gays and lesbians. It's like I don't even KNOW the CA that voted for Prop 8.

It's unconscionable that Prop 8 happened. It should never happen in this country. Sadly, discrimination gets its legs back and walks again after being smacked down in so many areas. But there is a way and it will be found. I believe in our Constitution. I have to...

Peace and love...

[LostinVA]

127. No, it isn't enough to "start"

Rights delayed are rights denied, and all we fucking ever do is get told to "wait," "it's a start," "don't push."

The hell with that.

I have legal rights in NJ, but that's it.

[Tigress DEM]

27. BUT if there were ONLY Civil Unions and Civil Marriages deleted as redundant...

IF you amp up the rights on Civil Unions to the level of Civil Marriages then you can remove Civil Marriages from the government purvue.

I don't know if you can fully extrapolate from what Obama has said they he would disagree with this type of solution. Legal rights equal for all and separate the "church's" dominion over a civil contract between consenting adults.

IF "marriage" is no longer a legal word, but simply a sacred word, then ANY church out there can interpret it as they see fit. Not every church will allow it, but some will and if the legal aspect is covered federally, that is still more than is available now. AND each church would only be able to decide for their OWN church. They couldn't vote away another church's rights.

NO matter how much I personally support gay marriage, I can't make a church change it's dogma with legislation. SO if we remove the word marriage from the civil framework and EVERYONE gets a civil union contract the rights of straights and gays become the same and what affects one affects the other.

[FM Arouet666]

32. Not unreasonable

As much as I support gay marriage, I think a compromise solution is best you can expect from a pragmatic politician. I am a pessimist when it comes to the state redefining the contract of marriage for everyone as a civil union. I see a bitter fight ahead if that is the line taken.

[Tigress DEM]

38. The more I think about it, the better it is for both sides.

A lot of this whole democracy thing is about being able to live together with people whose beliefs are different in one way or another than our own.

Separation of church and state protects both sides really.

Right now we have muddled definitions that mix and match to make everybody mad.
Civil Marriage. Civil Union. Marriage Sacrament.

If we get down to the nuts and bolts of what needs to be done we can clarify what is the government's part and what is the church's part so that each can handle those pieces which are appropriate.

1) The rights of 2 adults to enter into partnership agreements that affect their family status and legal rights regarding property and asset division. Clearly bureaucratic paperwork.

2) The rights of people to define their union as marriage in the eyes of God. Clearly the church's portion.

What I am proposing is taking "contract" and "marriage" and clearly separating the two. A civil marriage doesn't really confer "God's blessing" anyway, it's a legal document and anyone who wants their marriage blessed has to have a church service now anyway.

This whole issue has been an un-winnable battle because there are people who want to make the civil marriage validate gay rights and people who want civil marriage to be all about man marry woman rights. Both sides are in a tug of war that will never end.

As a Christian, I can point to Solomon's wisdom in offering to divide the baby in two when two women claimed the live child not the one who died in the night was theirs. The actual mother gave up her rights immediately to save the child.

Those people on both sides who actually care about rights on the one hand and marriage on the other will have to step one level beyond Solomon's wisdom and see that the only way to save either is to allow both to live separate lives.

Civil marriage is like Siamese twins attached at the hip which will only die if we continue to pull it apart without any clear definition of what we are doing.

We are already in a bitter fight much in the way South Africa was during Apartheid. Whichever group gains control pushes their agenda. Gays get marriage in June get clobbered in November. Never ending cycle because civil marriage isn't a solution it's the problem.

The government doesn't have any business marrying people because it's not the church. The church doesn't have any business legislating people's rights because it's not the government.

I think of this less as a battle than a truce.

There are many Christians who believe "judge not lest ye be judged" and "let he who is among you that has not sinned cast the first stone." We don't WANT anyone to be denied their rights to be at the bedside of a loved one. We don't presume it is our right to decide who loves whom.

Democratic Christians can see that partnership rights are the purview of the government and need to be strengthened. As a way of support, once we get the legislation passed that makes Civil Unions the de-facto contract of partnerships, I think those of us with existing Civil Marriage licenses who support gay marriage should go in and surrender them in exchange for Civil Union Contracts and have our unions re-blessed to show that we are not afraid.

The bigger fight may be getting people to see the bigger picture so they can let up on their death grip of civil marriage as the only solution.

[Pithlet]

55. See, the only people who would be willing

to give up the term "marriage" would be the ones who actually about equality and civil rights for everyone including the GLBT community. Your Solomon solution only works if everyone is working toward the same goal. But not everyone is. Don't you see that? I guarantee you that if we propose this to the general population, the forces who are fighting equality will spin it as "They want to destroy marriage! And change it to civil unions! See? We told you. The Gay Agenda seeks to destroy marriage!!!!!" Don't you see? It would never work. No one will go for it. People want to see the word Marriage on that certificate. Those of us who want to share rights would be willing to go through something that would so drastically overhaul how things are done for such a cause. Of course we would. But Solomon helped two people who had a common goal. We're not facing an opposition with a common goal. We're facing hate. What you propose would doom the movement for sure.

Besides, it only helps people who are religious. What about those of us who want to be married who aren't religious? I like being married. I don't want to be civil unioned. What about us? We get to be sent to the back of the civil unioned bus? Or any of the GLBT community who aren't religious? That's nice. Easy for your Christian self to propose this, isn't it? You'll get to be married, if you aren't already. Nice for you.

I don't like your solution simply because it gives something to the religious that never belonged to them in the first place. Religion doesn't own marriage. The bigots are using religion as a tool for hate. They're claiming marriage is religious and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. They're wrong. So why give them marriage to appease them? I say screw them. We fight them and we win.

[Tigress DEM]

82. Solomon did NOT help two people who had a common goal.

Solomon was dealing with two people who both wanted to claim that the baby was "mine" when only one mother actually birthed a child that lived. What Solomon did was offer a solution that the actual mother would find horrifying, the death of her child in the interest of "fairness". SO by her reaction he was able to gauge that she who was willing to give up the child to spare it's life was the actual birth mother.

AND the OTHER mother was ALL about HATE. At that moment she was consummed with rage at her fate of HER child dying while the other lived. SHE was so hateful she said, "Yes, go ahead and cut the child in half, that's a good solution." Her hatred was so white hot that she wanted the other mother to suffer too and had no heart at all for the newborn itself.

Many people will try to "spin" this into the "destruction" of marriage, but marriage isn't going anywhere really. The church will have it's word and the legal rights of partnership will be the only thing the government administers. ACTUALLY there is a very strong argument that the government shouldn't have it's fingers in "marriage" anyway. It should just lay out the legal ground work for consentual partnerships and leave "marriage" to the church.

You don't want to be civil unioned because at this time it doesn't HAVE the rights you deserve, BUT if all 1,169 provisions that the married couples enjoy were accorded to federal civil unions you would have a lot more than you do now.

