Marriage vs civil unions, the real deal.

[Skull Pilot]

Give the gays the same legal rights in a civil union under federal law but keep civil unions and marriage separate.

Get rid of the special laws and tax codes for married people and have everyone file an individual tax return.

Then the legal contracts entered into by consenting adults can be used to define the relationship.

so no dependent deductions either? like for children or a spouse that does not work outside of the home for a living?

Exactly.

Why should I pay a higher tax rate simply because i have no kids or if someone else has a spouse that won't work?

 

[George Costanza]

gays have all the same legal right under a civil union that opposite sex couples get under a "marriage"

So why differentiate between the two?

 

[Flaylo]

Anyone who is opposed the gay marriage is a homophobe and a bigot.

You're a facking bigot for having that view fack you.

 

[bodecea]

Government recognizes contracts of all sorts and marriage or civil unions are nothing but contracts.

I believe you're referring to the tax codes regarding marriage which have nothing to do with recognizing the contract of marriage and everything to do with social engineering.

It's more than just the tax code. Take Social Security survivor benefits. There's a very good reason why a widow who never worked should be entitled to the benefits her husband was receiving before he died. There's absolutely no social justification for extending these benefits to the partner of some homosexual.

Why not?

 

[bodecea]

Well if the state of CA lets the people vote on it again those marriages would be invalid. There is no federal marriage law, that is up to the states to decide and the federal government cannot legislate love or any document that makes people feel like their relationship is "loving."

You can't back track legally. No ex post facto laws....read your Constitution.

If CA gave gays civil unions which they already have that suffices as long as they get the same rights that a marriage affords in the state of California.

It's not the same...but if it were, to treat all citizens equally BY LAW, the state would have to convert ALL civil marriages to civil unions with all the changes in law terminology that entails. You ok with that, right?

 

[bodecea]

All legal marriage for all intents and purposes are "civil unions" for all intents and purposes because they are strictly about legal rights, they don't "symbolize" in any legal sense, if gays want a "marriage" that symbolizes such they can have their own private wedding and still have a civil union for legal purposes. Civil unions give gays the same legal and property rights as those in a "marriage" so gays are not being denied any rights and being treated as second class, their argument is simply a game of semantics because they say cthe term civil union connotes something that isn't loving or "based" in love, well the government cannot legislate anything to make people feel "loved" that is up to individual couples to feel. The gay argument is completely horseshat, marriages don't legally symbolize love, they are simply about legal, power of attorney and property rights, things that are civil.

Fine, but what's the problem with them calling it a marriage? You don't seem to be addressing the basic problem.

The problem is all the legal benefits that go alone with marriage (AKA civil unions). Until these are eliminated, civil unions should be opposed.

How long have you been fighting to eliminate those legal benefits?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Flay put it perfect, marriages are sacred acts with spiritual significance and should only be done by churches in accordance with the Bible, its not some free for all that everyone has a "right" to, both heterosexuals and sodomites are doing much to undermine marriage.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Flay put it perfect, marriages are sacred acts with spiritual significance and should only be done by churches in accordance with the Bible, its not some free for all that everyone has a "right" to, both heterosexuals and sodomites are doing much to undermine marriage.

you do know that heterosexual people engage in sodomy as well right?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Flay put it perfect, marriages are sacred acts with spiritual significance and should only be done by churches in accordance with the Bible, its not some free for all that everyone has a "right" to, both heterosexuals and sodomites are doing much to undermine marriage.

you do know that heterosexual people engage in sodomy as well right?

I said some heteros and all sodomites[gays] have abused marriage, but that doesn't mean marriage itself isn't sacred, it means *THEIR* "marriages" are bogus in the sight of God, they're sinners abusing that which is sacred.

 

[konradv]

Flay put it perfect, marriages are sacred acts with spiritual significance and should only be done by churches in accordance with the Bible, its not some free for all that everyone has a "right" to, both heterosexuals and sodomites are doing much to undermine marriage.

Churches do perform same-sex marriages and who are you to tell them what scriptures they're allowed to use? That's a DIRECT imposition of religion on the people, a 1st amendment no-no!!!

 

[konradv]

Flay put it perfect, marriages are sacred acts with spiritual significance and should only be done by churches in accordance with the Bible, its not some free for all that everyone has a "right" to, both heterosexuals and sodomites are doing much to undermine marriage.

you do know that heterosexual people engage in sodomy as well right?

I said some heteros and all sodomites[gays] have abused marriage, but that doesn't mean marriage itself isn't sacred, it means *THEIR* "marriages" are bogus in the sight of God, they're sinners abusing that which is sacred.

