Link



The fact that this was done without the intervention of the courts makes it important, I think.

To be debated:

Are you for or against civil unions for same-sex couples, and why?

Personally, after some thought, I tend to be in favor of them, although they create a kind of "second class" marriage for same-sex couples. I would prefer to see same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage be treated exactly the same by the law, but it seems as if the USA isn't ready for that right now. I accept civil unions as the best that can be realistically hoped for in 2007.

(By the way, I hope this will be somewhat different from the usual same-sex marriage debate. Let's try to focus on the question of civil unions.)

Are you for or against civil unions for same-sex couples, and why?

I voted against.

When you create one alternative to marriage, marriage is weakened. Same-sex marriage is still marriage - apart from returning to a gender-neutral definition of marriage, nothing else in the legal construct needs to change in order to accomodate it - and anyone hoping to get marriage-like benefits will have to get married. But if this country creates a "second class" alternative to marriage for a group that it feels is less ideal. Why can't it create one for polyamorous couples?

I believe this is precisely the tack that should be taken towards the day when Same Sex Marriage is considered "normal". I spent a long time on the fence regarding this topic but I have come to the conclusion that this really isn't an issue I need to be involved in and one I shouldn't be against. With that stirring endorsement I am completely for Same Sex Marriage. I suspect for some time ALL marriages will be called Civil Unions by the "State" and Marriage by the "Church". And perhaps that's how is should be!

entpeak

As you are aware from other threads, I am not opposed gay marriage.

I do, however, believe that politics is the "art of the possible."

Despite his failed Vietnam polity, Lyndon B. Johnson was one of the most skilled legislators of all time. According to his biographer, Robert Dallek, Johnson believed in taking "half a loaf" if the whole was not posssible at the time and coming back for the other half later.

As a practical tactic, take what you consider a half loaf now and get the rest later.

I just find it highlarious that people don't want same-sex couples to be able to marry because they want to protect the institution of marriage... yet they are willing to offer an alternative that actually does everything that they claim allowing same-sex marriage will. Highlarious.

It is still a denial of rights... nobody has the right to civil unions, do they? Courts have already held that civil unions are not marriage. And it makes homosexuals into a lower class of citizen - not something to strive for, I'd say. Accepting civil unions is a tacit admission that homosexuals do not have the right to choose who they marry. It is an admission that the government has the right to limit that choice based on gender. The moment you start admitting that you don't have rights and you accept unnecessary government restrictions in favor of a second class alternative, is the moment you open the door to further unnecessary government restriction of rights. It's a dangerous game.

The term "civil union" should be used to describe any marital type union between people whether it be same sex, different sex, or even multiple parties.

The institution of marriage is a religious one, and by that nature alone is beyond the scope of government control based soley on seperation of church and state. To pass any legislation of any form to seperate hedro/homosexual unions can only stem from a religious root in the first place as homosexuality as a "sin" is a religious view.

In principle there is no difference between seperate types of unions for hedro and homo sexuals and a seperate dining areas for whites and persons of color. It is discrimination period. At the time whites didn't want blacks dining with them because they were different. Now people don't want homosexuals to share the same marital institution.

The more things change the more things stay the same, but then hey what do I know I'm just a hedro sexual male who grew up in a small, racist, homophobic, bible thumping southern baptist town in western NC.

entspeak,

I find it totally laughable that you took everything I wrote out of context. I have no problem with gay marriage.

My personal position on gay issues ws expressed in this thread.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=210041

This is a wedge issue that Karl Rove used to help saddle us with for four more long years of George W. Bush's incompetence an mismanagement. You sir, are keeping the wedge issue alive. Maybe, if we're lucky, it will not put someone worse than Bush at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in 2008.

I did not write about morality or legality, but tactics - that is, how to get there. That appears to me to be a rather rocky road.

I don't know when this will happen, but given the sweep of history, gay marriage will be accepted sooner or later.

Great move on your part. Shoot an ally and keep the embers burning for vultures like Rove to ignite in the next election.

Well, this isn't about same-sex marriage, it's about civil unions... so, if you believe civil unions are good, then you're not really an ally on this particular issue, are you?

The just "take what you can get so we can get an election" stance is not one that I find tasteful, myself.

If you accept civil unions, it becomes harder to make the push for marriage, because you've already made a concession. You've already accepted second class citizenship. So, wedge issue be damned, an invidious denial of rights is an invidious denial of rights. Civil unions do everything that the opponents of gay marriage claim allowing same-sex marriage will. In their eyes, it will prove them right - just as they have been using civil unions in Europe as an argument against same-sex marriage. The only thing civil unions will succeed in doing is dissolving civil marriage.

