Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ok explaine: what is the difference between the "m-word" and civil union?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
keep_it_real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:56 PM
Original message
Ok explaine: what is the difference between the "m-word" and civil union?
Is civil union not good enough? And if not then fix it ! Is marriage done in a church and civil union done in a court? Does both give the same rights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. it's the difference between sitting on the bus and being told to sit in the back
whatever the benefits, in a true sense they simply are not equal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejpoeta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. not really, because if there were a bus accident, the people who have the
civil unions wouldn't get covered by any insurance or be able to sue for negligence either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. I guess my point was
even IF the "benefits" were the same, they'd still never be considered truly "equal"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejpoeta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. true. and it's ridiculous!! isn't this what america was supposed to be about!!
equality?? freedom?? why is it that some people get to push their crap on the rest of us. I mean, no one is trying to force anything on them. They can do what they want, and the rest of us should be free to do what we want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #24
34. it is really hard for me to understand
I remember as a child thinking the taboo against interracial marriage was ridiculous - some people acted like it was two different species getting hitched - I feel the same sense of amazement now - it makes no freaking sense whatsoever to deny gay folk any rights we all enjoy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
31. Apples and oranges
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. if both the apple and orange are being discriminated against, yes it is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. The comparison is apples and oranges -- have you ever heard that phrase?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #38
47. yes
and it certainly does not apply here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. That's correct: "sitting in the back of the bus" does not apply here.
:hi: glad we agree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #48
67. I'm sorry you do not understand
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 09:55 PM by Skittles
DONE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. I'm sorry you do not understand
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 10:13 PM by omega minimo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keep_it_real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
91. Elton John: Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Let's make the federal government give the same rights to CU as to the m-word and that should solve the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #91
97. Is Sir Elton our spokesman now?
I must have missed the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #91
111. Sir Elton is speaking about another country
His home, the UK, where they have a whole different legal system. What works there does not simply translate here.
And Elton is an old, rich, international superstar who lied his way through half his life. I love the guy, but he's no role model, nor spokesman for anything. Ask him, he will be the first to tell you he does not care for politics nor know a thing about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #111
123. Do you remember when Melissa Etheridge's illiterate girlfriend was our spokesperson?
Last December? The bit about some people wearing a "yamuka" as others wearing a baseball cap?

Elton is an improvement, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. One is applied to lesser people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. Only one is given to American people with full equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keep_it_real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
93. Let's make the federal government give the same rights to CU as to the m-word and that should solve
The problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #93
99. Because it's not only about civil rights.
It's also about social standing, common perception and myriad basic rights and privileges married couples get simply because of the embedded meaning of the word "marriage" and "married" in our culture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejpoeta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. civil unions should be what it is called for everyone who is gettiing a license through the state.
and if they get married by a judge (like me) then it should be a civil marriage. and if a couple is married in a church, then it should be considered that they are doing the civil ceremony in conjunction with a religious ceremony thereby doing both at the same time. "Marriage" is just a word. And the only difference should be who is performing the ceremony. Religion has no business in government, and government has no business allowing religion to interject itself in matters of the state or federal government for that matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. +1
I think that is the only solution here. Throw the "marriage" bone to the fundies and just get it out of government. Start calling the legal entity "civil unions" for everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
23. I support this position. BUT, Civil Union has a legal meaning. Best terminology's Civil Marriage.
Because the terms "Civil Union" and "Domestic Partnership" both have specific legal meanings, they really shouldn't be what is used.

The appropriate term, IMO, is "Civil Marriage".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
36. Nonsense. The STATE marries you. Your church performs a ceremony with no legal weight.
There is ZERO difference between getting married in a church or by a judge already. That's why a Unitarian Church can't marry a gay couple now. If churches had legal power to do so, gay marriage would be legal.

CIVIL MARRIAGE is what all legal marriages already are. Tell my parents they've been "civilly unionized" and not married for the past 40 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Not true.
My marriage was performed in a church by a priest and it carried full legal weight, legally equal in every way to one performed by a judge or JP. True, we got our license from the State, but we weren't married until the priest performed the ceremony and signed the certificate. May vary in other jurisdictions, but in Illinois, just getting the license from the State does not a legal marriage make. (Nor does a ceremony without the license.......You need both.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. "signed the certificate" is the important part of it being a legal marriage
You do not need a ceremony to be legally married, just sign the documents with the right people also signing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. Right, but who else could have performed that ceremony? A Ship's captain?
If it's only about what a religious "authority" deems legitimate, why doesn't it matter that many religions DO perform Gay Marriages?

I can say I'm the Pope of the Church of Warren D ("Delicious. Delovely. DeMontague.") and my word is infalliable law. And I bet if I went to court, the court would find no reason to grant me any less of an authority to perform Marriage than the Priest in your Church. It couldn't, not constitutionally.

Or is it just that some religions are more "valid" than others? ....:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #39
59.  No, the ceremony ahs zero legal weight -- I wish I could find Pacifist Patriot's OP on this
The ceremony has zero weight. The only legal part of it is your license, issued by the STATE, signed by your priest who is NOT acting as a priest by as a legally recognized agent of the STATE. The ceremony is nothing but filler. I had a religious ceremony, too -- officiated by our own Pacifist Patriot -- and nothing mattered by the license and sig. That's it. In every state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #59
77. For those of us who are religious, the religious ceremony is not just filler.
It is sacred and meaningful to have one's marriage recognized by one's faith community, and, for those who believe, one's Creator. It's also meaningful to have the recognition of the state, but the religious ceremony is more than "filler".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #77
82. But the religious ceremony is irrelevant to the legality of marriage
And that is what the debate is about.

In most states, religious leaders of recognized religions, judges, justices of the peace and notaries public can all sign the license issued by the state to make it a legal marriage. My husband and I had no ceremony and our license was signed by a pizza cook/notary public. My marriage is just as legal and conveyed as many rights as the full religious ceremony you had with a priest signing your license.

What is not right is that some religions will perform same sex marriage ceremonies, but those marriages are not recognized by the state. And for those who do not need the "sanctity" to make their commitment, why should the state not allow them to make the legal commitment with all the accompanying rights that ensue, no matter what the sex of the pair are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #82
131. Good points
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #82
149. But, to the religious, it is important. Important in different ways than the civil marriage,
but still important.

As to your last paragraph, I'm clergy in one of those religions that perform same sex weddings, which are not recognized in this state(but I'm close enough to drive to a state that does recognize them--I did this just yesterday). For us, both ceremonies are important--and neither one is "filler".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #77
103. It legally IS filler, which is what I said
I had a religious wedding ceremony, as I stated. You're trying to pick a fight with me where there is none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #39
68. No. TRUE. You don't need a priest to sign a certificate. A public official works just fine.
*sigh*

You would've been married if I got a free online certificate from the Universal Life Church which also grants degrees in Jedi Mastery. Or if you went to a Justice of the Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #39
95. You are correct that two things are required, but there is an important distinction to be made.
You are absolutely correct that if you have a license and it is not certified by an individual authorized to declare that the couple were joined in marriage in accordance with the laws of the state, they are not married.

The basics of a legal marriage are:

- Two consenting adults
- One valid marriage license
- An expressed intent to be married
- An authorized individual witnessing the expression of intent
- Authorized individual certifying on the license that he or she witnessed the intent
- Filing of the completed license with the county/state.

Not very spiritual or romantic which is why we humans, who invest emotional meaning in transitions through ritual, have weddings. But you'll notice that in the outline of a legal marriage above, clergy and religion are not mentioned anywhere.

The distinction here is that the presence of clergy and a religious ceremony is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Now this does not say anything about the spiritual and religious needs of the couple which can be met by having a religious wedding ceremony presided by a member of the clergy. This is important to many people which is why clergy usually head the list in the statutes.

Every single state in the union grants clergy the authority to certify that the couple were joined in marriage in accordance with the laws of the state.

Every single state in the union also grants certain secular roles, that vary by state, the authority to certify that the couple were joined in marriage in accordance with the laws of the state.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #39
113. Yes. Clergy serve as agents of the state in these matters -
while maintaining their religious right to marry only those people they choose to marry.

I've heard from clergy that most wish this were not the way the system works - they'd prefer NOT to be state agents, and to bless marriages after the state has declared them legal, or bless unions that are not legal yet - all just according to the dictates of their own religion.

We have a strange hybrid system right now, and it sows confusion that I'm afraid the anti-equality folks continue to use to their advantage. ("Be afraid! If gay marriage is legalized, your church will have to marry gay people!")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tangerine LaBamba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #39
150. Not so ............
In every state, you need to get a license from the state in order to be married legally. The religious ceremony has absolutely NO legal weight, and that is true of every state in our Union.

You sign the marriage license issued to you at the courthouse, and you and your spouse enter into a contract with the state. That's all marriage is, the legal kind, and that's why you need a legal divorce, not a religious one - like an annulment or a git - in order to end the marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keep_it_real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #4
88. Agreeded
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
96. Ack! I really need to find that post I wrote a few weeks ago.
Someone help me find it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #4
98. Okay, found one. Here's one, but if I recall correctly there was...
another post that was a bit better than this one. I was posting a lot on this subject the day the CA Supreme Court decision came down.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=133713
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #98
104. I couldn't find it either
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. Ask Sir Elton John.
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 01:02 PM by Deja Q
He'd get bashed around here too...