AND I think that all of us who support gays having full marriage rights should be the first to go up and exchange our pieces of paper with "marriage certificate" on it for a civil union contract and if we so desire go get it blessed at a church that would allow us.

"Marriage" IS the word that describes a religious rite. It has also been used to describe the rights given to couples who want to commit their lives to one another in the eyes of the law.

Marriage as a legal description entered the English language in about 1300 AD.

Marriage as a religious rite was described in the Torah before the birth of Christ which is why the religious think it's their word.

WHAT I propose helps everyone.

* Men and women can go to the federal building and get permission to share their lives legally with full benefits of 1,169 provisions that married people now enjoy.

* Same sex couples can go to the same federal building and file the same paperwork and get the same benefits of 1,169 legal provisions that married people now enjoy without having someone vote it away later.

* Everybody gives up trying to make "marriage" work as a government concept. It's NOT working because it discriminates about whether or not certain people are allowed basic civil rights. It should no way be put to a vote.

* Those who wish to have their union blessed can find a church or spiritual community that will bless their union.

* Those who aren't religious get their 1,169 legal rights as couples and if they aren't religious and can have those rights, one word is probably a good barter.

* People of faith who truly believe that gays shouldn't be married can abide by that in their church family, but will be restrained from voting away other people's rights to appease their religious beliefs.


The sacrament of marriage was NEVER intended as a tool for hate, something to beat people over the head with or to use to make others feel LESS than.

It's SUPPOSED to be a celebration of the beginning of a family. THAT is why everyone wants the word. We ALL want to celebrate our love and the beginning of our families.

I think gays have been taught to believe they'll only be equal when they have that word, but that's bull. I know a lot of gay couples that are loving and caring without that piece of paper and who would make better parents than many people I've known.

I am afraid that if you focus your fight on that word, you will keep losing the battles and eventually the war. The dual definition of marriage as it stands right now is creating the problem.

So in my mind, scrape that word out of the law books and put the full weight of the law into civil unions and make the rights the primary focus. It IS a battle that can win the war eventually.

[Pithlet]

92. Whatever.

Fact is, marriage as it relates to law has nothing to do with religion. I'm straight, btw. I'm a woman, married to a man. I didn't get married in a church, which is why I object to the whole civil union being separate from church wedding crap. I didn't get married in a church, but I wasn't civil unioned. I was married. That's my whole deal.

Look, it's easy for you as a Christian to propose this. Because you can go to a church and get married under such a solution. Are you giving a thought to those who can't? It's easy for you to tell them that they don't have to care, because it's just a word. But you aren't the one who has to give up that word, are you? Until YOU are the one who has to settle for a second, separate category. Until and unless it's YOU who has to settle for that, I don't think you should be all that strident about suggesting it, or thinking that you think it's the best way for everyone. In fact, I think it's rather patronizing. You think it's best? Well, then you give it up. If you're married, don't ever use that word to describe yourself again. Don't ever again say "I've been married for x years" If you catch yourself, stop. If "Marriage" is on your license, cross it off. If you aren't married yet, don't call it that. Call it a civil union. Really think about it. Think about every time you talk to your friends and family about it, to acquaintances about it, NEVER USE THE WORD MARRIAGE. NOT ONCE. Would you be willing? Really? Think hard about that.

Because that's what I did. That's how I came to the position I did. I realized I wasn't going to give the bigots that satisfaction, and I realized why the GLBT didn't want to, either.

[Tigress DEM]

98. YES, I would gladly give up the word to support GLBT equal rights

YOU SAID: It's easy for you as a Christian to propose this. Because you can go to a church and get married under such a solution.


I SAID:

AND I think that all of us who support gays having full marriage rights should be the first to go up and exchange our pieces of paper with "marriage certificate" on it for a civil union contract and if we so desire go get it blessed at a church that would allow us.


IF THAT ISN'T ENOUGH, I would be fine with just the certificate and a spiritual blessing somewhere that doesn't use the word.

I could go the rest of my life never using the word, go have our wedding rings remade into hearts for my love and I to wear around our necks close to our own hearts to symbolize our love being made new and unfettered by that word.

My husband would too because we think it's terrible that the whole GLBT community is being held hostage by that word.

I'd call my union to my hubby "heart light or Elmo" if it would make the world a better place.

[Pithlet]

99. I know your intentions are good.

I know I'm pretty strident in my responses to you. It's because I really think as strongly as it's possibly to think, that it's a really, really bad idea even if the intentions are very, very good.

They aren't being held hostage by that word. They simply aren't. I think you're clouded by your bias there. I've noticed that it's people who are at least somewhat religious, or if they aren't religious they clearly think of marriage has having strong religious meaning, and don't think of it as a secular institution. That's not always the case, but that's usually the case.

This isn't scientific, mind you, but most members of the GLBT that I've known personally want to be married. Not civil unioned. They only want civil union as a stepping stone with the goal of marriage in mind. Civil union is only a means of getting rights as a place holder until the day when they can be married like the rest of us. And, personally, I don't want to be civil unioned, either. And the argument that I can just go and have some ceremony somewhere just doesn't fly with me. I don't want to do that. I shouldn't have to.

The bottom line is people want to be married. They want it to say that on that piece of paper. It's very deeply personal, no matter what religion a person is. Civil unions for all is way, way too hard a sell, and it could be used to backfire against the GLBT community in a big way. It's a very bad idea. I'm glad it's only ever a discussion thread topic that pisses me off, really. Because I never want it to see the light of day.

[verges]

53. Here! Here!

I heartily agree with all the arguments you have presented here 100%. It would be a win situation for all. Including the fundies!

[Pithlet]

58. It would be a win for her. She's Chrisitan so she could be married if she isn't already

Under her proposal. I'm not, so I'd just get to be civil unioned. Yay. Or not. I think it's crap.

[verges]

60. But if the CU gives the IDENTICAL rights,

what's to stop you and your SO performing whatever ceremony you feel is necessary to solemnize your union? You can call it whatever you want. "Does not a rose by any other name not smell as sweet?" Would you not love and care for your partner without the State conferring the title of "Marraige" on your signing of a few civil papers? The right's are more important, don't you think?

[Pithlet]

64. Of course I would love my partner as much. Don't patronize me, please.

I'll repost something I posted a few days ago. Maybe you'll get where I'm coming from. Because what you are defending wouldn't work. It won't win the battle. If I thought even for a little bit that it would, I would consider it. But it wouldn't. It's the coward's way out. We lose if we do what you suggest. Anyway, here's what I posted in another thread, edited slightly for context because I was addressing an individual directly:

The forces at work against gay marriage think they own the term marriage. They think they own family values. They think they own America. They think they own patriotism. We don't give it to them. We liberals and progressives aren't going to stop calling ourselves Americans to make them feel better in order to win some battles, are we? Say, call ourselves Civil Residents? Or stop calling ourselves families. Start referring to our sons and daughters as Civil Offspring. All to make these people feel better and then maybe they'd throw us a bone? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Now maybe you can see why this sounds foolish to me. That's the argument I'm making. These people claim to own marriage, and family values, and America. But they don't. They don't. That's my point. The argument is conceding to them. You can never concede to hate like that. If we even give them a tiny little bit of an inch on this, we lose, and we lose big. It's not just semantics.

