>> >> > > >snip >> >> > > >Yes, yes, we know. Any group that fights for equality under the law is >> >> > > >only motivated by a deep-seated desire to "attack" (attack what? Gays >> >> > > >aren't trying to take away mixed-sex marriage). They couldn't possibly >> >> > > >be motivated by the common human desire for equality and fairness.
>> >> > > - >> >> > > Homosexuals are not fighting for equality under the law, but >> >> > > preferential >> >> > > treatment under the law. Equality under the law would be a New Jersey >> >> > > style >> >> > > civil union. But that isn't good enough for homosexuals...they want >> >> > > special >> >> > > treatment.
>> >> > Getting married EXACTLY LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE is "special treatment"? >> >> > You're weird.
>> >> > Here's an idea: let's pass a law that says Catholics (just to pick a >> >> > random example) can no longer get married, but can enter into civil >> >> > unions. Are Catholics then getting equal treatment under the law? >> >> > Would this be equality and fairness to you? >> >> > **************************** >> >> > You miss the point that having the same rights as married couples is >> >> > different from being a married couple. When women got the same rights as >> >> > men, they remained women. We didn't suddenly start calling them men.
>> >> And you didn't answer my question. If tomorrow we told Catholics that >> >> they couldn't get legaly married, but that they could have civil >> >> unions, would that be equality under the law? >> >> ************** >> >> If catholics couldn't get married, but other heterosexual couples >> >> could...that would not be equality because there are heterosexual couples >> >> involved in all cases of your question.
>> >> When interracial couples started getting married - after the Supreme >> >> Court overthrew the laws prohibiting it - we called it "marriage." >> >> ***************** >> >> The supreme court did NOT rule on homosexual marriage. Whattadufus. You >> >> can't use that logic.
>> >> And when blacks in this country started getting married - after the >> >> laws the forbid slaves from marrying no longer applied - we called it >> >> "marriage." >> >> ******************** >> >> Same as above. Flawed logic. Heterosexual couples were involved.
>> >> Gays want to get married like everybody else. And if you call it >> >> something other than marriage, it will not be treated the same as >> >> marriage. I've seen examples of this in real life. >> >> ***************** >> >> Homosexuals can get married. Pick someone of the opposite sex and do it. >> >> Want to hook up with the same sex.....that's a civil union. Want society to >> >> recognize that you are married...then conform to the definition.
>> >> (Civil) marriage is a legal term, not (like men and women) a >> >> biological term. Equality for gays means that gays get to be married - >> >> in the legal sense. >> >> ****************** >> >> Sounds good, except for the part about calling it a "marriage".
>> >> If your church wants to call it something else - from "civil union" to >> >> "an abomination in the eyes of God" - that's entirely your business. >> >> ****************** >> >> I don't have a church, except for the church of natural evolution.
>> >I guess someone who is enlightened should explain why they think civil >> >unions in their country is equal in law to the word marriage. In Canada >> >civil union means something similiar to a common-law marriage which is >> >not equal to marriage.
>> >Marriage equality is important because what comes with it is divorce, >> >adoption, estate, penison split and lots of other laws that support >> >equality.
>> >And, of course, few if any churches recognize the marriage between two >> >men in their church, but that the church's right and that is not a >> >problem for the rest of society.
>> >I mean it would be a sin if the pastors and priests couldn't marry the >> >the guys they had homosexual sex with.
>> Just stop the bullshit. If two people want to get married, it's their >> business. No one elses.
>> A marriage is a contract. Certain aspects of a civil and church >> blessed marriage are in place to protect offsprings, property, and >> other legal conditions.
>Church blessing aren't law. And it is important to remember that when >people get to the divorce stage, they hate each other in most cases. >Even under current law, the protection of offsprings, property and other >legal conditions mean mostly lineups in courthouse and costly legal >fees. Additionally, the parties have to book off days of work to attend >court.
>The only thing to fight over under Canadian law is what is and what is >not part of the family assets of their marriage. Once that is >determined the husband and wife get 50 percent each to walk. The >hardship and readjustment necessary is the the goofy guy married a women >who earned less, was less educated, was less bright, so children under 7 >can remain with her and the guy is, obviously, oblidged to help her with >50 percent of the support funds to support the kids in her custody. >After the kids reach 7, parents can apply to have access different than >was agreed to or allocated when the kids were under 7. Hate is simple. >Divorce is all about money and that is the last thing a guy thinks about >at 21, 22, 23, when he marries.
>>> > > >snip >>> > > >Yes, yes, we know. Any group that fights for equality under the law >>> > > >is >>> > > >only motivated by a deep-seated desire to "attack" (attack what? >>> > > >Gays >>> > > >aren't trying to take away mixed-sex marriage). They couldn't >>> > > >possibly >>> > > >be motivated by the common human desire for equality and fairness.
>>> > > - >>> > > Homosexuals are not fighting for equality under the law, but >>> > > preferential >>> > > treatment under the law. Equality under the law would be a New >>> > > Jersey >>> > > style >>> > > civil union. But that isn't good enough for homosexuals...they want >>> > > special >>> > > treatment.
>>> > Getting married EXACTLY LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE is "special treatment"? >>> > You're weird.