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm

HE is bright enough to understand the whole sphere of influence thing. Empathy, understanding others' viewpoints. Far more mature than a lot on this board, he is...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
30. Those who desire equality are immature now? Nice.
Maybe we should have made interracial marriages civil partnerships, that would have been the more mature stance, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
51. Elton John Is Not the Queen of Gay People. And British Civil Unions Are Different From the US
He...and you...should bother to find out what you're talking about before you start spouting off.

Why don't you go back to the 50's, when Separate But Equal was still considered a swell idea?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keep_it_real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #5
89. "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keep_it_real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
90. Sir Elton John: "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
6. spelling. Some states may still have common law marriage which is default
civil marriage based on living together for approx 7 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
8. Civil Unions to not granted federal protections and benefits
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 01:06 PM by Oregone
A marriage can be done anywhere between *anyone*. The federal government just will not recognize the institution between two same sex people. Essentially, gay people are not allowed to form the same legal two person union governing assets, wealth and liabilities (read, like a corporation) simply because of their sexual preference. If that isn't discrimination, I don't know what is.

This isn't an argument about "love" and "religion" or "moral rights". This is simply about allowing ALL people to form the same legal entity (and thereby benefit from it) as long as they are not breaking any laws. Currently, civil unions do not impart the same benefits, and the denial to allow gays to form the marriage entity is pure sancitoned sexual discrimination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
9. Pacifist Pariot (minsiter) posted and excellent OP on this -- I'll try to find it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
55. Good luck. I can't even find it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. What the heck???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #58
101. I'm sure it's not missing. I just suck at searching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
11. Societal approval.
The ability to say this is the new normal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I think that misses the mark big time
Ask gay couples on April 15th if they give two fucks about how "normal" their relationship is considered. They are being robbed through sanctioned discrimination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #13
83. So you think its fine if its called civil unions and has all the rights and obligations
of marriage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
12. If there is to be equality
there can't be two different ways to be joined in the eyes of the law. Marriage is the word on the books and in the laws; it is the legal standard. What, if any, is the purpose of creating another standard? The only reason I can see is "separate but equal".

If the country was willing to replace the word marriage in every instance and only recognize civil unions, that would be fine. But that's never, ever, going to happen. So, then, marriage it is to be -- for every one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
14. I think you're hitting close to a definition I would like to see
Civil unions should be what is recognized by the state via the license granted, and a marriage is what should be recognized by the church.

If a particular church decides to permit gay marriage, so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Balbus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. What's the difference between the "f-word" and gay?
I bet they both mean the same to you...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
16. Marriage in a church doesn't confer any legal rights, AFAIK.
Legal marriage (when you sign the paper from the country office) confers over 1,000 federal rights and benefits that are currently not given by "civil unions, domestic partners", etc. Six states have already given the rights of marriage to same sex couples. It isn't rocket science, it just takes political will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
17. Here's a few, for starters, you can look up the rest yourself. :)
From the GAO.


Categories of Laws Involving Marital Status

CATEGORY 1—SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PROGRAMS, HOUSING, AND FOOD STAMPS

This category includes the major federal health and welfare programs, particularly those
considered entitlements, such as Social Security retirement and disability benefits, food stamps,
welfare, and Medicare and Medicaid. Most of these laws are found in Title 42 of the United
States Code, The Public Health and Welfare; food stamp legislation is in Title 7, Agriculture.

In many of these programs, recognition of the marital relationship is integral to the design of the
program. For example, the law establishing the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
(OASDI) program (Social Security) is written in terms of the rights of husbands and wives, and
widows and widowers. Once the law sets forth the basic right of an individual participant to
retirement benefits, it prescribes in great detail the corresponding rights of the current or former
spouse. Whether one is eligible for Social Security payments, and if so how much one receives,
are both dependent on marital status. This is reflected in the provisions for what happens upon
the death of a beneficiary: if certain conditions are met, then a spouse or a divorced spouse (as
well as a widow or widower) has a right to payments based on the marriage, rather than on his or
her own earnings.

The part of the Social Security Act that governs the OASDI program is unusual in that, unlike
many other laws we have identified, it defines the terms "husband" and "wife." It does so in
terms of state law: a person is the wife or husband of an insured individual for purposes of
OASDI if "the courts of the State … would find that such applicant and such
insured individual were validly married …" or, if not, that under the state's laws of intestate
succession, the person would have the same status with respect to the individual's property as a
wife or husband, widow or widower. Those 65 or older who are eligible for Social Security
retirement benefits, or who have received Social Security disability benefits for at least 2 years,
are also eligible for benefits under Medicare.

The Social Security Act also authorizes the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, for the
needy aged, blind, and disabled. Under SSI, both the level of income to determine eligibility and
the level of benefits for those who are eligible differ, depending whether the applicant has an
eligible spouse or not. SSI defines "eligible spouse" as an aged, blind, or disabled individual
who is the husband or wife of another aged, blind, or disabled individual. The SSI law goes on
to say that, in determining whether two individuals are husband and wife, state law will generally
apply, except that if a man and a woman have been determined to be husband and wife for
purpose of OASDI or, if a man and woman are found to be holding themselves out to the
community as husband and wife, they are also husband and wife for purposes of SSI.

Child support enforcement is another program, also established under the Social Security Act, that
contains provisions affecting spouses. Its purpose is to provide help (1) in enforcing the support
obligations of absent parents to their children and to the spouse with whom the children may be
living, and (2) in obtaining child and spousal support. If an obligation has been established under
state law for one spouse to support another, and if the supported spouse is receiving assistance
under Medicaid (see below) or AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), then a state
participating in the child support enforcement program must help enforce the support obligation.

Medicaid is a jointly funded federal-state entitlement program to provide medical assistance to
qualifying low-income people, including those eligible for AFDC2 and SSI, non-AFDC
low-income children and pregnant women, and low-income Medicare beneficiaries. In
determining a person's eligibility for Medicaid based on income, states may consider the spouse's
financial responsibility for the person, but may not consider anyone else's financial responsibility.
Spouses are considered "essential" to individuals receiving Medicaid benefits, and are therefore
eligible for medical assistance themselves. The Medicaid statute also prescribes how to account
for the income and resources of the spouse of an institutionalized person, for purposes of
determining that person's eligibility for benefits.

In the broad federal program of housing assistance for low-income families the definition of
"families" takes marital status into account. For some purposes, the term means families whose
heads, or their spouses, are elderly, near-elderly, or disabled. However, the same provision
includes a definition of families—"2 or more elderly persons, near-elderly persons, or persons
with disabilities living together"—that does not require any marital relationship. The same law
makes marital status a factor in determining whether a family qualifies for assistance in terms of
income. Applicants may exclude $550 for each family member who is under 18, or is disabled
or handicapped or a full-time student, but this exclusion does not apply to "the head of the
household or his spouse." Also to be excluded is any payment by a member of the family for the
support and maintenance of a spouse or former spouse who does not live in the household.

In the National Affordable Housing program, marital status also is significant. The program is
intended to assist families, and particularly "first-time homebuyers," in buying homes. "First-time
homebuyer" is defined, in part, as an individual "and his or her spouse" who have not owned a
home during the preceding 3 years.

In the Food Stamp program (also to be broadly affected by welfare reform), marital status is not
central, but does play a role. Eligibility for benefits under the program is determined on the basis
of households, and "household" includes not only spouses who live together, but also groups of
individuals who live together and customarily buy and prepare food together.


CATEGORY 2—VETERANS' BENEFITS

Veterans' benefits, which are codified in Title 38 of the United States Code, include pensions,
indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, nursing home care, right to
burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing. Husbands or wives of
veterans have many rights and privileges by virtue of the marital relationship.

A surviving spouse or child of a veteran is entitled to receive monthly dependency and indemnity
compensation payments when the veteran's death was service-connected, and to receive a monthly
pension when the veteran's death was not service-connected. If it is discovered that a veteran's
marriage is invalid, the purported marriage may nevertheless be deemed valid under certain
circumstances, as long as a "real" widow or widower does not ask for benefits.

Veterans who have at least a 30 percent disability are entitled to additional disability
compensation if they have dependents. For this purpose a spouse is considered a dependent. A
veteran's spouse may also receive compensation if a veteran disappears. On the other hand, a
spouse's estate is considered along with the veteran's when the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
determines whether it is reasonable that some part of the veteran's assets be used for the veteran's
maintenance and whether the Secretary should discontinue paying the pension.

The spouses of certain veterans are entitled to medical care provided by the government. In
determining, based on income and assets, whether a veteran has the ability to defray necessary
home care and medical expenses, the property of the spouse of the veteran is included as an asset
of the veteran. Spouses of veterans may be beneficiaries of National Service Life Insurance, and
are also eligible for interment in national cemeteries if the veteran is eligible. The surviving
spouse of a veteran who died of a service-connected disability is entitled to educational assistance
for up to 45 months, and to job counseling, training, and placement services. Spouses and
widows or widowers of certain veterans also enjoy preferences in federal employment.


