[excon]

Hello:

Tom has reminded us on innumerable occasions, that every single time gay marriage has come up for a vote by the people, the people REJECTED it.

Guess what? Washington is going to pass it. Is the rest of the country far behind?

excon

[speechlesstx]

Yawn.

[Fr_Chuck]

Glad they are getting it. They all ready live together, already have sex and so on.

That, is where if any place the religious right needed to try and fight.

Marriage ( license issues by state) is a government controlled license, and to be honest, they deserve to have to pay allimony, have division of property when they split up.

Not allowing them to marry, gives them the benefit to not have to be under the same laws as other married couples.

I say put back in the common law marriage, so that all of these people who are shacked up, or "living in sin" will have to deal with the same divorce issues as everyone else.

[tomder55]

I'm in favor of states not recognizing marriage . What's the point ? They've already distorted it's meaning beyond any recognized definition. So yeah... go with common law arrangements for everyone to handle the legaleze . I'll be content that my church recognizes my marriage .

At least if Washington votes in favor it will be the people who decided and not some lifetime appointed oligarch .

[Wondergirl]

We could always go back to the Old Testament practice of multiples wives and concubines.

I think same-sex marriage is especially important as the couple ages, for end-of-life decisions that have to be made. I have a family member and a couple of good friends in their 50s and 60s already realizing their helplessness without that legal marriage contract. A law that covers all states makes the most sense, not a state-to-state variation.

[tomder55]

Well marriage is more than a legal contract . So let the State deal with the legal stull .

[Wondergirl]

Well marriage is more than a legal contract . So let the State deal with the legal stull .

But a legal marriage needs to be recognized in every state, not just here and there. You're married in Alabama but not in Utah?

[smearcase]

What do you folks think of this lady's research on marriage? This letter to the editor is from a Maryland newspaper and gay marriage is on the ballot in MD.
Civil rights don

[Wondergirl]

What do you folks think of this lady's research on marriage? This letter to the editor is from a Maryland newspaper and gay marriage is on the ballot in MD.
Civil rights don

She needs to do more research. This is the first tidbit I noticed as incorrect -- "marriage be reserved for the union between a man and a woman as it had been throughout history."

[tomder55]

But a legal marriage needs to be recognized in every state, not just here and there. You're married in Alabama but not in Utah?

The Full Faith and Credit Clause to the Constitution handles legal contracts .

[Wondergirl]

The Full Faith and Credit Clause to the Constitution handles legal contracts .

But it does not address end-of-life medical issues and problems that the marriage contract does.

[cdad]

But it does not address end-of-life medical issues and problems that the marriage contract does.

Then why can't gays ask for the elevation of rights that they have in many cases under a civil union ?

[tomder55]

smearcase ,I generally agree with the argument in the letter . But I recognize I'm swimming against the tide. That is why my preference is for the State to get out of the 'marriage ' business and make no opinion on the definition of marriage . It is legal to co-habitate ;and people who have decided to co-habitate outside of marriage need the legal protections for a variety of issues.
The argument of civil union v marriage has been debated ad-nauseum here ;and the gay proponents are hung up on a silly notion that calling their union a civil union as opposed to a marriage creates a 'separate but equal ' situation. The fact that it is an insult to people who lived under separate and equal laws is lost to them.
However , to end the impass over the definition of the word 'marriage' . I think the best course is to remove the legal aspects from the religious aspects of marriage.

[tomder55]

But it does not address end-of-life medical issues and problems that the marriage contract does.

Yes it does . Just take the word marriage out of it and run with it . The State and Federal laws would all apply.

[Wondergirl]

Then why can't gays ask for the elevation of rights that they have in many cases under a civil union ?

They have.

[cdad]

smearcase ,I generally agree with the argument in the letter . But I recognize I'm swimming against the tide. That is why my preference is for the State to get out of the 'marriage ' business and make no opinion on the definition of marriage . It is legal to co-habitate ;and people who have decided to co-habitate outside of marriage need the legal protections for a variety of issues.
The argument of civil union v marriage has been debated ad-nauseum here ;and the gay proponents are hung up on a silly notion that calling their union a civil union as opposed to a marriage creates a 'separate but equal ' situation. The fact that it is an insult to people who lived under separate and equal laws is lost to them.
However , to end the impass over the definition of the word 'marriage' . I think the best course is to remove the legal aspects from the religious aspects of marriage.

Again, what is the point that will satisfy the need. If its about having rights bestowed onto a relationship then by elevating civil union it can be done. The state can recognize the rights and pass them along by law. If you state forcing the state to accept it as a marriage then you start crossing lines and will have more laws to contend with as far as settling discrimination law suits against religious orginizations.

As of right now for a marriage to occur there the states proclamation that it both recognizes it (being married by judge or Captain of the ship) or acknowlages it by way of religious rights (being married by a pastor, priest or rabbi etc.).

By way of civil union then you alieviate that right from religious orginizations and the threat of lawsuits should they not participate in the process.

That way churches etc that want to celebrate through a ceramony can do so and those that don't wish to have no obligation to do so.

[Wondergirl]

Yes it does . Just take the word marriage out of it and run with it . The State and Federal laws would all apply.

Then why did my gay friend get stopped at the door of the hospital ICU when his partner (they were married in another state) was ill?

"The clause's application to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships is unresolved, as is its relationship to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed laws and constitutional amendments that define marriage as consisting solely of different-sex couples. Most explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries." (Wikipedia)

[cdad]

They have.

So then what is the point of it all? Is it about an end around to get what they want or is it just a way to disrupt the order of things because they can't do it any other way?

[Wondergirl]

So then what is the point of it all? Is it about an end around to get what they want or is it just a way to disrupt the order of things because they can't do it any other way?

Civil unions do not grant all the same privileges as does marriage.

How is a civil union different from marriage?

Couples who have a civil union will not have any of the protections or responsibilities federal law provides to married couples. These include social security survivors' and spousal benefits, federal veterans' spousal benefits, immigration rights associated with marriage, federal spousal employment benefits, the right to file joint federal tax returns, exemptions from income tax on your partner's health benefits, the federal exemption from inheritance tax, and many other federal protections which are denied same-sex couples whether legally joined in a civil union or a civil marriage.

Also, most other states will not recognize the legal status of your civil union, even though they would recognize the Illinois marriage of a different-sex couple. This means that when you travel or if you move to another state or country, your union may not be recognized. As a result, you should considering taking certain precautions before you travel, such as executing health care and financial powers of attorney and carrying those with you.

Finally, the most important difference between civil unions and marriage for many individuals is the second-class nature of civil unions. Civil marriage is a widely recognized and respected social structure for two people who have committed to build their life together. Civil unions are not universally understood. It is unclear whether they will be given the same level of respect as marriage in Illinois and elsewhere. What is already clear is that different-sex couples get to choose whether to enter a civil marriage or a civil union; lesbian and gay male couples are given only the civil union option.

http://civilunions.aclu-il.org/?page_id=48

[cdad]

Civil unions do not grant all the same privileges as does marriage.

I am aware of that. And everything I have posted so far mentions the elevation of rights. That is the argument Im trying to address.