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.
Yes but the feds could start recognizing same sex CU's for SSI and other areas in their purview. Would'nt that would be a bigger win for committed SS couples then getting their civil union called a marriage?
Absolutely, but Congress has to change the Defense Of Marriage Act in order for that to happen. It's a highly sensitive issue. Almost no Republicans would dare to make that move, and there are lots of Democrats from moderate or conservative districts who are very reluctant about it.
I think the rights are much more important than the government forcing a definition on anyone. In actuality, this move would allow churches who perform gay marriage to do it at their whim...and those churches who do not, don't have to....it IS a win-win situation as far as I am concerned.
I agree there are practicalities. SC or UT are not likely to pass SSCU's anytime soon, but what about more hospitable places like IL or NJ? That would seem to me to be the key battleground right now, along w/ the feds.
NJ already has civil unions, and in Illinois, there have been repeated attempts in the General Assembly to legalize civil unions or same-sex marriage. So far, every attempt has stalled.
I think the rights are much more important than the government forcing a definition on anyone. In actuality, this move would allow churches who perform gay marriage to do it at their whim...and those churches who do not, don't have to....it IS a win-win situation as far as I am concerned.
Churches have never been forced to perform marriages of anybody. I don't know why some people continue to believe that myth.
I agree that the rights are more important than the word "marriage". Again, attempts are being made to legalize civil unions, but in many states, the will of the people and their representatives just isn't there.
Churches have never been forced to perform marriages of anybody. I don't know why some people continue to believe that myth.
I agree that the rights are more important than the word "marriage". Again, attempts are being made to legalize civil unions, but in many states, the will of the people and their representatives just isn't there.
I apologize - I am not trying to perpetuate the myth.
I don't think this should be a 'state' issue when federal laws, more than just DOMA, use the term marriage within them (don't forget about case law).
NJ already has civil unions, and in Illinois, there have been repeated attempts in the General Assembly to legalize civil unions or same-sex marriage. So far, every attempt has stalled.
Sorry I misquoted states, I was just trying to think of 2 large blue states I was'nt sure had SSCU's. But my point is there is fertile ground at the state level for this work.
Sorry I misquoted states, I was just trying to think of 2 large blue states I was'nt sure had SSCU's. But my point is there is fertile ground at the state level for this work.
And in the states where there's any hope of passing civil unions, attempts are being made. I think a lot of people are making assumptions about this. They assume that the fight is "all or nothing", "marriage or nothing" - when that's obviously not the case. You just hear about Prop. 8 and gay marriage and assume that that's the only game in town.
They're trying for civil unions in New Mexico, but it's controversial:
Domestic Partnership Bill On Santa Fe's Agenda - Albuquerque News Story - KOAT Albuquerque (http://www.koat.com/news/22349866/detail.html - broken link)
And in Hawaii, they got close to passing a civil unions law recently, but the state House voted to postpone it indefinitely:
No, I think you give a fair assessment. There's a large debate going on withing the gay community as to whether we should aim for equal civil-marriage rights, or if we should first go after the civil union, separate but unequal route (DOMA makes it so that even those in civil unions cannot ever receive the federal benefits of marriage). I choose the former.
Here's a quote from Ted Olsen (assistant AG under Regan, Solicitor General under Bush, represented Bush in Bush v. Gore), the conservative lawyer who argued in favor of gay marriage in the recent California prop 8 case:
"Some have suggested that we have brought this case too soon, and that neither the country nor the courts are "ready" to tackle this issue and remove this stigma. We disagree. We represent real clients—two wonderful couples in California who have longtime relationships. Our lesbian clients are raising four fine children who could not ask for better parents. Our clients wish to be married. They believe that they have that constitutional right. They wish to be represented in court to seek vindication of that right by mounting a challenge under the United States Constitution to the validity of Proposition 8 under the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the 14th Amendment...We do not tell persons who have a legitimate claim to wait until the time is "right" and the populace is "ready" to recognize their equality and equal dignity under the law."
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.