CATEGORY 3—TAXATION

The distinction between married and unmarried status is pervasive in federal tax law; this is one
of the largest categories, with 179 provisions. Tax law does not define such terms as "husband,"
"wife," or "married."

Marital status figures in federal tax law in provisions as basic as those giving married taxpayers
the option to file joint or separate income tax returns. It is also seen in the related provisions
prescribing different tax consequences depending on whether a taxpayer is married filing jointly,
married filing separately, unmarried but the head of a household, or unmarried and not the head
of a household.

The different treatment in the tax code of married couples and single individuals gives rise to one
of the most contentious tax policy issues, the so-called marriage penalty (and its counterpart, the
marriage bonus). This issue comes into play in connection with income tax rates, the treatment
of capital losses, credits for the elderly and disabled, taxation of Social Security benefits, and a
number of other provisions of the tax code. In our report, Tax Administration: Income Tax
Treatment of Married and Single Individuals, we identified 59 provisions in income tax law
under which tax liability depends in part on whether a taxpayer is married or single.

Marital status also plays a key role in the estate and gift tax laws and in the part of the tax code
dealing with taxation on the sale of property. For estate tax purposes, property transferred to one
spouse as the result of the death of another is deductible for purposes of determining the value of
the decedent's estate. Gifts from one spouse to another are deductible for purposes of the gift tax.
Gifts from one spouse to a third party are deemed to be from both spouses equally. The law
permits transfers of property from one spouse to another (or to a former spouse if the transfer is
incident to a divorce) without any recognition of gain or loss for tax purposes. These provisions
permit married couples to transfer substantial sums to one another, and to third parties, without
tax liability in circumstances in which single people would not enjoy the same privilege.


CATEGORY 4—FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY SERVICE BENEFITS

This category includes laws dealing with current and retired federal officers and employees,
members of the Armed Forces, elected officials, and judges, in which marital status is a factor.
Typically these laws address the various health, leave, retirement, survivor, and insurance benefits
provided by the United States to those in federal service and their families.

Over 270 of the 1049 provisions we found fall in this category. They appear primarily in Title 5
of the United States Code, Government Organization and Employees, for civilian employees, and
Title 10, Armed Forces, for military members. However, parallel provisions are found in 19
other titles covering, for example, Foreign Service officers (Title 22, Foreign Relations and
Intercourse), Central Intelligence Agency employees (Title 50, War and National Defense),
Lighthouse Service employees (Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters), and members of the
Coast Guard (Title 14, Coast Guard).

Marital status is a factor in these laws in many ways. Among the laws governing federal
employees and officers, it figures in the following provisions: a law establishing health benefits
or survivor benefits for spouses; a law prescribing the order of precedence in payment of final
paychecks and life insurance benefits of employees or officers who die without having designated
a beneficiary; and a law determining the rights of current or former spouses to a retirement
annuity after the death of an employee.

In addition, under provisions for reimbursement of employees' expenses in connection with a
government-ordered relocation, spouses are eligible for per diem allowances or subsistence
payments. Federal civil service employees are entitled to unpaid leave in order to care for a
spouse with a serious health problem, and an employee disabled by work-related injuries receives
augmented compensation if he or she is married.

A different set of laws governs military personnel and their families. Some of the provisions
unique to military service include: employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of
members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges for dependents,
including spouses, of members separated for spousal or child abuse, and the right of minor
spouses of overseas military personnel to free secondary education through the Defense
Department school system.


CATEGORY 5—EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND RELATED LAWS

Marital status comes into play in many different ways in federal laws relating to employment in
the private sector. Most such laws appear in Title 29 of the United States Code, Labor.
However, others are in Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining; Title 33, Navigation and Navigable
Waters; and Title 45, Railroads.

This category includes laws that address the rights of employees under employer-sponsored
employee benefit plans; that provide for continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits after
events like the death or divorce of the employee; and that give employees the right to unpaid
leave in order to care for a seriously ill spouse. In addition, Congress has extended special
benefits in connection with certain occupations, like mining and public safety. The spouse of a
coal miner who dies of black lung disease is entitled to benefits, for example. The surviving
spouse of a public safety officer killed in the line of duty is eligible for a death benefit of up to
$100,000.

Spouses are sometimes excluded from coverage as employees under certain laws. For example,
under the National Labor Relations Act, an individual working for his or her spouse does not
come within the definition of "employee," and therefore does not have the right, available under
the Act to other employees, to organize or to engage in collective bargaining. If the only regular
employees of a business are the owner and his or her spouse, then the business is not subject to
regulation of wages and hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). Similarly,
the spouse or other family member of an employer working in agriculture is not covered under
FLSA requirements like minimum wage.

Some laws protect the interests of one spouse when the other becomes eligible for some benefit.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act prohibits an employee from changing
beneficiaries in a retirement plan or from waiving the joint and survivor annuity form of
retirement benefit, without the written consent of his or her spouse.
The Railroad Retirement Act confers many rights on retired railroad employees and their spouses.
Spouses may be eligible for annuities and lump sum benefits. Congress has also enacted a
workers' compensation law for longshore and harbor workers that establishes survivor benefits for
spouses.


CATEGORY 6—IMMIGRATION, NATURALIZATION, AND ALIENS

This category includes laws governing the conditions under which noncitizens may enter and
remain in the United States, be deported, or become citizens. Most are found in Title 8, Aliens
and Nationality.

The law gives special consideration to spouses of immigrants and aliens in a wide variety of
circumstances. Under immigration law, aliens may receive special status by virtue of their
employment, and that treatment may extend to their spouses. For example, the spouses of aliens
who come to the United States on a temporary basis (to work as registered nurses, seasonal
agricultural workers, or in certain specialty occupations), and who meet other criteria, are not
subject to the worldwide numerical limitations on levels of immigration. Also, spouses of aliens
granted asylum can be given the same status if they accompany or join their spouses.

Spouses of aliens do not enjoy favored immigration status in all circumstances. Posthumous
citizenship is authorized for noncitizen members of the armed forces who die during hostilities,
but not for their spouses. When the government revokes the citizenship of someone because it
was obtained through misconduct, and that person's spouse derived his or her citizenship from the
marriage, the spouse's citizenship will also be revoked.

Some provisions of immigration law are designed to prevent misuse of marital status. The law
calls for termination of the permanent resident status of an alien granted on the basis of marriage,
if it is determined that the marriage was for the purpose of procuring the alien's entry to the
United States, or if the marriage is annulled or terminated (other than through the death of a
spouse) within two years.

The Congress recently limited the eligibility of qualified aliens for certain federal programs—such
as SSI, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (which will replace AFDC), and Social
Services block grants—but it made a few exceptions, one of which directly benefits spouses of
veterans. Aliens who are serving on active duty in the Armed Forces or who are honorably
discharged veterans, and their spouses, remain eligible for these benefits in the same manner as a
citizen. Federal law also provides that the incomes of the sponsor of an immigrant, and of the
sponsor's spouse, are to be taken into account in determining the immigrant's eligibility for
means-tested public benefits.


CATEGORY 7—INDIANS

The indigenous peoples of the United States have long had a special legal relationship with the
federal government through treaties and laws that are classified to Title 25, Indians. Various laws
set out the rights to tribal property of white men marrying Indian women, or of Indian women
marrying white men, the evidence that is required, and the rights of children born of marriages
between white men and Indian women.

The law also establishes Indians' rights to develop descent and distribution rights regarding their
property as long as they include certain provisions. Most relevant to this discussion is the right
of a surviving spouse who is neither an Indian nor a member of the deceased spouse's tribe to
elect a life estate in property that he or she is occupying at the time of the death of the other
spouse. Another law governing rights of Navajo and Hopi Indians gives relocation benefits to
spouses who relinquish their life estates.

Health services can also be made available to otherwise ineligible spouses of an eligible Indian if
all such spouses are made eligible by an appropriate resolution of the governing body of the tribe.
Health professionals seeking positions in the Indian Health Service and their spouses may be
reimbursed for actual and reasonable expenses incurred in traveling to and from their homes to an
area in which they could be assigned to allow them to evaluate the area with respect to the
assignment.


CATEGORY 8—TRADE, COMMERCE, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

This category includes provisions concerning foreign or domestic business and commerce, from
the following titles of the United States Code: Bankruptcy, Title 11; Banks and Banking, Title
12; Commerce and Trade, Title 15; Copyrights, Title 17; and Customs Duties, Title 19.

Federal law prescribes the right of debtors to seek bankruptcy protection and the rights of
creditors when their debtors adopt that strategy. It expressly permits spouses to file jointly for
bankruptcy protection. This may benefit both the debtors and their creditors: the married couple
pays only one filing fee and creditors file only one claim.

Bankruptcy law prescribes how to distribute the assets of a bankrupt person, assigns specific
priorities to different classes of creditors, and permits a bankrupt debtor to be "discharged" (i.e.,
released) from the obligation to repay certain debts. A former spouse of the debtor making a
claim in a bankruptcy proceeding for payments pursuant to a divorce decree or separation
agreement is given a higher priority than some other creditors. Also, a discharge in bankruptcy
generally does not relieve a debtor of the obligation to pay alimony or support to a spouse or
former spouse in connection with a divorce decree or separation agreement.