[verges]

67. Un fortunately, religion is protected

under the First Amendment. And the Fundies aren't the only people who have problems with the word. I know a lot of people who strongly agree that the rights should be equal. It's the use of the term "Marraige" that they have a problem with (even some liberals). If the rights are made equal (I realize they are not now) isn't that more important than one word?

It really is a separation of Church and State issue.

[Zhade]

70. No, it's not, because religion DOES NOT own marriage!

There are married atheist/agnostic couples, for example. They're MARRIED.

[verges]

75. So the term "Marraige" is more important

than the rights?
Under the approach I'm advocating, you get the rights by law and the term "Marraige" if you want it.

[Pithlet]

77. It seems you're the one who's hung up on the word.

You don't seem to understand that, for one, what you're arguing would never fly with the majority of the public in the first place. You haven't addressed that concern, yet. Yes, it's easy to see how you could get a lot of progressive minded people to go for something like this. Now, how do you convince, say, middle America? Or the people who voted for prop 8? How are you going to fight the charge that you're destroying marriage? That's how it will be spun. How are you going to convince people who really like seeing the word "marriage" on their marriage license? The ones that don't get married in a church. They're not all atheists, you know. Some just hop on a plane to Vegas. They're going to still want to see "marriage" on that paper. The ones that aren't politically aware, don't go on DU, don't know any gay people, and could really care less about GLBT causes? How are you going to convince them? I'm sorry. I don't think it's going to happen. It's a crazy scheme to anyone outside of our sphere.

And then there's the fact that you probably won't ever convince me since I know it's never going to fly. Besides, I like being married. Sorry. And I say we fight for marriage for all. It's the better fight. And it's the one we're much more likely to win. Progress marches forward. We will get there one day. I think trying to do this probably only sets things back.

[verges]

80. And I wouldn't be proposing it if

I thought the concept of Gay Marraige is going to work. With, I think, 17 state amendments banning it, both a President and Vice-President elect saying they are against it (they do agree for equal rights), and the very same people you described in your post, I don't see it happening in my lifetime. The rights are the important thing. And too many people seem to be willing to sacrifice those in order to get the term "Marraige." And that's why it will fail again and again. I'm simply proposing a differnt strategy that could get everybody what they want. And I don't seem to be the only one who feels this way.

[Pithlet]

84. I understand why you're proposing it.

It just doesn't make any sense, that's all. It would never pass in a million years. And if it did, it would creates more problems, to boot. Like a two tiered system of unions. That's just more inequality that snags even more people into the inequality net. People like me. Not good. And it gives in to the bigots. And that's worst of all. The suggestion brings up the connection of marriage with religion, which really, really bristles with people like me, who are touchy about that. We feel our marriages aren't any less than anyone who was married in a church. Comments like "The state should get out of the marriage business" really sets me on fire. Like hell it should. Why should it? That's bullshit.

Look, I understand that gay marriage probably isn't going to happen nationwide quickly. But, I do think we'll start to see some states enact it within our lifetimes. I think CA will overturn prop 8 in our lifetime, for sure. Then there's CT. I think you're wrong when you say the concept of Gay marriage won't work. It will. It is, just very slowly. Interracial marriage happened. It happened because people fought the good fight. They didn't give in. Progress moves forward. It always does. And it usually does faster than we think it will. It will certainly move faster if we fight the good fight instead of taking the coward's way out. And that's what giving in to the bigots is. And that's what proposals like giving them the word marriage is. It's the coward's way out. Because they don't own the word marriage.

[verges]

85. It's already a two-tier system.

You have to go get the license, then you go to the church to get married. It only changes a name. And I don't feel it would be as hard a sell as you think it would. As for Atheists/agnostics/non0religious folk, they have the same option of solemnizing it with any type of ceremony or lack of if they wish(I knew a couple years ago who had a charming non-religious ceremony with a few friends at the top of the Emire State Building, and they called it a Marraige). You would still refer to your husband/wife. And all legal forms would stop using the term "Marraige."

[Pithlet]

88. I'm talking two-tiered in terms of social acceptance.

You have the real married people, the real red blooded Americans who got married for real in a church, and then the civil unioned people. Two different groups. Two tiers. That's what you get with a system like that.

As for your two tier, get a clue, please! Not everyone goes to a church! I didn't. And I'm just as married as those who did. So. No, not a two tiered system. My religious father and stempother didn't even go to a church. They flew to Vegas and got married in a courtroom there. So, it isn't just godless wackos like me that don't go to church. So, there you go.

[verges]

90. Now your just being rude.

I never even implied you were a godless wacko. I'm not particularly religious myself.

But unfortunately, it seems like a point of semantics is going to keep millions of people from having their civil rights for many years. And I think that's a shame, and very stupid.

[Pithlet]

93. I called myself that in a light moment.. How was that rude?

What's stupid is suggesting an idea that no one will go for. You still haven't told me how that gets pulled off. No one proposing it ever does.

Fighting the good fight is never stupid. It's not semantics, because you're creating a separate category for another group of people. That's NOT a point of semantics. That's separate but equal. That's not acceptable. Just because you think the battle isn't winnable doesn't make that acceptable.

[verges]

131. It read like you were reading things into

what I wrote that I did not. I withdraw the accusation of rudeness (I was tired, I didn't read it as whimsey). And it is not a seperate classification for another group of people. It's changing a term for ALL people. Everybody!! How is that seperate but equal? And just because YOU think a battle is not winnable doesn't make it not a viable option. You are right that it is stupid to advocate something that no one will go for. And that's why gay marraige is currently failing.

The plan I'm suggesting (and other people on this thread, in DU, and even in the world at large) creates equality and gives more people what they want.

This is getting WAAAY too repetitive. I'm done.

[Tigress DEM]

102. How do you decide that someone who is willing to give up the word is hung up on it?

You are the one fighting to the death about the word.

Where I am coming from is that every day there aren't laws on the books to protect GLBT rights in establishing families, every day there aren't anti-hate crime laws on the books these good people who deserve to be treated equally don't have the same recourse to obtain justice.

You are correct that this is an uphill battle spin wise, but we also have access to ecumenical communities that are working on peace and justice issues while setting aside their specific religious agendas. We can make this a peaceful movement that is about making it a win-win for everyone.

My biggest goal is to make it a fight that won't be wound back in the next election cycle, like freedom for slaves & voting rights for women this is too important.

I've talked to several people outside the DU sphere and even very religious ones. I get more flak here than I do with them.

AND not to make this personal, but if you like being "married" so much you would rank that higher than actually obtaining the rights you say you're committed to fighting for, I think you may not be as committed to obtaining them as you think you are.