Entspeak, I get what youre saying. I used to think the same way, but after years of debating politics, Ive come to notice that big-sweeping changes dont generally happen in the US. Yes, we can probably point to cases where it has happened...However, Ive also noticed that things happen a lot more slowly than I would like.

What exactly am I getting at though? In this case, civil unions are a stepping stone. Is it ideal? No. However, in my opinion, civil unions are better than nothing, and it helps socialize society into seeing that gay couples can act "normally." Although youre point of second class citizenry is well taken, it does not mean that society will not evolve later. For instance, the US went from legalized slavery, to "separate but equal", to equality (ostensibly) between the races. Yes, there was a struggle involved to get from point A, to point B, then finally to point C. However, would it have been possible to go from Point A directly to Point C? Who knows? What we do know is that there was a kind of "transition" period, and it may have made the journey from Point A to Point C smoother. This is kind of how I see civil unions (and legalizing marijuana as a way to decriminalize all drug possesion, although not part of the debate...).

You fail to address the problems that will be created by acceptance of civil unions "as a stepping stone." If you give same-sex couples a special "marriage-like" union that isn't marriage, why would it be constitutional to prevent opposite sex unmarried couples from engaging in this less than marriage relationship? If you create a special type of union for same-sex couples because those relationships are not worthy of "marriage", why can't there be a special type of union for polyamorists? Creating one alternative to marriage opens the door to other alternatives to marriage. Whereas if you allow same-sex couples access to their existing right... the right to choose who they marry, you do not create an alternative to marriage. All those seeking those benefits must marry in order to get them. Because the current construct of civil marriage can't accomodate polyamorists, unless the legislature decided to alter the construct of marriage, polygamy would remain illegal.

Also, if there is one thing that can be shown by the data in Europe is that allowing civil unions or domestic partnerhips as an alternative means that fewer people may choose marriage - this makes logical sense. Fewer people engaging in marriage means a weakening and ultimately a dissolution of the institution.

All this and the second class citizenship. So are you claiming that we should just accept this less than ideal "stepping stone" without looking at the ramifications? Simply because the majority aren't ready to accept it? Need I remind you that the majority were not in favor of interracial marriage at the time that the courts ruled those bans unconstitutional? Should African Americans have waited for "society to evolve later?" Should people simply roll over and accept their second class status and wait for society to evolve? Keep your head down and your mouth shut until the ignorant ones smarten up? Really?

Equality is not something one can have a little of.
To avoid this being a one liner response, although that summary is all that should ever need be said, allow me to ask what are the bigots giving up. If this is a compromise what are they giving up?

I very much understand what you are saying. I would suggest that the side to which you and I are in opposition is "giving up" their power to completely deny any legal rights to same-sex couples. I am sure that you are much more aware than I am that this is the openly stated goal of many people.

I am sure that this all sounds like very cold comfort to you. It breaks my heart that your marriage is considered by some to be somehow less than my own.

I would only suggest that a crumb, although it is much less than a meal, is better than starving to death.

It's a study in semantics. But the fact is that it is better to have some protections for same-sex couples than none at all under the law. At this point, businesses don't have to allow partners in these living arrangements to necessarily take time from work to care for them when their sick or allow them compassionate leave so they can attend the funeral of a partner.

The Roman Catholic Church officially does not recognize heterosexual marriages if one or both parties were previously married and then divorced, unless they go through a Church tribunal and obtain an annulment. So discrimination from churches as far as what is "kosher" for marriage in God's eyes is nothing new at all. But there are other considerations here, as I have mentioned, and same-sex partners should be allowed to be included in each other's wills without having the family automatically contest because they weren't "related," and a same-sex parter should be able to have power of attorney for health care or otherwise if that is what his/her partner wishes. If the person covered by life insurance wants a same-sex partner to be the beneficiary, what should an insurance company care about it?

So I see same-sex civil unions as a step toward recognition of gay couples as having a right to live together with some protection in the eyes of the law.

If anything is ironic about the idea of people respecting the "sanctity of marriage," it is their tolerance of couples who live together and have a bunch of children without benefit of taking those vows (the "it's just a piece of paper syndrome"), and those who have been married many, many times and have no qualms about getting a divorce any time the going gets rough or some more attractive person comes their way.

Well, the courts don't believe that it is "a study in semantics."

Findlaw's Writ



The court ruled in favor of Darian Burns. He is now preventing Susan from seeing her children.

Thank goodness Susan Burns at least has some protections under the law, right? Better than nothing, right?

A lesbian woman who can't have an overnight adult visitor when her children are present - unless she chooses to marry a man.

I don't think the State is approaching this as "a study in semantics," do you?