The National Housing Act addresses the rights of mortgage borrowers. Banks often use a socalled
due-on-sale clause in mortgage agreements that permits them to declare the loan payable in
full if the borrower sells the property without their consent. The Act prohibits use of the due-onsale
clause in case of transfers of residential property from one spouse to another.

For some purposes, the laws regulating investment companies and advisers apply not only to the
advisers themselves, but also to what the law terms "interested persons." "Interested persons" is
defined to include the spouses of certain persons, of their parents, and of their children.
The Consumer Credit Protection Act regulates some aspects of garnishment of wages, a legal
process whereby a creditor collects a debt by having the debtor's employer pay part of the
debtor's wages directly to the creditor. The Act establishes that at most 25 percent of the
disposable earnings of an individual can be withheld through garnishment. However, if the
purpose of the garnishment is to enforce an order for the support of a spouse, the maximum is 60
percent or, if the wage earner is supporting a spouse (not the former spouse for whose benefit the
support order was issued), 50 percent.

The Copyright Act gives renewal rights and termination rights, in some circumstances, to the
widow or widower of the creator of a copyrighted work. The law defines "widow or widower"
as the creator's surviving spouse under the law of the creator's domicile at the time of his or her
death, whether or not the spouse subsequently remarries.

The amount of customs duty on imported merchandise depends on its value. Under the law, the
actual transaction value—that is, how much the buyer paid the seller—may be used to establish
value if the buyer and seller are not "related." For this purpose, spouses are deemed to be
related. Also, certain countries that deny or restrict the ability of their citizens to emigrate in
order to join "close relatives" in the United States can be penalized by the imposition of
restrictions on their trade with the United States. "Close relative," for purposes of this law,
includes a spouse.

Under the Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act of 1993, the
federal government provides a mechanism for financing programs to strengthen the market for cut
flowers and greens, through an assessment of "handlers" of these products whose annual sales
exceed $750,000. Marital status comes into play in determining whether a handler meets the
$750,000 threshold: for this purpose, sales by one spouse are attributed to the other.


CATEGORY 9—FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Federal law imposes obligations on Members of Congress, employees or officers of the federal
government, and members of the boards of directors of some government-related or governmentchartered
entities, to prevent actual or apparent conflicts of interest. These individuals are
required to disclose publicly certain gifts, interests, and transactions. Many of these requirements,
which are found in 16 different titles of the United States Code, apply also to the individual's
spouse.

The law regulates the conditions under which gifts from foreign governments and international
organizations may be accepted by spouses of employees of the Postal Service, the Postal Rate
Commission, certain government contractors, employees of the District of Columbia government,
members of the uniformed services, Members of Congress, the President, and the Vice President.
Employees of executive, legislative, and judicial agencies may not appoint relatives, including
spouses, to agencies in which they serve or exercise control. The spouses of members of the
Senate may not accept, in any calendar year, gifts worth more than $250, without getting a
waiver.

Elsewhere in the Code are rules intended to prevent conflicts of interest on the part of members
of various councils and boards. For instance, members of the boards of directors of the National
Sheep Industry Improvement Center and the Alternative Agricultural Research and
Commercialization Corporation are prohibited from participating in any matter pending before
either board in which a spouse holds an interest. The law governing the members of Regional
Fishery Management Councils is somewhat different. Members are required to disclose and
make available for public inspection any financial interests they or their spouses might have in an
activity that the councils might undertake.

Another variation in the treatment of conflict of interest involving spouses appears in connection
with the National Foundation for Biomedical Research. Instead of prescribing conflict of interest
rules for the Foundation, the Congress directed it to devise its own standards. However, those
standards must ensure that officers, employees and agents of the Foundation (including members
of the Board), and their spouses, avoid encumbrances that could result in a financial conflict of
interest or a divided allegiance.


CATEGORY 10—CRIMES AND FAMILY VIOLENCE

This category includes laws that implicate marriage in connection with criminal justice or family
violence. The nature of these provisions varies greatly. Some deal with spouses as victims of
crimes, others with spouses as perpetrators. These laws are found primarily in Title 18, Crimes
and Criminal Procedure, but some, dealing with crime prevention and family violence, are in
Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Attempting to influence a United States official through threats directed at a spouse is a federal
crime, as are killing, or attempting to kill, foreign officials or their spouses, or threatening to kill certain persons protected by the Secret Service, such as major presidential candidates and their
spouses.

Under federal criminal statutes, spouses and others have some protections against domestic
violence. It is a federal crime for a person to travel across a state line with the intent to injure a
spouse or "intimate partner" if that person intentionally commits a crime of violence and causes
bodily injury to the spouse or intimate partner. The term "spouse or intimate partner" is broadly
defined to include a former spouse, someone who "shares a child in common" with the abuser,
and someone who "cohabits or has cohabited with the abuser as a spouse."

In some cases, marriage can be a factor in triggering criminal liability. For example, a widow's
or widower's entitlement to federal employee survivor payments ceases upon remarriage; such a
widow or widower who remarries and continues to accept payment may, if found guilty, be fined
or imprisoned.

Claiming marital status that does not exist can also be a crime. Falsely representing oneself to be
the spouse or surviving spouse of an individual in order to elicit information about the Social
Security number, date of birth, employment, wages, or benefits of that individual, is a felony.

Comprehensive crime control legislation directed the Attorney General to study the means by
which abusive spouses obtain information concerning the addresses or locations of estranged or
former spouses, despite the desire of the victims to have the information withheld. Congress also
has charged the National Commission on Crime Prevention and Control to evaluate the adequacy
of federal and state laws on sexual assault and the need for a more uniform statutory response to
sex offenses. This mandate specifically addresses sexual assaults and other sex offenses
committed by offenders who are known, or related by blood or marriage, to the victim.

Criminal justice grants are given to encourage arrest of domestic violence offenders; "domestic
violence" includes an act of violence by a current or former spouse. Another provision gives
nationals of the United States who are victims of acts of terrorism committed outside the United
States, and their survivors, including spouses, a statutory right to bring a civil action for treble
damages.


CATEGORY 11—LOANS, GUARANTEES, AND PAYMENTS IN AGRICULTURE

Under many federal loan programs, a spouse's income, business interests, or assets are taken into
account for purposes of determining a person's eligibility to participate in the program. In other
instances, marital status is a factor in determining the amount of federal assistance to which a
person is entitled, or the repayment schedule.

Education loan programs are found primarily in Title 20, Education; housing loan programs for
veterans are found in Title 38, Veterans' Benefits. Title 7, Agriculture, includes provisions
governing agricultural price supports and loan programs that are affected by the spousal
relationship.

Under the federal family education loan program, the income and assets of an independent
student's spouse are attributed to the student for purposes of determining whether the student is
eligible for a loan and, if so, the amount. Married couples may consolidate their separate student
loans into one if they agree to be jointly and severally liable for repayment of the consolidated
loan, without regard either to the amounts of the respective loan obligations to be consolidated or
to any subsequent change in their marital status. Under the federal direct student loan program,
the Secretary of Education, in order to determine the annual repayment amount when repayment
is contingent on the borrower's income, may obtain information regarding the income not only of
the borrower but also of the borrower's spouse. Repayment schedules are generally based on the
adjusted gross income of both spouses.

Many of the laws governing veterans' benefits implicate marital status. Eligibility for assistance
in borrowing for housing extends to the surviving spouses of veterans who die from a serviceconnected
disability, and to the spouses of certain veterans who, for more than 90 days, have
been missing in action, captured by hostile forces, or forcibly detained by a foreign government.
The laws governing agriculture include provisions for price supports and loan programs that are
affected by marital status. For example, the law limits the amount of certain crop support
payments that any one person can receive. For this purpose, a husband and wife are considered
to be one person, except to the extent each may have owned property individually before the
marriage. Also, agricultural loans for real estate, operating expenses, and emergencies may be
made to "family farms," defined as those farms in which a majority interest is held by individuals
related by marriage or blood.


CATEGORY 12—FEDERAL NATURAL RESOURCES AND RELATED LAWS

Federal law gives special rights to spouses in connection with a variety of transactions involving
federal lands and other federal property. These transactions include purchase and sale of land by
the federal government and lease by the government of water and mineral rights.

When the government purchases land for national battlefields, monuments, seashores, or parks,
the law commonly allows those from whom the land is purchased and their spouses to continue
to use and occupy it during their lifetimes. For example, those owning houses (and their spouses)
when the Stones River National Battlefield and Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore were
created have life estates in the land. Although these laws affect relatively few individuals, we
found more than 40 such provisions in Title 16, Conservation.

In addition to playing a role under these provisions for the government to buy land, spousal
relationship has also been a factor in determining priorities among potential buyers when the
government is selling federal lands. For example, when Congress decided in 1955 to terminate
ownership of land used by the Atomic Energy Commission and sell it to local entities and private
parties, it generally barred any transfer of priorities for purchase, but allowed a husband and wife
to exercise a priority in their joint names.

