Political Crossfire Forums

Chanakya · Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: Gay Marriage,A moderate proposal.

After reviewing the legal rights of those engaged in a monogomous marriage and those engaged in a civil union, it has come to my conclusion that the only difference between the two, legally is the next of kin right. Now, why dont we just give those in a civil union the same right, the anti-gay marrage lobbyists are happy because it is technically not "marriage' and the pro-homosexual marrage advocates are happy because now they have all the legal rights as those engaged in wedlock.

F'losrix

Chanakya wrote: After reviewing the legal rights of those engaged in a monogomous marriage and those engaged in a civil union, it has come to my conclusion that the only difference between the two, legally is the next of kin right. Now, why dont we just give those in a civil union the same right, the anti-gay marrage lobbyists are happy because it is technically not "marriage' and the pro-homosexual marrage advocates are happy because now they have all the legal rights as those engaged in wedlock.
Not going to happen.

1) Civil unions as they currently exist are only effective at the state level, leaving gay couples unable to access over a 1,000 federal laws that are linked to marital status.

2) By the close of 2008 we could see a majority of states banning not only marriage recognition for same-sex couples, but civil unions as well. That is the reality of the way things are currently trending.

3) All the talk about extending additional benefits to gay couples is just that - mostly talk. Talk that it seems is likely to come to nothing in about 1/2 the states.

By the way - your state is one of those considering a marriage recognition ban that by its wording will effectively ban civil unions as well.

Chanakya

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Chanakya wrote: After reviewing the legal rights of those engaged in a monogomous marriage and those engaged in a civil union, it has come to my conclusion that the only difference between the two, legally is the next of kin right. Now, why dont we just give those in a civil union the same right, the anti-gay marrage lobbyists are happy because it is technically not "marriage' and the pro-homosexual marrage advocates are happy because now they have all the legal rights as those engaged in wedlock.
Not going to happen.

1) Civil unions as they currently exist are only effective at the state level, leaving gay couples unable to access over a 1,000 federal laws that are linked to marital status.

2) By the close of 2008 we could see a majority of states banning not only marriage recognition for same-sex couples, but civil unions as well. That is the reality of the way things are currently trending.

3) All the talk about extending additional benefits to gay couples is just that - mostly talk. Talk that it seems is likely to come to nothing in about 1/2 the states.

By the way - your state is one of those considering a marriage recognition ban that by its wording will effectively ban civil unions as well.
I know............

Why can't there just be a middle ground, thats why I stopped my full support for ultra-conservitive views. Everything in moderation, and moderation in everything.

Gryff1nd0r · Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Posts: 2336 Location: Cambridge, MA

This was something I was never quite sure about... I'm not sure exactly what the differences between a civil union and a marraige are, and the whole concept of marriage being a private ceremony in a church and also a legal contract confused me a lot. Why can't they just be separate things? You can get married by a priest if that is your wish, and you can get rights from the government, but you don't have to do both... so any church can tell a couple that they can't "get married" there, but it really doesn't mean anything beyond the religious part of it.

F'losrix · Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:14 am Post subject:

thegriffinator13 wrote: This was something I was never quite sure about... I'm not sure exactly what the differences between a civil union and a marraige are, and the whole concept of marriage being a private ceremony in a church and also a legal contract confused me a lot. Why can't they just be separate things? You can get married by a priest if that is your wish, and you can get rights from the government, but you don't have to do both... so any church can tell a couple that they can't "get married" there, but it really doesn't mean anything beyond the religious part of it.
Marriage is primarily a matter of state laws. You can't get federal recognition of your marriage if the state doesn't recognize it.

A civil union grants most of the benefits of marriage to a same sex couple at the state level only - no federal recognition exists for civil unions whatsoever. For example, if a gay couple has a civil union, they both still have to file their federal tax returns as 'single'. Only two states offer civil unions - Vermont and Connecticut. A few other states (California, New Jersey, Maine) offer some benefits to registered domestic partners)

Civil unions as currently adopted do not provide gay couples with recognition or benefits equal to marriage. Anyone who claims they do is either ignorant of the actual laws or outright lying.