I think your compassion for the emotional impact these arguments are having on the GLBT community is making it hard for you to consider alternatives.

[Pithlet]

105. I'm not fighting about the word. I'm fighting separate but equal.

You're the one hung up on the word, because you're saying it has religions meaning and that's why it has to go back to the enemy. You're the one hung up on the word. You are arguing for separate but equal. I'm defending society from it. I won't have it. Any time anyone proposed anything like it, I say "No way". You're proposing it. I'm rejecting it. It's not about the word.

And don't you dare. Yes. You are making it personal with this: "If you like being "married" so much you would rank that higher than actually obtaining the rights you say you're committed to fighting for, I think you may not be as committed to obtaining them as you think you are." Don't you dare accuse me of this. Don't you dare. Again. Not about the word. With your proposal, you're saying "Let's have two groups here. Those that get married in the church and get to have marriage. The majority, I might add! And the the rest of us, who get to be civilly unioned. Separate but equal. So, again. Don't you DARE accuse ME of making the word more important. It's not about the word. It's about not segregating our society into two groups the way you want to. Because make no mistake. The religious majority that get to have their marriages will have more significance and more importance than those who are merely civil unioned. If you don't think so, then you as a Christian don't know what it's like to live as a non-Christian minority in this country. You made it personal. You bet you you did. I've been trying to tell you something in this thread, and you haven't been listening. Now I'm making it personal and I hope you listen, and I hope you make no more accusations my way. It's not about the word. It's about not being further marginalized by the majority. Any straight or GLBT who isn't religious gets to settle for Civil Unions.

It's a separate but equal category. Not acceptable. It's not about the word Marriage. It's about not being placed in a separate category. Do you understand now? Don't tell me I can go have some half baked ceremony if I want to. I shouldn't have to. Not acceptable. You're part of the majority on this one. . Listen to me as a member of the minority on this issue. It's not acceptable.

ETA that I'm not the one who's gone on and on about the history of the word, and how Christians feel about it, and that's why we should consider their feelings on the matter. When it comes to legal rights, I say none of that matters one whit. So why am *I* the one with the hang up? I'm the one that says screw it, let everyone marry! When discussing the civil rights of American citizens, who cares? It doesn't matter. If you're the one bringing it up the history of the word and people's feelings about it, and all that other stuff, it does seem as though you have some hang ups about that word of your own, because none of that stuff is relevant when it comes to civil rights. Just saying.

[Tigress DEM]

106. Well, if you're fighting separate but equal, you aren't fighting against me.

By making a constitutional amendment that makes ONE legal category where there are now two, one of which has less rights than the other, I'm talking about real legal equality - nothing separate about it. Everybody in the same boat at step one.

People have the legal right to be treated fairly. NO ONE can legislate how the rest of society views each other.

I am talking about get the legal rights established once and for all and make your choice about how to deal with the rest of it. Having choices above and beyond equal rights doesn't make people separate but equal.

I didn't make the rules and I can only point out what is historically accurate. Civil Marriage is a muddled concept that leaves too much of an opening for discrimination. It isn't working, it's broken beyond repair, let's put something in it's place that has a new history of treating people equally.

[Pithlet]

135. But you're wrong. There aren't two. There's only one right now.

We just need to include the GLBT community in it. You keep saying there are two. Where are you talking about? There's marriage. The GLBT community is excluded in all but one state right now. So, we include them in it. Right now it's a state by state fight, but we fight it. Don't change the name and call it a civil union. I don't care that you're changing the constitution, or making it federal, or what have you. My beef with your suggestion is getting rid of the term marriage and handing it over to the religious. That's my fight with you, and yes, I do indeed have it. You're relegating all non-religious people both gay and straight to a second tier in our society. That's not right. That's the problem I have with what you're proposing. We may legally have the same rights, and that's a BIG if BTW, assuming all goes as planned, but socially we're relegated to a different group. Not acceptable. That's STILL wrong.

And you still gave in to the bigots. Connecticut has gay marriage now. Marriage, not civil unions. California may yet overturn prop 8, and if it doesn't now, it probably will in the future. The battle isn't over. Don't muck it up with your schemes that most of us don't want anyway.

[Tigress DEM]

95. Marriage as it came to us is a mixture of cannon law and settlement law.

In America, they DID separate it out into a civil marriage license with the church doing the sacrament part.

Various people are authorized to sign the license so it doesn't HAVE to be a religious thing, but at the moment we could really win a lot if we gave them what they want, IF at the same time we take it off the government's legal description and put civil union or partnership agreements or some other description in there that guarantees equal treatment under the law without bias.

[Pithlet]

97. What makes you think we would win a lot?

Do you honestly think so? You really, truly think it's about religion with the forces that are behind this? Because if you do, you're wrong. The people behind this hate gay people for who they are. They've convinced a lot of religious people, it's true. But the hate that drives this won't go away because we've changed the term marriage to civil unions on all our marriage certificates. In fact, that would fan the flames even further. "See what those gays did! See what they did to us! Your marriage certificate used to say marriage. Now it says civil union!!! Those gays did that!!!!" If we did manage to get equal partner rights, then we lose something else on some other initiative, fueled by the hate that brings. That is why I think this proposal is the absolute wrong way of going about it. It is an offense attack. That is why we go about it from a civil rights angle. Because it's the right thing to do. Not some change the word scheme that no one is going like, and will get used against the GLBT community if it even managed to succeed.

Right now the argument is "Your marriage isn't affected by allowing gays to marry" With your scheme, the enemy could easily claim otherwise. It's absolutely the wrong way to go about it from an acceptance point of view as well, even if some rights were gleaned from it. It would set the movement back.

[Tigress DEM]

100. Because I'm talking about amending the Constitution to protect people's equality under the law.

What HAS to be done is to take this out of the area where people can vote it in or out based on the "marriage" argument.

Marriage as a sacrament goes nowhere. In fact the church can have their own certificate.

What will be won by gays are 1,169 legal provisions nationwide that are attached to civil marriage at this time.

The only reason to take the civil marriage itself off the books is to prevent the "more equal for some than others" temptation.

Honestly, I know a lot of Christians that don't want discrimination but if you ask them to vote to decide if civil marriage can be between same sex couples it is hard for them to separate civil marriage and marriage the sacrament because they think they are going against church teachings.

However, if you give them a choice to give to Cesar what is Cesar's and to God what is God's, then it's a clear choice.

[Pithlet]

101. Again. What makes you think that this is even remotely doable?

I think we're better off working together and coming up with practical solutions, here. Honestly. This is just wasting time.

[Tigress DEM]

107. Um... The 19th Amendment. The 15th Amendment. The Bill of Rights.

How do you think it's more practical to wage a civil war in 50 states when as you have said, most people in the majority are like me?

[Pithlet]

136. Yes, because everyone knows the constitution is just so easy to change.

I mean, just like that! Snap your fingers, and it's done.

