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.
And amazingly enough, when I am in VT I don't see what the fearmongers envision: Homosexual public displays of affection, gay recruitment and any other silliness. Bob and Tom aren't skipping along holding hands, Sue and Jane aren't discussing what they can do with that zucchini at the farmers market.
The town I own property in is a very quaint, picture book New England town with lots of old homes, and a village green lined with cute little shops, inns and churches. The innkeepers have seen an increase in business as more homosexual couples book civil union ceremonies and receptions and rent out rooms. In turn, these happy couples, their friends and families pour more tourism dollars into the area. It's a win-win.
That's very nice to hear, and I bet most of the people in those states would agree with you. I don't understand the fear that people have over this. The most recent numbers from the American Community Survey (taken by the Census Bureau) said that 4.1% of Americans identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. That's a small minority, and then if you figure that less than half of them would probably want to get married, it's down to 2% of the American population. The vast majority of people would probably never even meet a married, same-sex couple - even if it were legal in their state.
I will try to answer your questions the best way I can, as long as you don't get offended, for i have no intention of arguing with anybody in this forum.
To me "marriage" is the union of a man and a woman, therefore there isn't such thing as "same sex marriage." I also believe that some benefits should be offered to same sex couples (will explain below), as long as these are also offered to living-together heterosexual couples.
The benefits I refer to are as follows:
For government employees (Federal, State, city, borough), not to the private sector employees. In this case, such benefits shouldn't be mandated by any government, but instituted by the company itself. A lot of companies already do that, but unless they offer the same benefits to heterosexual single couples, they leave themselves open for civil lawsuits. The same for Sate or government employees.
-Life and health insurances
-Visiting rights at hospitals
-Education benefits (public school employees)
(There may be others I don't remember). But such benefits can easily be arranged for by crafting a legal document.
Interesting, thanks for responding. How do you feel about items outside of employee benefits (like some tax breaks) married couples may benefit from?
Please let me ask your opinion as a gay person: if gay individuals were granted all the rights afforded to heterosexuals when the are wed before a justice, would the homosexual community be content if the joining of loved ones were still labeled a civil union (albeit with ALL rights)?
OR: If the the joining of loved ones (in this case hetero & homosexuals) before a justice was called a civil union and ANYONE entering a civil union were afforded all the same legal rights, would that be more tolerable? (In other words, using the word 'marriage' only when the joining was conducted in a house of worship.)
Again, I tilt conservative, but have several homosexual acquaintances who are in long term, committed relationships. One couple has a child and her two daddys are among some of the best parents I have ever met. It is terrible to think that if God forbid something happened to one of them, the other could not speak for his loved one. I support same sex unions/civil unions with full spousal rights.
I was raised in a household were my family thought homosexuality was terrible, were appalled with me when I befriended gay individuals, and who are staunchly anti-gay rights. They aren't Bible thumpers by any means, but were brought up in very devout Catholic households. I can understand where people such as my folks are coming from when they say No to gay marriage, but it doesn't mean I believe they are right.
which is why the people shouldn't be voting on the issue..
the courts should be applying the factual evidence to the constitution, as well as all previous common law rulings...
oh wait.. they did that.. and then the haters declared them "activist judges" and pushed for will of the people in deciding the civil liberties of a minority group...
it's disgusting... believe what you want.. but you have no right to deny my relationship the same equality UNDER THE LAW and all the benefits it entails unless you can provide evidence to support your position that are not "because I just feel that way"
That isn't f-ing good enough... I don't care if you're 95 percent the majority.. that's not good enough and is anything but American...it's disgusting because it sets its own dangerous precedence..
I'm one of those conservatives. All this time I thought it was the liberals who were against equal rights for gays. At any rate, I do think gays and lesbians should have all the "rights" of hetros with a life-long legal partnership. "Marriage" doesn't seem to fit the description, but I suspect that's because same-sex marriage is still a relatively new term.
Since so many are against using the "marriage" term, I think "civil union" might be accepted easier, but legally, it should include everything that marriage laws cover. As a hetro American, I'm a little ashamed that it's not legal in all 50 states.
I do NOT think it should be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court except as federal laws pertain to married people. In those instances, however, -- federal income tax and social security laws, federal employes including military, etc. -- the U.S. Supreme Court should declare all marriages and civil unions equal.
Please let me ask your opinion as a gay person: if gay individuals were granted all the rights afforded to heterosexuals when the are wed before a justice, would the homosexual community be content if the joining of loved ones were still labeled a civil union (albeit with ALL rights)?
OR: If the the joining of loved ones (in this case hetero & homosexuals) before a justice was called a civil union and ANYONE entering a civil union were afforded all the same legal rights, would that be more tolerable? (In other words, using the word 'marriage' only when the joining was conducted in a house of worship.)
Again, I tilt conservative, but have several homosexual acquaintances who are in long term, committed relationships. One couple has a child and her two daddys are among some of the best parents I have ever met. It is terrible to think that if God forbid something happened to one of them, the other could not speak for his loved one. I support same sex unions/civil unions with full spousal rights.
I was raised in a household were my family thought homosexuality was terrible, were appalled with me when I befriended gay individuals, and who are staunchly anti-gay rights. They aren't Bible thumpers by any means, but were brought up in very devout Catholic households. I can understand where people such as my folks are coming from when they say No to gay marriage, but it doesn't mean I believe they are right.
Just for legal clarification...
My wife and I were married in a quaint court house in the middle of the as-normal beautiful Upstate New York no-where. What most people don't realize is that NY is historically VERY conservative once one gets away from the four major cities.