>>> > Here's an idea: let's pass a law that says Catholics (just to pick a >>> > random example) can no longer get married, but can enter into civil >>> > unions. Are Catholics then getting equal treatment under the law? >>> > Would this be equality and fairness to you? >>> > **************************** >>> > You miss the point that having the same rights as married couples is >>> > different from being a married couple. When women got the same rights >>> > as >>> > men, they remained women. We didn't suddenly start calling them men.
>>> And you didn't answer my question. If tomorrow we told Catholics that >>> they couldn't get legaly married, but that they could have civil >>> unions, would that be equality under the law? >>> ************** >>> If catholics couldn't get married, but other heterosexual couples >>> could...that would not be equality because there are heterosexual >>> couples >>> involved in all cases of your question.
>>> When interracial couples started getting married - after the Supreme >>> Court overthrew the laws prohibiting it - we called it "marriage." >>> ***************** >>> The supreme court did NOT rule on homosexual marriage. Whattadufus. >>> You >>> can't use that logic.
>>> And when blacks in this country started getting married - after the >>> laws the forbid slaves from marrying no longer applied - we called it >>> "marriage." >>> ******************** >>> Same as above. Flawed logic. Heterosexual couples were involved.
>>> Gays want to get married like everybody else. And if you call it >>> something other than marriage, it will not be treated the same as >>> marriage. I've seen examples of this in real life. >>> ***************** >>> Homosexuals can get married. Pick someone of the opposite sex and do >>> it. >>> Want to hook up with the same sex.....that's a civil union. Want >>> society to >>> recognize that you are married...then conform to the definition.
>>> (Civil) marriage is a legal term, not (like men and women) a >>> biological term. Equality for gays means that gays get to be married - >>> in the legal sense. >>> ****************** >>> Sounds good, except for the part about calling it a "marriage".
>>> If your church wants to call it something else - from "civil union" to >>> "an abomination in the eyes of God" - that's entirely your business. >>> ****************** >>> I don't have a church, except for the church of natural evolution.
>>I guess someone who is enlightened should explain why they think civil >>unions in their country is equal in law to the word marriage. In Canada >>civil union means something similiar to a common-law marriage which is >>not equal to marriage.
>>Marriage equality is important because what comes with it is divorce, >>adoption, estate, penison split and lots of other laws that support >>equality.
>>And, of course, few if any churches recognize the marriage between two >>men in their church, but that the church's right and that is not a >>problem for the rest of society.
>>I mean it would be a sin if the pastors and priests couldn't marry the >>the guys they had homosexual sex with.
> Just stop the bullshit. If two people want to get married, it's their > business. No one elses.
> A marriage is a contract. Certain aspects of a civil and church > blessed marriage are in place to protect offsprings, property, and > other legal conditions.
> DCI
- And churches have to power to deny marriage to anyone who doesn't meet their definitions. All the more reason for homosexuals to concentrate on getting laws that define civil union rights to be interchangeable with marriage rights. But I guess it's more fun to piss off heterosexuals. It's all about the circus.
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:21:38 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> A marriage is a contract. Certain aspects of a civil and church >> blessed marriage are in place to protect offsprings, property, and >> other legal conditions.
>> DCI >- >And churches have to power to deny marriage to anyone who doesn't meet their >definitions.
No, they don't. As long as you aren't a gay couple you can just go to city hall.
All the more reason for homosexuals to concentrate on getting
>laws that define civil union rights to be interchangeable with marriage >rights.
If people won't let them get married, then why would they allow civil unions to have the same rights as marriage?
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:21:38 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> > wrote:
>>> A marriage is a contract. Certain aspects of a civil and church >>> blessed marriage are in place to protect offsprings, property, and >>> other legal conditions.
>>> DCI >>- >>And churches have to power to deny marriage to anyone who doesn't meet >>their >>definitions.
> No, they don't. As long as you aren't a gay couple you can just go to > city hall.
But you might have trouble finding a hard core catholic church to marry you if you are not catholic, or if you plan to raise the offspring outside the catholic church. Same kinds of things with other religions.
The circus here, is that homosexuals want to force such religions to perform marriages, even if it is against church doctrine. Again, that's a lot more fun than simply seeking equivalent rights.
> All the more reason for homosexuals to concentrate on getting >>laws that define civil union rights to be interchangeable with marriage >>rights.
> If people won't let them get married, then why would they allow civil > unions to have the same rights as marriage?
- Why not? It would be a legal contract. Of course, it wouldn't be politically correct...which apparently is the overriding consideration of prop 8 opposition.
On Jan 21, 3:24 pm, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The circus here, is that homosexuals want to force such religions to perform > marriages, even if it is against church doctrine. Again, that's a lot more > fun than simply seeking equivalent rights.
The circus where? Are you talking about the U.S.? There's not a single court case in the country trying to force any church to marry gays - or, for that matter, divorced people, interracial couples, or Jews - if it's against church doctrine. I don't know of a single same- sex equality organization anywhere that has even mentioned this. And anyone who knows anything about the First Amendment knows that such a case would never get past a judge.
The Catholic Church opposes divorce. They believe that, when a divorced person marries someone new, they are commiting adultery. They do not recognize the new marriage. They will not perform such marriages, and no court has ever forced them to.