Civil unions aren't a step toward equality, they are a step toward cementing second class citizenship for homosexuals. Sitting back and accepting civil unions as an alternative is the same as sitting back and accepting discrimination. It's asking homosexuals to sit back and take what we give them until we decide their worthy enough to be viewed as equal to us. Sickening. It's like telling blacks that they should be lucky they can marry at all, let alone choose to marry a white person. Count your lucky stars!

In all honesty, I dont care if people start choosing to have civil unions instead of marriage. So what if in Europe people are choosing civil unions? While it might challenge the "sanctity" of marriage (whatever that means), it hardly looks like European society is falling apart. Anecdotally, I know many couples in Europe, that although are not married, have been together for years, happily. You know what this means? Maybe European society "gets it", maybe they realize that they dont need to be married to be in love. You may think of this as a negative, but I think of it as a positive. People dont need to have their private lives sanctioned by the government.

And youre twisting my words around. Did I just say that people should just roll over and wait? Clearly not. Did that happen in the civil rights movement in the 60s? No. If civil unions become widespread in the US, do I think that the gay marriage debate should stop? Of course not. Im saying that for the moment, something is better than nothing, and it helps larger society see that the world wont fall apart if gay couples are recognized under the law.

Why entspeak do use a Georgia court ruling to rail against a New Hampshire law? To date there are only four states (the other three Connecticut, Vermoint and New Jersey) with Civil Union laws and one that allows gay marriage.

Please note that none of these is in the South. In fact, in Texas, land of goat ropers, we are only a few years past sodomy laws being declared illegal. Is that draconian enough to clue you into as to what is politically possible in this part of the country. As John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address [paraphrased] "wshing it will not make it so."

I have spent more than forty years arguing against prevailing social policies in Texas, often at the expense of being called awful names like "n lover." This is a battle you are fighting on fifty fronts entspeak. You are not going to win in Texas in my lifetime. I regret that. Meanwhile, please stop this crap of trying to put guit trips on those who look at this and can't find the political tactics that will make your dream come true any time soon.

No it's not... you just want it to be so.

Fundamentally marriage is between a man and woman. In societies all around the world, formal lifle long commitments were between men and women. That is the essence of marriage. Whether it was incestual, polygamy, interracial, or what we tend to call traditional.

You don't like civil unions because it will diminish marriage by allowing civil unions for polygamist and others unholy unions, but you want to pretend that the union of same-sex couples are any less profane.

I'm with kim Possible, so what... Get the law out of it. Let people make any kind of civil union they wish. 1 man 3 women or vice versa, one man-one man, one man-one woman, one sister-one brother, or two cousins.

In fact if everyone is getting civil unions there will be no second class citizen as you put it. Then we can make marriage a religious thing. From the state you get a Certificate of Union, from the preacher you get married.

Problem solved!!!

I think this idea has much merit. If all legal arrangements are made by the state then all is equal.

Churches would be free to conduct marriage ceremonies and issue non-legal certificates of marriage. Under this arrangement, gays could find liberal churches willing to perform such ceremonies and present the certificates. The predominately gay Metropolitan Community Church could do this. I am a non-attending member of a liberal Unitarian/Universalist church. I think most of UU churches would conduct gay marriage ceremonies. Other liberal churches might do likewise.

Civil unions for everyone might dampen this ridiculous idea I've heard on this board over and over again that marriage is for "procreation." No, marriage is for the people involved. Sorry, but I don't think adults should live vicariously through their kids.

Marriage really is a very real, very legal contract, a marriage of assets - something the State should be aware of. Marriage as holy joining of souls (or whatever) is very much a religious doo-hickey and should only be governed by whichever version of God you subscribe to.

When you get married you get it sanctioned by the State (by way of a license) now and then you may get it sanction by your God's proxies. So this is happening anyway. Change the Marriage License to a Civil Union License and everyone is happy.

The question for debate was not limited to the New Hampshire law. So, I am not using a Georgia court ruling to rail against a New Hampshire law. I am using a Georgia court ruling to illustrate the perception by the State of civil unions as compared to marriage.


I am aware that it took a court ruling to invalidate sodomy laws in Texas and the rest of the country. If there hadn't been a court case, it may be likely that some states in the south would still have interracial marriage bans on their books.



That isn't even a paraphrase. Where in his inaugural address did he say anything that could be paraphrased like that?



I don't think this issue will be resolved "politically". I think this is one of those issues - like interracial marriage - that will only be resolved nationally in court.

To others that claim why not just get rid of marriage... marriage is a fundamental right. That right is the right to choose who we marry. I'm not so willing to give up a fundamental right, myself. Marriage for all its problems is a legal contract created to provide legal protection for those who participate in it both during the marriage and upon dissolution. If others don't wish to take advantage of those protections, that's fine. Live happy and unprotected. Not everyone is willing to live up to those obligations without a legally binding contract, however. Which is why marriage and the various laws making up that contract were created in the first place.

And in a country hell bent on preventing same-sex couples from being perceived as equal to opposite sex couples, there is no chance that you will see the "pro-family" group ever abandoning marriage in favor of the lesser civil unions. If they aren't going to let homosexuals step up, what makes you think they will step down?

Because that what civil unions really are about. They are about keeping homosexuals separate as less than equal - as sub par, to paraphrase Hayleyanne. Why establish that in the law? Why is that acceptable? Because it's the best they can get right now? Nobody established interracial civil unions, did they? To make sure that interracial couples had at least some protection under the law until the ignorant came around?

The quotation I paraphrased was from Robert F Kennedy. Please pardon me for memory failing after more than 40 years, I should have checked the source.



http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy

Wishing for gay marriages will not make them happen.

But this is a small point. Here’ something more important.



I think you are a bit optimistic. The “gay marriage amendments on the ballots in eleven states drew out socially conservative and evangelical voters.



What did this achieve? It probably put Bush over the top in Ohio and put him back in the oval office for four more years. Is this important? Yes. We now have two new U. S. Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Aleto. Both are white, male, conservative Catholics, who are relatively young and probably be around for a long while. In a recent case being debated on this board …

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry213711

they joined another white male, conservative, Catholic justice – Antonin Scalia and a Black male, Catholic justice, Clarence Thomas.

The swing, vote Anthony Kennedy is a more moderate white male Catholic.



I hate to tell you this, entspeak, but however distasteful my stance may be, the reelection of Bush has probably set your cause back decades. I don’t want to seem anti-Catholic, but the U. S. Supreme Court now has a majority of Catholic justices. Three of them are white male conservative, one Black male conservative and one a moderate white male.

Good luck getting any kind of socially progressive case by this bunch. I think Bush will be damned by historians for creating a Catholic majority on the U. S. Supreme Court. Despite the constitution's “no religious test” for office, I don’t think any religious group should have a majority on the highest court in the land.

Don't like labor unions or civil unions. Didn't like the Union in the War Between the States. Don't look for the "Union Label". Homosexuals should go to their bathhouses, public bathrooms, back seats, and city parks, get their little jollies, and go home, and quit pretending to imitate heterosexual marriage. This movement has nothing to do with their love or sex lives--the gay men I know are so promiscuous--even those with live- ins--that for them any kind of "marriage" is laughable; it has everything to do with garnering certain powers and civil rights, like special tax treatment for "married" couples.

This is NOT the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

And is the ex-husband having adult female "friends" stay overnight? If so, there is your study in double standards.

Regardless of the ruling of the Georgia court (which is, I agree, unfair to say the least), civil unions are still a step in the right direction.

Just how far do you think things are going to get in the nominally Christian state of Georgia if gays take an all or nothing approach? Not very far for a long time, I'll wager.

I am not saying that it is exactly the same or that it should be a stopping point for non-heterosexual couples. What I am saying is something that allows for legal protections for gay couples is better than no protections.

You will always have some fuddy-duddies who are so conservative in their thinking that if an ex-husband or wife regularly lets the f-word fly in the presence of their children (not that I agree at all with using that word around kids, but hell, they probably hear it from each other at school!) or who practices Paganism while the other ex-spouse is a declared Christian, they will award custody to the other parent (who has a girlfriend on the side notwithstanding).

The justice system will never be totally fair or just.

I am saying that some protections under the law are better than no protection at all, and that it isn't always feasible to get all that you want in the beginning. Witness how long it took for women to own property in their own right and to obtain the right to vote.

Sometimes small steps are called for when big steps aren't allowed.

For. As opposed to marriage

I'm glad you think so, because that's not a paraphrase of what Robert Kennedy said either.



And this moderate white male Catholic wrote the majority opinion in Romer v. Evans.





So despite being unfair, discriminatory, and intended to establish homosexual couples as sub-par to heterosexual couples, civil unions are a step in the right direction? That assumes that the aim is simply to get a collection of benefits and priveleges. That's a rather shallow aim and is what those who oppose equal rights for homosexuals believe the same-sex marriage movement is all about. It isn't all about the benefits and protections - and civil unions fall short in this regard anyway. It's about gaining equal access to a right that the government has no business restricting in this regard. Civil unions still deny homosexuals the right to marry... civil unions establish that inequality in the law.

Establishing inequality and invidious discrimination in the law is not a step in the right direction.

You are just quibbling over words entspeak.

The fact that the the swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, who has been thought more moderate than say Antonin Scalia, wrote Romer (joining the moderte to liberal faction) and the recent one on partial birth abortions (joining the four male catholic conservatives) says a lot. This just bolsters my point that with the recent addition of two more white, male, conservative Catholics - appointed by Bush - the chance for gay marriage cases being decided as you prefer is nil for a very long time. Politics is more important than you think. There were those of us, who argued years before the 2004 election that Bush would be at his most dangerous in appointment of Supreme Court justices. That happened in the recent partial birth abortion decision, but since in that that decision, Kennedy negatively addresed the rights of women as opposed to gays, it doesn't seem to bother you.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=213318

The nice thing about having Democrats in charge of the senate is that they might be able to block further hideous appointments of this type. Another four or eight years like the past six will further dampen chances of the federal courts ruling in favor of gay marriage.

Wake up!

Edited for clarification.

Which words am I quibbling over, BoF?



I'm wide awake, thank you very much.

Do civil unions establish invidious discrimation in the law or don't they, BoF?

I quoted your words about Anthony Kennedy in the last post entspeak. Wouldn't you suppose I was talking about that?





I don't doubt that you are physically awake entspeak, but as for political reality...



I really don't know entspeak, and at this point on this thread, I've lost interest. I do know, however, that the ballot items in eleven states in 2004 outlawed gay marriage and eight of them also outlawed civil unions. So in the minds of people putting the items on the ballot in eight states, and possibly voters, both seemed objectionable.

I am also sure that Bush's two appointments to the U. S. Supreme Court will make it harder for you to obtain the legal remedy you seek. Is this true or not? Further, if the laws banning gay marriage in eleven states come before the U. S. Supreme Court, as the court is currently constituted, how many of those eleven laws do you think will be struck down? Do you think that Justice Kennedy would take the same enlightened position regarding gay issues he took back in 1996 in Romer. Considering his April 18 vote on the partial birth question, I have my doubts.

Look entspeak, this has been your battle for months across several threads. Sorry, I can't buy into this as a politically workable matter, though I do see your moral argument. You have rejected everything I've said, and for that matter almost anything anyone else has said. I think we can agree that your position is that gay marriage is desirable and that civil unions are an affront. My position is that I have no objection to gay marriage, but more than favoring civil unions, I don’t think either is politically possible in some places. If an amendment to the Texas Constitution banning gay marriage were put on the ballot in Texas, I would vote against it. If my state Senator, Jan Nelson - asked me on a questionnaire - if I oppose gay marriage, I would say "no." Political reality being what it is in Texas, and for that matter many other places, what I said wouldn't matter. People in the state would still vote for such an amendment and Jane Nelson might sponsor it.

Something I've noticed is that certain posters on this board tend to run threads in an endless circle. These threads seldom reach any resolution, just prolonged rehashing of the same old points over and over again. I get bored pretty quickly with these. We have both stated our positions. We are at an impasse. Further argument will not resolve this.

Now you've talked a couple of times on this thread about distaste for the political ramifications about the election of certain candidates being more important than people's rights. It's not about Democrats or Republicans entspeak. If this issue is as important as it seems to be to you, then you should beware any candidate that wants to exploit the gay marriage issue.

It's apparently your ball entspeak. You are the one that must run with it.

Well, BoF, I was just hoping you'd pick up on the redundancy of your statement.

Over and above that, I don't understand how mentioning Kennedy's opinion in Rove is evading your point - there is a difference between a challenge and an evasion. You keep mentioning this white Catholic moderate. And turning this thread into a rant about religion in the judicial system. This seems to have become your mantra - as I've read it word for word in another thread:



So, I'm sorry if I'm more interested in discussing civil unions - you know, the topic of the thread - than the religious makeup of the Supreme Court.

Which is why I ask questions like:



To which you respond:



Good to know.

Before we can discuss whether accepting civil unions is a better alternative to seeking same-sex marriage at this time, I think it's important to discuss the impact of civil unions. Politics are shaped by information - through either accepting it or a rejecting it. If we don't discuss the possible downsides of civil unions and just accept them for the time being, this may have an adverse effect on the ability to achieve the goal of legally recognizing same-sex marriage.

To assist in answering the question I posed above, here is another set:

Do civil unions make homosexual relationships "separate but equal"?

Is "separate but equal" invidious discrimination?

If you believe the answer to both these questions is "yes", then laws granting civil unions to homosexuals establish invidious discrimination in the law.

Name a form of discrimination that was surmounted in this country by accepting, as a compromise, an establishment in the law of that very discrimination?

All I can say is good luck entspeak. I was talking to a friend in the coffee shop yesterday. He's thirty-four, much younger than I am. He doesn't think gay marriage or civil will happen in Texas in his lifetime, let alone mine. I don't know if he's right or not.

Despite my "ranting" about the current make up of the court, good luck getting any cooperation from that body.

You have a long fight ahead of you. Progress toward that goal will not be made arguing on a debate board.

Have a great day.

Thanks for your concern, but I do have a life off of this debate board, thank you very much, and this board isn't the only way in which I attempt to further this cause. That doesn't mean that debate doesn't serve a purpose, however much you would wish to diminish it - information is power. If you don't want to address the issues addressed in the topic, fine... but don't begrudge me the opportunity to do so by asserting that I should stop... how did you put it... "this crap."

And it isn't the length of the fight that is important. It is the determination to engage in it for a just cause. This discrimination is not a dream and those who wish to right that wrong aren't dreaming... or simply wishing that it will end.

I am suggesting that the inequality and invidious discrimination in the law has already been there for centuries.

Case in point: We now have had female Secretaries of State and a House Speaker, but have we had a female Vice President or President yet? Why not? The U.K. had Margaret Thatcher, Pakistan had Benazir Bhutto, Israel had Golda Meir, Canada had a female fill in as Prime Minister for a brief while (I believe)...

Let's make it a simpler analogy. How long have women had the right to vote? Now why are women only making 72 cents for every dollar men make, and why didn't the Equal Rights amendment get passed?

How many women are, en masse, not working and holding out for an employment system that pays comparable worth because they want more money? Not many who have to make money to live, I'd guess.

My point is if you can't get the yardage in the football game, you punt.

What are gays going to do? Chain themselves to government buildings? Refuse to pay their taxes? Yeah, that's going to get legislators to see things their way.

Not too long ago, homosexuals were imprisoned for having homosexual sex. Not that it made much sense, placing them in forced living conditions with members of the same gender. But being locked away for one's sexual orientation is a very real form of punishment nonetheless.

I agree that it's a dumb thing, distinguishing between civil unions and marriage. Basically, a spouse is a spouse whether the ceremony is presided over by a Justice of the Peace or a minister. But if I were gay I would take the civil union approach to receive SOME recognition of a committed relationship. And it is certainly more in the eyes of the law than the lovely, but legally unrecognized Unitarian Universalist commitment ceremonies that take place any given week.

So what do you propose, entspeak? No recognition at all until legislators no longer have to depend on homophobes for their votes and then decide that the need for gays to be legally married is a high priority issue? Good luck with that. That might happen when gays in the military can officially declare their sexual orientation without being booted out because some generals choose to claim that part of an ancient holy book that also (inconveniently) states "Thou shalt not kill."

It really is a non sequitur, when the desirability of something is being argued, to say that it is unlikely to be realized easily or soon. Unless, of course, the feasibilty of some particular proposal is the point being discussed, and I don't think that's the case here.

Also it's remarkably impertinent, and ironically self-referential, to swipe at someone for posting here instead of doing something practical about X, Y or Z. Some of the usefulness of coming here is to have to work up one's ideas formally. Also one usefully encounters counter-arguments. So I don't think that one's posting here constitutes, ipso facto, a waste of time toward any particular cause.

But directly to the topic, I welcome the New Hampshire Senate's action, but I only wish that marriage itself had been offered and not a second-class form of relationship. Whatever is supposedly sacred in marriage is not for the state, but for the church, to decide. The state is a secular institution, not a religious one, and can neither provide supposedly divine blessing nor prevent it from being given. The state's sole concern for marriage is as a form of contract toward given purposes, and that is something that should belong as much to partners of the same sex as partners of opposite sex.

Since there are so many interpretation's of the supposed God's law, any attempt to cause secular law to conform to it must give rise to religious strife, must it not? Should we replace the Statue of Liberty with one of Moses, Jesus, Krishna or Buddha? Or shall we tear it down because it is a graven image, offensive to God?

I suppose it would be possible to argue that mere reproduction is a purpose of marriage, but that is a difficult point to maintain, since mere reproduction is easily achieved with a few minutes of coupling, and it happens very often outside of marriage. It's not reproduction, but child-raising, that is the part of marriage that touches most closely on the preservation of the species. Yet people can very well raise children not their own, and many do. This argues more for marriage between homosexuals than against it.

And tell me which Act or statute establishes this discrimination in the law?



Which Act or statute establishes this discrimination in the law?



Which Act or statute establishes this discrimination in the law?

Would women accept a law that stated women will be able to work and be able to hold any political office they choose, but will never be allowed equal pay? Would you accept a statute or Act that established such discrimination against women on the record... in the law?

You are asking homosexuals to accept "separate but equal" as a valid legal premise. That isn't a compromise. Would you accept it as a valid equal premise were you the individual who was being considered separate but equal? Sure the inequality exists, but would you accept it being ensrhined in the law?

Establishing the discrimination in the law is never a good compromise.

Not civil marriage. Your argument is always that homosexuals have the right to redefine marriage to incorporate homosexuality. Different genders are defined within definition of marriage. Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry anyone of their choosing within the parameters of marriage.

Civil Unions are not second class marriage, they are a means that people can enjoy the legal benefits of marriage without changing he parameters of marriage or not get married.

entspeak: Do you believe that civil unions would "establish discrimination into law" more than the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which already prevents the legal recognition of marriage among same-sex couples anywhere in the United States? What about the twenty-six state constitutional amendments that define marriage as being strictly between a man and a woman?

Is it your position that no law should be passed to affirm the rights of homosexual couples until these existing laws have been repealed or voided on constitutional grounds?

I do think that the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory but it doesn't prevent the legal recognition of same-sex marriage anywhere in the United States period, it prevents Federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage, being a State issue... not a federal one, can exist even with the existence of the federal DOMA. So there is no need to overturn the federal DOMA in order to allow same-sex couples to marry.

As far as the twenty-six states and their constitutional amendments, I believe those to be unconstitutional under the US Constitution which supercedes them and they can be overturned by the US Supreme Court. I believe that no law can be passed in those 26 states to recognize the rights of homosexual couples to marry in those states until those amendments are overturned.



No, my argument has always been that heterosexuals do not have the right to redefine marriage to explicitly exclude same-sex couples for no valid reason. In terms of civil marriage - which is comprised of a network of laws, the definition of marriage was, until the early 70's, gender neutral in every state that had a legal definition.



If you offer all the benefits of marriage but call it something other than marriage in order to differentiate these unions as "less ideal" or "sub par", you are creating second class marriage.

And they didn't. You are simply running through legal gymnastics to take this point of view. If hetrosexuals redefined marriage to exclude same-sex couples in the 70's then you should be able to easily show this board the numerous states, cities, towns that allowed same-sex marriage prior to the 1970's when heterosexuals got all homophobic.

So... do so.

I don't think you will though.. because the laws that dealt with marriage were not gender neutral, they just were unspecific to gender. And you might want to tell everyone that's the same, but it's not. They weren't specific to gender, because prior to the 1970's there was no need. Marriage was between men and women. Even if it was incestuous, Even if it was polygamy, even if was interracial... it was ALWAYS men marrying women.

So that's why you don't see gender defined in marriage priorto the 70's, because opposite gender union was presumed in the term marriage.

Now you get some people who want to playsmart, by playing stupid. They say... "There's no law SPECIFICALLY saying marriage can only be between men and women" The Hetro's say "huh" and they go ahead and define it for the people who act like they didn't know what marriage meant.



No you are not. If marriage is defined as a union between oppossite sexes, then anything that homosexuals create can not be considered as marriage. So it's not a second class marriage, it's a first class civil union.

Homosexuals are are allowed to get married within the parameters of marriage. They are not denied it.

If a law is not specific to gender... that is the definition of a gender neutral law. And these were legal definitions of marriage so there can be no presumption of meaning... the purpose of the law was to provide the legal meaning of the term marriage. A legal definition states that marriage is such and such a thing. Legally, that is what you go by. You can't go and add some presumption in there. You can't interpret the law as: Marriage (which we are going to presume is a union between a man and a woman) is a union between two people. You can't presume a gender specific definition and then define a term in gender neutral terms. This is not legal gymnastics, this is reading the law as written. It is you who are engaging in legal gymnastics... twisting the meaning of the term - as it was legally defined, into something else.

Homosexuals were kept from legally marrying because of sodomy laws.

California... sodomy law repealed in 1976... legislation put forward to redefine marriage as being between a man and a woman in 1976... coincidence?



Excuse me? They redefined it. How can you claim that they were defining it? It was defined.



Yes, but the problem is that those parameters have been arbitrarily set to exclude same-sex couples from marriage - unnecessarily restricting the right to choose who one marries. If there is no reason to have those parameters, then the parameters are arbitrary. To then grant marriage-like benefits as an alternative soley because of the existence of those arbitrary parameters, is to create a second-class version of marriage.

The right of a person to be married exists only as provided under state (not federal) law. Each state has the sovereign power to enact laws governing marriage; and provided that such laws do not infringe upon a citizen’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, they are valid and enforceable. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Texas, for example, recently passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage, which provides in pertinent part: “Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b ) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” The recent constitutional challenges to same-sex marriage have been under the “Full Faith and Credit Clause (Const., Art. IV, Sec. 1) over recognition of such marital rights in states that don’t allow same-sex marriage; e.g., a gay couple married in Massachusetts moves to a state like Texas. Many provisions of federal law incorporate state marriage laws for determining individual rights and benefits, and one state’s law defining marriage may not be given extraterritorial effect. Thus far, however, these challenges have not been successful in defeating the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). 28 U.S.C. Section 1738c. See, e.g., In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123 (Bankr. W.D.Wash 2004).

You don't add a presumption, that's what makes it a presumption. But when that presumption was challenged it was written out so that it was no longer a presumption. The laws where unspecific because there was no notion of any other kind of marriage that involved same-sex couples. The persecution of homosexuals was so great that there were no same-sex couples.

So I am saying that it is unspecific but you are saying the marriage definitions prior to the 70's were gender neutral. However, facts, history and common sense agree with me. Your claim suggest that legislators didn't mind same-sex marriage while all the while creating laws that hampered them.

The reason you don't see gender involved in legal definition prior to the 70's is because marriage ALWAYS involved both genders!!



You can and they did. Can you explain why the rush to put in gender in definitions of marriage? After all the legislators didn't care prior to the 70's.

Says who??

Point 1: Sodomy law apply to heterosexuals and homosexuals. Point 2: Marriage is defined as the union of people, right, not sex.




Again.... gymnastics... I could concede your point because technically you are correct. But again I am force to put you in a position to show me....

Your stating that marriage was redefined to exclude same-sex couples... so prior to the 70's same sex couple must have been included, so where were all the marriages.



All of the parameters that surround marriage when dealing with consenting adults are arbitrarily set. So to say that there can be no arbitrary setting of parameters is to say there can be no parameters.



What are the intrinsic marriage benefits??

There are legal benefits given to marriage. In other words legislators have allowed benefits to marriage, that could be taken away at any time.

The reason why civil unions are not second class marriages are because they are not marriages. They are civil unions. However, civil unions will be given the same benefits as marriage.

For you to have second class marriage, first you would have to allow same-sex marriage. Then you would offer them some, but not all the benefits of heterosexual marriages. Then you have a sub-par marriage that is unconstitutional.

When? Not one single existing or proposed civil union law grants the same benefits as marriage right now.
The only arguments against marriage equality are stupid and bigoted, and younger people are not convinced by such idiocy. The bigots are dying off, it's only a matter of time. "Compromising" with bigots just makes the wait for real equality take longer as well meaning people think they've done enough.

Either you're in your teens or you're the most wildly optimistic human on the planet!

The bigots are dying off? Yeah... Right. All we need to do is wait a generation and everyone will be accepted in the world - except for Conservatives ...

The bigots won't ever die off. The youth turns into the old bigots you seem to think just need a few weeks to die off.

I'm with you. I think homosexuals should have the right to marry. However compromising with Civil Unions is a nice way to get things done without a huge backlash.

If you took and up/down vote today in the USA regarding Gay Marriage it would lose by a landslide and then it would take forever to overturn that - be smart about this.

I know I had it a hell of a lot easier than older gay men I know. I know that polls indicate a sharp dropoff based on age when people are asked how they feel about same sex marriage.
It would be nice to have some recognition in my lifetime, but not at the expense of actual equality for future generations.

Yes, yes, and marriage was always about procreation too until relatively recently. Not so long ago, you always couldn't use contraception in marriage. That changed, didn't it? Not long ago, you always had to engage in penetrative vaginal intercourse in marriage - meaning that all other forms of intercourse were illegal. But that changed, didn't it?

Just because something has always been, doesn't mean it can't change.



Says the law. Homosexuals were not capable of engaging in the obligations of marriage set down in the law. As such, they were unable to legally engage in the contract. It makes no legal sense to require the allowance of procreation in marriage to the extent that you criminalize other sexual behavior and then allow a group to marry who will not further the aims of allowing people to marry. That's why homosexuals were not allowed to marry before. Because they were implicitly excluded by the nature of the marriage contract that existed. The nature of the marriage contract has since changed radically.

There was a time when marriage was, primarily, about procreation. There was support for that in the law.

You couldn't have sex outside of marriage (fornication laws), you couldn't have sex with anyone other than the person you were married to (adultery), you couldn't use contraception (bans on contraception) and the only sex act legally available to married couples was penetrative vaginal intercourse (sodomy laws). By agreeing to be married you were allowed to have sex. Why? The government wanted to be sure that procreation and the raising of that offspring occured in what the State believed was the ideal environment for that to occur.

So, the right to marry was connected to the right to have sex.



I've already explained this. Perhaps you can point to the law that prevented same-sex couples from marrying prior to the 70's?

Because the legal definition of marriage was, prior to the 70's, a personal relationship arising from a civil contract between two people capable of engaging in that contract.

Now, the legal definition of marriage has to mean something, doesn't it? It is the legal definition of marriage and you can't go reading into that definition some other definition. You can't infer that two people means a man and a woman... it means two people.



Really? They are arbitrary? They serve no need? There is no reason for them to be there? I find that fascinating. Perhaps you could provide some proof of this.



No. All you have to do is unnecessarily restrict the right to choose who they can marry and then offer some, all or close to all the same benefits of marriage but just, for some reason, call it something else.


This is ignorant to the point of absurdity.