| Author | Message | ||
     lumpynose Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 693 Registered: 3-2002  |
Can someone tell me the difference between gay marriage and a civil union? If a civil union provided everything a marriage did except the word "marriage" would that be okay? What is the issue? | ||
| CFA Citizen Username: Cfa Post Number: 1026 Registered: 5-2001  |
I wouldn't care what they called it, as long as I'd be able to enjoy the benefits (mostly tax) that married couples do. | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 920 Registered: 10-2001 |
I am by no means an expert on this but I would think that to some the use of the phrase "civil union" implies a status lower than that of marriage. And that to some would be a step backwards in the fight for full equality. | ||
| rckymtn Citizen Username: Rckymtn Post Number: 231 Registered: 5-2001 |
CFA, if it's tax benefits you want, then it's not discrimination against gays, it's discrimination against single people, isn't it? And don't hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc. all boil down to discrimination against single people? I'm not trying to bait you or anyone, I just don't understand why the debate has to be so narrow that it focuses only on gay people, when to my mind it should be much broader than that. | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 969 Registered: 5-2001 |
Single straight people can get married, gay people can't. | ||
| rckymtn Citizen Username: Rckymtn Post Number: 232 Registered: 5-2001 |
Sure gay people can get married, they just have to be married to someone of the opposite sex -- that's the definition of marriage. It's not discrimination, it's just a definition. | ||
| Cato Nova Citizen Username: Cato_nova Post Number: 49 Registered: 12-2003 |
Rckymtn: Congratulations on either being remarkably stupid or incredibly obnoxious. Sure, black people can take the bus, they just have to step to the back. It's not discrimination, it's locomotion. It used to be that marriage was defined so as to prohibit black-white relationships. That wasn't discrimination, that was just the definition of marriage. Simply put, homophobes are the nazis and klansman of today. Hopefully, in thirty years society will have advanced to the point where anti-gay legislation will be seen as archaic and as evil as we now view Jim Crow. | ||
| wharfrat Citizen Username: Wharfrat Post Number: 971 Registered: 6-2001 |
The difference between marriage and civil unions is the difference between black and white water fountains. Seperate and equal is seperate and not equal. | ||
| CFA Citizen Username: Cfa Post Number: 1027 Registered: 5-2001 |
rckymtn, It's definitely not discrimination against single people. Single people can get married and enjoy the benefits of filing a tax return jointly, being gay doesn't give us that luxury, and therefore, we pay more tax. Hospital visitation is another story. A person who is gay has no legal rights to make medical decisions on behalf of his/her partner. Hell, the hospital can even not allow the partner to visit. I would imagine that 2 single people living together have no rights either, but the difference is, 2 single people have the RIGHT to be married and can choose to do so to get those rights, gays/lesbian do not. Inheritance rights would be the same as medical rights. If a single couple living together wants inheritance rights, they should get married. Again, gays/lesbian DO NOT have that right. | ||
| thegoodsgt Citizen Username: Thegoodsgt Post Number: 380 Registered: 2-2002 |
So to get back to lumpy's original question, what's the difference, from a legislator's point of view, between a civil union and a marriage? | ||
| lumpynose Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 702 Registered: 3-2002 |
Quite frankly I believe gays are entitled to get married like everyone else. Is there some type of religious connotation to the word "marriage"? I don't understand what's the big deal and why politicians are afraid of this issue, but they are. So given these wimps, how can they make it that civil unions give every right and protection to gay couples and their children that traditional marriages do? I also fear an amendment to the constitution defining marriage between a man and a woman. I also understand that marriage would need to be defined between two people to prevent opening a can of worms for anyone who wants to challenge it and marry ten other people. If it were up to me, I would let gays marry. Sure it would upset some people and other very religious people but considering everything else going on in the world today, it's got to be a minor point and certainly doesn't harm anyone. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4666 Registered: 5-2001 |
I fear the backlash. The decision of the Mayor in San Francisco to allow gay marriage is creating a backlash. A bill has been introduced to repeal a very strong domestic partnership act. Will it pass or not? I really don't know but there are two factors that have to be considered. First, more than two thirds of the people oppose gay marriage and second, I am very afraid that gay bashing will once again be viewed as socially acceptable behavior. The backlash to the Massachussett" Supremes decision has spilled over to Ohio, where an almost Draconian anti-gay bill has been passed and signed into law. I realize for many gay and lesbian couples this is an issue of equity and, I think, I understand this. However, I am not sure that "Mr. and Mrs. America" are ready to accept gay marriage. Remember this os a country where 80% of the people don't believe in evolution. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2876 Registered: 10-1999  |