The marital relationship may affect whether an individual can be considered a surface mine
owner with whom the Secretary of Labor can negotiate a lease. To be designated a surface mine
owner, an individual must hold legal or equitable title to the land for a 3-year period and his or
her principal residence must be on the land. In computing the 3-year period, the Secretary may
include periods during which a relative by blood or marriage, including a spouse, owned the land.

Under laws governing reclamation and irrigation of lands by the federal government, the basic
unit of ownership is 160 irrigable acres. Under certain conditions, if the death of a spouse causes
lands in private ownership to become excess lands (having more than 160 acres) but those lands
were eligible to receive water from a project under the Federal reclamation laws without a
recordable contract, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to furnish water to them, without
requiring the contract, as long as the lands are owned by the surviving spouse. If the surviving
spouse remarries, the exception no longer applies, and lands in excess of 160 irrigable acres are
appraised in the usual manner.


CATEGORY 13—MISCELLANEOUS

This category comprises laws that do not fit readily in any of the other categories and that in our
judgment did not warrant a separate category. It is a heterogeneous mix of provisions from 14
titles of the United States Code.

Fourteen statutes in the Code that prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status are listed
in this category. For example, such discrimination is prohibited in executive agencies, and is
unlawful for a creditor in private financial transactions.
This category includes the laws chartering various patriotic societies, such as the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, that have as one of their purposes to assist the widows and children of servicemen
or others. The Gold Star Wives of America and Navy Wives Clubs of America have one of our
search terms in their titles.

We also included in this category laws related to the federal financing of presidential election
campaigns. To be eligible for federal funds, candidates may not spend more than $50,000 of
their own money or that of members of their immediate families for their campaigns. A spouse
or a close relative's spouse is deemed to be a member of the candidate's immediate family for this
purpose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hanse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
18. Semantics.
Although I think it's a semantic argument worth having, because it IS separate but equal.

And nobody complained about heterosexual institutionalized marriage until gay people started asking for it. So that's a cop out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Its equal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hanse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. In theory.
The question is framed in the hypothetical idea that gays are afforded all the same rights of marriage, with a different name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Well its still not right
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 02:01 PM by Oregone
Imagine if the question were about banning gays from incorporating businesses. They can instead call their institution "Gaycorporation". That would be illegal. Any people seeking to form a valid legal entity should be able to form one, despite sexual orientation. Even if the institution is equal, straight people should be equally allowed to form a Gaycorporation and gay people should be able to form a Corporation. You cannot exclude people arbitrarily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Well said and CU's are not equal to marriage - that's now clear from the DOJ.
Separate is never equal they reminded us on Thursday.


"Because all 50 States recognize heterosexual marriage, it was reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally-recognized form of marriage. At the same time, because Congress recognized both the freedom of States to expand the traditional definition, and the freedom of other States to decline to recognize this newer form of marriage, a policy of neutrality dictated that Congress not extend federal benefits to new forms of marriage recognized by some States. Given the strength of competing convictions on this still-evolving issue, Congress could reasonably decide that federal benefits funded by taxpayers throughout the nation should not be used to foster a form of marriage that only some States recognize, and that other States do not.

<snip>

Congress expressly relied on these interests in enacting DOMA: Government currently provides an array of material and other benefits to married couples in an effort to promote, protect, and prefer the institution of marriage. . . . If were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keep_it_real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #26
92. Let's make the federal government give the same rights to CU as to the m-word and that should solve
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #92
105. No it won't -- it already ahsn't worked, it can't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #92
115. Not at all. Think of it this way.
Imagine a situation in which white couples could be married, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual doesn't matter. Just their race. But black couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, were granted civil unions. They both have the same legal rights according to the federal government, but white people are married and black people are civil unioned.

Or what if native speaking English can have a marriage, but anyone who speaks English as a second language has to have a civil union.

The rights may be the same, but simply calling it something different makes it different. It sets it apart thereby instituting a mental barrier where none need exist. It turns our stomach (or should) if we see such distinction based on race. So why doesn't it do the same when the distinction is based on sexual orientation which is every bit a part of who a person is as their skin color?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #22
43. And then insurance companies and every other entity say they only cover "marriage."
It's already been a disaster in NJ and ruled as such by the court that put it in place. You don't have two legal terms for the exact same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davsand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
21. If you can fix the legal stuff, I think it is all about the language, really.
There is a fundamental legal difference between the rights "conferred' with a "marriage" and those of a "civil union" as it stands today. The stuff that can be fixed by Federal laws (like IRS code) needs to be corrected ASAP. I am not sure where the survivorship issues and medical power of attorney issues rest--dunno if that is at state or federal level--but those also are at issue right now.

A larger and overreaching issue we have got to sort out for ourselves is the emotional question of "marriage" -v- "civil union." If the churches' individual denominations do not want to recognize or celebrate same sex couples, there really IS no mechanism to mandate that they do.

An even deeper question to ponder, is do we, as a nation, want to even HAVE a discussion about church policies as they relate to law? Much as I abhor the refusal to celebrate all equally, I honestly do not think our government has any role in this beyond stepping up to extend and protect the governmentally granted rights that marriage grants currently.

I just don't think you can legislate certain stuff.


Laura
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
25. Marriage is Not Only a Civil Term
but uniquely, it is a joint religious/civil status. Civil ceremonies are recognized by churches. Church ceremonies are recognized by the state. There are terms and conditions, but up until the push for gay marriage it has always been a pretty clear category for both sides.

In half the church (Catholic), marriage is a core religious sacrament; in the other half, it might as well be. Gay marriage fundamentally changes the definition of marriage to enshrine sexual practices which the Old and Testaments go out of their way to condemn and what historically are universally condemned by the religions marrying people.

Gay people have a right to the same legal protections and financial treatment as other Americans.
Civil unions were created IMO to maintain the joint civil/religious nature of marriage while providing equal legal and financial treatment of gay citizens. Most of the gay community finds it inadequate, although the arguments rarely involve specific civil protections and rights that is the business of the state.

Now any state has the right to change the definition of marriage by legislation. Legalizing gay marriage unquestionably provides equal treatment for gays. However, most states are reluctant to break the existing joint civil/religious agreement on who is or can be married and prefer to address equal treatment by a purely civil category.

You could argue that marriage should be a completely civil category and completely distinct from church ceremonies. That is a reasonable point of view. It is possible for the state to offer civil unions to all and let the churches decide who they will marry. There would be changes and complications, but it does remove all distinctions between gay and straight couples.

The judicial decisions, such as Massachusetts, I find bizarre and troubling. The court could have ruled that the existing marriage laws do not provide equal treatment for gay people and instructed the state to create a legal framework that does. Instead, they chose to substitute what the judges believed marriage should be for what it is and always has been in the law. Redefinition of established terms is not what courts should be doing.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. Informative. "Marriage" is associated with churches and religious beliefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #32
53. This is a relatively recent meme in human history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Ah. It seems that's why a lot of religious object is the association (or lack) with churches?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #32
70. Not in this country
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustinL Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #32
75. Thanks for the info. I always wondered why atheists couldn't get married.
That also explains why marriages solemnized by a Justice of the Peace aren't recognized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #25
40. This is total obfuscation and a thinly-veiled assault on same-sex marriage.
Marriage since the end of the feudal era has been NOTHING but civil marriage. Before the end of the feudal era, the Church and King were combined power so it can't be compared. And, in fact, there were instances of same-sex marriage even then.

MARRIAGE existed in states where atheism was enforced by law, such as China and the USSR under Stalin. It predates monotheism. The couple is married by the modern state and your religion does a ceremony on top of the state recognition. If religion had any "right" to marry people, then the UCC would be marrying couples in all 50 states as a matter of freedom of religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #25
42. And many churches DO perform gay marriages. The Catholic Church won't marry divorced people.
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 03:37 PM by Warren DeMontague
If the Catholic Church is suddenly in charge of who the State can allow to "marry" (yes, that's with an "M") then there are a lot of previously divorced heterosexual couples- who thought they were "married"-, who are going to be pretty pissed.

So wait a minute- I'm not religious, not at all.. but I'm "married". How come I don't have a heterosexual "Civil Union", since I refuse to have anything to do with anything resembling an organized religious body?

And "Civil Ceremonies are recognized by churches"? How? Churches don't have to do anything they don't want to do. Shit, they don't even have to pay taxes. We're talking about government- collective, civic, secular government- and if some churches or belief systems have a problem with Gays & Lesbians, then they don't have to "marry" those people. In fact, they can fulminate from the pulpit about their Levitican Abominosity or whatever the fuck, all they want. But keep it out of city hall.

Old Testament or Vatican notwithstanding, EVERYONE deserves EQUAL rights in our secular government. That includes the right of gay & Lesbian couples to Marry with an M.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #25
52. "Church ceremonies are recognized by the state." Um...No They Aren't.
The only thing the state recognizes is the signature on the marriage license. Just because ministers and other voodoo doctors are authorized to sign a marriage license, doesn't mean the state endorses the ceremony. Especially when two people can go to city hall and, with no witchcraft whatsoever, become just as married as anybody who has to sit and listen for two hours about how god took a body part off the first man to make him someone to fuck.

