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.
While it's not full marriage equality, something is better than nothing.
Pam's House Blend:: The Peter's head will explode: IL poised to approve civil unions (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11091/the-peters-head-will-explode-il-poised-to-approve-civil-unions - broken link)
Quote:
The Illinois General Assembly is expected to approve a measure next week that would legalize civil unions, according to an LGBT activist.
...Should the measure become law, both gay and straight couples could enter into civil unions. As there's no explicit language regarding an effective date, couples could start entering into civil unions 30 days after the bill is signed into law, Garcia said.
look for Utah to be the last... they had issues with marriage laws as part of their history.. they couldn't become a state in the union until they were willing to outlaw plural marriage.. and now the same toss pots in that state are the ones who want to tell others they can't get married..(mormons)
What is the difference between a Civil Union and Marriage..? Since marriage is technically a religious institution, everyone should instead get Civil Unions with actual marriage being carried out separately by the church (but having the same paperwork as the civil union). That is one way to make everyone happy, no?
What is the difference between a Civil Union and Marriage..? Since marriage is technically a religious institution, everyone should instead get Civil Unions with actual marriage being carried out separately by the church (but having the same paperwork as the civil union). That is one way to make everyone happy, no?
Uhm....there are differences legally.
In some states, a civil union is basically a marriage and in some states a domestic partnership is basically marriage.
It just depends state by state.
Some states have a more robust civil union or domestic partnership system.
In any case, I don't see marriage as a religious institution.
If that was the case, everyone would get their marriage license from the church, a marriage ceremony would HAVE to be performed in a place of worship in order to be valid...so on and so forth.
Instead, it is the state who gives out marriage licenses and the state, IMO, should not discriminate against its own residents on the basis of homosexual vs heterosexual.
It would make me happy to see less government benefits, privileges, etc separate from marital status but I don't think people are savvy enough to try to implement such a system.
Instead, I'd like to see marriage licenses available for same-sex and opposite sex couples. Churches already don't have to perform marriage ceremonies if they don't want to. Why they make up lies such as, "If same-sex marriage is passed, churches will HAVE to marry same-sex couples." Complete and utter bs.
Quote:
Why aren't domestic partnerships or civil unions good enough?
Rather than ending marriage discrimination outright—the only way to provide equality—an increasing number of states are creating a parallel mechanism either with civil unions, domestic partnerships or some lesser package of protections and responsibilities (http://www.freedomtomarry.org/get_informed/marriage_basics/marriage_v_other_more/definitions.php - broken link).
While these mechanisms do provide same-sex couples with important responsibilities and protections previously withheld, we are constantly witnessing the shortcomings (http://www.freedomtomarry.org/get_informed/marriage_basics/marriage_v_other_more/resources.php - broken link) of such separate and unequal institutions. Learn more. (http://freedomtomarry.org/get_informed/marriage_basics/marriage_v_other.php - broken link)
Evan Wolfson explains why we can't call it [marriage] something else: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCl-XYB_JcA
Interesting how it was only 10 years ago when Vermont introduced civil unions to the nation and everybody thought it was SO radical. At this point, I think civil unions are a moderate-to-conservative position.
Interesting how it was only 10 years ago when Vermont introduced civil unions to the nation and everybody thought it was SO radical. At this point, I think civil unions are a moderate-to-conservative position.
************************************************** *********
AUM, did you happen to see Olbermann cite the financial benefits of same-sex marriages to small businesses? It was amazing. Bravo, Land of Lincoln! One more blow for human dignity and equal rights!
its about time Illinois jkeeps doing things right, and they started by gettin rridd of blogo
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.
One more blow for human dignity and equal rights!