The legal and religious definitions of marriage have become intertwined to the detriment of both. There are churches that perform ceremonies to celebrate or bless the unions of gay couples, but most stay away from using the word 'marriage', presumably to avoid getting into trouble with the government. Case in point - there was an attempt to charge a couple of Unitarian ministers in New York for marrying gay couples without the required marriage license (which of course a gay couple can't obtain from the state anyway). Those charges were eventually dismissed or withdrawn - I'm not sure which.

A few churches do support marriage equality - the Unitarian Universalists and the United Church of Christ are probably the most prominent of these.

A lot of gay couples do have wedding ceremonies and consider themselves married, with or without approval from the government. Others figure there's no sense in bothering with those formalities so long as there's no government recognition forthcoming. It's a personal decision each gay couple has to make for themselves. My partner and I have a certified domestic partnership, but it's only valid at the county level and there are lawsuits pending that seek to force our employer to stop offering us benefits in recognition of it.

F'losrix

Chanakya wrote: Why can't there just be a middle ground, thats why I stopped my full support for ultra-conservitive views. Everything in moderation, and moderation in everything.
There can't be a middle ground because the groups opposing gay marriage are well organize, well funded, and totally against any recognition whatsoever - they have no intention of compromising and have said as much. In fact, they're actively trying to roll back existing anti-discrimination laws that protect gay people.

So it's not about marriage - it's about making the lives of gay people as difficult as possible.

Many gay people would be glad to have ANY protections and benefits they can get - including civil unions. But there are little to no serious efforts aimed at providing them. Ultimately, we want equal marriage rights so any compromise that gets made isn't going to be enough to shut us up permanently. Our opponents know that, and it's part of why they won't budge at all - they know that even if they compromise we'll be eventually calling them back to the table to renegotiate and secure more recognition of our rights.

It's a lose/lose situation for both sides.

Chanakya

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Chanakya wrote: Why can't there just be a middle ground, thats why I stopped my full support for ultra-conservitive views. Everything in moderation, and moderation in everything.
There can't be a middle ground because the groups opposing gay marriage are well organize, well funded, and totally against any recognition whatsoever - they have no intention of compromising and have said as much. In fact, they're actively trying to roll back existing anti-discrimination laws that protect gay people.

So it's not about marriage - it's about making the lives of gay people as difficult as possible.

Many gay people would be glad to have ANY protections and benefits they can get - including civil unions. But there are little to no serious efforts aimed at providing them. Ultimately, we want equal marriage rights so any compromise that gets made isn't going to be enough to shut us up permanently. Our opponents know that, and it's part of why they won't budge at all - they know that even if they compromise we'll be eventually calling them back to the table to renegotiate and secure more recognition of our rights.

It's a lose/lose situation for both sides.

Go figure. Further proof of the increasing amount of beuracracy in the higher levels of the government. It's a sad, sad situation. It seems all they care fore are they're careers and not for the welfare of our people or our country.

F'losrix · Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:04 am Post subject:

Just a quick note:

Voters this year will be asked to approve proposed amendments limiting marriage to opposite sex-couples in Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee.

Kt · Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 3806

Chanakya wrote: ....and the pro-homosexual marrage advocates are happy because now they have all the legal rights as those engaged in wedlock.
I'm not happy.

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

Why search for "middle ground" when the battle is effectively already over?

Kt · Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 3806

Middle ground is for losers and democrats, must go all the way with violently shocking force!

F'losrix · Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:59 am Post subject:

SavannahMan wrote: Why search for "middle ground" when the battle is effectively already over?
Cite us some proofs that 'the battle is effectively already over', please.

F'losrix · Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject:

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Just a quick note:

Voters this year will be asked to approve proposed amendments limiting marriage to opposite sex-couples in Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee.

And now you can add Virginia to that list.

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

Skeptical Mystic wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Why search for "middle ground" when the battle is effectively already over?
Cite us some proofs that 'the battle is effectively already over', please.

Why should I need to when you do it so well...

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Just a quick note:

Voters this year will be asked to approve proposed amendments limiting marriage to opposite sex-couples in Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee.

And now you can add Virginia to that list.

Look around - if this issue were a battlefield you would see it littered with "gay-marriage" bodies while the other side has barely a scratch.

Jaxian · Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:29 pm Post subject:

SavannahMan wrote: Look around - if this issue were a battlefield you would see it littered with "gay-marriage" bodies while the other side has barely a scratch.