[Pithlet]

71. It is! That's exactly why I say we tell the bigots to shove it!

Instead of mucking things up with all of these crazy schemes that a vast majority of the population is never going to go for anyway, and the mere suggestion of is going to give ammo to the bigots to use against us. The only reason I get worked up over this and argue with people who suggest it is because really, it kind of offends me. I'm tired of the notion that religious people own marriage, and I'm tired of hearing the suggestion we give it to them. They don't. We shouldn't give it to them. I'm an American. I have a family. I'm married. They don't own Marriage. They don't own America. They don't own Family Values. They don't even own religion; we've got a hell of a lot of good Christians on our side, too. We will win Marriage for the GLBT community well before we convince Americans to give up the term as a legal definition.

[verges]

76. So if the term is not religious,

why get so heated about a legal term? Isn't getting the legal rights more important than playing gotcha with religious folk (and not just fundies)?

By changing the term from Civil Marraige to something else without the "M" word, you strip the religious people of their argument. Most people, I think would be glad to have a way to bestow equal rights without using a term they sincerely believe is a religious term meaning "one man/one woman". Not all these people are really bigots (and it's not just fundies or even Christians). Many people are bigots. And they will be pissed that the argument has been taken away from their religious shield. Especially when you can go to the church next door to get the wedding you want, and they can't do a damn thing.

[Pithlet]

79. No, you don't. You don't strip them of their argument.

Because the bigots aren't excluding because of religion. They're excluding because of hate. They're using religion as a tool. But they're absolutely excluding them for exclusions' sake. Make no mistake about that. They want to marginalize them. They want those rights stripped from them. Religion is the quickest and easiest way to do it, so that's how they do it. Don't think that because we change the words that that will stop them. That is naive.

And why am I getting heated because of a legal term? Why not? I'm married. I'm married just like millions of other couples. Why shouldn't I get heated about it if people want to place me in a different category simply because I'm not religious. Let me tell you, it's hard enough not being religious in this country. I don't need to be placed in yet another "other" category. That's why I get heated about it. It's about not creating a separate category. Plenty of reasons to get heated about that.

[verges]

83. Yes they are using it as a tool.

Try chopping down a tree without an axe or a saw. Without the tool, their hate and bigotry is no longer protected. It is exposed.

And there would be NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING stopping you from having any type of non-religious ceremony or ritual or whatever you want and call it a Marraige. Placing you in the same status as anybody else.

[Pithlet]

87. Well, there'd be nothing stopping me from calling myself Angelina Jolie, either.

Look. It's hard to live in a community like I do and not attend a church. Where you go to church has a lot of meaning socially around here. If we had such a system like you suggest, then where you got married would have a ton of significance. As it is now with regard to marriage, it doesn't. If you're married, your married. Everyone married in the state of Tennessee has a marriage license. I know as well as I know my name that under the system you propose, it would very much matter. My union with my husband would not be seen as a marriage. It would not in our community, no matter how much we kid ourselves and call ourselves married. You can tell me words don't matter, with pithy sayings about roses, but really, why make things harder for people like us than they have to be? Especially since it may not change things anyway? I'm not convinced that the GLBT would suddenly magically have the same rights that we do anyway. I just think we've muddled things up even further and all for nothing. Or, we gave up too soon, and now we have a muddled up two tier system when we could have had equal rights and real honest to goodness marriage for all.

[Tigress DEM]

111. How about this then? The amendment guarantees the partnership rights...

AND IF a state can be persuaded to grant gay marriage then the state could call all their licenses marriage licenses. The only time it would be an issue is if the marriage license had more rights for hetro couples than same sex couples.

I am about abolishing the two tier system that exists and about making states comply with a federal law to treat all partnerships equal. I am not for or against the word marriage.

[Pithlet]

137. Again, what two tier system? What are you talking about?

There's marriage. People get married. I don't get the two tier system you keep referring to.

Okay. I have no problem with a a constitutional amendment that gives domestic partners legal rights, if that is what you're proposing. Absolutely no problem with that. But not if it means forcing states to scrap marriage. I'm not sure why you insist on that. Number one, I don't see the point of that. Number two, no one will go for it. Number three, that will put a big old target on the back of the movement for civil rights for the GLBT community. They destroyed marriage. That's how people would see it. I don't get why you don't see that.

[Tigress DEM]

108. OK, so bigots will argue til the cows come home, but it takes away their power.

You DO have a deal with the word. AND you don't ever have to give it up. There can be a grandfather/grandmother clause in the amendment.

But you were able to get that word because you married according to the man-woman guidelines even if you didn't do it in the church. AND yes, this world is really, really hard on those that aren't religious. I'm sorry about that and I'm sorry if my idea contributes to your pain.

Having ONE category that grants equal rights is something that will resolve this for so many and when more and more people have their families and their rights more people will see that for all our differences we're still basically the same.

It's not about changing the word, it's about having one law and one category that treats people the same in regards to partnerships.

[Pithlet]

138. Oh, great. Grandfathered in. So it wouldn't affect me personally. So I don't have to care?

Sorry. I'm not like that. I care about things even if they don't affect me personally.

Yes. Have one law and one category that treats people the same way in regards to partnerships. Let everyone get married! That's how we handled it when interracial couples weren't allowed to marry. Tell me why we shouldn't handle it that way with the GLBT community. Why don't they get the same consideration the AA community did with their civil rights fight. Can you answer that for me? After all, it was just a word back then, too. They would have received the same rights with civil unions back then, too. That was the solution they were offered back then, too, you know. The same argument you are making, by the way. Did you know that?

[Tigress DEM]

94. You say it can't work and that CU is the coward's way out, but fighting for the word makes them win.

I do not believe for one minute that the forces at work against gay marriage own family values, America, patriotism.

IF I thought you could get all you want AND the word too, I wouldn't even suggest going the CU route.

What I am saying is that this word is historically linked with the sacrament of marriage back to 1300 AD England and the sacrament pre-dates Christ in the Torah, so if you are arguing that the religious community doesn't "own" the word, legally it's a harder battle because it can be argued both ways.

HOWEVER, this is America and those 1,169 legal rights married people enjoy should be available to all Americans who choose to put their family together. Period. I am talking about an amendment to the Constitution that takes Civil Unions out of the hands of the states so no one gets to vote away those rights.

It's a new world where diplomacy is now possible again. So don't think you will lose everything or lose big by getting the rights you deserve in exchange for a word that stands in the way of separation of church and state.

[Pithlet]

96. It's not fighting for the word! That's where you're wrong.

You claim we're hung up on the word. But I think it's you and the proponants of schemes like this who are hung up on it, because you're more likely to tie it to religion.

Fine. You don't believe they own the term. But if you give it to them, you might as well have believed it. And what you propose hands it to them on a silver freakin platter.

Who cares what the word is historically linked to? The bigots don't own it. Period. They don't get it. Got it?

