Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Key words: Civil contract. There are numerous states where gays are allowed to enter into a civil union which affords them the rights of a married couple.
Why are homosexuals so adamant about infringing upon the rights of heterosexuals to retain the origninal premise and boundaries of marriage being between a man and a woman?
It affords them most of the rights of marriage, but not all.
I would purpose that the name marriage be dropped for any couple, and allow any two human beings enter into a new civil contract, or role over the one they have now.
Have one year where all marriages from that date forth are null and void, and if you want to keep the one you had, you have to renew it at no cost. Hey, at least most of the newly "civilly unioned" couples would be happy, right?
I don't think homosexuals are against the rights of heterosexuals to retain their original marriage boundaries, but they want the same rights. No one is telling anyone else they have to marry a man or woman, but that you should have the right to decide either way.
It affords them most of the rights of marriage, but not all.
I would purpose that the name marriage be dropped for any couple, and allow any two human beings enter into a new civil contract, or role over the one they have now.
Have one year where all marriages from that date forth are null and void, and if you want to keep the one you had, you have to renew it at no cost. Hey, at least most of the newly "civilly unioned" couples would be happy, right?
I don't think homosexuals are against the rights of heterosexuals to retain their original marriage boundaries, but they want the same rights. No one is telling anyone else they have to marry a man or woman, but that you should have the right to decide either way.
So let them make up a new word for their type of "marriage". It's their chance to forge a new page in history.
Civil union is for everyone.
Marriage is for woman & man.
Make up something for man&man, woman&woman
Getting back on topic here, it only makes sense. It works this way: Racists are bigots. Bigots are closed minded people afraid of those who are different from them. They rarely associate with anyone outside their own kind. Naturally, people with this mentality are more likely to be against same sex marriage. Those who are educated and open minded are less likely to feel this way. It's really not rocket science.
So let them make up a new word for their type of "marriage". It's their chance to forge a new page in history.
Civil union is for everyone.
Marriage is for woman & man.
Make up something for man&man, woman&woman
Heres the thing, your objection to gays being married is probably in part due to a religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
If thats the case, then its an unconstitutional argument because we don't respect any establishment of religion.
It shouldn't matter to you what the state calls anyone else, as long as you are treated equally. Because no one person, or two persons, are better then any other two persons, right?
Isn't that the very basis of what makes America special? Regardless of who you are, what you make, the color of your skin, etc, we all treat everyone the same.
It affords them most of the rights of marriage, but not all.
I would purpose that the name marriage be dropped for any couple, and allow any two human beings enter into a new civil contract, or role over the one they have now.
Have one year where all marriages from that date forth are null and void, and if you want to keep the one you had, you have to renew it at no cost. Hey, at least most of the newly "civilly unioned" couples would be happy, right?
I don't think homosexuals are against the rights of heterosexuals to retain their original marriage boundaries, but they want the same rights. No one is telling anyone else they have to marry a man or woman, but that you should have the right to decide either way.
The idea of marriage having an expiration date with the option of renewal is a pretty good idea.
That being said while I understand your explanation as to gays wanting the same rights, I do not agree with the premise of marriage being between a man and a woman being revised to accomodate the desires of a same sex couple.
You stated that they want the same rights. What rights are excluded within a civil union?
The idea of marriage having an expiration date with the option of renewal is a pretty good idea.
That being said while I understand your explanation as to gays wanting the same rights, I do not agree with the premise of marriage being between a man and a woman being revised to accomodate the desires of a same sex couple.
You stated that they want the same rights. What rights are excluded within a civil union?
What is marriage?
Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments all over the world. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights and protections. It is also a cultural institution. No other word has that power and no other status can provide that protection.
Married couples have 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities such as:
Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children.
Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member
Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job
Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one spouse is laid off
ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse
Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers
Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies
Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance
The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization.
What is a civil union?
A civil union is a legal status granted by a state. The State of Vermont created civil unions in 2000. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections, as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage".
Civil unions are different from civil marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal, such as:
Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes but questions remain as to how civil unions will be treated in other states. The two appellate courts that have addressed the issue in Connecticut and Georgia have disregarded them based on the fact that their own states do not grant civil unions.
Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 General Accounting Office report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government alone. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.
Taxes and Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.
Filling Out Forms:
Every day we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married, single, divorced or widowed. People joined in a civil union do not fit in any of those categories. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit yet misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties.
Separate and Unequal—Second Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status only for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. The United States Constitution requires legal equality for all. Including lesbian and gay couples within existing marriage laws in is the fairest and simplest thing to do.
Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disregard civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than establishing residency in Vermont and filing for dissolution there. This has already created problems for couples who now have no way to terminate their legal agreement.
It is a complicated issue and one that I doubt will be resolved in my lifetime. I admit that I am old school and it's hard to undo certain beliefs that I was raised to have with regards to a myriad of social circumstances. This is one of those issues.
The information you provided explains a great deal. Thank you
Heres the thing, your objection to gays being married is probably in part due to a religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
If thats the case, then its an unconstitutional argument because we don't respect any establishment of religion.
It shouldn't matter to you what the state calls anyone else, as long as you are treated equally. Because no one person, or two persons, are better then any other two persons, right?
Isn't that the very basis of what makes America special? Regardless of who you are, what you make, the color of your skin, etc, we all treat everyone the same.
In reality..we're at each other's throats over every little thing and don't hesitiate to take it to court. That is what seems to be making America special these days..having a judge mandate diversity, equality, etc.
In my state it is not lawful for me to marry another man. The law applies equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals.
What right is being denied?
You are allowed to marry the person of your choice, gays are not based solely on their partners sex. Therefore it's inherently unequal. If gays get the right to marry, you too would be allowed to marry a man, thereby indicating it's not special treatment.
In reality..we're at each other's throats over every little thing and don't hesitiate to take it to court. That is what seems to be making America special these days..having a judge mandate diversity, equality, etc.
So it shouldn't be enforced at all?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