There may be more laws discriminating against homosexuals today than there were fifty years ago, but there are also far more supporters. This number seems to me to be increasing. There may be many gay marriage bodies littering the battlefield, but the gay marriage army is larger and stronger than it has ever been. There is no law which cannot change, but I am concerned about the number of people whose lives will be made worse before they do change.

Chanakya wrote: After reviewing the legal rights of those engaged in a monogomous marriage and those engaged in a civil union, it has come to my conclusion that the only difference between the two, legally is the next of kin right. Now, why dont we just give those in a civil union the same right, the anti-gay marrage lobbyists are happy because it is technically not "marriage' and the pro-homosexual marrage advocates are happy because now they have all the legal rights as those engaged in wedlock.

Though compromise often sounds like a good idea, it usually is not. Compromise tends to be the idea of people who do not hold a strong opinion on the issue and who feel that there might be a solution that can appeal to both sides. Shouldn't anyone who refuses to compromise be considered stubborn and bull-headed? I think they should not: most of the time one side is right and the other is wrong, and anything less than right simply isn't good enough.

In the case of same-sex marriage, it is inappropriate to compromise on the rights or recognition of same-sex couples. They deserve complete equality in both privledges and recognition. It is not only the benefits and privledges granted by marriage which homosexuals want. It is the recognition that comes with having the same rights as everyone else. It is the feeling of inclusion that comes when people are not purposefully segregated into two groups without just cause.

One might suggest that by doing this, gay rights supporters are trying to use the law to change public opinion. But I don't think that's quite true at all. I would say that gay marriage opponents are the ones trying to do this. When the law is equal, when everyone has the same rights, people are free to judge each other as they see fit. But when the law is unequal, when it grants special privledges for heterosexuality that it does not grant to homosexuality, then people are being taught that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality. I am not trying to teach anyone that homosexuality is moral. I'm trying to stop our laws from promoting the idea that it is immoral.

Imagine that same-race marriages were recognized as "marriage" while interracial marriages were recognized as "civil unions". There are only two purposes this seperation of recognition under the law could serve. The first is to ease the minds of people who cannot stand being put on the same level as interracial couples. The second is to promote the superiority of the majority group: in this case same-race couples. Neither of those are reasonable or good goals; they are selfish ones which treat people unfairly and offer no real benefit to anyone. The same is true of seperating the recognition of same-sex and opposite-sex relationships.

F'losrix · Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject:

SavannahMan wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Why search for "middle ground" when the battle is effectively already over?
Cite us some proofs that 'the battle is effectively already over', please.

Why should I need to when you do it so well...

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Just a quick note:

Voters this year will be asked to approve proposed amendments limiting marriage to opposite sex-couples in Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee.

And now you can add Virginia to that list.

Look around - if this issue were a battlefield you would see it littered with "gay-marriage" bodies while the other side has barely a scratch.
Those things are proof that a battle is ongoing, not that it's over.

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

No - Constitutional amendments are proof that the battles are ending.

Want more proof? These referendums aren't even newsworthy anymore because EVERYONE already knows the outcome.

Eichen · Joined: 30 Dec 2005 Posts: 1045 Location: Tampa, FL

Civil Unions are a sham compromise. I can't think of a better current example of "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." :roll:

F'losrix · Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject:

SavannahMan wrote: No - Constitutional amendments are proof that the battles are ending.
Nope, still just proof that there's a battle, most of which I will admit are going to your side - so far. Just because you're winning doesn't mean you've actually won.

Quote: Want more proof? These referendums aren't even newsworthy anymore because EVERYONE already knows the outcome.
In most cases we can predict the outcome - knowing the depth of prejudice that still exists against homosexuals in our society. That is where things stand at the moment. It is a mistake to assume that the moment is always indicative of what will take place at all times in the future.

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

Skeptical Mystic wrote: SavannahMan wrote: No - Constitutional amendments are proof that the battles are ending.
Nope, still just proof that there's a battle, most of which I will admit are going to your side - so far. Just because you're winning doesn't mean you've actually won.

Quote: Want more proof? These referendums aren't even newsworthy anymore because EVERYONE already knows the outcome.
In most cases we can predict the outcome - knowing the depth of prejudice that still exists against homosexuals in our society. That is where things stand at the moment. It is a mistake to assume that the moment is always indicative of what will take place at all times in the future.

Granted - no one can predict the future, but I feel comfortable predicting not in my lifetime and I'm not old. :wink: