Marriage vs civil unions, the real deal.

[DiamondDave]

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.

Keeping government only involved in the parts of civil unions that are government matters.. taxation, power of attorney for things such as medical emergencies etc, inheritance, etc...

None of this touch feely bullshit acceptance or anything else....

This I agree with... but we all know this is not the goal of the movement...

 

[Skull Pilot]

Marriage is nothing but a legal property ownership agreement.

There is nothing sacred or special about it.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If government recognizes civil unions, then it's in the marriage business. There is a host of legal benefits and privileges the come with legal marriage (AKA, civil unions). For government to get out of the marriage business, it would have to stop offering these benefits. I'm all in favor of that, but stop offering the benefits first. Then make "civil unions" available to whomever wants them.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

If government recognizes civil unions, then it's in the marriage business. There is a host of legal benefits and privileges the come with legal marriage (AKA, civil unions). For government to get out of the marriage business, it would have to stop offering these benefits. I'm all in favor of that, but stop offering the benefits first. Then make "civil unions" available to whomever wants them.

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.

 

[FuelRod]

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.

If government recognizes civil unions, then it's in the marriage business. There is a host of legal benefits and privileges the come with legal marriage (AKA, civil unions). For government to get out of the marriage business, it would have to stop offering these benefits. I'm all in favor of that, but stop offering the benefits first. Then make "civil unions" available to whomever wants them.

This is more/less what I was trying to communicate. Thank you.

 

[Flaylo]

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

 

[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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That isn't an "ex post facto" law.

 

[bripat9643]

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

No, let's not give gays the right to have civil unions. Marriage laws were created for the benefit of mothers and their children. There's absolutely no reason to extend those benefits to two homos because they are shacking up together.

 

[RDD_1210]

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

No, let's not give gays the right to have civil unions. Marriage laws were created for the benefit of mothers and their children. There's absolutely no reason to extend those benefits to two homos because they are shacking up together.

Sure there is.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[Flaylo]

Well, he's too late for that. We and 18,000 other gay couples are married civilly in CA, and we and thousands of others are married religiously. Not even looking at NY, MA, etc.

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.

gays simply want government formally sponsor and legitimatize homosexuality and the homosexual way of life.

 

[bripat9643]

No, let's not give gays the right to have civil unions. Marriage laws were created for the benefit of mothers and their children. There's absolutely no reason to extend those benefits to two homos because they are shacking up together.

Sure there is.

Such as?

 

[Care4all]

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?

 

[Ravi]

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

So, if I didn't get married in a church I can't claim that I am married???

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

Sure there is.

 

[del]

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.

blow me

 

[konradv]

You're correct that all government recognition of marriages is "civil" in the sense that the government is the civil authority. Still, marriage is a perfectly accurate word to describe this civil union, and it can apply equally to gay and straight couples. There is no need to create a separate civil union system rather than expanding the government recognition of marriage. Indeed, separate systems for stigmatized minorities have a terrible track record.

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.

Marriage is religious, a religious union of a man and woman, what we call "marriage" in the United States and other countries is a legally recognozed civil union for property rights, legal and power of attorney purposes. I say keep marriage religious and in the hands of churches and let civil unions be formally recognized.

Marriage laws differ by state too, no different that civil unions, the fact is that civil unions aren't second class, they're fully legally recognized under state laws. the gays are simply wasting time and money arguing over a damn word, not rights.

Are you saying the government should ignore the first amendment and start telling churches how they may perform marriage ceremonies? There ARE churches that recognize gay marriages now, so either you're throwing out part of the first or you're saying "forget about my earlier post, I don't know what I'm talking about".

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

If the legal contract defining property rights and entitlements recognizes SS as an asset then there should be a pay out to the beneficiary stated in said contract.