If you want to make that point, you're on the wrong board. This one covers secular Law and Justice, where the Constitution and duly promulgated laws rule, NOT the Bible. If you want to talk religion, go to the proper board.

 

[freetek]

This actually makes sense.
Take the Government out of the "marriage" business. Government would only recognize Civil Unions. Marriage would become a strictly religious union. Religions (as they do now) could perform ceremonies for whomever they choose.

We need to first abolish all tax law and benefit provisions that involves spouses and children.

We could start by abolishing all tax laws and starting over.
I could fit a new tax 'code' on a half-page.

 

[OODA_Loop]

you do know that heterosexual people engage in sodomy as well right?

Yes but I am not seeking protected class status by virtue of the fact I nailed your sister in the bacon ring.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All legal marriage for all intents and purposes are "civil unions" for all intents and purposes because they are strictly about legal rights, they don't "symbolize" in any legal sense, if gays want a "marriage" that symbolizes such they can have their own private wedding and still have a civil union for legal purposes. Civil unions give gays the same legal and property rights as those in a "marriage" so gays are not being denied any rights and being treated as second class, their argument is simply a game of semantics because they say cthe term civil union connotes something that isn't loving or "based" in love, well the government cannot legislate anything to make people feel "loved" that is up to individual couples to feel. The gay argument is completely horseshat, marriages don't legally symbolize love, they are simply about legal, power of attorney and property rights, things that are civil.

It depends on how a given state defines marriage in the context of its marriage laws. ‘Marriage’ connotes a particular legal construct afforded to two individuals who agree to enter into such a binding contract. As with all contracts there are certain privileges and responsibilities – as well as consequences for breaking the contract (divorce/dissolution).

If a same-sex couple enter into such a contract known to the state as ‘marriage,’ where the privileges and responsibilities are the same for an opposite-sex couple, then the state has met its requirement under the 14th Amendment.

All states have a similar understand of marriage in a legal context – there may be some variations on the marriage theme from state to state, but the understanding as to what constitutes marriage is essentially the same for each state.

Anything that deviates from that – regardless of what it’s called – pertaining to same-sex couples is a violation of the 14th Amendment; it is indeed not a matter of ‘semantics.’

Also, you say that "Civil unions give gays the same legal and property rights as those in a 'marriage' ". While "civil unions" could give the same rights as "marriages", the fact is they don't. The rights conveyed by civil unions differ among the states that grant civil unions, and the federal government under DOMA withholds certain rights from gay couples in civil unions or marriages.

Correct and for example.

Well if the state of CA lets the people vote on it again those marriages would be invalid. There is no federal marriage law, that is up to the states to decide and the federal government cannot legislate love or any document that makes people feel like their relationship is "loving."

This actually makes no sense.

First, one’s Constitutional rights aren’t subject to popular vote. Second, the 14th Amendment requires the states to apply all laws equally to all and allow all access to the same laws. Last, the Federal government has no desire to ‘legislate love,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean – in fact it’s not legislating anything at all as this is now a matter for judicial review.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

As long as marriages and civil unions are given the same legal rights there is no violation of the 14th Amendment, you people really need to start undestanding the purpose of the Constitution, the Constitution is *NOT* the law, its just basis from which laws can be made and if they fall within the limits of the Constitution there is no violation of the Constitution.

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says dat's a good idea - if dey get too sassy on ya, just trade `em in an' get a new one like dem rich folks do cars every other year...

Mexico City Considers Two-Year Marriages
October 03, 2011 | Couples could choose the term of their marriage, with a minimum length of two years

Lovebirds unwilling to commit 'til death do they part will be able to sign short-term marriage contracts under a proposal being considered by Mexico City lawmakers. Couples will be able to choose the term of their marriage, with a minimum length of two years, and renew the contract if they stay happy, according to a reform put forward by the liberal Democratic Revolution Party (PRD).

The PRD, which holds the majority in the city government, says the initiative makes sense in a city where divorce rates are soaring. "We want to generate affectionate and harmonious relationships between spouses and, in the case that they don't want to stay together, enable them to separate without cumbersome proceedings that only harm families," the PRD's Lizbeth Rojas, who proposed the reform, said. But Mexico's Roman Catholic Church has labeled the proposal "absurd."

"It contradicts the nature of marriage," Father Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Mexico City Archdiocese, said. It is an "irresponsible and immoral" move by legislators who are "destroying the family and values" to appear fashionable, he added.

Lawmakers will vote on the new contracts -- which will include provisions for child custody and the separation of property -- by the end of the year. Mexico City is a liberal center in largely conservative Mexico. The city legalized gay marriage in 2010 and has the region's most lenient abortion laws.

Read more: Mexico City Considers Two-Year Marriages | Fox News Latino