Some Gays Turn Attention to Civil Unions

[bodecea]

By all means, let all states pass laws allowing gay couples to legally have civil unions. Let's do that. Go for it.



And then...the first time a civilly unioned gay couple finds that they do NOT have all the legal benefits, rights, and privileges as a legally married couple, they file a Constitutional law suit based on the 14th amendment equal protection clause. Multiply that by hundreds of thousands of civilly unioned gay couples finding that they are treated equally by law....and THEN send that to the Supreme Court.




Besides, even if you call it civil union, people will just call it marriage within a short time anyways....like what they are doing in the UK today.

 

[immto]

Then why deny the same to others who care the same for their loved one?

Civil UNions would give them all that, without making "Marriage" an issue.

It could...but so far it does not.

From what I've read Civil Unions actually are more durable than a marriage. The only issue with them is that they are not generally recognozed and I think Some states make it more difficult to obtain. If we ironed those issues out I think the problem would be resolved. IF, the problem is really fair treatment.

 

[California Girl]

"In reality the Mormon church gave no money to those groups fighting prop 8"
Source or STFU

Was your head in the ground while this was going on last year? Do your own googleing. What I said is correct, the Mormon church did not give any money to groups over prop 8. You don't like it, I can tell. Still looking for a scapegoat, are you?

Trolls don't require proof of what they say. That is why they are trolls

Why is it that everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, rightwhiner?

 

[California Girl]

By all means, let all states pass laws allowing gay couples to legally have civil unions. Let's do that. Go for it.



And then...the first time a civilly unioned gay couple finds that they do NOT have all the legal benefits, rights, and privileges as a legally married couple, they file a Constitutional law suit based on the 14th amendment equal protection clause. Multiply that by hundreds of thousands of civilly unioned gay couples finding that they are treated equally by law....and THEN send that to the Supreme Court.




Besides, even if you call it civil union, people will just call it marriage within a short time anyways....like what they are doing in the UK today.

I live in the UK, I haven't heard anyone call it 'marriage'. They call it a Civil Partnership, that is what it is. In fact, in the last week or so, a hetrosexual couple have been refused a 'civil partnership' and are now claiming discrimination. Good grief!

 

[politicalpurest]

The real problem with the Gay Marriage issue is that Marriage is a
religious institution. It has deep roots in the bible. Many
organized religions have very specific ideals on marriage. The issue
we face today is not simply equal rights as many liberals would have
you believe. But in fact it's about rights of the church. Many angry
gays who just want revenge on the religious community for their
treatment wish to force the issue of marriage onto the church. I did
say many, not ALL. There are plenty of gay people who would be happy
to simply have equal treatment in all 50 states namely the ability to
share their lives with a chosen mate and to share the same privileges
and tax incentive as well.

Gays deserve to get all the same privileges and I think most people
are with me on this one. I don't think there are many folks saying
otherwise. The real fear here is that once they get "marriage" it
will only be a few minutes before some wild activist couple will walk
into a Catholic Church and say, "marry us". The Catholic Church will
of course say no, and then the next step will be a lawsuit claiming
discrimination based on sex. This is where the issue lies. We can't
let those in the gay community who wish to force churches into
accepting gay marriage win.

Now those who support gay marriage argue that they don't want to
change marriage they only want to add to it. The issue here again is
that marriage is at its root a religious institution that has become
as generic as the facial tissue, "Kleenex". The problem is that many
years ago people who wanted to be together but did not want to belong
to a church went to the courthouse and got "MARRIED" The Government
decided that they were going to issue "Marriage" certificates. What
they should have done was to recognize that the State had no right in
the Marriage business. They should have issued some sort of Civil
Union Certificate from the very beginning to all people who did not
want to get joined by the Church.

It seems to me that the only answer here to make all happy is for the
government to come up with a Civil Union for all people and assign a
certificate that gives the legally binding side of the arrangement and
then allow each church to grant marriages as they see fit. This would
ease the tension for those who defend the churches right to protect
their traditional values at the same time it gives Homosexuals the
same legal rights as Heterosexuals.

I commend you on approaching this subject with an open-mind. But it not like we haven't tried separate but equal before but that doesn't mean we can't get it right. As for my own personal views I to believe that marriage is defined as a religious commitment between man and women but with that said we have never and will never make laws for this country using religious demagoguery. I agree with you on the premise that in order to move things forward the debate should move away from emotion and lean towards logic. I understand that Gays would like to use the title of marriage, but I might suggest losing the battle in order to win a war. As long as a civil union carried all the legal and constitutional rights of marriage I can't not see that as a fair compromise.

 

[immto]

I commend you on approaching this subject with an open-mind. But it not like we haven't tried separate but equal before but that doesn't mean we can't get it right. As for my own personal views I to believe that marriage is defined as a religious commitment between man and women but with that said we have never and will never make laws for this country using religious demagoguery. I agree with you on the premise that in order to move things forward the debate should move away from emotion and lean towards logic. I understand that Gays would like to use the title of marriage, but I might suggest losing the battle in order to win a war. As long as a civil union carried all the legal and constitutional rights of marriage I can't not see that as a fair compromise.[/QUOTE]

If it carries all the same rights and privleges, why is it not a far compromise?
Is marriage in the bible? The simple answer is or course, YES. So as childish as this will sound, I think it's fair to say they had it first. It's was our Govenment that went and used the word when they decieded to get into the game. Now the gays are simply using the same childish, "It's not fair game". Well I insist, Life is not always fair and if we keep playing the game like it can be we are all going to lose in the end.

 

[rightwinger]

Was your head in the ground while this was going on last year? Do your own googleing. What I said is correct, the Mormon church did not give any money to groups over prop 8. You don't like it, I can tell. Still looking for a scapegoat, are you?

Trolls don't require proof of what they say. That is why they are trolls

Why is it that everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, rightwhiner?

As you have noticed I have not called you a troll. It does however reflect poorly on you to align yourself supporting Justin Case's "faggot" post

 

[California Girl]

Trolls don't require proof of what they say. That is why they are trolls

Why is it that everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, rightwhiner?

As you have noticed I have not called you a troll. It does however reflect poorly on you to align yourself supporting Justin Case's "faggot" post

I just don't seek to silence anyone who disagrees with me. I've also defended liberals on this site when they've been told to 'STFU'.... I'm not surprised you don't notice those. Don't assume that I agree with someone just because I defend their right to speak as they choose. It is just me being an American.

Hell, I'd even defend your right to speak freely and I haven't read one word from you that I agree with.

 

[Polk]

"In reality the Mormon church gave no money to those groups fighting prop 8"
Source or STFU

Was your head in the ground while this was going on last year? Do your own googleing. What I said is correct, the Mormon church did not give any money to groups over prop 8. You don't like it, I can tell. Still looking for a scapegoat, are you?

45 percent of out-of-state funding for pro-Prop 8 came from Utah.

 

[AllieBaba]

The real problem with the Gay Marriage issue is that Marriage is a
religious institution. It has deep roots in the bible. Many
organized religions have very specific ideals on marriage. The issue
we face today is not simply equal rights as many liberals would have
you believe. But in fact it's about rights of the church. Many angry
gays who just want revenge on the religious community for their
treatment wish to force the issue of marriage onto the church. I did
say many, not ALL. There are plenty of gay people who would be happy
to simply have equal treatment in all 50 states namely the ability to
share their lives with a chosen mate and to share the same privileges
and tax incentive as well.

Gays deserve to get all the same privileges and I think most people
are with me on this one. I don't think there are many folks saying
otherwise. The real fear here is that once they get "marriage" it
will only be a few minutes before some wild activist couple will walk
into a Catholic Church and say, "marry us". The Catholic Church will
of course say no, and then the next step will be a lawsuit claiming
discrimination based on sex. This is where the issue lies. We can't
let those in the gay community who wish to force churches into
accepting gay marriage win.

Now those who support gay marriage argue that they don't want to
change marriage they only want to add to it. The issue here again is
that marriage is at its root a religious institution that has become
as generic as the facial tissue, "Kleenex". The problem is that many
years ago people who wanted to be together but did not want to belong
to a church went to the courthouse and got "MARRIED" The Government
decided that they were going to issue "Marriage" certificates. What
they should have done was to recognize that the State had no right in
the Marriage business. They should have issued some sort of Civil
Union Certificate from the very beginning to all people who did not
want to get joined by the Church.

It seems to me that the only answer here to make all happy is for the
government to come up with a Civil Union for all people and assign a
certificate that gives the legally binding side of the arrangement and
then allow each church to grant marriages as they see fit. This would
ease the tension for those who defend the churches right to protect
their traditional values at the same time it gives Homosexuals the
same legal rights as Heterosexuals.

You're right. As SOON as denying to join gay couples becomes a violation of their civil rights, the Gay/Progressive Gestapo will invade the churches and start shutting them down.

 

[Polk]

For those saying we should create a separate legal structure for homosexual unions, I'd remind them that separate, but equal was never equal.

 

[CurveLight]

The real problem with the Gay Marriage issue is that Marriage is a
religious institution. It has deep roots in the bible. Many
organized religions have very specific ideals on marriage. The issue
we face today is not simply equal rights as many liberals would have
you believe. But in fact it's about rights of the church. Many angry
gays who just want revenge on the religious community for their
treatment wish to force the issue of marriage onto the church. I did
say many, not ALL. There are plenty of gay people who would be happy
to simply have equal treatment in all 50 states namely the ability to
share their lives with a chosen mate and to share the same privileges
and tax incentive as well.

Gays deserve to get all the same privileges and I think most people
are with me on this one. I don't think there are many folks saying
otherwise. The real fear here is that once they get "marriage" it
will only be a few minutes before some wild activist couple will walk
into a Catholic Church and say, "marry us". The Catholic Church will
of course say no, and then the next step will be a lawsuit claiming
discrimination based on sex. This is where the issue lies. We can't
let those in the gay community who wish to force churches into
accepting gay marriage win.

Now those who support gay marriage argue that they don't want to
change marriage they only want to add to it. The issue here again is
that marriage is at its root a religious institution that has become
as generic as the facial tissue, "Kleenex". The problem is that many
years ago people who wanted to be together but did not want to belong
to a church went to the courthouse and got "MARRIED" The Government
decided that they were going to issue "Marriage" certificates. What
they should have done was to recognize that the State had no right in
the Marriage business. They should have issued some sort of Civil
Union Certificate from the very beginning to all people who did not
want to get joined by the Church.

It seems to me that the only answer here to make all happy is for the
government to come up with a Civil Union for all people and assign a
certificate that gives the legally binding side of the arrangement and
then allow each church to grant marriages as they see fit. This would
ease the tension for those who defend the churches right to protect
their traditional values at the same time it gives Homosexuals the
same legal rights as Heterosexuals.

Goodness people. What does it take? Do you simply choose to live in bubbles of myths or what? Gay marriage has been legal in MA for quite a while. Please cite one case where a gay couple has forced a church to perform a marriage ceremony.

 

[CurveLight]

I don't think anyone is pushing to force gay marriage on churches. It is the legal and societal impacts of marriage that gays seek. The legal rights as well as the legal acknowledgement and acceptance of their relationship.
This being the case, the government should assign civil unions to all couples. Let gays find a religion that will marry them.

What you think isn't the issue here. It is that churches feel that gay marriage is wrong and that some gays want revenge on the church. Look what faggots did in CA after prop 8. They went all-out against the Mormons. In reality the Mormon church gave no money to those groups fighting prop 8 but the fags don't let little things like facts get in their way. Fortunately their scorched Earth campaign failed to do anything and actually backfired on them.

Some of those same faggots can't wait for the chance to threaten churches that opposed them to either marry them or face lawsuits if laws are passed in favor of gay marriage across the board. The faggots are just stamping their little feet in anticipation!

Hey rightwinger, be the pussy you are and neg rep me again. I demand it! Shows how afraid you are of those that disagree with you and your fellow libtards, which makes me look good! Come on pussy!

You don't have the first fucking clue what you are talking about. Worse, you're looking exactly like an Islamic Fundamentalist. It doesn't matter what some churches think and no matter how badly you wish to imitate an Islamic Theocracy we have this little piece of paper in the US called a Constitution that guarantees Freedom of Religion and Equal Rights. The government should not be so deep in our personal lives that there is a State Seal stamped on the longest personal commitment made by two people. But, if it is, then it needs to be done Equally and not discriminate based on sex.

I realize how much it must tear at you America Haters to live in a place where Equality is a principle and not merely a slogan. But look on the bright side, you're free to expose your bigotry on a regular basis.

 

[CurveLight]

I know this, my wife and I love each other and we don't need some damn civil piece of paper from the government to tell us that. We don't need any tax, social security or retirement plusses to have that. You could wipe all that away and the love and the relationship is still there, just as strong and as wonderful as before.

Further, even if we take God and Churches and all Religions out of the picture, the gay deal doesn't add up biologically.

It's just another special interest group wanting to change everything, including the biology to meet their own personal needs. They claim that God, nature and science is wrong! LOL

I could careless how another gets their kicks in bed, nor do I care who they love and spend their life with, but, don't expect everything to change just for them!

oh, oh, but I forgot, they were born that way! Nature just screwed up on the body parts!

Mike

It looks like someone is paying you under the table to say:

"I'm clueless! Let me show you just how deep my ignorance flows!"


You just killed your own argument and don't even know why. (hint: homosexuality is in nature on a regular basis)

 

[Father Time]

For those saying we should create a separate legal structure for homosexual unions, I'd remind them that separate, but equal was never equal.

Hogwash, if we were to give them all the benefits of marriage and call it civil unions how would that not be equal?

As far as I'm concerned, as long as they have the exact same benefits and drawbacks whether it's called a civil union or a marriage is purely aesthetic.

 

[Polk]

For those saying we should create a separate legal structure for homosexual unions, I'd remind them that separate, but equal was never equal.

Hogwash, if we were to give them all the benefits of marriage and call it civil unions how would that not be equal?

As far as I'm concerned, as long as they have the exact same benefits and drawbacks whether it's called a civil union or a marriage is purely aesthetic.

Those benefits would not be recognized across state lines, for starters. If you're suggesting that we just made it civil unions for everyone (be they straight or gay) and leave the word "marriage" to the churches, I'd be completely supportive of that.

 

[CurveLight]

For those saying we should create a separate legal structure for homosexual unions, I'd remind them that separate, but equal was never equal.

Hogwash, if we were to give them all the benefits of marriage and call it civil unions how would that not be equal?

As far as I'm concerned, as long as they have the exact same benefits and drawbacks whether it's called a civil union or a marriage is purely aesthetic.

If you give them the same bennies as Marriage then why......call it something else?
Wow many legal loopholes lawyers would make?

I'm curious about something. Why do all the bigots against gay marriage silently endorse legalized pedophilia? Do yo really find a higher moral value in a 50 year old banging a 13 year old than two adults of the same sex? What, exactly does that moral code look like? Thank you in advance.

 

[Polk]

How are they endorsing pedophilia? It's stupid arguments like that which really harm the cause of equality.

 

[rightwinger]

The point of the OP is that gays need to take things one small victory at a time. Gay marriage is still inflamatory for most of the country. To push gay marriage as all or nothing may not be a winning strategy.
They need to push civil unions if that is their best hope in a given state. Once civil unions are accepted nationwide and the world as we know it has not come to an end......gay marriage will be a natural progression

 

[Missourian]

The state of New Mexico has ordered a family owned photography company to pay more than $6,600 for declining a demand to take pictures at a same-sex ceremony, and a lawyer who is working on an appeal says it is an example of how "non-discrimination" or "hate" laws can be weapons in the hands of homosexual activists.
"The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling people to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate there conscience," said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is working on an appeal.
"The commission's decision shows stunning disregard for our client's First Amendment rights, and we will appeal…," he said.

Christian photogs penalized for refusing 'gay' ceremony