And that's their right and privilege. But divorced people can legally remarry in this country, and that marriage is recognized by law, even if the Catholic Chruch doesn't recognize it.
Both sides of that are called "Frredom of Religion" and "the Spearation of Church and State." Gay marriage, in the states that recognize it, is EXACTLY the same.
On Jan 21, 8:21 am, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
> - > And churches have to power to deny marriage to anyone who doesn't meet their > definitions. All the more reason for homosexuals to concentrate on getting > laws that define civil union rights to be interchangeable with marriage > rights. But I guess it's more fun to piss off heterosexuals. It's all > about the circus.-
Bull. Churches don't have the power to deny legal (civil) marriage to anyone who doesn't meet their definitions. Even atheists can get married in this country, although most churches won't perform the ceremony.
>> - >> And churches have to power to deny marriage to anyone who doesn't meet >> their >> definitions. All the more reason for homosexuals to concentrate on >> getting >> laws that define civil union rights to be interchangeable with marriage >> rights. But I guess it's more fun to piss off heterosexuals. It's all >> about the circus.-
>Bull. Churches don't have the power to deny legal (civil) marriage to >anyone who doesn't meet their definitions.
- Yes they do.
>Even atheists can get >married in this country, although most churches won't perform the >ceremony.
>>>> A marriage is a contract. Certain aspects of a civil and church >>>> blessed marriage are in place to protect offsprings, property, and >>>> other legal conditions.
>>>> DCI >>>- >>>And churches have to power to deny marriage to anyone who doesn't meet >>>their >>>definitions.
>> No, they don't. As long as you aren't a gay couple you can just go to >> city hall.
>But you might have trouble finding a hard core catholic church to marry you >if you are not catholic, or if you plan to raise the offspring outside the >catholic church. Same kinds of things with other religions.
>The circus here, is that homosexuals want to force such religions to perform >marriages,
No, they don't.
>> All the more reason for homosexuals to concentrate on getting >>>laws that define civil union rights to be interchangeable with marriage >>>rights.
>> If people won't let them get married, then why would they allow civil >> unions to have the same rights as marriage? >- >Why not?
Because the point of not allowing them marriage is to ensure that they will not have the same rights as a married couple. That's the whole reason why the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, because if civil unions have the same legal status as marriage, whats the point of bothering with them?
>>> - >>> And churches have to power to deny marriage to anyone who doesn't meet >>> their >>> definitions. All the more reason for homosexuals to concentrate on >>> getting >>> laws that define civil union rights to be interchangeable with marriage >>> rights. But I guess it's more fun to piss off heterosexuals. It's all >>> about the circus.-
>>Bull. Churches don't have the power to deny legal (civil) marriage to >>anyone who doesn't meet their definitions. >- >Yes they do.
No, they don't.
>>Even atheists can get >>married in this country, although most churches won't perform the >>ceremony. >- >And thus you contradict your previous claim.
No he doesn't. People don't need a church to get married.
> >> - > >> And churches have to power to deny marriage to anyone who doesn't meet > >> their > >> definitions. All the more reason for homosexuals to concentrate on > >> getting > >> laws that define civil union rights to be interchangeable with marriage > >> rights. But I guess it's more fun to piss off heterosexuals. It's all > >> about the circus.-
> >Bull. Churches don't have the power to deny legal (civil) marriage to > >anyone who doesn't meet their definitions.
> - > Yes they do.
> >Even atheists can get > >married in this country, although most churches won't perform the > >ceremony.
> - > And thus you contradict your previous claim.
You're a little crazy, right? In this country (the good old US of A) you can get married by a Justice of the Peace with no - repeat, NO - religious content to the event at all.
You do not have to get married in a church to get married.
You do know that, right? If you don't, you have no business being involved in a discussion on the legality of marriages. Or anything else that requires a 5th-grade education or higher.
> >> >> >> > >snip > >> >> >> > >Yes, yes, we know. Any group that fights for equality under the law is > >> >> >> > >only motivated by a deep-seated desire to "attack" (attack what? Gays > >> >> >> > >aren't trying to take away mixed-sex marriage). They couldn't possibly > >> >> >> > >be motivated by the common human desire for equality and fairness.
> >> >> >> > - > >> >> >> > Homosexuals are not fighting for equality under the law, but > >> >> >> > preferential > >> >> >> > treatment under the law. Equality under the law would be a New Jersey > >> >> >> > style > >> >> >> > civil union. But that isn't good enough for homosexuals...they want > >> >> >> > special > >> >> >> > treatment.
> >> >> >> Getting married EXACTLY LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE is "special treatment"? > >> >> >> You're weird.
> >> >> >> Here's an idea: let's pass a law that says Catholics (just to pick a > >> >> >> random example) can no longer get married, but can enter into civil > >> >> >> unions. Are Catholics then getting equal treatment under the law? > >> >> >> Would this be equality and fairness to you? > >> >> >> **************************** > >> >> >> You miss the point that having the same rights as married couples is > >> >> >> different from being a married couple. When women got the same rights as > >> >> >> men, they remained women. We didn't suddenly start calling them men.
> >> >> >And you didn't answer my question. If tomorrow we told Catholics that > >> >> >they couldn't get legaly married, but that they could have civil > >> >> >unions, would that be equality under the law? > >> >> >************** > >> >> >If catholics couldn't get married, but other heterosexual couples > >> >> >could...that would not be equality because there are heterosexual couples > >> >> >involved in all cases of your question.
> >> >> >When interracial couples started getting married - after the Supreme > >> >> >Court overthrew the laws prohibiting it - we called it "marriage." > >> >> >***************** > >> >> >The supreme court did NOT rule on homosexual marriage. Whattadufus. You > >> >> >can't use that logic.
> >> >> >And when blacks in this country started getting married - after the > >> >> >laws the forbid slaves from marrying no longer applied - we called it > >> >> >"marriage." > >> >> >******************** > >> >> >Same as above. Flawed logic. Heterosexual couples were involved.
> >> >> >Gays want to get married like everybody else. And if you call it > >> >> >something other than marriage, it will not be treated the same as > >> >> >marriage. I've seen examples of this in real life. > >> >> >***************** > >> >> >Homosexuals can get married. Pick someone of the opposite sex and do it. > >> >> >Want to hook up with the same sex.....that's a civil union. Want society to > >> >> >recognize that you are married...then conform to the definition.
> >> >> >(Civil) marriage is a legal term, not (like men and women) a > >> >> >biological term. Equality for gays means that gays get to be married - > >> >> >in the legal sense. > >> >> >****************** > >> >> >Sounds good, except for the part about calling it a "marriage".
> >> >> >If your church wants to call it something else - from "civil union" to > >> >> >"an abomination in the eyes of God" - that's entirely your business. > >> >> >****************** > >> >> >I don't have a church, except for the church of natural evolution.
> >> >> some screamers keep calling for marriage, legitimatelyso, to protect > >> >> children. Has anybody noticed the birthrates among unwed mothers? The > >> >> civil marriage claims just don't pan out logically, church, Prop. or > >> >> no.
> >> >> DCI
> >> >Children are protected by blood samples. If you are a movie star and > >> >you screw some women in the bank of a cab or back of a bar and she gets > >> >pregnant, her baby is proctectd > >> >when to do blood samples that match the rich movie star/singer. > >> >Absolutely to do with marriage.
> >> >The only homosexuals that have children are rich homosexuals - leaving > >> >aside offspring from another marriage or lesbians with a turkey baster. > >> >Culturall heterosexuals will have babies whether they have the $200,000 > >> >it take to raise each child over the 18 year period.
> >> And this does what to my observation above?
> >Well, it cuts through what you had to say. Religion and current > >legislation will have little if anything to do to the granting of > >homosexuals having a right to marriage in the same way that when women > >protested the right to vote, got it. When blacks protested in the > >streets and city blocks were on fire, they got equality.
> >During the stalling time you can, of course, talk religion, laws, > >legislation but in the end....
> >It is like 9/11 globally. For years civil rights were of the utmost > >importance in democracy then with the snap of a finger the governments > >made laws and changed legislation to fit the moment or the current point > >in history just like the do in war times.
> Even if everything were perfect, politicians and lobyist would find a > way to re-introduce chaos.
> DCI
Well, it doesn't really work that way. Most heterosexual people are running in overdrive trying to raise children at 200,000 per 18 years per child, buy a car, buy a house, save for a vacation, save for pension, just for starters. So most couples just cope as best they can to keep the family together financially and in all aother aspects. The couple are so focused and tired on a daily basis the last thing on their mind is campaigning, protesting, or organizing neighbourhoods and communities to make the world a better place. The rest of the world knows this and uses it to their best advantage. Your average person is more concerned with football scores, hockey scores or UFC results which is just where the leaders of the world want them focused.
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote: > Because the point of not allowing them marriage is to ensure that they > will not have the same rights as a married couple.
I'm still wondering: what are these legal rights you speak of that are denied to 'civil union' couples, but allowed to 'married couples'?
> That's the whole > reason why the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, because if civil > unions have the same legal status as marriage, whats the point of > bothering with them?
There is no need to be bothered with a 'marriage'. The paperwork you file with the government is the only paperwork that actually matters to the government. That paperwork, even if it is simply the filing of a 'marriage license' along with a page of paperwork detailing what was filed is the equivalent of an acknowledgement that it is the 'civil union' that matters. The problem is simply that most states are still legally (under their current laws) denying civil unions to same sex couples. At some point, the scales will tip and the Supreme Court will likely determine that the states cannot deny basic rights to their citizens.
On Jan 22, 4:38 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> "David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote: > > Because the point of not allowing them marriage is to ensure that they > > will not have the same rights as a married couple.
> I'm still wondering: what are these legal rights you speak of that are > denied to 'civil union' couples, but allowed to 'married couples'?
Here's one: if a same-sex couple is legally married in California, then they are recognized as married in Massachusetts, Iowa, Canada, etc.
But if a same-sex couple has a civil union in California, are they considered married in Massachusetts, Iowa, or Canada? Are they considered "civil unioned" in those places (if those places even have a concept of civil unions)? Totally unclear.