Anywho, we were married by a justice of the peace. No mention was made of anyone's god, at our request. Other than the condesending smile of the Justice when we requested that, the cerimony went very well, thank you, with a pleasent reception on the in-law's property on a beautiful Upstate afternoon.
The cerimony was called a "marriage", we are called "married", we have a certificate of marriage, we are considered married even by our Christian neighbors and friends.
So, if I may respectfully inquire, what is your opinion on some form of inherent title of ownership for the term and practice that religion claims to hold on marriage?
I appreciate your thoughtful comments, but I can't speak for all homosexual people. I'm sure the opinions would vary quite a bit depending on exactly who you ask.
True. I should have been a little more specific but didn't want to be nosy or prying. Perhaps asking more along the line of within your community, or within your circle of friends might be better?
In Alaska, I don't know. I just spent a few minutes searching for an answer to your question, but I can't find anything.
I do think there's symbolic value to the government recognizing long-term relationships in some form. When there's nothing available for same-sex couples, to me, the state is basically saying that it believes those relationships have no value and aren't worth recognizing.
The Sate of AK doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, but allow for heterosexual or not heterosexual couples to receive the same benefits as married couples. This applies to all Sate workers.
How about heterosexual couples who aren't married? These people aren't recognized, and in my view, perhaps because "marriage" under most State laws are intended for the creating of families (man, woman, and children). But single parents with children still get the same tax benefits as married heterosexual ones with children.
That's why I have been trying to figure which benefits married couples receive that others don't.
Interesting, thanks for responding. How do you feel about items outside of employee benefits (like some tax breaks) married couples may benefit from?
I am not certain about such benefits. For example, before my wife and I had children, we filed married but separate returns to receive larger individual tax returns. Once we had children, then we had a few tax exceptions, but these are the same for single parents. The exceptions are because of the children. A single couple purchasing a home, for example, can make legal arrangements for tax purposes, and still receive the same tax breaks as a married couple.
My wife and I were married in a quaint court house in the middle of the as-normal beautiful Upstate New York no-where. What most people don't realize is that NY is historically VERY conservative once one gets away from the four major cities.
Anywho, we were married by a justice of the peace. No mention was made of anyone's god, at our request. Other than the condesending smile of the Justice when we requested that, the cerimony went very well, thank you, with a pleasent reception on the in-law's property on a beautiful Upstate afternoon.
The cerimony was called a "marriage", we are called "married", we have a certificate of marriage, we are considered married even by our Christian neighbors and friends.
So, if I may respectfully inquire, what is your opinion on some form of inherent title of ownership for the term and practice that religion claims to hold on marriage?
Congrats on your upstate wedding. Both of mine were downstate one i the RCC and the other on the ocean beach.
For Clarification - in NYS there are 5 'large' cities: NYC, Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester and Albany. We won't go into the smaller ones for brevity's sake.
As a native, born and bred and tax paying NYer, I realize that some areas of NY are conservative but the state in general has a heavy Democratic population.
Sometimes in order to reach what we want we have to give and take. If on the document it says "Legal Union" and it offers the same rights and protections to ALL people who join together, that is the desired outcome. If people want to use the word 'married' when conversing with friends and family and 'Christians' -- fine, so be it. If your document read "Legal Union" would you feel any less wed?
The religious might be less apt to say NAY to legalized unions (what we know as marriage) if the 'm' word wasn't formally used. If a person and their significant other are legally joined, who gives a hoot what you call it? 50% chance it will end the same way -- in divorce.
Things change over time as the old guard dies off and those who have a greater understanding of current issues take their place. One step at a time -- go for civil union with full legal benefits, then gradually work toward changing the 'Civil Union' status to marriage.
The gay community in the US (or at least in the more urban areas) has come a long way since Stonewall. Many of us feel strongly about our friends all having equal rights.
Marriage vs Civil Union is a matter of semantics. Would you deny your gay friends the same rights as you simply because you want the word Marriage on your certificate (which they can't have) or would you support them by accepting "Civil Union" on your certificate?
Give and take. Give the religious their "m" word on their church and synagogue forms, use civil union on legal forms for all non religious ceremonies. Use the 'm' word on the invitations, to describe the events, just don't have it on the legal paper. Think of two 8 ounce glasses. One is long and narrow, the other short and squat. They both hold water. One might be a tumbler, the other a champagne flute, but they are all glasses.
which is why the people shouldn't be voting on the issue..
the courts should be applying the factual evidence to the constitution, as well as all previous common law rulings...
oh wait.. they did that.. and then the haters declared them "activist judges" and pushed for will of the people in deciding the civil liberties of a minority group...
it's disgusting... believe what you want.. but you have no right to deny my relationship the same equality UNDER THE LAW and all the benefits it entails unless you can provide evidence to support your position that are not "because I just feel that way"
That isn't f-ing good enough... I don't care if you're 95 percent the majority.. that's not good enough and is anything but American...it's disgusting because it sets its own dangerous precedence..
Are you directing this specifically at me and my post to AUM? If so, isn't it better to be friendly with people who support your cause as opposed to castigating them? Read what I've written -- I am a conservative who is in complete support of Gay Rights. My concern/question is how to achieve the right to use the word Marriage and receive all of the benefits this word bestows upon heterosexual couples. If states were to first grant legal civil unions which give ALL wedded couples (homo and hetero) the same benefits, isn't that the bigger part of the battle? Is it best to lose everything fighting for the word marriage, or best wind most by foregoing that 'm' word for a brief time?
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.
How do you feel about items outside of employee benefits (like some tax breaks) married couples may benefit from?
At any rate, I do think gays and lesbians should have all the "rights" of hetros with a life-long legal partnership. "Marriage" doesn't seem to fit the description, but I suspect that's because same-sex marriage is still a relatively new term.