As written above by the L-man: Ask the President, since he doesn't seem to be afraid of the issue at all. In the hopes of energizing what he thinks is his "base", he seems to have found a chance to demonize some people who, by and large, won't be voting for him anyway. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 426 Registered: 6-2003 |
"It's not discrimination, it's locomotion." This deserves a prize of some sort! | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 408 Registered: 9-2003  |
I don't know, point for point, what the difference would be between civil union and marriage. But, I did read a good essay in Time a week or so ago (that section just inside the back cover) by a gay reporter/writer on what being allowed to be married would mean to him (as opposed to "civil unions"). It was very good, and kinda moving. I have no objection to any of it. Almost seems like one would have to revisit all the gov definitions of marriage, and any entitlements, to really sort through the whole deal. Whenever conservatives start to go on about the purpose of marriage, etc., I think of who can no longer/don't want to reproduce, and wish to make the committment, and find the whole debate specious. And given that many gay people adopt children, or have them from prior relationships, what does that do for the idea of marriage/family as the foundation of society? Issue sure does exercise a lot of people. Seems to me that religions have the right to have their own definitions/restrictions, but the gov should not. | ||
| argon_smythe Citizen Username: Argon_smythe Post Number: 110 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think the difference between civil union and marriage is purely semantics. I personally believe the government has no business being in the marrying business whatsoever and would gladly accept my government classifying my plain old heterosexual, two-person marriage a "civil union." What's more threatening to the sanctity of the institution of marriage -- a couple of gay guys down the street who live together and act married anyway, or Britney Spears at 4 AM in Las Vegas? How about "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" Where's that fit on the spectrum? Where's the consititutional amendment proposals against these goofball antics that make an outright mockery of the institution of marriage? "Marriage" does have religious connotations and stem in some way from religious institutions, but certainly not all marriages are religious and not all marriages were ordained by some religious authority. If the government favors the definition of marriage of a subset of religious doctrines, I would argue that is tantamount to state sponsorship of religious doctrine. And folks, that just ain't allowed. People who think they want this (and there are lots of them) never stop to think what they would do if it were some other religion that "won." Can anybody say "American Taliban?" Couldn't ever happen? Well, you can thank that scrappy little constitution you're trying to tear up for that. The people who oppose this know they must take the drastic step of a consitutional amendment, because it is the only way to make something constitutional which would otherwise by any measure be clearly unconstitutional. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 926 Registered: 8-2003 |
I think you should ask Kerry while you're asking the president. Using Super Nova's logic, there are plenty of klansmen in the democrat party who won't go for gay marriage either. Boston is such a racist town that Kerry can't afford not to carry Massachusetts by alienating them up there. Right? That is the thinking, isn't it? That busing metaphor is pretty exciting up there in Boston too. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 2145 Registered: 1-2003  |
Huh? Boston has racism, yes. I lived there. But that's not the way Massachusetts votes, and isn't that what counts? Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 128 Registered: 6-2001 |
argon_smythe, "The people who oppose this know they must take the drastic step of a consitutional amendment, because it is the only way to make something constitutional which would otherwise by any measure be clearly unconstitutional." Assuming that you're writing about the prohibition of same gender marriage, why would it be "clearly unconstitutional"? If you were writing about something else, I've misunderstood. TomR. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 2444 Registered: 9-2001 |
"I wouldn't care what they called it, as long as I'd be able to enjoy the benefits (mostly tax) that married couples do." Cfa, Listen up... If gays really "mostly care about tax benefits", why not get a phone chain going today and get your friends over to the main library tonight at 7:30PM? The Township Committee is prepared to spend some serious tax money tonight. Married or single, gay or straight, we're all going to take it in the ... if we don't get there and make sure they don't give the store away. I’m getting disgusted with the amount of apathy in our town! I want to see the best over all deal for the whole town, not just a handful of residents in the area where the station will finally wind up going. Folks... it's time to show up, or shut up! |