Marriage, on a legal basis, is a universally understood status, and thus transferrable, although some venues currently have specific laws that prevent them from recognizing same-sex marriages. "Civil unions" are a one-off, different in every place that has them, and may not be recognized as a legal status even in jurisdictions that recognize same- sex marriage.
If you call it something other than marriage, it's not going to be treated the same as marriage. This leads to differences under the law.
>On Jan 22, 4:38 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote: >> "David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote: >> > Because the point of not allowing them marriage is to ensure that they >> > will not have the same rights as a married couple.
>> I'm still wondering: what are these legal rights you speak of that are >> denied to 'civil union' couples, but allowed to 'married couples'?
>Here's one: if a same-sex couple is legally married in California, >then they are recognized as married in Massachusetts, Iowa, Canada, >etc.
>But if a same-sex couple has a civil union in California, are they >considered married in Massachusetts, Iowa, or Canada? Are they >considered "civil unioned" in those places (if those places even have >a concept of civil unions)? Totally unclear.
There is clearly a difference in the state recognition of the rights, but that isn't due to the definition of 'marriage' or of 'civil union'. The difference in rights was created by the 'Defense of Marriage Act'. The problem isn't about allowing same sex couple to 'marry', it is about the Congess passing a law that currently allows states to ignore those legal rights. Eventually, the Supreme Court will step in on the issue and strike down the Defense of Marriage Act as uncostitutional, but that day isn't here yet.
>Marriage, on a legal basis, is a universally understood status,
In terms of State/Federal legal 'recognition', no marriage should be recognized without some other legal document (filling with the Justice of the Peace or whatever for government purposes).
> If you call it something other than marriage, it's not going to be > treated the same as marriage. This leads to differences under the law.
That was my roundabout point, though. There is no reason that 'marriage' should have any legal status in this country if 'marriage' is going to be something defined by the church rather than by the government.
> >On Jan 22, 4:38 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote: > >> "David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote: > >> > Because the point of not allowing them marriage is to ensure that they > >> > will not have the same rights as a married couple.
> >> I'm still wondering: what are these legal rights you speak of that are > >> denied to 'civil union' couples, but allowed to 'married couples'?
> >Here's one: if a same-sex couple is legally married in California, > >then they are recognized as married in Massachusetts, Iowa, Canada, > >etc.
> >But if a same-sex couple has a civil union in California, are they > >considered married in Massachusetts, Iowa, or Canada? Are they > >considered "civil unioned" in those places (if those places even have > >a concept of civil unions)? Totally unclear.
> There is clearly a difference in the state recognition of the rights, but > that isn't due to the definition of 'marriage' or of 'civil union'. The > difference in rights was created by the 'Defense of Marriage Act'. The > problem isn't about allowing same sex couple to 'marry', it is about the > Congess passing a law that currently allows states to ignore those legal > rights. Eventually, the Supreme Court will step in on the issue and strike > down the Defense of Marriage Act as uncostitutional, but that day isn't here > yet.
> >Marriage, on a legal basis, is a universally understood status,
> In terms of State/Federal legal 'recognition', no marriage should be > recognized without some other legal document (filling with the Justice of > the Peace or whatever for government purposes).
> > If you call it something other than marriage, it's not going to be > > treated the same as marriage. This leads to differences under the law.
> That was my roundabout point, though. There is no reason that 'marriage' > should have any legal status in this country if 'marriage' is going to be > something defined by the church rather than by the government.-
But marriage is not defined by churches in this country.
You asked for a legal difference. Here it is: if you are married in California, you are married in Iowa. If you are civil unioned in California, you are not married - and probably not civil unioned - in Iowa. There's your difference. You did want an answer to your question, didn't you?
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:38:05 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote: >> Because the point of not allowing them marriage is to ensure that they >> will not have the same rights as a married couple.
>I'm still wondering: what are these legal rights you speak of that are >denied to 'civil union' couples, but allowed to 'married couples'?
1. Joint parental rights of children 2. Joint adoption 3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions 4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains 5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries 6. Crime victims recovery benefits 7. Domestic violence protection orders 8. Judicial protections and immunity 9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will 10. Public safety officers death benefits 11. Spousal veterans benefits 12. Social Security 13. Medicare 14. Joint filing of tax returns 15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children 16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children 17. Child support 18. Joint Insurance Plans 19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits 20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs 21. Estate and gift tax benefits 22. Welfare and public assistance 23. Joint housing for elderly 24. Credit protection 25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
In some cases civil unions get part of the rights a marriage would have, but since civil unions stop at the state line, those entitlements are significantly restricted, and for anything that involves dealing with the federal government or federal courts, legally a civil union does not exist.
>On Jan 22, 11:46 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote: >> "Anlatt the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 22, 4:38 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote: >> >> "David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote: >> >> > Because the point of not allowing them marriage is to ensure that >> >> > they >> >> > will not have the same rights as a married couple.
>> >> I'm still wondering: what are these legal rights you speak of that are >> >> denied to 'civil union' couples, but allowed to 'married couples'?
>> >Here's one: if a same-sex couple is legally married in California, >> >then they are recognized as married in Massachusetts, Iowa, Canada, >> >etc.
>> >But if a same-sex couple has a civil union in California, are they >> >considered married in Massachusetts, Iowa, or Canada? Are they >> >considered "civil unioned" in those places (if those places even have >> >a concept of civil unions)? Totally unclear.
>> There is clearly a difference in the state recognition of the rights, but >> that isn't due to the definition of 'marriage' or of 'civil union'. The >> difference in rights was created by the 'Defense of Marriage Act'. The >> problem isn't about allowing same sex couple to 'marry', it is about the >> Congess passing a law that currently allows states to ignore those legal >> rights. Eventually, the Supreme Court will step in on the issue and >> strike >> down the Defense of Marriage Act as uncostitutional, but that day isn't >> here >> yet.
>> >Marriage, on a legal basis, is a universally understood status,
>> In terms of State/Federal legal 'recognition', no marriage should be >> recognized without some other legal document (filling with the Justice of >> the Peace or whatever for government purposes).
>> > If you call it something other than marriage, it's not going to be >> > treated the same as marriage. This leads to differences under the law.
>> That was my roundabout point, though. There is no reason that 'marriage' >> should have any legal status in this country if 'marriage' is going to be >> something defined by the church rather than by the government.-
>But marriage is not defined by churches in this country.
>You asked for a legal difference. Here it is: if you are married in >California, you are married in Iowa. If you are civil unioned in >California, you are not married - and probably not civil unioned - in >Iowa. There's your difference. You did want an answer to your >question, didn't you?
But you are wrong. If a state legalizes same sex 'marriage', that 'marriage' is not recognized in other states. The difference is not between the term 'marriage' and the term 'civil union'. The difference is completely defined by the gender of the participants.
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:46:45 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>"Anlatt the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com> wrote: >>On Jan 22, 4:38 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote: >>> "David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote: >>> > Because the point of not allowing them marriage is to ensure that they >>> > will not have the same rights as a married couple.
>>> I'm still wondering: what are these legal rights you speak of that are >>> denied to 'civil union' couples, but allowed to 'married couples'?
>>Here's one: if a same-sex couple is legally married in California, >>then they are recognized as married in Massachusetts, Iowa, Canada, >>etc.
>>But if a same-sex couple has a civil union in California, are they >>considered married in Massachusetts, Iowa, or Canada? Are they >>considered "civil unioned" in those places (if those places even have >>a concept of civil unions)? Totally unclear.
>There is clearly a difference in the state recognition of the rights, but >that isn't due to the definition of 'marriage' or of 'civil union'.
Under the law "marriages" contracted in one state must be recognized in all of them. No such law exists for "civil unions".
The
>difference in rights was created by the 'Defense of Marriage Act'. The >problem isn't about allowing same sex couple to 'marry', it is about the >Congess passing a law that currently allows states to ignore those legal >rights. Eventually, the Supreme Court will step in on the issue and strike >down the Defense of Marriage Act as uncostitutional, but that day isn't here >yet.
You'll need a new Supreme Court membership for that to happen.
>>Marriage, on a legal basis, is a universally understood status,
>In terms of State/Federal legal 'recognition', no marriage should be >recognized without some other legal document (filling with the Justice of >the Peace or whatever for government purposes).
What do you mean "some other legal document"? The legal document is the marriage. The ceremony is merely a celebration of the marriage.
>> If you call it something other than marriage, it's not going to be >> treated the same as marriage. This leads to differences under the law.
>That was my roundabout point, though. There is no reason that 'marriage' >should have any legal status in this country if 'marriage' is going to be >something defined by the church rather than by the government.
Church marriage is totally separate from legal marriage. A bunch of gay people have already been married in churches and this has no effect on their legal status.
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:38:05 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote: >>I'm still wondering: what are these legal rights you speak of that are >>denied to 'civil union' couples, but allowed to 'married couples'?
> 1. Joint parental rights of children
People have 'joint parental rights' of children if they are listed as parents on the birth certificate or adoption papers. A same sex couple faces the same problems as a step parent if they are not listed in those documents, so this has nothing to do with the difference between 'marriage' and 'civil union', does it?
> 2. Joint adoption
Is there a government difference in adoption ability for 'married' peiople vs. 'civil union' people...or is this another example where those controlling the adoption are likely to side against the same-sex couple for the same-sex reason...not the joining contract (marriage/union) that they hold.
> 3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical > decisions
Which hospitals are turning away the 'civil union' couples and declaring their ability to visit or determine medical care moot? This is a rreal issue for same sex couples without any legally defining 'paperwork', but is it really an issue of 'marriage' and 'civil union' as a ganting of government rights?
I snipped a bunch of the other things you list, but I think they fall in the same category. You are mostly listing 'rights' that are denied to people that do not have a 'civil union' or a 'marriage'. Now, if you want to talk about the unfairmness of state/federal government refusing to recognize/allow any form of legalized bond between same-sex couples...well, then all these points become very relevant.
> In some cases civil unions get part of the rights a marriage would > have, but since civil unions stop at the state line, those > entitlements are significantly restricted, and for anything that > involves dealing with the federal government or federal courts, > legally a civil union does not exist.
...and that is where the real problem lies. The Federal government is acting in a manner that is inconsistent with the constitution (equal rights and separation of church and state). There is no reason why the Federal government should be allowed to ignore a 'civil union' or allowed to recognize a 'marriage' if those rights are not granted equally to the citizens.
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:46:45 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote: > The >>difference in rights was created by the 'Defense of Marriage Act'. The >>problem isn't about allowing same sex couple to 'marry', it is about the >>Congess passing a law that currently allows states to ignore those legal >>rights. Eventually, the Supreme Court will step in on the issue and >>strike >>down the Defense of Marriage Act as uncostitutional, but that day isn't >>here >>yet.
> You'll need a new Supreme Court membership for that to happen.
Maybe, maybe not. The Supreme court tends to hide from many big decisions because it wants to keep the population thinking that their job is to defend the rights of the people, not define them. Still, I think that even with the current Supreme Court, a case brought before them could work toward a ruling that the Defense of Marriage act is unconstitutional.
>>>Marriage, on a legal basis, is a universally understood status,
>>In terms of State/Federal legal 'recognition', no marriage should be >>recognized without some other legal document (filling with the Justice of >>the Peace or whatever for government purposes).
> What do you mean "some other legal document"? The legal document is > the marriage. The ceremony is merely a celebration of the marriage.
The document is the signing/filing of a piece of paper. It does not require any vows, any sanction by the church, etc... What you do at the church is basically irrelevant until you notify the government of what you did.
>>> If you call it something other than marriage, it's not going to be >>> treated the same as marriage. This leads to differences under the law.
>>That was my roundabout point, though. There is no reason that 'marriage' >>should have any legal status in this country if 'marriage' is going to be >>something defined by the church rather than by the government.
> Church marriage is totally separate from legal marriage. A bunch of > gay people have already been married in churches and this has no > effect on their legal status.
Only because the government is currently choosing to limit which 'church beliefs' they follow...and again, you are addressing the issue of same-sex 'anything', not the difference between 'marriage' and 'civil union'. The issue is with ending the government system of law that defines 'opposite-sex couple' as being different than 'same-sex couple'. Whether the overcoming of that obstacle is labeled with the word 'marriage' or the words 'civil union' won't matter.
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:38:05 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote: >>>I'm still wondering: what are these legal rights you speak of that are >>>denied to 'civil union' couples, but allowed to 'married couples'?
>> 1. Joint parental rights of children
>People have 'joint parental rights' of children if they are listed as >parents on the birth certificate or adoption papers. A same sex couple >faces the same problems as a step parent if they are not listed in those >documents,
A step parent gains immediate status as a parent simply through marriage. It isn't necessary for them to be listed on the birth certificate or adopt the child. They become next of kin after any parents so listed. And whether a civil union/domestic partners gives that status depends on local state law even within states that recognize such a thing.
>> 2. Joint adoption
>Is there a government difference in adoption ability for 'married' peiople >vs. 'civil union' people...
Once again, it depends on the state.
>> 3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical >> decisions
>Which hospitals are turning away the 'civil union' couples and declaring >their ability to visit or determine medical care moot?
I'm pretty sure that Community Regional Medical Center in Fresno, California would have before GLAAD spent months harassing them.
This is a rreal
>issue for same sex couples without any legally defining 'paperwork', but is >it really an issue of 'marriage' and 'civil union' as a ganting of >government rights?
>I snipped a bunch of the other things you list, but I think they fall in the >same category. You are mostly listing 'rights' that are denied to people >that do not have a 'civil union' or a 'marriage'. Now, if you want to talk >about the unfairmness of state/federal government refusing to >recognize/allow any form of legalized bond between same-sex couples...well, >then all these points become very relevant.
>> In some cases civil unions get part of the rights a marriage would >> have, but since civil unions stop at the state line, those >> entitlements are significantly restricted, and for anything that >> involves dealing with the federal government or federal courts, >> legally a civil union does not exist.
>...and that is where the real problem lies. The Federal government is >acting in a manner that is inconsistent with the constitution (equal rights >and separation of church and state).
That some churches happen to be opposed to gay marriage means nothing. Some churches are opposed to drinking, but that doesn't make "dry" laws unconstitutional. And as long as civil unions are legally separate from marriage, the equal rights arguement doesn't work. States have to recognize out of state marriages because they have their own marriages. But most states don't have "civil unions" and hence have no obligation to recognize them.
>>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:38:05 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>I'm still wondering: what are these legal rights you speak of that are >>>>denied to 'civil union' couples, but allowed to 'married couples'?
>>> 1. Joint parental rights of children
>>People have 'joint parental rights' of children if they are listed as >>parents on the birth certificate or adoption papers. A same sex couple >>faces the same problems as a step parent if they are not listed in those >>documents,
> A step parent gains immediate status as a parent simply through > marriage. It isn't necessary for them to be listed on the birth > certificate or adopt the child. They become next of kin after any > parents so listed. And whether a civil union/domestic partners gives > that status depends on local state law even within states that > recognize such a thing.
Really? Which states have civil unions that don't give the 'other' parent next of kin rights after the actual parents.
>>> 2. Joint adoption
>>Is there a government difference in adoption ability for 'married' peiople >>vs. 'civil union' people...
> Once again, it depends on the state.
Which state has a law preventing their civil union people from adoption?
>>> 3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical >>> decisions
>>Which hospitals are turning away the 'civil union' couples and declaring >>their ability to visit or determine medical care moot?
> I'm pretty sure that Community Regional Medical Center in Fresno, > California would have before GLAAD spent months harassing them.
Under this theoretical case, would thise a denial of access due to government law or private (hospital choice) rules?
>>...and that is where the real problem lies. The Federal government is >>acting in a manner that is inconsistent with the constitution (equal >>rights >>and separation of church and state).
> That some churches happen to be opposed to gay marriage means > nothing. Some churches are opposed to drinking, but that doesn't make > "dry" laws unconstitutional. And as long as civil unions are legally > separate from marriage, the equal rights arguement doesn't work.
If 'civil union' is given less legal status than 'marriage', equal rights most definitely does apply.
> States have to recognize out of state marriages because they have > their own marriages.
Different states have different marriage laws as well; certainly with respect to age of eligibility...and maybe even with respect to first cousins or blood diseases or similar 'technical' roadblocks. States clearly don't have to recognize other states 'marriages' or a same sex 'marriage' in one state would have to be recognized in all states.
> >On Jan 22, 11:46 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote: > >> "Anlatt the Builder" <tirh...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 22, 4:38 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote: > >> >> "David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote: > >> >> > Because the point of not allowing them marriage is to ensure that > >> >> > they > >> >> > will not have the same rights as a married couple.
> >> >> I'm still wondering: what are these legal rights you speak of that are > >> >> denied to 'civil union' couples, but allowed to 'married couples'?
> >> >Here's one: if a same-sex couple is legally married in California, > >> >then they are recognized as married in Massachusetts, Iowa, Canada, > >> >etc.
> >> >But if a same-sex couple has a civil union in California, are they > >> >considered married in Massachusetts, Iowa, or Canada? Are they > >> >considered "civil unioned" in those places (if those places even have > >> >a concept of civil unions)? Totally unclear.
> >> There is clearly a difference in the state recognition of the rights, but > >> that isn't due to the definition of 'marriage' or of 'civil union'. The > >> difference in rights was created by the 'Defense of Marriage Act'. The > >> problem isn't about allowing same sex couple to 'marry', it is about the > >> Congess passing a law that currently allows states to ignore those legal > >> rights. Eventually, the Supreme Court will step in on the issue and > >> strike > >> down the Defense of Marriage Act as uncostitutional, but that day isn't > >> here > >> yet.
> >> >Marriage, on a legal basis, is a universally understood status,
> >> In terms of State/Federal legal 'recognition', no marriage should be > >> recognized without some other legal document (filling with the Justice of > >> the Peace or whatever for government purposes).
> >> > If you call it something other than marriage, it's not going to be > >> > treated the same as marriage. This leads to differences under the law.
> >> That was my roundabout point, though. There is no reason that 'marriage' > >> should have any legal status in this country if 'marriage' is going to be > >> something defined by the church rather than by the government.-
> >But marriage is not defined by churches in this country.
> >You asked for a legal difference. Here it is: if you are married in > >California, you are married in Iowa. If you are civil unioned in > >California, you are not married - and probably not civil unioned - in > >Iowa. There's your difference. You did want an answer to your > >question, didn't you?
> But you are wrong. If a state legalizes same sex 'marriage', that > 'marriage' is not recognized in other states. The difference is not between > the term 'marriage' and the term 'civil union'. The difference is > completely defined by the gender of the participants.-
But that wasn't my example.
If you are same-sex married in California, you are same-sex married in Iowa. (Note that Iowa recognizes same-sex marriage.)
If you are civil unioned in California, you are NOT same-sex married OR civil unioned in Iowa.
This is a simple, specific, clear example of how being married and being civil unioned grant you different legal status and rights. If you actually wanted an answer to your question, there it is. If you didn't, stop asking.
>If you are same-sex married in California, you are same-sex married in >Iowa. (Note that Iowa recognizes same-sex marriage.)
>If you are civil unioned in California, you are NOT same-sex married >OR civil unioned in Iowa.
>This is a simple, specific, clear example of how being married and >being civil unioned grant you different legal status and rights.
Nope. What you are offering up is a clear and specific example of how 'same-sex marriage' does not qualify as a 'marriage' under other state laws. You are not defining a difference between 'civil union' and 'marriage', you are defining a difference between 'marriage' and 'same-sex marriage'.
> If you actually wanted an answer to your question, there it is. > If you didn't, stop asking.
You are free to stop replying at any time if you think that your attempt at explanation is falling on deaf ears.
> >> snip > >> Yes, yes, we know. Any group that fights for equality under the law is > >> only motivated by a deep-seated desire to "attack" (attack what? Gays > >> aren't trying to take away mixed-sex marriage). They couldn't possibly > >> be motivated by the common human desire for equality and fairness. > > - > > Homosexuals are not fighting for equality under the law, but preferential > > treatment under the law. Equality under the law would be a New Jersey style > > civil union. But that isn't good enough for homosexuals...they want special > > treatment.
> Wow. Do you honestly believe yourself? Are you that daft that you think > that's true?
> Amazing how some can be so blinded by hate and bigotry that they have to > make up such stunningly stupid statements.
Yes, your anti-Christian comments are incredibly stupid :)
|
