Gay marriage vs. Civil Unions

[Phantom]

I've seen several articles regarding the NJ statute where there are persons quoted complaining about the inferiority of civil unions to marriage and how they will not stop fighting until they get the right to "marriage" as well as civil unions.

Now that civil unions are available that grant any two persons the same rights as marriage, the complaint seems to be of the name and nothing more.

Can someone put together the argument as to why the name of the civil union is somehow inferior and would be a denial of any right?

I guess the obvious first step would be the Brown decision, but that was decided mostly on the fact that separate really wasn't equal. Here there is no separation of right (the separation is in name), and there is no evidence of inequality.

I don't mind civil unions, and don't really case so much whether it's called a union or marriage, I'm more interested in the thoughts of gay marriage supporters, so no debate regardign the propriety of unions or marriage is necessary here.

[Scrum]

Is the differance in name only?

I would prefer the government drop using the term "marriage" all together. That would solve the problem right there.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I've seen several articles regarding the NJ statute where there are persons quoted complaining about the inferiority of civil unions to marriage and how they will not stop fighting until they get the right to "marriage" as well as civil unions.

Now that civil unions are available that grant any two persons the same rights as marriage, the complaint seems to be of the name and nothing more.

Can someone put together the argument as to why the name of the civil union is somehow inferior and would be a denial of any right?

I guess the obvious first step would be the Brown decision, but that was decided mostly on the fact that separate really wasn't equal. Here there is no separation of right (the separation is in name), and there is no evidence of inequality.

I don't mind civil unions, and don't really case so much whether it's called a union or marriage, I'm more interested in the thoughts of gay marriage supporters, so no debate regardign the propriety of unions or marriage is necessary here.

Their is still a deliberate seperation and that is wrong. It reinforces bigotry. Blacks wouldn't have stopped their civil rights movement because they got drinking fountains and schools that were just as good as the white mans.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Is the differance in name only?

No, it's not.

The problem is that marriages are recognized in every state but civil unions are not. Vermont has civil unions that are the "same" as a marriage in Vermont but worthless in NH. If a gay couple leaves Vermont and goes to vacation in NH and one of them gets hurt the other partner has no legal rights.

IMO when they talk about wanting "marriage" I'm not 100% sure they want the word. Again, IMO, they want all the rights that come with it. And good luck getting all 50 states to agree that "civil union = marriage" and abide by all the laws and such like they with married people today.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Is the differance in name only?

I would prefer the government drop using the term "marriage" all together. That would solve the problem right there.

I'm with you. If the government MUST regulate the union of two people, then they should call them all civil unions, and people can get "married" in a church or by a preacher or whatever. You fill out the gov't paperwork to make the civil union legal, and you do the other stuff for religious or personal reasons.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I would prefer the government drop using the term "marriage" all together. That would solve the problem right there.

I think this is the best solution.

[6SpeedTA95]

I think everything in the eyes of government should be a civil union, its up to the church to "marry" someone.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I think everything in the eyes of government should be a civil union, its up to the church to "marry" someone.

*cough* copycat *cough*

[lew]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I'm with you. If the government MUST regulate the union of two people, then they should call them all civil unions, and people can get "married" in a church or by a preacher or whatever. You fill out the gov't paperwork to make the civil union legal, and you do the other stuff for religious or personal reasons.

.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by 7960

No, it's not.

The problem is that marriages are recognized in every state but civil unions are not. Vermont has civil unions that are the "same" as a marriage in Vermont but worthless in NH. If a gay couple leaves Vermont and goes to vacation in NH and one of them gets hurt the other partner has no legal rights.

When I first read this, I thought nah, that's not right, courts will looks beyond a legislature's label and examine the substance of the rights bestowed upon a couple in a civil union. After doing some reading, it looks like Congress has already at least tried to intervene here with the defense of marriage act.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.

While this does not distinguish between marriage or civil unions and doesn't separate whether one will be recognized by sister states or not, it is an interesting twist to the whole deal.

Edit: strangely enough, the defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by Clinton? I had no idea.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

*cough* copycat *cough*

whoops

[7960]

Originally Posted by Phantom

When I first read this, I thought nah, that's not right, courts will looks beyond a legislature's label and examine the substance of the rights bestowed upon a couple in a civil union. After doing some reading, it looks like Congress has already at least tried to intervene here with the defense of marriage act.



While this does not distinguish between marriage or civil unions and doesn't separate whether one will be recognized by sister states or not, it is an interesting twist to the whole deal.

Edit: strangely enough, the defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by Clinton? I had no idea.

When vermont started doing civil unions someone in NH (maybe governor? I'm not sure) went on the news and announced that NH would "respect the intent of the civil union" and specifically said something about, if there's an accident, treating the civil union partner like a spouse...so they'd be allowed in hospital to see the person and make medical decisions, etc.

*BUT* this person also specifically said NH can only go so far in respecting those wishes so the civil union couple should also get legal power of attorney and medical proxy and all that shit because if the injured person's family came and said "get him out of this room" and "we're making all medical decisions from now on" then (without those legal documents) NH's hands were tied.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I've seen several articles regarding the NJ statute where there are persons quoted complaining about the inferiority of civil unions to marriage and how they will not stop fighting until they get the right to "marriage" as well as civil unions.

Now that civil unions are available that grant any two persons the same rights as marriage, the complaint seems to be of the name and nothing more.

Can someone put together the argument as to why the name of the civil union is somehow inferior and would be a denial of any right?

I guess the obvious first step would be the Brown decision, but that was decided mostly on the fact that separate really wasn't equal. Here there is no separation of right (the separation is in name), and there is no evidence of inequality.

I don't mind civil unions, and don't really case so much whether it's called a union or marriage, I'm more interested in the thoughts of gay marriage supporters, so no debate regardign the propriety of unions or marriage is necessary here.

I agree. Why not just let any two creatures marry? Man or woman CAN marry thier cat, dog ,horse,goldfish etc?
That way nobody can feel they are being discriminated against.
Take it further man/woman can marry thier own kids.
After all when destroying standards there should be no limit. Right??
Sure enough, the enlightened people amaze me. The give me my rights so that I can destroy yours people are so brilliant it is almost Godlike. I am humbled indeed. TZS

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

I agree. Why not just let any two creatures marry? Man or woman CAN marry thier cat, dog ,horse,goldfish etc?
That way nobody can feel they are being discriminated against.
Take it further man/woman can marry thier own kids.
After all when destroying standards there should be no limit. Right??
Sure enough, the enlightened people amaze me. The give me my rights so that I can destroy yours people are so brilliant it is almost Godlike. I am humbled indeed. TZS

Why not just let consenting adults enter into contracts without the government putting restrictions on them? That's what marriage is afterall.

This talk of marrying children and pets is really weak. Neither can enter into a legal contract.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Why not just let consenting adults enter into contracts without the government putting restrictions on them? That's what marriage is afterall.

This talk of marrying children and pets is really weak. Neither can enter into a legal contract.

Gay marriage is ok by me. Give it the same legal rights if the citizens vote that to be so.
However call it gay marriage. Let that term tell the difference. After all there is a difference.
This demand to be treated equal by many minorities leads to being treated special. Special treatment comes at a cost to others. Everything on God's green earth can not be legislated into perfection. Man's bias can not be stamped out by law or religion.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I think everything in the eyes of government should be a civil union, its up to the church to "marry" someone.

LL seems to be really caught up in this idea, I don't think it would change the issue much. Would any of you who are opposed to gay marraige really change your opinions the second they name change the letterhead to 'civil union'.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

LL seems to be really caught up in this idea, I don't think it would change the issue much. Would any of you who are opposed to gay marraige really change your opinions the second they name change the letterhead to 'civil union'.

I think quite a few would. I believe the polls in NJ showed a majority in favor of civil unions, but less than a majority in favor of gay marraige. This difference must mean something to these people

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

I agree. Why not just let any two creatures marry? Man or woman CAN marry thier cat, dog ,horse,goldfish etc?
That way nobody can feel they are being discriminated against.
Take it further man/woman can marry thier own kids.
After all when destroying standards there should be no limit. Right??
Sure enough, the enlightened people amaze me. The give me my rights so that I can destroy yours people are so brilliant it is almost Godlike. I am humbled indeed. TZS

oh look, the standard, "well then we should let people marry kids/animals/etc"

it's already been stated over and over that 1) it's a legal contract, which means that one must be of legal age and 2) non-consentual relationships rape

try a better one next time.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

Gay marriage is ok by me. Give it the same legal rights if the citizens vote that to be so.
However call it gay marriage. Let that term tell the difference. After all there is a difference.
This demand to be treated equal by many minorities leads to being treated special. Special treatment comes at a cost to others. Everything on God's green earth can not be legislated into perfection. Man's bias can not be stamped out by law or religion.

Ok, but we have to call some other s "straight marriage". Then we can have "jerk marriage" for people that are assholes and "deadbeat marriage" for people who don't pay their bills. "Dysfunctional marriage" would work for most people since that's what they are. Let's put labels on all of them so they can all feel special.

Nobody is talking about legislating things to perfection. They are talking about getting the government out of private contracts.

[R-Type]

While there are legal differences between a marriage and a 'civil union' the reference that strikes at the very heart of the matter for most gays is the old 'separate but equal' clause from the segregation days. In essence, it is really about the name. Gays want 'official' societal recognition that their relationships are just as valid as heterosexual relationships, and the religious right wants exactly the opposite...even if it means liberal-style proactive protections.. Politicians argue the differences between the two terms and try to pass modification bills for civil unions in vain attempts to keep the majority of voters happy. As a result, in a few years, civil unions will provide most of the rights inherent in marriage licenses, but since the symbolic division remains, this is unlikely to solve anything. In the end, it's a sad state of affairs because there are far more important issues the government should be focused on instead of third-gradesque 'you can't be in my club' cultural disputes.