Marriage is recognized by the state in an entirely CIVIL manner. I really don't see why this is so hard for people to understand. It is not now, nor has it ever been, a religious term as far as the government is concerned.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #52
60. 100% legally correct!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #25
146. Your cart, and horse, are confused.
"Gay marriage fundamentally changes the definition of marriage..." not true.

This silly meme has been pushed quite hard by the right wing, especially the Judaeo-Christian types, who are mostly ignorant in fields of anthropology, history, linguistics, etymology, and even biblical studies.

Marriage has long been accepted (and defined) in many languages, and cultures, in a number of different ways. The first clue is the use of the word "defined", which assumes that a word has a singular, eternal, meaning, and the second clue is the word "fundamental", which assumes that words only have a single, basic, source, or meaning.

Here's a valid sentence (in English, no less), that most native speakers would understand: "The steel beam was married to the aluminum siding with a quarter inch rivet plate".

Nothing about a man, a woman, anything sacred, anything religious.

How about the "One man, one woman" myth? Well, pick up a bible. Find an old testament king. Let's take, oh, David. Count the women, see if there's more than one.

The "redefinition" argument is coming from opponents who didn't understand the definition (or the concept of definition) of marriage in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
27. Straight from the DOJ on Thursday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustinL Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
29. it's a "separate but equal" issue
If the term "marriage" is reserved for opposite-sex couples, then same-sex couples are being branded as second-class citizens. Imagine if the term "marriage" were reserved for unions between two members of the same race. Even if there were interracial "civil unions" that gave all the same rights, this would be unacceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
33. Even when they're supposed to, they do not give the same rights
That was the argument underlying CT's CUs years ago. (That a CU carried all the same rights). It might have come close, state-wise. But a CT (or any) CU carried NO federal rights. And was not recognized elsewhere.

Marriage often does have religious connotations, but they're really beside the point in a discussion of civil rights. Churches won't ever be required to marry people they don't wish to marry, and at the same time, they can perform marriages in their church now that are legit in the eyes of their denomination, but not legally binding.

And finally, the problem is that separate is never equal. The only true equality is to choose one - call it what you will - and have that be the same offered to straight or gay couples. Perhaps everyone receives a Civil Union, and marriage is strictly reserved as a religious thing. But offering a different union to gay couples will always result in constrained rights for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keep_it_real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 05:10 AM
Response to Reply #33
87. So if a CU had the same federal rights as a "m-word" would it be ok?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #87
110. I'd say that the institution needed to be the same, period
Didn't we discover in Brown that separate is not equal? Divising two different systems for different people inevitably leads to continuing friction and likely to differing rights.

If "marriage" is what we're going to call it, then it's "marriage" for all. If "civil union" is the word, then "marriage" should be reserved to the religious ceremony, but "civil union" should take the place of the word "marriage" in every federal rule, law, document, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
37. I'm not religious, but I'm married.
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 03:29 PM by Warren DeMontague
The Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce.. divorced people generally can't get married in a Catholic Church any more than a gay couple can. Yet divorced people can get married, not just "civil unionized". This deliberate conflating of religious and civic marriage is one of the prime tactics used to scare the public off of "Gay Marriage".

The bottom line? As long as there is going to be the civic, governmental institution of "marriage", it needs to be extended equally to everyone, gay or straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. You hit it on the nail, buddy. It's deliberate obfuscation.
If religious marriage was different than civil marriage, the UCC, reformed Jews, and the Unitarian Church would be marrying LGBT folks all across America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Apparently, those aren't the sort of "religious beliefs" that matter.
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 03:41 PM by Warren DeMontague
What matters is that REAL religions, (i.e. the Catholic Church) don't want Gays to marry. So God Forbid Teh Gay should be able to walk into their local Diocese of The County Clerk's office and request a State Marriage License--- stamped with the imprint of the Pope's ring. :sarcasm: :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tangerine LaBamba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #37
151. Divorced people can get married in a Catholic Church
if their prior marriage was not to a Catholic, did not take place in a Catholic Church. Any other denominations, or civil ceremonies, are not recognized by the Catholic Church.

So, if a Catholic man had been married to a Methodist woman in a Methodist ceremony, and then got divorced, he is regarded by the Catholic Church as never having been married, and he is perfectly free to marry a Catholic woman in a Catholic ceremony.............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
49. Marriage is for normal people. Civil unions are for those other ones.

See? Everyone's happy!

:crazy:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
50. here is the difference: 1049 benefits found in marriage not found in civil unions
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 04:41 PM by Mari333
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

here are just a few:

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

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

These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keep_it_real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #50
86. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
54. Okay, here goes. I don't have the patience to wade through the search function so let's start over.
No, civil union is not good enough.

Marriage is not done in a church. Wedding ceremonies can be held in a church and the marriage contract can be witnessed by clergy, but that is pretty much the extent of it. In this country, marriage has never been predicated upon a church ceremony. All states grant clergy the authority to function as legal witnesses to a marriage, but no state legislates that only clergy may function in such a capacity.

In fact, marriage law is usually secular and very rarely religious. What do you call a Roman Catholic with an ecclesiastical annulment, but not a civil dissolution of the marriage who remarries? A bigamist.

Religious institutions have never had the authority to determine who is married and who is not. To legislate civil unions to the state and marriages to the church grants religious bodies authority they have never had in the first place.

Language matters. Separate is not equal.

If we want adults to be treated as equal citizens in our country than nothing short of equal marriage rights will suffice.

I do not have time to go into it further at the moment. Dinner awaits and I am starving after having performed my 135th wedding this evening. I'm not sure if I added everything I have said on this topic to my journal or not. Perhaps the advanced search function will yield some results. Be happy to discuss this more if you'd like.

It's not just about legal rights, it's about social acceptance, understood privileges
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #54
61. Excellent, Rev -- thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
57. It's too bad you missed the discussions about this the past 2 years.
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 07:54 PM by TexasObserver
How can any person who hasn't been in a coma the past two years NOT know and understand why "marriage" is important to gays?

But, since you feign ignorance, I'll make it simple: It matters under the law, because law treats marriage as a LEGAL CIVIL institution for which there are legal rights extending in many directions. The law makes no comment whatsoever about the RELIGIOUS implications of marriage. That's left to all the world's most famous superstitutions to define.

And if that isn't sufficient, try this one: It's a right being denied to citizens who want to be married.

The answer to your query is therefore: get a civil union if you want one, but don't rain on the right of others to find that lacking and choose marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
62. Marriage sucks
That's all I know - I'll never make that mistake again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. The past 16 years of my marriage have been awesome.
Mostly.

It's not for everyone, but those who had erroneous expectations or entered into the institution inadvisedly or experienced unforeseen heartache needn't rain on other's parades. Marriage can indeed be a rewarding and happy partnership.

This is why I recommend marriage education/preparation classes. Contemporary marriage faces unprecedented challenges. It's always worth the time and expense to learn more about what you are getting into and whom you are getting into it with. Makes no difference if the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. Committment is work, but work with amazing rewards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. I know it works for the many people
You kind of missed the point though, I was lightening up a thread that might rub some people the wrong way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #64
94. My apologies, sore spot with me.
I officiate weddings and am a certified marriage educator. If I had a dime for every couple wanting to get marriage who was being bombarded by negative messages from their friends, relations and acquaintances I would be a very rich woman indeed. Marriage is hard enough without people you care about telling you what a big mistake it is, even if they are jesting or half-jesting. Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
65. The same difference between whites-only drinking fountains and colored drinking fountains.
Seperate but equal AIN'T!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. It is so not the same. Could people quit this stuff? It's disturbing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #66
72. So you support separate, but equal for gay people?
Okay. Now that that's cleared up.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #66
73. Then tell us how it's not the same.
Not with that woo-woo crap you're always peddling, but with clear logic.


Maybe I'm asking for too much. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #73
107. I can PM you about this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #107
138. If you advertise subterfuge, is it still subterfuge? What's open subterfuge called?
Either way, it's counterproductive for all concerned. You might want to reconsider your attitude, agenda and tactics, including whatever you are PMing about me.

Esp. if you presume to answer a question addressed to me, which -- aside from the "w**" slur (how do ya like bigotry toward "w**"s, LIV?) that's all that post was.

The basic answer:

Bigotry is wrong, yes. And yes the civil rights issues of African Americans and LGBT have comparisons. However, they are not identical. The history and struggle of black Americans is unique. Using the imagery of their servitude and dehumanization strikes many who know the history AND also support LGBT rights as misguided; as representing lack of awareness of the history; and as inappropriate and disrespectful to African Americans.


I would be very careful about PMing about other DUers in a way that misinforms and "degrades the quality of discussion for all."

You may think it's fine to show bigotry and use slurs toward "w**'s" but rest assured: there is such a thing as Karma.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #66
74. No, I'm not going to quit.
They're trying to feed the GLBT community a pile of shit and claiming that it's almost the same as marriage.

Here's a hint. If it's not called marriage, it isn't marriage.