Marriage is a legal contract. Straights get to use it to bond legally with the partner they love and get state and federal benefits along with it. The GLBT is currently denied those rights. The bigots argue they should be denied. What's the simplest, easiest solution? Let them have them.

Of course, that's where it gets sticky. The bigots say NO! Marriage is a religious institution It belongs to us, and we say No Gays!. Of course, they're wrong. There are two solutions to deal with that. Solution Number One: "No, bigots. You're wrong. It's a legal contract and everyone is entitled to it, butt out." Solution Number Two: "No bigots, it's a legal contract. But, since you feel so strongly about it, and since there's historical context blah blah blah, we'll change definitions around , and it will piss some people off and get awfully confusing and create two separate kinds of unions, so you get to have the term back. Happy now?"

We still have to fight like mad either way to get equal rights because bigots never give up easily. Which way is going to be easier? Which way is separate but equal? Which way gives in to the bigots more? I know which way I like better, and I think I know which way is more likely to be successful.

[Tigress DEM]

109. I'm proposing one law, one catagory for partnership rights all 50 states.

As a Constitutional Amendment it won't be subject to the vagries of state's who want to put partnership rights to a vote.

Besides, proposing something like this could have another affect. People might be so afraid of a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the partnership rights for everyone that they would capitulate and let you use the word.

Shall we both fight for the rights and see who wins first?

[Tigress DEM]

89. Thank you. IF it can bring equal rights and stop the hating, wouldn't it be great?

Some things would be lost, though.

There are many people who truly want to be validated by that word. I just know it can't be legislated into being that way.

AND the people who think that civil marriage is marriage the sacrament or that the sacrament depends on the paper from the state matching the word in their ceremony will think we've "killed" marriage.

BUT legally it presents the strongest case for gays obtaining all their rights and by wiping marriage off the legal definition in the government books it makes the partnership agreement a simple aspect of civil rights that can't be trumped by a "more equal" version for hetro couples.

It also leaves the battle over the word to be fought with the churches and that is the part of the battle that seemingly can't BE won.

STILL there are churches that marry gays now anyway. So in SOME places people would be able to have both within our lifetime and to me that is a good start.

[Zhade]

57. I'm here to tell you, married people WILL NOT GIVE UP THAT WORD.

If they were willing to even SHARE it, prop 8 would never have passed!

Marriage is NOT solely a religious institution.

[Pithlet]

61. That's right. They won't. Absolutely not.

But even if they would. How nice that people can skip off and get married at their church if they want to, and they can be married for realz. What about those of us who aren't religious? I guess we don't count. That will be a much better way of doing things! I see it recommended up and down these threads every time this subject comes up. And it's stupid, because no one would go for it anyway. I shouldn't get worked up because it will never happen. But it still kind of burns me to think that no one thinks about that. I can respect that people don't care about that. They don't care what it's called, it doesn't matter to them personally. That's fine. But, for some people, it does. It's one way we're included in society, and it's important to us, and words do matter. I don't want one more way in which I'm differentiated from everyone else, especially here in red state hell Southern Baptist country. And I don't even have it nearly as bad as members of the GLBT community. Equality has to mean equality. The same rights, called the same thing, for all.

[Zhade]

62. Well-said.

Stay safe down there. I grew up in Florida -- and was so fucked up by the hatred of GLBT folk there that I lied to myself for a quarter of a century about who I am.

:hugs:

[Tigress DEM]

110. So grandfather/mother it into the Amendment.

Marriage may not solely be a religious institution, but the argument that pushed prop 8 through is based on that obscure religious reference.

Besides, doesn't anyone see that by going for a Constitutional Amendment we are making a change that ISN'T subject to the whims of voters? The partnership rights of all Americans shouldn't be a state to state thing since we have seen conclusive proof that the states can't be trusted to treat people fairly.

[countmyvote4real]

21. equal is equal or it's not

a rose is a rose is a rose unless what?

[Tigress DEM]

28. So if Civil Unions were given full legal rights of Civil Marriage...

Would it smell as sweet by any other name?

I say we ramp up Civil Unions and make it a Federal Law so people can have their rights in every state.

THEN dump Civil Marriages as redundant AND cede the word "marriage" to churches so that the churches cannot claim ownership of the legal rights of consenting adults to enter into partnership agreements.

There ARE churches that support gay marriage SO ... It would mean ALL gays could get their legal rights and some gays would find churches willing to bless their civil unions.

BUT it would also mean that churches could not impede OTHER churches from making their own decisions by having a bunch of fundies rig elections or voting machines.

[Zhade]

59. NO NO NO! Marriage does not belong to religion!

Would you take away the right of every married atheist/agnostic couple to call themselves married?

[Tigress DEM]

113. I'd give up calling myself married if it would give equal rights to GLBT couples.

IF people want to fight a the state level with people who will vote with you one time and against you another AND against religious communities and bigots who want to make it about the word, fine. You might win and I won't be against you.

I still think we have to get the partnership rights nailed down for ALL couples across the nation as a Constitutional Amendment because this has gone on long enough.

Right now a straight atheist/agnostic couple can get the rights denied GLBT couples AND they get the word too. How much are you willing to give up to see GLBT have the same rights? I know you're in an even more marginalized positon than most gays are, but don't you think it has to be about the rights first?

[Pithlet]

68. A lot of us know exactly what would happen

If we're going to separate civil unions from religious marriage to appease the bigots so they'll maybe hopefully throw us a bone on gay marriage, then it will create a two tiered class system of unions. I guarantee you that. I've lived in a heavily religious area long enough to know this. Anyone who doesn't have their marriage ceremony in an approved church isn't going to be married. That's another good reason not to do what you and others suggest. Setting up such a two tiered system will do absolutely that; The "real" ones done in the True Churches, and the pretend ones that the gays, liberals and commies do. People who live in more socially liberal areas are of course not going to have as many problems. Or people who happen to be religious. I strongly suspect that people on DU who suggest these kinds of things belong to either one or both of those two categories.

[Tigress DEM]

114. So the church that already doesn't accept you would not accept you some more.

AND this is a loss how? Why do you who are supposedly non-religious give a piss what the church thinks about you being married or not?

IF it is a Constitutional Amendment, they can try to deny your rights, but you have recourse at the federal level. AND for the UMPTEENTH time CREATING ONE CATEGORY FOR PARTNERSHIP RIGHTS IS NOT CREATING A TWO TIER SYSTEM.

The two tier system doesn't exist for you right now because you aren't gay. The two tier system is all the GBLT community has right now. A Constitutional Amendment would give them a leg to stand on legally regardless of the states attitude or what churches think about it.

It's like voting and the tampering. Yes, there will be problems and even with the 15th Amendment blacks still had problems being caged and challenged but enough of them got through to make a difference because we had laws on the books and people willing to cite them and defend them over and over again.

But right now there isn't ONE law that gives everyone in the US equal partnership rights.

