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.
I am actually surprised that this Congress has not brought up the issue. In my mind, there has never been a better chance for the nation to reverse the bigotry that the present laws NATIONALLY allow...If what is seen as the tradition of marriage is protected by not allowing anyone to define it, I dont see why it would fail - the biggoted 'religeous right' is NOT the majority.
I am actually surprised that this Congress has not brought up the issue. In my mind, there has never been a better chance for the nation to reverse the bigotry that the present laws NATIONALLY allow...If what is seen as the tradition of marriage is protected by not allowing anyone to define it, I dont see why it would fail - the biggoted 'religeous right' is NOT the majority.
One explanation is that the "bigoted religious right" feels VERY strongly about this. The people who are against civil unions and/or gay marriage are much more fervent in their opposition than the supporters of those things.
And again, traditionally, this is a state-by-state issue. I believe that the Defense Of Marriage Act is not only unconstitutional, it's unprecedented because it involves the federal government in what has always been the purview of the individual states.
It's really not hard to find this information. Again, it's obvious that a lot of people falsely assume that gays have a "marriage or nothing" attitude. I hope I've educated some of you.
What they really desire seems to be a movemnt rather than any real staus. Some people have to have a cause;which is why so many gays are ot involved IMO.
As a gay man who has been in a relationship going on 5 years:
I could care less if it's marriage or civil union. I live in NJ and I can get a civil union. However, we don't. The reason is, the civil union is not perfect. You see, here is the problems with civil unions: They need to absolutely equal to marriage in a definition by law. Sure, when I filed my taxes this year there was a civil union option. HOWEVER, insurance companies are still allowed to only take someone's MARRIED spouse. Hospital visitations can be be granted to family and their MARRIED spouse.
This is why it's important that if we make civil unions federal, they have to be absolutely 100% equal to marriage. The only difference is that.. they didn't take place in a church. I think that churches should be allowed to have their say if they want to marry same sex couples, but not be forced to.
Now, I just wish more gays thought the same way I did. They just want the term marriage just because. I could care less if I am "married". But if I am with my partner and we have the marriage benefits, that's all I care. Call us BFFs. Call us crazy. We need that piece of paper. That piece of paper = equal rights. Let's let this battle over a damn word go!
I could care less if it's marriage or civil union. I live in NJ and I can get a civil union. However, we don't. The reason is, the civil union is not perfect. You see, here is the problems with civil unions: They need to absolutely equal to marriage in a definition by law. Sure, when I filed my taxes this year there was a civil union option. HOWEVER, insurance companies are still allowed to only take someone's MARRIED spouse. Hospital visitations can be be granted to family and their MARRIED spouse.
I understand your complaints, but wouldn't it be better to have a civil union than nothing at all?
I understand your complaints, but wouldn't it be better to have a civil union than nothing at all?
Not if it can still be discriminated against. What's the point of using the term "civil union" to make the religious whackos happy, but at the same time not have the same exact benefits of marriage? It seems pointless.
The only difference between a MARRIAGE and a CIVIL UNION = the name. (and again, if it's held in a church or not and that should be up to each individual church/place of worship)
Not if it can still be discriminated against. What's the point of using the term "civil union" to make the religious whackos happy, but at the same time not have the same exact benefits of marriage? It seems pointless.
The only difference between a MARRIAGE and a CIVIL UNION = the name. (and again, if it's held in a church or not and that should be up to each individual church/place of worship)
If you're looking for benefits and rights, a civil union is much better than nothing at all. It doesn't mean you're giving in to anybody or that you have to give up fighting for full equality.
As the old saying goes, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
If you're looking for benefits and rights, a civil union is much better than nothing at all. It doesn't mean you're giving in to anybody or that you have to give up fighting for full equality.
As the old saying goes, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But why do something half assed? It's either "yes" or "no" to civil unions. That's fine if we take civil unions, but, why should there be a door open to possible discrimination. "Sorry, only MARRIED couples". That makes no sense. A couple with a civil union needs to be equally treated as a couple with a marriage license. There's really no "well, let's take what we can get now..and fight for the rest later"
In fact, I think I am being more than generous with what I want. Some people demand MARRIAGE and to be able to marry in a church.
I just want something legal and sanctioned by the state. It's really not a big request. It should be done right the first time
Quite frankly, we both find referendums deciding human rights the most appalling display of legalized bigotry. Just look what had to happen with interracial marriages. It required your Federal Supreme court in 1967 to make it law. Up til 1991 the majority of Americans polled still opposed it.
Ugh.
Here in Canada there is full marriage and common-law for gays and straights. We just call it marriage.
Since 2003 there have been well over 10,000 marriages for gay people and .....2 divorces.
We've been together for 20+ years ( monogamous) and were married last summer. Words fail in trying to convey the enormous boost of acceptance and equality we feel every day. Everyone at our ceremony, 30+ guests, were straight and from various denominations and races. We were the only gays present.
No church is required to marry anyone gay.
Before anyone mentions the religious stuff, ask yourselves why the religious turn the other cheek to straight atheists getting legally married. No church is required to marry atheists.
Before anyone mentions children, ask yourselves why infertile and elderly people are allowed to marry without a peep of protest from anyone, including churches, which will marry them.
What we find interesting is some people say how depraved, promiscuous and perverse gay is. Then they deny them marriage and/or equality, keeping gays in that state of suppressed existence, allowing the same bigots to continue hating them. A self-enabling cycle of hatred.
Research the number of teen/young adult suicides over being gay. It's seen by them as easier than dealing with the casual cruelty we see on these forums.
respectfully -Doug of thosemeninlove
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.