The colored drinking fountains served the same water as the whites-only drinking fountains, but that doesn't mean that they didn't symbolize racial repression.

Similarly, allowing straight people to get marriages, and telling GLBT people they have to have civil unions, even if marriages and civil unions are defined to be exactly the same in the law books and legal dictionaries, serves to highlight differences and send a message to the gay community that they're not entitled to what straight people have.

It's wrong and you know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #74
78. I understand and thank you for your POV. Bigotry is wrong, yes. And yes the civil rights issues
of African Americans and LGBT have comparisons. However, they are not identical. The history and struggle of black Americans is unique. Using the imagery of their servitude and dehumanization strikes many who know the history AND also support LGBT rights as misguided; as representing lack of awareness of the history; and as inappropriate and disrespectful to African Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #78
100. No two different things are identical.
They can, however, have similarities and parallels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #100
117. Yes
The civil rights issues of African Americans and LGBT have comparisons. However, they are not identical. The history and struggle of black Americans is unique. Using the imagery of their servitude and dehumanization strikes many who know the history AND also support LGBT rights as misguided; as representing lack of awareness of the history; and as inappropriate and disrespectful to African Americans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #117
122. I haven't seen anyone here say that the two things are identical.
That's a popular straw man that has been pushed by some posters--one of them tombstoned just yesterday--who spend an awful lot of their time trying to pit minorities against each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #122
124. You haven't?
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 03:09 PM by omega minimo
In this thread: Posts #1, #65 and #102 + replies

"That's a popular straw man that has been pushed by some posters--one of them tombstoned just yesterday--who spend an awful lot of their time trying to pit minorities against each other."

OIC. There's already an awareness that this is offensive to some. Is there any consideration or discussion of that possibility?

Or merely stubborn certainty, false accusations and threats?


The civil rights issues of African Americans and LGBT have comparisons. However, they are not identical. The history and struggle of black Americans is unique. Using the imagery of their servitude and dehumanization strikes many who know the history AND also support LGBT rights as misguided; as representing lack of awareness of the history; and as inappropriate and disrespectful to African Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. Find out what "metaphor" means and then get back to me. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #125
127. Find out what "respect" means and get back to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. What a bizarre non sequitur.
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 03:22 PM by QC
Which is pretty much what I expected, having tried to discuss things with you before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #128
130. Oh, edited away your mean, not-related-to-this-thread attack, eh? Nice
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 03:40 PM by omega minimo
:applause: to which my pre-edit reply was "Find out what "respect" means and get back to us."



and you still had to leave in another insult: "Which is pretty much what I expected, having tried to discuss things with you before."


And YOU'RE making threats about divisiveness? :thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #130
136. I thought better of it and changed it, because it was rude.
I probably should have left it alone, though, since you are obviously not discussing this subject in good faith, but instead making it part of our usual efforts to stir up conflict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #136
137. You thought better of it and pat yourself on the back
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 04:32 PM by omega minimo
and then post more false accusations and insults?

Get a grip on yourself and your attitude. That's totally disingenuous. Maybe you'll apologize for that and then make more threats.


I am obviously "discussing this subject in good faith." The false accusations or certain offers of "I can PM you on this" (announced publicly as an invitation to "stir up shit," rather than just PM'd) are the real efforts of ill intent.

Your typo is correct, they are "part of our usual efforts to stir up conflict." You efforts, not mine.


The civil rights issues of African Americans and LGBT have comparisons. However, they are not identical. The history and struggle of black Americans is unique. Using the imagery of their servitude and dehumanization strikes many who know the history AND also support LGBT rights as misguided; as representing lack of awareness of the history; and as inappropriate and disrespectful to African Americans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #78
144. One of the comparisons that is comparable is "separate but equal."
You can obfuscate by throwing in the "black struggle isn't the same as gay struggle" stuff, but as the poster said, "separate but equal ain't."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustinL Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #66
79. count me in as another non-quitter
I'm sorry you're disturbed that people would find discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be just as bad as discrimination on the basis of race. Then again, I suppose that those on the wrong side of history have always been disturbed by moral progress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. That's not it at all. If you don't mind, please read the other reply.
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 11:18 PM by omega minimo
These fast and loose accusations and projections are not really endorsements for you either, bud. Might want to consider listening before flying off.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #66
106. It is so the same, and the only thing disturbing is inequal rights
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #66
114. It is a valid analogy.
Very rarely are two different things or issues absolutely identical. Hence we have metaphor, simile and analogy.

What is analogous is the idea that the marginalization and discrimination against one group of people based upon a condition of their being, whether it is skin color or sexual orientation, is legally and socially accepted.

Black schools were often appalling environments non-conducive to learning. Colored fountains and bathrooms were not maintained at the same standard of sanitation.

The analogy stands when we look at the effect of "separate but equal" whether it is in reference to water fountains or civil unions. In both cases, our society is telling one group of people that they are not considered fully human and therefore cannot enjoy an equal relational status with their fellow human beings who were lucky enough to be born white or heterosexual.

Yes, it is a disturbing analogy. Because it points out another collective moral failing we need to address as a society.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. That's a good example
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 02:18 PM by omega minimo
of how the direct comparison seems to water down a unique, painful history that resonates to this day.

"Very rarely are two different things or issues absolutely identical. Hence we have metaphor, simile and analogy."

Yes, and sometimes analogies don't work. This analogous comparison doesn't ring true.

"What is analogous is the idea that the marginalization and discrimination against one group of people based upon a condition of their being, whether it is skin color or sexual orientation, is legally and socially accepted."

Understood. Yet the following train of thought leaves the tracks:

"Black schools were often appalling environments non-conducive to learning. Colored fountains and bathrooms were not maintained at the same standard of sanitation."

For many people, the black experience in America resonates more deeply than that familiar imagery of "Separate But Equal." That's why the direct comparisons seem to be unaware of, or trivializing, a unique and unresolved history of dehumanization.

"The analogy stands when we look at the effect of "separate but equal" whether it is in reference to water fountains or civil unions."

For the above reasons, no, it really doesn't. It may seem logical to some and seem misinformed and flippant to others -- too casual about the painful realities of African American experience.

That is why it is "a disturbing analogy. Because it suggests" that the particular horrors of several hundred years of African American experience are viewed through a lens focused on one period of history, one familiar and embedded in modern pop culture imagery that can be cut and pasted, sometimes a bit too casually.

The history of African Americans being "not considered fully human" is completely different. And it resonates to this day.

That's why the use of these direct comparisons is disturbing.

The civil rights issues of African Americans and LGBT have comparisons. However, they are not identical. The history and struggle of black Americans is unique. Using the imagery of their servitude and dehumanization strikes many who know the history AND also support LGBT rights as misguided; as representing lack of awareness of the history; and as inappropriate and disrespectful to African Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #116
120. We'll have to agree to an impasse.
I disagree completely that such a comparison waters down a unique and painful history that resonates to this day. Pointing out that "separate is not equal" is also found in GLBT issues hardly indicates either ignorance, disrespect or dismissal of the civil rights movement.

I think refusing to draw the comparison is instead inappropriate and disrespectful to the GLBT community. Being considered less than fully human, and that is indeed what happens in both cases, engenders deep pain regardless of whether it is over skin color or sexual orientation. People are being treated differently, legally so, based on an essense of Self that cannot be altered.

No one is saying that the experience of African Americans is identical to that of the GLBT community. However, a suggestion that proposes a compromise that grants anything other than full equality under the law is indeed akin to segregation.

Whether you like the analogy or not, it is a reasonable one and most definitely not extended out of disrespect to the African American community.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #120
121. The direct comparisons to Jim Crow laws applied to an enslaved culture are what is objectionable
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 02:46 PM by omega minimo
which your post totally ignores AND you ignore the points of conceptual agreement my reply acknowledged and give me a lecture on it!! Leaving out the direct comparisons that are the issue we are discussing.

Maybe you can continue in that vein and drop the false analogies on a permanent basis.

Don't intentionally ignore the points of agreement in order to hang on to direct comparisons.



"I disagree completely that such a comparison waters down a unique and painful history that resonates to this day. Pointing out that "separate is not equal" is also found in GLBT issues hardly indicates either ignorance, disrespect or dismissal of the civil rights movement."

What a dishonest way to answer my post. :thumbsdown:


"I think refusing to draw the comparison is instead inappropriate and disrespectful to the GLBT community. Being considered less than fully human, and that is indeed what happens in both cases, engenders deep pain regardless of whether it is over skin color or sexual orientation."

GLBT are born into this world. They have their own struggles, history, horrors and acheivements. GLBT people did not arrive in this country in chains in the holds of cargo vessels. GLBT have never been considered in the nation's laws "3/5 of a human being" or been subjected to Jim Crow laws.

There is a comparison. Not a direct one. Now pretending this concept is "instead inappropriate and disrespectful to the GLBT community" is :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #121
129. We're obviously talking past one another and will never see eye to eye.
Best regards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #129
132. Apparently you are quite good at that.
Good luck
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #132
133. No need to get snarky. We just don't see it the same way, that's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #133
134. That was not snarky.
:hi: Good luck
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #116
145. So you're upset about the water fountain?
So using instantly-recognizable imagery to communicate similarity SO disrespects the AA struggle that any reference can and will be construed as an insult.