YES, maybe it's a good idea to get everything done on the state level as well. If you can get marriage rights in TN above and beyond legal partnership rights across the nation, it's all good.

[Pithlet]

141. How dare you dictate to me what losses are acceptable to me?

No. I don't want to be shuttled off into yet another category. I'm sorry if that's not acceptable to you. For the umpteenth time, your suggestion shuttles off a significant part of the population into yet another category. Yes, what you suggest might give everyone equal rights. But guess what. There's a way to do the EXACT SAME THING that DOESN'T shuttle a significant portion of the population into some other category. It's called opening up marriage to the GLBT community. It does the same thing that you suggest, WITHOUT marginalizing anyone! Yay! Win/win. That way is the better way. It's also a way that's doable. Because you don't have to convince millions and millions of people to give up the term marriage on their legal documents. You're beyond naive to even think that's doable. I don't even know why I'm continuing this discussion.

[cate94]

119. The whole argument is moot.

I really don't think that there is a gay person out there who wouldn't accept "equal" or even "nearly equal" rights to get started down the path to equality. However, nearly equal won't happen any sooner than equal rights. The pretense is mind boggling.

My point is that the "civil unions" argument hinges on the belief that religious institutions will allow gay rights as long as you don't call it marriage. There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest this is true. None. Show me evidence that this theory of civil unions are okay as far as LDS, RCC, etc are concerned. There is none. They are not interested in preserving marriage. They are interested in preventing me from having rights.

Proof of this would be the reaction of the religious extremists to civil unions everywhere. Florida didn't JUST make gay marriage illegal, they made civil unions illegal and domestic partnerships. The religious extremists objected LOUDLY to civil unions in Vermont. Remember?

It isn't the word you call it. Giving gay people rights means that you accept gay people, that in itself is unacceptable to the religious right.

[Pithlet]

139. I know. I've argued that with the civil union for all crowd.

I don't get why they think this would make the bigots roll over. It's never going to happen. Getting rid of marriage in favor of civil uions for all people will never happen in a million years.

[Gwendolyn]

140. It's because the civil unionizing crowd is fresh-faced and naive.

Hearts in the right place, but heads in the clouds.

[Dems4me]

24. I really don't know either...but I can tell you

that about 16 years ago a close family member of mine had a civil union between him and his life partner.
I'm not really sure about the legalities, but they were both of a Christian faith so the also had a beautiful
religious service with a gay minister and us family and many friends. Everything they had was like most marriages I know,
in both names, including their business. They had wills and insurance policies and everything in the care of the other encase
something happened. Well a few short years ago, one got sick with cancer. Their out of state family members
tried to take controll of things, even belongings....but legally they could not. When my family members' mate finally passed,
He made all the funeral arrangements, handled the sale of their estate and their business.

So legally, I really don't know. I do know they took particular care in making things the way the wanted them
to be legally. They had a lawyer draw things up, even wills for if they both were to pass together how they wanted things
done.

Someone mentioned taxes...but I didn't know you had to be married to be able to file jointly.. I wonder how Common-Law relationships
handle that?

[NMMNG]

29. Marriages afford full rights.

Civil Unions (or Domestic Partnerships), no matter how well intentioned, do not. This has been proven in NJ, VT, CA and many other states. It may be workplaces refusing to provide partner benefits because they're not married, difficulty getting survivor benefits that are provided to married individuals, issues with family members who claim a CU/DP "isn't a marriage and therefore isn't real", etc. Only legal marriage provides the same rights and protections as marriage.

From my lovely wife:

Among the differences:

Domestic partnerships are valid only within the state in which they are issued -- and a DP certainly will not be recognized should we travel outside the U.S.

Legal same-sex marriage is recognized in states where it is already legal -- and sometimes where it has not yet been legalized, such as New York State. This may mean little to you, but it is of great assurance to my wife and me when we visit family in New York: We know that we will not be required to provide proof of our relationship should the need arise (e.g., in an emergency room).

(All legal marriages performed in any state should be recognized in all 50 states, but that won't stand a chance of happening until well after DOMA is overturned .)

One of the biggest issues is inequity in health insurance coverage. If a health insurer is based in California, it would have to provide partner benefits whether a couple was married or in a DP. But if the insurer is based out-of-state, it may or may not recognize a DP. It may or may not recognize a state-sanctioned marriage, either, but in most cases where this has been an issue, the real problem has been the lack of the simple word "spouse." (A number of New Jersey couples -- whose civil unions are for all intents and purposes identical to marriages -- have been unable to insure both partners because of simple semantics.)

(I believe a DP is not equal to marriage in certain eligibility requirements for provision of California state employees' long-term care benefits, but I've never spent much time studying this, as neither my wife nor I works for the state.)

You have to live together to be eligible for a DP. You don't have to live together to be married. (This doesn't apply to me, but I know it does to many couples, straight and gay, who work -- and live -- across the state or across the country.)

Domestic partners cannot file joint state tax returns. Married couples can choose to file jointly or not, as it benefits them.

Earnings of domestic partners are not classified as community property by the state.

Whether domestic partners can or cannot be forced to testify against one another in court is fuzzy -- and certainly, outside of California, they CAN be forced to testify against each other -- but married couples definitely cannot be forced.

Dissolving a DP of less than five years (and which has produced no children) is easier than getting a divorce; domestic partners need only notify the Secretary of State of their intent to dissolve the union. Think about that for a moment: We are fully cognizant that with the *rights* of marriage come the *responsibilities* of marriage. Since one of the many (false) arguments used against us is the "transcience" of our relationships, why not allow us to strengthen our relationships through marriage? (If you don't think marriage can strengthen a relationship, then why do straight people get married?)

While California businesses in general cannot discriminate on the basis of marital status, they're not always willing to comply with the law. One high-profile case in California involved a DP'd lesbian couple who believed they were entitled to married couples' benefits and privileges at a golf club one of them belonged to. It took more than five years of lawsuits before the case went all the way to the California Supreme Court, which finally ruled that the club (and all other businesses) had to recognize the DP as equivalent to a marriage. The question is: If DPs are *equal* to marriage in all ways, should this legal battle ever have been necessary in the first place?

It is often said that any rights or benefits we lack, we can duplicate via private legal contracts. Why force us to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees to approximate all the benefits that come with marriage? (That seems very un-Libertarian to me.)

Finally, if you are in favor of committed same-sex couples enjoying all the same benefits of marriage, without exception, then why deny us the real thing? Why maintain the illusion of "separate but equal"? Is it just some territorialism about the word "marriage"? If you are not a religious conservative, then you shouldn't be swayed by the idea that the word "marriage" is somehow reserved only for the religious. (If it were, atheists couldn't marry anyone.)

.....

In the end, all we want is the same rights -- and responsibilities -- you take for granted. We spend inordinate amounts of time trying to defend a position which really shouldn't have to be defended at all. Necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit -- "The necessity of proof lies with he who complains."

Or, look at it this way: When you were a kid, and you asked your dad if you could go somewhere with a friend, and he said no just because he was in a lousy mood, and you asked why, he'd snap, "Because I said so!"

That's really all the anti-marriage arguments amount to: "Because I said so!" Or, more accurately: "Because I'm bigger than you are, and I can kick your ass."
.....

For anyone who dares to claim "it's just a word, get over it" you're dead wrong. It's the rights that come with the word. Otherwise why would millions of bigots be putting tens of millions of dollars into keeping us from having it? If they truly believed Civil Unions were equal they wouldn't balk at the idea of everyone having them and nobody having marriage. They know very well that Civil Unions are lesser than, inferior and made to keep us second-class citizens.

And even if they gave us 100% equal rights it's still a matter of this: "Separate but equal" simply isn't. "Colored Only" drinking fountains may have provided the exact same water but they were wrong, because it distinctly implied that certain people were lesser than and therefore unworthy of sharing the same facility as others. Civil Unions for gay people and marriage for straight people says that only certain people are worthy of the institution of marriage, and others have to make do with something else.

Sorry, I'm not Civil Unioned. I'm married.

[readmoreoften]

31. Civil unions are a silly legal construction that only exists at the state level. Who knows?

But it ain't gonna be equal. Basically, the difference between a civil union and a marriage is any bullshit any private party wants to come up with. Oh, we only accept "marriages" at our counseling center... not civil unions. Sorry St. Josephs doesn't recognize civil unions. Only marriage. We can't let you in to see your "friend".

[Zuiderelle]

36. Civil unions give ZERO federal benefits. That's over 1000 benefits they do not provide.

Here are some of the federal benefits that are denied under civil unions. Many of these represent a HUGE sum of money that is lost to survivors of same-sex partners.

Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of federal tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Federal Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift federal tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
Child support

Every state has different rules for civil unions and domestic partnership, IF they even offer them, which most do not. And many of the rights you DO get at the state level are not recognized if you travel out of state, such as status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions if you are out of state. And certainly NONE of them extend if you relocate to another state.

[Zhade]

63. A gentle reminder, since I'm too tired to rage anymore...

DUers are expected to support our full equal rights, including the right to marry. Period.

That's from Skinner himself. There's a good reason he adopted that stance.

[verges]

66. No one has challenged

your full equal rights. Nor the right to marry. What has been challenged is the way to accomplish this. Charging the problem head-on with a cudgel doesn't seem to be working (DOMA, 17 state amendments (I think), a President-elect who opposes gay marraige, a Vice-President elect who opposes gay marraige, failure to stop prop 8 in CA!) What is suggested is a side-ways approach that gets the most people what they want and need, plus a way around the state constitutional amendments. A win-win situation.

[Zhade]

72. You're asking us to settle for separate but equal. Simply put: NO.

We will not accept that. Sorry.

Would you have advocated that African-Americans accept segregation in the hopes that, one day, bigots give up and let them win? Of course you wouldn't have done that! So why ask us to?

[verges]

74. Not at all.

If ALL couples have to get CU'd. Civil Marraige no longer exists. How is this seperate but equal? All couples would be treated equally.

Your analogy doesn't work because I'm not saying let them win. I'm saying outsmart them. Strip their religion away and show them for what they are.

[Tigress DEM]

116. Apparently the social acceptance of the word "marriage" is tantamount.

The tiers they are talking about wouldn't be created by the Constitutional Amendment which creates ONE category and ONE set of rights for everyone across the nation.

What keeps being said is that in communities it will be said their "Unions" aren't real because they aren't "Marriages" but that if you confer the civil marriage with the rights that mandates equality because the word is inclusive.

[Tigress DEM]

115. NO it's not separate but equal. It's ONE law that applies to ALL partnerships nationwide.

What I have suggested is that we make a Constitutional Amendment granting the 1,169 legal provisions granted to married couples to everyone entering into a legal partnership agreement that supersedes state laws to the contrary and gives states 2 ways to comply.

1) Grant gays marriage rights at the state level.
2) Accept the federal Civil Union with full partnership status that mandates the same rights for gays as other married couples in the state and full federal rights accorded by said union.

A Constitutional Amendment takes your case out of the hands of bigots or the church. It keeps them from voting one way this time and another the next.

This isn't segregation. There already IS a two tier system. We can fix one part thru Democratic means nationally and keep working on the individual states.

[BlooInBloo]

91. You gotta just love proponents of Separate-But-Equal.

[Tigress DEM]

117. So how does the OP asking an honest question about the difference rate this response?

The OP just wanted to know what the differnce in rights are. Did you mean this comment for someone else?

[TheKentuckian]

112. You can say what they do now, but law is written and crafted

there is no logical obstacle to writing law explicit enough to define a Civil Union with the exact rights and responsibilities as Marriage.

The smart move is to take the step you have and build on it. Ten or twenty years down the line no one will give it a second thought or you can elect to insist on the giant leap and still be in the same spot in twenty years.

You can win the minds of the people or pray to God that the conservatively stacked courts will fix things. Haggle with word and suffer the consequences or get strong Federal legislation that inherently affects taxes and any entity that gets Fed money like hospitals. The separate but equal line is pretty much bull. Assuming equal rights and responsibilities, harm cannot be demonstrated. This is not logically comparable to the situation with separate but equal education, where harms and equality was something that could be quantified. I'm near the impression that this is crossing over into the ethereal. The state can convey nothing more than rights and responsibilities, one that is the case you're on your own whatever you call your relationship.

[Tigress DEM]

118. What if we had a Constitutional Amendment that set partnership rights down firmly?

That in every state all Civil Unions would become federal documents and convey certain federal rights and match the rights of states marriage rights in all cases.

That if persons felt they were being discriminated against they could literally make a federal case out of it?

[Le Taz Hot]

122. Ref: Brown v. Board of Education

1954. There's your answer.

[LostinVA]

128. Best answer on this subject on DU -- EVER

Warning: I'm using it!

[comtec]

133. The way most people would write the law, legally, nothing

Before prop 8 I would have considered separate but equal wordings for the same thing
Give the religious wack jobs marriage, make it as draconian as they want.

it would have no legal distinction than a civil contract (which is what most people do here in holland, literally the same as marriage but non-sex based)

after prop 8... I am forced to agree with the LBGT community, words matter.

I was thinking it would be fine to let them have their little word... but now, now that they pushed through to TAKE AWAY EXISTING RIGHTS given by the court....

it's time to bend them over and TAKE the word back, TAKE it back like it was for interracial marriage.

The gloves are off, and it's time to screw PC, and do the right thing.

[mondo joe]

134. Here's the difference, from the Supreme Court:

"We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two types of union stamps the civil unions with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the same sex couples choose to put that construction upon it."


Ooops - that's not what the court said about same sex unions. That's what they said about separate accommodations for blacks and white in Plessy: "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."