Ask Me Help Desk - Doma is done

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

With what limitations? OR a civil union will equal a marriage, and marriage will be the name given to the social institution conducted in a religious setting by a priest/minister (Hindu, Muslim, Wicca, Satanism, Christian), whereas civil union will be the name of the of the social institution created outside a religious body and performed by a JP, ship captain, etc. Therefore, some couples (male-female, male-male, female-female) will be married and some will be in a civil union, depending. All will receive the same benefits.

Finally someone gets it . It may surprise you to know that my views are the same as Obama loyalist Cass Sunstein (husband of Special Assistant to President Barack Obama Samantha Power )

In a book he penned

Quote:

,Sunstein proposes that government recognition of marriage be discontinued. "Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," argues Sunstein. He continues, "the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people." He goes on further, "Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage," and refers to state-recognized marriage as an official license scheme."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#Marriage
Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage,” added Sunstein.

Sunstein slammed current government recognition of marriage as “an official license scheme.”

“When the state grants marriage it gives both material and symbolic benefits to the couples it recognizes. But why combine the two functions? And what is added by the term marriage?” he asked.

Sunstein explained terminating the issuance of state marriage contracts would not affect the commitments of those in the “partnership.”

“People take their private commitments serious,” Sunstein wrote. “Members of religious organizations, homeowners' associations and country clubs all feel bound, sometimes quite strongly, by the structures and rules of such organizations.”

Hello again, tom

Quote:

the deeper question is why do you want us to accept that the state sanctioned union is a 'marriage '

It's NOT a question at all. I don't want you to accept ANYTHING.. I couldn't care less if you do because the law doesn't apply to you.. Call a gay marriage an abomination if you like. I'm FINE with that.

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Banning gay marriages, be it church or civil, is a clear case of discrimination, and state over reach, as well as over reach of the church. Tell me how gay couples have less protection under the law than heterosexual couples. Then we can discuss Smoothy having the right to marry his horse(S).

Actually no it is not. As it is the States job to define what law is and any challenges to it go up the chian for a decision. So a state to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman is not discrimination.

Without definition then anything goes. Poligimy being just one of them. Without the state saying not to then it must be allowed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

finally someone gets it .

So it's just a matter of words, of semantics, and how they ring your chimes. You call it a football; I call it a footellipsoid. Otherwise, it's same thing.

What was DOMA about in the 1st place. A word definition. It was always about the word .What got the gay communities panties in a knot?. That their relationship was called civil union and heterosexual relationships were called' marriage'. This gets rid of the distinction ,and both sides should be happy . I can live with the state calling my legal union a civil union .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

What was DOMA about in the 1st place. A word definition. It was always about the word .What got the gay communities panties in a knot ? .....That their relationship was called civil union and heterosexual relationships were called' marriage'. This gets rid of the distinction ,and both sides should be happy . I can live with the state calling my legal union a civil union .

No, civil unions do not convey the rights that a marriage does. If they want all the rights, they want a marriage, not a civil union.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

No, civil unions do not convey the rights that a marriage does. If they want all the rights, they want a marriage, not a civil union.

Yes they do if they guarantee the same right. More important ,if all state sanctioned unions are called civil unions then how are they not equal in every aspect ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes they do if they guarantee the same right. More important ,if all state sanctioned unions are called civil unions then how are they not equal in every aspect ?

They don't give all of these --

Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com

The whole point of civil unions, which is what they used to clamor for, was to grant the same rights.

They clamor for marriage, you want them to be happy with civil unions. Separate but equal didn't work with bathrooms and water fountains either.

It would NOT be separate but equal.. It would be one size fits all civil unions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

The whole point of civil unions, which is what they used to clamor for, was to grant the same rights.

They aren't the same thing, do not confer the same rights.

That means the gays want the "right " to the religious institution.. That isn't going to happen unless they are satisfied with the religions that recognize gay coupling . There is no way thatyou can tell me that the state can't construct the laws to recognize ALL the various couplings as equal in the eye of the state as civil unions .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

that means the gays want the "right " to the religious institution .. That aint going to happen unless they are satisfied with the religions that recognize gay coupling . There is no way thatyou can tell me that the state can't construct the laws to recognize ALL the various couplings as equal in the eye of the state as civil unions .

No. The gays want the rights that come with marriage. Nothing else gives those rights, so marriage it is. And since non-religious ceremonies for secular couples are called marriage... Plus, some church bodies are already allowing same-sex marriages to be performed. The horses have already left the gate -- and the barn too.

So there it is... no compromising with the left. That's what I figured because it was the same with the right to murder babies.

If civil unions would also allow gay couples to file joint tax returns with deductions for kids and to adopt and get social secirity benefits as a surviving spouse, among other discrepencies, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If the federal and state governments would allow these benefits that only married can enjoy, there would be no issue.

Civil unions are not equal under existing law. Maybe your idea will reconcile those differences and make them equal. It has merit once we get past the semantics.

I will save he abortion issue for the proper thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

so there it is ... no compromising with the left. that's what I figured because it was the same with the right to murder babies.

Compromise? What do you suggest?

Right, no compromise is acceptable to the left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Right, no compromise is acceptable to the left.

Are the righties willing to make a civil union be the same as a marriage, with all of the same legal rights and privileges?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

If civil unions would also allow gay couples to file joint tax returns with deductions for kids and to adopt and get social secirity benefits as a surviving spouse, among other discrepencies, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If the federal and state governments would allow these benefits that only married can enjoy, there would be no issue.

Civil unions are not equal under existing law. Maybe your idea will reconcile those differences and make them equal. It has merit once we get past the semantics.

I will save he abortion issue for the proper thread.

Hello?! What do you think I have been saying through the 115 postings on this topic ?
You call it semantics... I call it a minimal requirement . Stop calling the state sanction marriage... get the state out of the marriage business.