Great. "Here's your civil-rights battle, my GLBT friends! Now go and fight with no historical references."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #65
81. Ignorance and disrespect are equal opportunity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #65
135. The reason I find this analogy appropriate is...
not because I draw comparisons between the histories of African Americans and homosexuals in this country. Obviously there are two very different experiences here, neither of which benefits by being held to a standard of comparison by the other.

The proposal often put forward is that civil unions that provide for the same legal rights as marriage are a good compromise to appease those who object to marriage for homosexuals. The inherent "separate, but not equal" aspect to this proposal is supposedly eradicated by the presumed equal legal rights.

So let's look at drinking fountains that are designated for two distinct groups of people based upon an aspect of their being that is determined by who they are, not what they choose to be.

Both drinking fountains provide the same benefits. They dispense water that is necessary for hydration. And the fountains are located in the same general area. The people for whom they are designated have equal access and opportunity, provided they partake of the correct fountain. Presumably civil unions and marriages will provide the same benefits. So what's the problem?

The problem is the ethical and moral message broadcast by a society that one group of people is not "right" in a basic human sense. It proclaims the value that not all people have inherent worth and dignity.

There is absolutely nothing racist in noticing this particular similarity between one set of discriminatory segregationist policies and another. Analogies are never perfect because they do not compare details, but instead capture overarching themes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
71. No, I'm married and it did not happen in a church.
Atheists get married, so church has nothing to do with it.

People who want to bandy words about this are pathetic. No one has a right to a particular word. If gays want to be married, it is their civil right!

Right wing freaks who want to deny this right are doing it out of hate, ignorance and fear. This whole issue really pisses me off!


:rant:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
76. Equality. That is all. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 04:02 AM
Response to Original message
84. It's not simply that the two words are different. It's the intent to create a feeling of inferiority
That marriage is somehow "too good" for gay people. They can have their "civil unions" and stop complaining.

It's fucking bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #84
102. Exactly, which is why I brought up the Jim Crow metaphor.
The colored drinking fountain served the same water as the whites-only drinking fountain, but the point wasn't the water, it was the segregation and humiliation.

Even if civil-union had the exact same legal definition, the same enumeration of rights as the legal definition of marriage, the fact that two words are used: one for straights, and one for gays, is designed to separate out the GLBT community and say "We're treating you differently."

Gay people should be able to get married. Yes, married, not civilly-unionized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #102
118. That's an interesting way to look at it.
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 02:29 PM by omega minimo
"The colored drinking fountain served the same water as the whites-only drinking fountain, but the point wasn't the water, it was the segregation and humiliation."

If the "point wasn't the water, it was the segregation and humiliation," why was that? Where did those attitudes come from? Was having ANY water fountain supposed to be an improvement over previous conditions? Do you think about it in historic terms?

There is a history to all of these struggles. Taking a stance that one is being arbitrarily "segregated and humiliated" for the sake of it, seems to look backwards at history.

If you thought about it, I wonder if you would still compare the GLBT marriage issue to Jim Crow laws and slavery.










The civil rights issues of African Americans and LGBT have comparisons. However, they are not identical. The history and struggle of black Americans is unique. Using the imagery of their servitude and dehumanization strikes many who know the history AND also support LGBT rights as misguided; as representing lack of awareness of the history; and as inappropriate and disrespectful to African Americans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #118
139. You honestly think that anti-gay marriage advocates give a shit about gay people?
If you honestly think the people who want to give gay people civil unions actually think of homosexuals as equal citizens, you are insane.

The anti-gay marriage community is a movement to demoralize and marginalize the dissent of the LGBTQ community. They either believe that homosexuality is a sin or are just homophobes. Either way, they believe that homosexuals are bad people.


Have you seen the anti-gay marriage ads? Do you notice how they contrast the "loving families at parks" with gay lightning storms? They see straight people as better for the world and gay people as harmful to the world.

I don't doubt for a second that anti-gay marriage advocates see homosexuals as second class citizens. They want them to remain there so they remain powerless.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #139
141. Great rant. Too bad it has nothing to do with my post.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #141
143. You said it is unwise to compare the two movements...
because they are not identical. No one is suggesting that they are identical. We are saying that atrocities are going on that are very similar to the civil rights era.

My response has everything to do with your post. It shows just how similar the mentalities of homophones are to racists.

You call it looking backwards. I call it showing the true colors of gay rights opponents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #143
148. No, I didn't. The use of the painful imagery of Jim Crow laws and AA experience/history
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 09:54 PM by omega minimo
is what's being considered here.


I asked the other poster to consider where those attitudes ("trying to humiliate") came from, i.e. the history and the meaning. Consider the reason that some here might point out, it is painful to African Americans and other to see the imagery used in a way that does not convey that history.

"We are saying that atrocities are going on that are very similar to the civil rights era."

There's more to it than that, very much more, a lot of history up to and beyond the civil rights era. I asked the poster to consider what came before and that's why I said:

"There is a history to all of these struggles. Taking a stance that one is being arbitrarily "segregated and humiliated" for the sake of it, seems to look backwards at history."

IOW looking back only to a picture of a "Whites Only" sign and not registering what led up to that, hundreds of years, beginning with slavery.

I hope this helps clarify. I understand your points and your passion.

The civil rights issues of African Americans and LGBT have comparisons. However, they are not identical. The history and struggle of black Americans is unique. Using the imagery of their servitude and dehumanization strikes many who know the history AND also support LGBT rights as misguided; as representing lack of awareness of the history; and as inappropriate and disrespectful to African Americans.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heidi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #84
109. :thumbsup: Further, we straights need not insist on "owning" the word "marriage."
Fucking bullshit is a tame description for that sort of bigotry.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #109
140. No religion or group of people holds a monopoly on the word "marriage"
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 06:10 PM by armyowalgreens
It's a word in the English language. It's free for anyone to use. I can marry to pieces of bread together with peanut butter. I can marry a trailer to my truck with a tow hitch. It's a word.


The idea that people are literally laying claim over a fucking word really brings out the trivial nature of the anti-gay marriage advocates argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 04:12 AM
Response to Original message
85. Social security is "reserved" for the ones with the "m"
The right wingers are all about the MONEY.. that SAY it's because of something else, but deep down it's about inheritance rules & regs & the MONEY..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
108. Wow. It sounds like you have a brilliant new angle that maybe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiphopnation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
112. does the term "seperate but equal" mean anything to you? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
119. cowardly bigotry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeffersons Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
126. plutonic marriages...
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 03:20 PM by Jeffersons Ghost
The day your “Babe” struck out!

When you wish upon a Kat
And you find out where its at
Know she’ll never leave you flat
And help her out!

When you wish upon some friends
Realize love never ends
Know their honor never bends
And help them shout!

When you have old friends that care
And others say that they're not there
Ask your pals to send dead air
And watch fools pout
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WonderGrunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
142. Legally, that one word has over 1100 federal rights
And in the state of Maine, over 300 civil rights attached to it. These are not conferred to civil unions and that's why there is such a fight over the issue. Right now, heterosexuals are the only ones with "Special Rights". Equal protection should, in theory, be enough to legalize marriage nationally, if the Supreme Court can be convinced to accept a case involving it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
147. Can't fix it
without changing the laws in every state and every country.

As an aside, despite the whining to the contrary, marriage is a civil status. Religious ceremonies are often permitted to create legally recognized marriages if the religious entity that performed the marriage jumped through the proper hoops to be permitted to act on behalf of the state in conjunction with the religious ceremony.

Marriages in one state are recognized in every other state, and by the federal government, and by virtually every country in the world. This mutual recognition, and the complicated set of state, federal, and international laws (both statutory and case) that govern how each entity treats couples (or individuals) married in another jurisdiction (for inheritance, divorce, eligibility for state/federal benefits, retirement plans, child custody, etc.) were developed over decades.

To make Civil Unions equal, that same set of laws would need to be re-created for the new institution in every state in every country. Not only that, but when you deliberately create something similar but not identical the legal presumption is that the difference was intended. Making them equal would require overcoming the presumption.

In contrast, to obtain marriage equality would require only a handful of cases. A Virginia v. Loving type case between states decided under the US Constitution, one for federal benefits (to overturn DOMA - assuming it has not been repealed by then), one for international recognition. With six states already allowing marriages, and I believe a couple others recognizing marriages performed elsewhere, it won't be long before these cases are ripe. My prediction has been that this will happen within 10 years.*

* That prediction was made before this California DOMA case, or the other California case (which I forget the details of) created a real possibility of messing things up. The worst thing that could go happen would be for a case to hit the Supreme Court before the composition of the Court changes - bad law is virtually impossible to overturn so everyone with any legal sense has been pushing very hard to wait to bring these cases. In that case, we would be back to the same process required for Civil Unions - it would be a slow battle to gain recognition in each and every state and country through the legislative and court processes therein.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
152. What's the difference between the "n-word" and African American? Words have meanings
that go way beyond the dictionary definition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC